mon

If any of this ridicule and disrespect needs defending by me (if not disregard) Mig....I was told to read and read as if true.....but it just don't jive! I know nothing about glass other than the mud looking ones I've made at home for a very short time. I'm not an expert here but have some perplexing thoughts dealing with the no red rule..repeat. You are a glass expert to me but I don't swallow everything that even experts offer at first bite. I, too, wish the same imput Galen, the 50/50 an Akro's white ratio of 60 to 70% is in said book. Also stated was the almost immediate approval of said patent.

What Galen points out was an improvement patent in 1905 and added another three years to the life of his patent...this was a big deal...along with the smaller roller and faster speed of the larger roller (this made the marble go crazy, and offset the equal force when spinning between two rollers of the same speed, forcing the smaller and slower roller to open). For what it's worth... Cohill describes the process as cut directly into the rollers..... Godown....The base color and white is mentioned in the batch formulas with a ratio of 50/50 melted in one pot, no cane. But I do like the red and white color color you picked because I believe they tried to make some.

I think Champion New Old Fashions.... I have many with those cold rolls.

I thought that a spring release on one of the rollers dropped the marble when it was hard enough? I love the belt drive at the bottom for all the machines.......we don't need no stinking guards...OSHA would of had fun.....

If you really blow up the group shot you will see the guy in the middle in missing a section sure looks like glass. Could be from the wall of the pot/furnace and nothing more.....I thought it was from heat but looks like glass. Not sure how far up you could have it and transfer to the end without cooling past the point it would not form?

Mike, can you break that down a little more? Not sure I understand? The 2nd group photo is really cool in that, it shows how far up the punty glass has collected! The chap on the left knocked it of the end........how or why would it ever get there if gathered one at a time with the largest caster being 3" dia.? Galen....I just got off with David and he said he'll be sick that day.....LOL...just kidding....not true......meant to put a smile on faces......no ill will......Sorry in advance...and so on.....

Galen, I think it's a hinged funnel guide to accurately drop the blob in the machine. He would shear with his other hand.......

I see the same thing but believe that a larger glob is gathered up the punty and it falling off the end, as you show, time and time again. Much faster by removing the numerous dips. Both would give the same results. Sorry Galen....Visit Brian's dwg again and he talks of the next marble from a glob and how it would not effect the next nine. I think he has hand gathered a few very nice marbles....... I think you can see it in the photo you posted....first team.

How? Cutting that end of tail stretched out has no effect on the glob.......if I have a ball of string and pull some off and cut it, did I change the design of the wrapped ball other than what was removed. The tail would be the strand I taped back any where on the ball

Galen, don't know if I can explain it any better? On a machine feed machine it's a stream of glass, cylindrical and being chop like a slug of tubing. In this case, the cut lines would be close in form and appearance as the other end. With a hand gather, it's not cylindrical. Ball an end of taffy and pull it from the balled end. It stretches thinner and thinner with a taper forming and the tapering back towards the original chunk of taffy. Cut cut off the ball and wrap the tapered glass back on to the original chunk of taffy. Now that cut mark is anywhere on the surface and another be made. It would have a myriad of shapes but by turning it back on.... it would be the start of the next nine.

This pulling of the white inside is more often than not, located closer to one side and not down the center. This is cause by the tilt and not straight up and down when controlling the next marble glob. I'm not sure how this diving of the white could happen if the gather was mostly off the end of the punty from the get?

Here is a VERY lame attempt at what I see going on. Sorry for the scratched up golf ball cube. I tried to find the least white marble.. thanks VT it is one of yours 1) A straighter edged bottom of the arc nine like the beaut Craig posted: 1a) Cube 2) Area were the white on the surface ends and is pulled inside by gravity and resistance (represented with black tape). I believe this is formed by tilting the glob forward to make the next marble from the glob and the tail already exist from either the gather tail or the previous marble tail as Brian explains. 2a) The arrows are meant to show the movement of glass and the pulling of the white inside. 3) Not a very good start of the tail on this marble but it is there. This would be the 1st cut mark Galen asked for and the other side of this cut mark would be on the butt or 2nd cut of the marble removed before. 3a) 4) This would be teardrop end attached to the punty and cut of ripped off and the other end is the start tail of the next marble attached to the glob. This one is sheared. 4a)

In the photo mig posted, a team would operate multiple machines at one time and rounding one at a time per machine. I thought maybe the first off would be on the largest size set up due to the glob was under less control then adjusted as what size to feed depending on the temp and size of the glob....but as mig pointed out..this is not supported by any documentation! lol 7-8 seconds sounds more like it and not sure if Cohill mentioned shift length?

I see, RoadD.........take honey on a spoon, rod or whatever....dip it in two inches then tip it forward and you can control how much you drip of the end by tilting back and spinning if necessary....is the best visual I can think of.

