Alan

Hehe...

A Popeye:

I'll echo Sue's comments above. If you like them for what they are - buy them. If you think that they are some kind of potential "investment" - then I think you are missing the spirit of marble collecting. You are buying the marble - not the story. No-one knows how many more runs there will or won't be. Ask yourself this: Why would it matter? I for one would like a group of these. Your mileage may vary.

Opinion: It appears to have a construction in the "Jetson" style - but simplified to a single ring. It is a fairly simple piece - often sold at gift shops etc. Given that it is unsigned - it could be an someone's early piece. There is nothing in the glass or the style that points in any clear direction.

Although I own some weights - I'm by no means a good person to estimate. Perhaps posting it on a paperweight board might lead you towards an artist/value.

Is it signed?

Spooky masks...

Yellow base. Lot 61: Link

Yellow/red

Inclusions and faults are a function of how the batch (glass) and the marbles were made. There is a tendency among collectors to see marble making as an exacting process with an expectation of consistency. The reality is that marble making was done at the best possible speed. Handmades were limited to the speed of the multi-step process. Machine mades were a strictly volume business - with a good manufacturer producing several train boxcars every other day. Ingredients for the batch were shoveled from a pile on the factory floor. Given this - just about anything could end up in the batch. An interview with a vintage marble machine operator revealed that they enjoyed throwing small metal objects into the pot due to the flare that it would produce. So glass can have all manner of impurities in it - given the crudeness of the manufacturing process. There are handmades with foreign objects in them - but they are comparatively rarer (oven brick aside).

If embedded in the glass - looks like ash from the pot.

Can you take pics of the pontils? Thanks

I bought these lousy wirepulls from some guy named Griff

One of mine:

Thats one to be very happy with.

Happy birthday Sue! Alan

Identifying marbles accurately from books without supporting experience usually results in substantial mis-identification. The reason for this is that novices see a dizzying array of marbles in the book that look alike, look similar, aren't pictured etc etc etc and ultimately make a "best guess" based upon colors. A marble photo in a book show less than 25% of the marble's features. And there are far too many marble types for even a couple of books to represent. So while a book may seem to be a fairly quick and easy ID method - they really aren't. There are nuances of pattern, cut lines, transparency, color and many other aspects that take experience to use to reach an accurate conclusion. Even among seasoned collectors - identification of some types poses challenges due to similarities between manufacturer's machines and glass formulas. Nothing is a substitute for identifying a marble with it in hand. That is why learning at shows in the presence of experienced collectors cannot be equalled by books or photos on the internet. I encourage to find a show near where you live and to plan to attend. There is a wealth of experience and the opportunity to accurately ID what you have.

I plan to be there.

Geoff Beetem

Why bump a 5 month old thread with zero comment?

How much do you want for just the toxins? Maybe some uranium oxide? :ph34r:

I'm hoping so. I received my invitation from Bert today. Quite a hike for me - but I always enjoy that show. Its also handmade territory

I recall someone doing that on Ebay. Postage on dirt seems more style than substance to me.

No - to the Mark Matthews speculation. I understand why you mention this, but it isn't Mark's work. I agree with Sue's observation that it bears some similarities to Richard Clark's work - but the odd amount and placement of clear and the egg shape doesn't seem to me something Richard would circulate. Examples of Richard's work: Based upon appearance alone - I'll speculate that it is someone's early attempt at marble-making.

I would refer to that contemporary torch-made type as "wound" - not "horizontal" (which refers to a different type of marble).