Shamrock Marbles

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5JhQeiGAnOk George Harrison interview. "We play marbles."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble

Morphy Auction's photo (found in Steph's Study Hall): 10A?

Mike, Great info, as always. Marble manufacturers have obliterated any line of distinction. Obviously, Peltier Prima Agates are not really stone, but are made to ressemble such. Glass Marbles aren't made of marble. Where's the Onyx in a glass "Onyx" marble? What is a "Flint" marble? How does a CA Flint differ from an Akro Flint? Is "Flint" to be taken literally or figuratively? Are the marbles really meant to appear like flint stone? Here is a sphere of "Banded Flint" or "Striped Flint". Lovely. John

What about the "A"? Could it stand for "Attractive" box? On the bottom right of the Pressman ad, right beside No 25, No 50 and No 100 are the words: "Attractive Box with Onyx Marbles and leatherette Bag." The bright graphics on the box would attract attention and boost sales. John

Craig, Would not those be "Milkies"? The Pressman ad has "Milkys or Moons". I assume Moonies are translucent and the Milkies are opaque, bright white. Again, hope those with knowledge to comment. John

I can't disagree. My guess is that the glass marble industry used terms formerly used to describe stone marbles to drive sales. American Agate, Onyx, Carnelian, etc. I was assuming CA used "Flints" to describe their glass marble. Now, Borax is added to glass to make it tougher and more durable. Could "Flints" be made of glass with a stronger composition. Perfect for a shooter. Made of glass, but hard as stone? Akro added Borax for their pressware glass (Helmer's notes). Could the CA Flint be referring to glass with a high refractive index due to lead or potassium? Or, are Flints those that ressemble reddish flint tools? A CA box with "Flints" stamped on it would be nice to see. John

Craig, That was my second post. The first post is at the end of Page 1 and is my "speculation" as to what "A" means. Now back to "Cost" and "Price"... Wholesale "Cost" is typically 50% of Retail "Price". If you buy 1,000 "Flints" at $20.00 ($0.02 each), then you would need to retail them at 4-cents or a nickel apiece. What made a "Flint" worth so much more that a kid would pay 10x more than a "base" marble? In a cost competitive environment, it would be difficult to sell. In fact, the letter you have, is in response to competitive pressures. Not only are they discounting the marbles, but they are touting their quality of color versus the others. Your letter is dated a little over a year after the Crash of '29. Akro, Peltier, Master and Alley (possibly Alox) are supplying the marble market. CA "Flint" marbles had to have a "WOW" factor to get those prices. A loaf of bread was about 5-cents. Don't get me wrong, the box of pastel opaque marbles are beautiful as a set, but could they command a higher price than a Guinea? If you were a kid back in 1930 and the price was the same, what would you chose? Guinea or Pastel Opaque? Sincerely, John

Still having problems with "descriptions" and "pricing". SIZE 0 (5/8" diameter) "Professional" (New 2 Color) $2.00 / 1,000 pcs [Base Cost] "Favorite" (Regular) $2.20 / 1,000 pcs [1.1x] "Champion" (New 3 Color) $3.40 / 1,000 pcs [1.7x] "Bloodies" $7.50 / 1,000 pcs [3.75x] "Guinea" $9.00 / 1,000 pcs [4.5x] "Moonies" $11.50 / 1,000 pcs [5.75x] "Flints" $20.00 / 1,000 pcs [10x] 1) What made "Bloodies" so expensive? 2) What made "Moonies" 1.28x more expensive than a "Guinea"? 3) What is a "Flint"? Any photos? Why did is cost 2.2x more than a "Guinea"? Or 10x more than a "Professional" marble? Where "Flints" what we would call "Layered Sand" marbles [or possibly "Exotics"]? Was the high cost due to materials and the time for hand-gathering? Sincerely, John

Is the answer at the bottom right of the photo? The No. 25, 50 and 100 come in an "Attractive" Box and leatherette Bag. So, does "A" mean "Attractive". 5 = $2.25 / gross 5A = $2.70 / gross (+$0.45 / gross) 10 = $5.00 / gross 10A = $6.10 / gross (+$1.10 / gross) You either have "Plain" Boxes for Bulk or attractive, bright "Printed" boxes for retail. Printed boxes cost more to make. John

