Alan

Uranium glass is still used today. It is not rare. It is not an indicator of age or value. It not the thing that Facebook has hyped it to be.

A Simpson Inhabited Red Planet:

A large Josh Simpson Inhabited Planet:

It is a Paul Stankard piece (not mine). It is 100% glass (nothing organic).

I'll go with your assertion that it is a brick with aventurine.

If I am reading it correctly, your original post calls the presence of "aventurine" into some question. While I don't see it as a brick - if you say its a brick with "aventurine", then its a brick with "Aventurine". Assuming this assertion, then its not clear (to me anyway) what this post is about. But I'll go with your assertion on it's ID.

Focus and exposure aren't good, but from those pics - not a brick. And bricks don't have "aventurine". Reflections can be anything including subsurface stars from impact/pressure. If someone looks hard enough hoping for "aventurine", they will find it where it doesn't exist. "Aventurine" desire is becoming a 17th century Dutch tulip craze thing.

Might I suggest sunlight, when practical. Plain, neutral background. Morning and late afternoon sun is easiest IME.

The flash is overwhelming the pic. I can't make much of it.

Not a Snotty but I like it all the same.

I suppose that I am that fellow, and no - I don't see that as the type you are referring to.

Contemporary ribbon swirl. I don't see an artist signature in those pics, so there is no attribution possible. The technique is used by many artists.

Bit too out of focus and (probably) boosted color (HDR/Vivid) to take a guess.

MK. May be newer, but pics are far enough away that I can't call it.

Not Akro, not oxblood.

That very thin black veneer striping is more common to MK. Also, look for a tiny flake somewhere....anywhere. See what the glass is beneath the veneering.

I lean Vacor.

I'm leaning MK.

As Ron was so clear and repetitive in saying, glass colors don't mix. They may overlay.

Are you hoping for it to be one?

Color variation is a norm. It was a crude, ultra-cheap manufacturing process affected by a range of factors, including the weather.

Left is a dirty crockery. Right is a beater machine made.

Focus isn't bad, but its far less than the lens is capable of. The image data is stripped off so I can't look at that to advise better. The stitching pic, viewed at full res seems to be choosing a focus point that isn't at the cloth - almost like a manual focus was made and then the lens distance changed (guesswork). The rope pic is of much lower resolution and it suffers from the camera not knowing whether to set exposure (and focus) on the white or the back. There is more black - so it may have averaged for the black. over-exposing the white. Note there is little detail in the rope strands. Part of that problem is focus (most) and part is over-exposure.

You'll find this thread helpful for identifying Ravenswood: https://marbleconnection.com/topic/7584-ravenswood-novelty-marbles-a-review-of-varieties/