Alan

They are commons, the vast majority appear to be in rough condition. Some appear to have been slingshot ammo at some point. Those two qualities will make them unappealing to collectors.

Agree - Champion. Is that a trace of horsehair in there - or a contrast line between transparent and opaque?

By the way - this is what oxblood looks like:

There is a difference between "condescending" - and advice that will help quite a few people from mis-identifying marbles as buyers by seeing things that aren't there - often by projecting hopes upon them. This avoids disappointment and over-paying. I can't count how many times I've seen buyers buy a marble hoping it was a mica - to find out that its scattered oven brick. There are many, many more examples - such as damage quickly interpreted as a "pontil". Being capable of accurately identifying marbles is the biggest help to collectors in their journey. Moving away from the growing "I hope it is rare" trend is important IMO. With fewer people going to marble shows a few times each year, the opportunity to learn with marble in-hand has become much less common that it used to be. Marble show attendance is a way to factually learn at an accelerated pace with an immense sampling set. But now that has waned and people are struggling to learn only by looking at a photo - some of which are poorly focused and over-exposed.

No ox. I recommend that instead of hoping/looking for some thing you want in a marble - you look at a marble for what it is dispassionately. Otherwise its easy to see reds as oxblood, damage as pontils/transitionals or an odd flake as "aventurine" or lutz. And that will help you identify marbles accurately when you buy.

Nox

Thats damage on a machine made slag.

No.

I say yes.

I think its from the last 2 decades.

Looks green, but not Vaseline.

No oxblood.

This is mine:

Not oxblood.

I would rather not. My point is that Mark Matthews signs his work. The court case was online when I read it >10 years ago.

Mark doesn't released unsigned work. Before someone jumps in on that - the only examples of unsigned Matthews coming (stealthily) into the market ended in a lawsuit and a judgement barring the offender from the marble collecting market by court order.

Its pretty far out of focus - so ID is part guesswork. I'll suggest that you back your camera up to allow the camera to focus.

Vacor

Its quite out-of-focus. But I'll go with modern until better pics are posted.

I don't see any pontils.

The debris is oven brick. The tank was dissolving into the glass, leaving those pieces. It was not intentional/desired.

Modern machine-made. A "pontil" doesn't look like that. Nor is it a torch piece.

Divided core.

You may want to not use the flash. Its washing out the color.

The clay figures were made individually in 3-dimensional forms. The figure was pressed into a half-sphere of hot glass, then a second gob of glass was pressed in and then the marble trimmed and formed to a perfect sphere. All sulphides are single-pontil marbles.