Alan

I find the smooth and convenient shifting of sales name that William noted to be perhaps unsurprising and even more disturbing.

Thats quite a bargain - on a $20,000. marble!

Talk about the blind-leading-the-blind. And I do enjoy the waffle-words "somewhat similar". The more you write about your lack of knowledge and ridiculous unnamed sources - the more ridiculous you make your $20,000.00 price and yourself look. You should lock that Jabo in a bank vault.

Allow me to distill what you said above for readers in a hurry: "Money, money, money and money". Your singular focus and interest is obvious by your own writings. I can recommend that you stick to the diamond industry that you seem to know so well. By your own admission - you are attempting to sell a marble that you have no idea what it is by claiming it is extraordinarily rare in the desperate attempt to pocket $20,000.00 before anyone wakes up to reality.

If you don't know what it is - why did you decide to list it as an ultra-rare marble at a price of $20,000.00? Claiming that it is the closest match in a book is simply not credible. Why did you decide it was ultra rare - instead of very common one? Why $20,000.00 instead of $0.50? Some people's motivations and ethics speak for themselves.

Get people riled up with a ridiculous price. Start a buzz (this board is helping). Let the buzz build. Cut the price for a (still silly) ridiculously priced, beat-up Jabo. Some gullible fish will bite.

If one poured molten glass in a hole (which given how small they are, would be next to impossible), the marble would be flat-topped.

That look like UV reflection, not UV reaction. Its a swirl, not a slag.

Try to not look at glass imperfections in a marble as indicators that it is handmade/transitional. Look at the whole marble.

3 inner bands. The outer bands were a separate roll after a clear gather.

I'm by no means suggesting that others may not be interested in such a service. I'm just pointing out my take on it (regardless of a possible provider).

I don't see collectors giving up the tactile dimension of owning a marble, handling it while considering purchase and display. I have experience with slabbed coins - but rare coins and comic books degrade from handling. Marbles don't. Maybe because I've been doing this a long time and learned marble grading >25 years ago before everything out there became "near mint" and damage became known as "as mades". I don't need to depend on someone else to tell me what the condition is, and I don't fancy marbles sonically welded into little plastic cubes with a piece of paper. As for the link above, I got this:

I'll go with George Pavliscak. Some if his styles aren't far off from that.

Jabo

For most of us, white isn't counted as a color.

It appears to be a flopover single ingot.

Is the surface hard, or has some 'give'?

The bead wasn't drilled. It was mandrel-wound, a common and easy modern bead making technique. Its the first flameworked bead making technique taught in basic classes. As noted earlier, the first is just a funky cats eye.

Satava Jellyfish:

You are correct in saying that it is not a Matthews. The signature doesn't ring a bell. Obviously a tank marble. Odd speckling, the likes of which I have never seen. Two-stage frit roll done quickly without trying to cover either pole. The gold-ish color looks iridescent - and that can reflect UV light making you think its reactive when its actually reflective. Guessing its the latter. IMO there is a fair chance that its not a generally known studio (a lot of gift shop pieces come from such studios). Size?

There is a group of people interested in the vintage manufacturing process of marbles and specifically the glass. There was a rather deep study a few years ago of the dynamics of glass in liquid form and how it behaves in a glass tank. I think you'll find that glass flow in the tank is responsible for the flow you describe resulting in that flame-line pattern, instead of it oozing out of the tank and "piling up". Some of those dynamics will be influenced by the condition/age of the tank interior, and possibly some weather conditions.

There isn't much to add really. The French Drain was pretty narrow. 'W' told me that there was only room to go straight-in, and no room to turn around. He had to scoot backwards to get back out. Risky business. Much of what came out of there (that I recall) were weird oxbloods, some odd translucent big pieces with a floaty internal 1-piece swirl thing (IIRC ~7/8"... a few dozen of these went into the hobby) and a few other things. Again, everything in the drain was a discard while they were dialing-in production to whatever design they intended. The oxbloods tended to defy expected appearances - some being a clear base with internal oxblood in a solid, well-defined twisted swirl. All large... around 13/16" (like your piece - right?) There are very, very few of these in the hobby.((ETA: Bob Block just sold one at auction: https://bid.marbleauctions.com/lots/view/4-8AGFCQ/akro-agate-company-experimental-2532-mint-99 )). I have three oxblood patches on what appears to be a black base. When strongly backlit, the base is a dark gray-olive. Even far fewer of these were found. Hope this helps. Alan

I think you meant "Experimental", not "Experiential" (two different meanings). First, they aren't "experimental". These specific types, of which there aren't many, were found by a digger I'll refer to as "W" in the Akro site French Drain. I know because I visited the drain and was the primary buyer from him. They and some other odd types were discarded into the drain because they didn't meet the type that Akro wanted to produce. There was some weird stuff that came out of that relative compact drain content. And you are right, they aren't oxbloods. I have a number of them.

Any classic Popeye on Vaseline glass is killer.

I think you'll find that the black is UV "reflective", not "reactive". Reflection of the light is common to mistake in black and white.