Alan

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).

I fried a LOT of marbles when I was a kid. Far more than my share.

Thanks Steph. Possibly these: Although this free one has always had a special place in my heart.

As that post was 2.5 years ago - I'm not sure where that thread is.

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

A few of mine: (Unfortunately, I have chosen to remove this content due to unchecked behaviors by others on this board. Moderators may choose to humor it, but I will not. My apologies to those who will not benefit from it in the future.)

I have been through three piles of roughly 2,500 marbles and all of them were mint. I consider that sample and those amounts to be a miniscule representation of the overall production amount. I know that there are problem marbles that come out of every production - but given that production numbers for a run are said to be >250,000 - 300,000 - there would seem to be room to sort and dispose of problem marbles. And since there are contemporary glass workers that use problem marbles from these runs for their work - there is a good channel for less than mint/round mistakes.

Joker run marbles can be had at most shows for $2-3 each if you buy several. They were made in very large quantities and judging from what I have seen - there are people with many, many thousands put away.

Based on those photos - I would say "torched cullet". You can see the spirals where the punty was twisted off.

Are you using a web host for your photo - such as Photobucket? If not - sign up for a Photobucket.com account. Then upload the photos from our pc to Photobucket (the user interface is easy and self-explanatory. Then copy and paste the resulting <img> code you'll see on the 3rd link line into your post here. The photo will appear in your post. Give that a shot and post again if you have difficulty.

The only thing I have close to it (the lavender and goldstone on a transparent base) is an unsigned torch piece that I believe to be (but cannot confirm) a John Hamon Miller. The use of lavender/goldstone is not a common combination among artists.

They are Gerry Coleman pieces.

I plan to be there!