Alan

Marble King St. Mary's.

To help with the feature discussion - I'll offer this:

Like any trait in a specialized hobby - a term to describe a valued trait can become overly-defined. Over time, the interest in oxblood has grown as a prized/desired trait. It has gotten to the point where we see many "Is this oxblood?" threads and folks hope that the brown in their marble is indeed what we call oxblood. I think that the interest in oxblood can cause us to over-define it. Occam's Razor (slightly translated) states that: "Give two otherwise equal solutions, the simpler one is the better." I tend to believe in simpler solutions to what become difficult definitions. To this end I'll pose this question: "Was that marble with "oxblood" a manufacturer's production item?" Was it in their Salesman's cases? Was it a standard production item? If the answer is yes, and it meets the conventional definition of oxblood color glass broadly accepted in the collecting hobby - then I would call it an oxblood. I think we tend to lose sight of the fact that a marble factory made marbles that conformed to specific types as ordered by and sold to their retail customers. It wasn't a free-form, "make whatever you want today" manufacturing business. Look at the stock boxes (which is what retailers received and sold from). The marbles in them conformed to a standard. They were products with defined characteristics. The huge marble dumps that contain marbles that didn't conform to the manufacturing established standard for color and appearance are a testament to their quality control to a standard. I recommend that we focus on the manufacturer's stock box/bag/etc. products and look at oxblood as a standard glass choice. If we focus on the exceptions (and there are huge numbers of exceptions because there have been so many digs at factories - I predict that we will not succeed in agreeing what oxblood is. I could give you my simple definition of oxblood that I use - and a moment later produce a few examples that break at least on the the definition rules - all the while being true oxblood because it is a dug example that came from a problem or experimental run. Exception can cause us to get off track. These comments are made without addressing the oxblood that came from German hand-gathered marbles. This is a specialty collecting area and I believe that just about everyone who collects them know what is and isn't "oxblood". We can debate the chemistry - but to what end? No-one is going to develop a litmus test for marbles. I have a lot of Akro oxblood cullet. There are some mild variances - but they are generally consistent with the definition that has served me well or many years. I think that any discussion of a marble trait definition has to keep in mind that novices need to be able to grasp it visually (after handling valid examples) and it have relatively simple visual diagnostics that all of us can look at, point to, describe and say "that is oxblood BECAUSE........." My two cents, Alan

Based upon the photos - the darker band appears to be just that - a darker band. I don't see oxblood in those photos.

All that snow gives him "frosticles".

Front yard scene of the beginning of last weekend's storm (Friday): My back deck that same night: Same scene the next morning: Digging out after last weekend's 32 inch snowfall: Then we received another 18 inches Tuesday night/Wednesday with winds up to 43 mph: Snow drift photo from last night: So we are digging out from 50 inches of snow in 6 days. The region is barely moving. Happiness is a good stick:

100% ground cullet. There are still some people making them from Akro cullet.

Your closest shows will be Ohio (Canton in 2 weeks) or Marlborough, MA in Fall.

I have about ~22 of the Running Rabbit postcards. Here are a few of them: The Holy Grail for handmade collectors:

That reminds me that I need to get a Jody Fine marble pie slice.

I don't see a signature or inscription.

I'll be there. Alan Z

I take it that it lacks a signature of any kind? Look like a generic piece - the kind they sell in gift shops etc.

It doesn't look right. In doesn't even look close to right. There are several qualities about this "box" that call it into question for me.

The record (I think) is held by Josh Simpson - who under a grant by Corning - created a 100 lb+ planet a few years ago. There is a DVD of it - well worth watching. It took him many tries over the span of a year, changes in technique and a lot of innovation. On the more sane front - Josh and others regularly turn out 5-8" diameter weights... up to 10" dia (the latter being more corporate display pieces IMO). The problem (I think) with very large weights is both technical and artistic....more of the latter I think. The technical is just mechanics, weight on the punty and a longer anneal. As a weight gets larger - controlling the design very well becomes more difficult. I own large Simpsons in the 3.5" range, Matthews at 3.25", and Harry Besset and Lundberg pieces > 3" dia. - so my sense is that is around the larger sizes targeted by many artists. Here are some really large Simpson pieces - the largest being around 10" dia.: Alan

Possibly done by Civil War soldiers in trenches around Atlanta?

While it is styled after a Jetson-like design - in my opinion it is rather crudely formed. Lacking any artist association - it looks like someone's early work. The size doesn't really come into the valuation until the marble, its design and the artist's execution "is there". IMO - that is lacking in the piece. With no artist association - IME the size doesn't become much of a factor. Of course you might find a person who falls in love with it and doesn't care about these things. In that case - its just a matter of agreeing on price.

Charles Gibson from Gibson Glass.

Here is a high res scan of it:

I have the original postcard and probably the videotape.