Galen, I reread your changes and think if the big glob was off the end of the punty, you would be correct. But think if it was back on the punty providing resistance, the unsupported glob at the end could be controlled by this resistance and gravity. Do you see that both ends would technically have two cut marks if the tail was not so long as to be cut with the other? But the first cut would be anywhere on the surface (at the end of the tail) and not at the opposite end of the last cut mark. Road, I don't have that book and believe you but think it's in error. As Brian describes, multi marbles from one glob and how the tail is formed sound more like it. Just think about it.....wouldn't it be harder to gather one marble worth of glass at a time as to a big glob? Look at some tails.....some are smooth and some are not due to cooling from multiple marbles from a glob.

Oh no...another book I don't have.........or maybe I do......? Edition 4 by Robert Block describes nothing about single gathered marbles but does state the following that I was not aware of: "Later M.F. Christensen marbles do not have pontils. This is probably due to refinements in glass temperatures and timing, rather than improvements in the machinery." And, "....keeping the glass on the end of the punty as a stream was allowed to drip into the machine."

Also, from Mig's pic, where do you think the glass to dip from is located? They ran multiple machines in a row (per the book) and by your calculations of one marble every 2.9 seconds would be quite a feat to run back, gather and drop the load 9,931 times shift with no break or lunch included.

Galen, I don't think you get it? The shear or cut mark is at the very end of a thin tail that starts the nine on the next marble. So, in reality there are two cut or shear marks at both ends if it was sheared or cut in the first place.........

Thanks Ann! The visual is much better than my written description. Neat pic ~a~ mig?

Most all of my "tails" are the thin beginnings of the "nine" not from the sheared or not sheared end. It looks as if the "tail" was spun back onto the glob remaining on the punty after the release of the marble before. I'm sure more than one marble worth of glass was gathered at one time. Cohill would not have come up with the shearer being benched and believe it was passed to him by Mrs. Dietz. It makes sense to become lore within the family as to how proud and skilled their employees became. What makes less sense is that Cohill pulled this out of thin air or a dream. and we can do the "just saying" game for as long as you like. I haven't felt attacked by anyone an hope no one feels attacked by me. Opinions and an open mind is how I started and will end this discussion. I was not aware of this book and thought it was determined by digs alone and had doubt. Later, this book was offered as a closed case and Cohill had all the marbles, records and everything proving the belief of no red slags. I thought I had been enlightened and understood. Not the case as I've tried to point out the reasoning. I'm not saying MFC made all red 9 and tail slags....not at all....but I think they may have made some. Lots of people have read this thread but have few comments...not sure why.....this is what makes AAM site more interesting to some......banter! I'm here to learn and if my methods are not as most....I'm truly sorry. Doug P.S. Craig has been to my house and I believe he is a very knowledgeable, kind, willing to share and has an infectious passion for marbles! I would call him a friend.

I believe it was you and others that recommended reading the book. Now, you don't believe what's in the book? I'm not selling..........page 84 states "blah blah "worker using the punty to become so adept at judging the correct amount of glass required, that he could drop a glob of molten glass into the machine without having the second member of the team reach over and cut the dripping glass". If You or I made that many marbles per day for that many years, I believe you would be surprise of the possibilities...

Ann, Not sure what the difference is in determining maker? If one team cuts a thick streamed glob and the other team controls this glob in a way that it is so thin that cutting is not needed then, the appearance would encompass many different traits. I picture in my mind a glob tilted quickly towards the feed and when in rhythm to control size is pulled back, dropped forward again to grab the thin tail and wrapped and snapped by the punty glob. This would look nothing like the 3/4" straight cut seen on some when finished.

is not the top just part of a table?

Veneered furniture is not completely covered...back, bottom and sometimes the frame........just sayin

I'm glad that some of you were open enough to reconsider the evidence. The following is just my opinion: I think MF was a shrewd business man and would have tested many options in narrowing his product line to just 6 play marbles. He had the money from selling his steel ball bearing machine rights alone = almost 3/4 of a million in todays money. He lived in style and treated his business and workers with great respect! The marbles them self are the reason I believe.......... as earlier stated, cut marks are out the window. Records, out the window. Records, out the window. Small area dug, out the window. Lack of transitional colors before with at least a 22 color pallet (from scrap so it was used or tried) of Leighton's that all don't show up in transitional melted pontil marbles either, out the window. Then again, bricks may have been all the red he needed! Expense on paper and what they needed to sell for..trashed. One neat tid bit is that MF's ratio for base to white was 50/50 and Akro was, base to white 60 to 80%. Ann, they are great marbles to hold and to think how much pride went into the skill of doing this day in day out. Pay was by piece work and after a few years I bet they could do it with their eyes closed. To eliminate the shearer's duty of cutting and performing other task like changing buckets, greasing etc put more money in their pockets. Would have been a sight to see............. As for the volume a wazoo has....first testing does proved that my numbers ARE way off! Thanks for the debate.......Happy New Year ....mon