Alan

Lest we forget:

Put me down for Vacor

Its way out of focus - but I think it may be a fried marble.

(Unfortunately, I have chosen to remove this content due to unchecked behaviors by others on this board. My apologies to those who will not benefit from it in the future.)

Its rather dark (glass) but appears to be a modern Bumblebee.

That looks like oven brick. Machine-mades don't contain mica.

(Unfortunately, I have chosen to remove this content due to unchecked behaviors by others on this board. My apologies to those who will not benefit from it in the future.)

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.

(Unfortunately, I have chosen to remove this ID content due to unchecked behaviors by others on this board. My apologies to those who will not benefit from it in the future.)

I think its from the last 2 decades.

Looks green, but not Vaseline.

No oxblood.

This is mine: (Unfortunately, I have chosen to remove this content due to unchecked behaviors by others on this board. My apologies to those who will not benefit from it in the future.)

(Unfortunately, I have chosen to remove this content due to unchecked behaviors by others on this board. My apologies to those who will not benefit from it in the future.)

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