Alan

Not Ravenswood to me.

Wowza! Love the Akro, MKs and especially the MK Bengals! You have the eye. Congrats on great photos. Great exposure and great focus. Props!

If there is something not factual in my response, I welcome quotes of it. A statement that does not enthusiastically agree with an assumption isn't negative or a "shoofly mentality", as you put it. It is a fact to note that Facebook is awash with folks who energetically preach that any marble that has some reaction to UV light is automatically valuable and sought. This is a relatively recent development in the past ~2 years. I am amazed at how prevalent it is and how quick it has spread. People post the very common: "I have some marbles that I bought/belonged to someone. Are any valuable?" These days the most common reply is "Hit it it with UV light to find the good ones!" No attempt at ID. No observation on grading. In my opinion, this steers novice collector in a direction that most will come to regret in time. In my observation, it also supports a higher paying price by novices for modern and older common pieces - a price that won't be sustained later on in their collecting experience when they go to sell it. It does nothing to educate. Just UV and money in so many cases. If it is considered "negative" to advise novices that the Facebook UV hype is over-promotion is therefore a poor collecting direction to go - then the experienced collectors who have seen and learned a great deal over decades can fold their tent and leave novices to learn a hard lesson on their own. It will save time in educating on ID and grading. It will avoid teaching why a marble is a Master instead of an Akro or Vitro. How many ID threads do we see where the new-ish poster posts many terribly blurry UV pics taken in the dark (cameras simply can't focus). Why not help them look at and identify marbles in the light ? UV is not the primary (or secondary) ID characteristic that so many have been led to believe on FB. In my opinion, that UV emphasis doesn't help them, and those who encouraged that approach didn't help them. The OP had a valid question. I was helping them to not see UV as a good approach to ID. Then possibly post a few pics and help them with ID and other needs using experience and facts. The best way to help people is to help them shift from mistaken understandings early in their collecting experience. Just like folks thinking that damaged or wonky machine mades are handmades or transitionals (which we see a fair amount of). I'm not seeking to help those who don't want my help.

The context is that Josh Simpson's wife, Cady Coleman, is an astronaut. When she returned from space, she shared photos with Josh, who was inspired make glass spheres that imagined distant planets from the photo inspiration she brought. He makes Inhabited Planets (orbiting satellites), Planets, and Possibly Inhabited planets. He makes all the cane in his work. Lava wouldn't be a far off conclusion, given how planets evolve. Josh wanted something different from bright colors and the designs used by most every other glass artist. I see them as inspired glass art with a lot more talent (no disrespect) than a plain swirl or standard 120 year old handmade designs.

Uranium glass is still used today. It is not rare. It is not an indicator of age or value. It not the thing that Facebook has hyped it to be.

A Simpson Inhabited Red Planet:

A large Josh Simpson Inhabited Planet:

It is a Paul Stankard piece (not mine). It is 100% glass (nothing organic).

I'll go with your assertion that it is a brick with aventurine.

If I am reading it correctly, your original post calls the presence of "aventurine" into some question. While I don't see it as a brick - if you say its a brick with "aventurine", then its a brick with "Aventurine". Assuming this assertion, then its not clear (to me anyway) what this post is about. But I'll go with your assertion on it's ID.

Focus and exposure aren't good, but from those pics - not a brick. And bricks don't have "aventurine". Reflections can be anything including subsurface stars from impact/pressure. If someone looks hard enough hoping for "aventurine", they will find it where it doesn't exist. "Aventurine" desire is becoming a 17th century Dutch tulip craze thing.

Might I suggest sunlight, when practical. Plain, neutral background. Morning and late afternoon sun is easiest IME.

The flash is overwhelming the pic. I can't make much of it.

Not a Snotty but I like it all the same.

I suppose that I am that fellow, and no - I don't see that as the type you are referring to.

Contemporary ribbon swirl. I don't see an artist signature in those pics, so there is no attribution possible. The technique is used by many artists.

Bit too out of focus and (probably) boosted color (HDR/Vivid) to take a guess.

MK. May be newer, but pics are far enough away that I can't call it.

Not Akro, not oxblood.

That very thin black veneer striping is more common to MK. Also, look for a tiny flake somewhere....anywhere. See what the glass is beneath the veneering.

I lean Vacor.

I'm leaning MK.

As Ron was so clear and repetitive in saying, glass colors don't mix. They may overlay.

Are you hoping for it to be one?