Craig, Super awesome! Thank you for sharing such wonderful information. Guinea / Size 0 / $9.00 per M. Flint / Size 0 / $22.00 per M. What would be considered a "Flint"? Why would it be 2.4x more expensive? Sincerely, John

Alan, Boy, did I step in it. I am sorry that I brought that episode up. That may have been around the time he was making fantasy Guinea boxes from empty beer cases. I know the charity of a few other people got tapped around that same time. Can I have a do-over and suggest Gerry Coleman millefiori marbles? Sincerely, John

Alan, Probably the best collage photos ever. I will mention two oldie-but-goodie names out of your photos: 1) Bill Murray. 2) Mike Edmondson. Sincerely, John

Search results in Google: 1928 – Ceramic Industry - Vol 10-11, Page 216 Christensen Agate Moves The Christensen Agate Co. has finished erection of its buildings at Cambridge, Ohio, and has dismantled its factory at Payne, Ohio, and has moved its machinery to Cambridge. Two machines have been installed, but four others have been ordered and are to be delivered and installed in the near future. Until all of the machines used in manufacturing glass agates, of which the Christensen Agate Co. is the originator, have been installed, the company will… Still running only 2 machines? With the promise of 4 more on the way? 19?? – Glass Factory Year Book and Directory - Page 112 Christensen Agate Co., Cambridge, Ohio. W. F. Jones, president, treasurer and sales manager; E. R. Jones, vice president; 0. M. Roderick, secretary; J. E. Wagner, general manager and purchasing agent; H. M. Jenkins, engineer. 2 pot furnaces, six day tanks. Glass marbles. Machine. Jenkins listed as "Engineer". Enjoy, John

Brian, Wonderful information. There are two rolling machines, both invented by Mr. Jenkins, and are the only ones of this kind in existence....the larger one has a capacity of 43 per minute, the other about 16. Thanks for sharing!!! Sincerely, John

Galen, John if you thought I was attacking you I apologize. Absolutely no need to apologize to me. No offence taken. But I do find your post slightly offensive as you ask several slightly attacking questions that you already know the answer and there really was no need for that. Galen, I'm a pretty direct guy. Again, the ambiguity of your sentence only leaves me guessing. I do know for a fact that many patents that are granted a number can be just like the drawings or vary any where from a little amount to a great amount(even the MFC pantent was altered in production) from what was actually used in production, if at all . A patent record is a true rarity. There are many more ideas, processes or machines that are never patented and are kept as "Trade Secrets". Some aren't handled like Trade Secrets, but companies just don't patent their intellectual property because it cost money. This is beside the point... What was your reasoning to bring in this point? Also I have not seen any actual same time writing about how things were being done at CAC. I think Brian has stepped up to the plate again! Thank you Brian!! So I am placing my OPINION on CAC by very little factual evidence at all. So yes IMO almost evreything being written about CAC manufacturing processes are nothing but assumptions and many are poor ones in my OPINION. I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they want. I would just love to see some factual evidence on how many of the marbles were made at CAC. Heck if someone wants to think that Cambridge glass was wheeled across the street to CAC melted into a cane, then marbles made from a cane good for them. I just do not have to believe it. Fair, I see your point. You don't have to agree. But if you do disagree, I think many would appreciate why you think that way. Sincerely, John

There are many choices. Too many to name and too easy to leave someone off. I would try to find an artist with marble styles and color combinations that you like and fit your budget. Prowl through the listings. If you find something you like, then go to their website and look around. In all honesty, most of the photos don't do justice to their work. Go to a marble show, if you can, and look at the tables. It's like puppy shopping, there will be one that will talk just to you. Wishing you the best on your new journey! John P.S. Don't forget to collect marble artists from the past! They pop up once in a while. Mark Block's books on Contemporary Marbles is a good snapshot of hot artists from 10 years ago. Some are still active and still very hot.

Do you have any factual evidence on what type of rounding machines , furnaces, shears or any other equipment that was used at the Christensen Agate Company?? If so I would love to study it. Here are my assertions: Howard M. Jenkins was an "employee" of Christensen Agate Company. The Howard M. Jenkins known to be employed at CAC is the one and the same Howard M. Jenkins that applied for and was granted US Patents 1,488,817 and 1,596,879. (Let it be known, that the name "Christensen Agate Company" are NOT part of either patents.) The dates of both patents coincide with the commonly published timeline of CAC marble production. Galen: Are you asserting that one or both patents are NOT associated with CAC? Moving on... With respect to CA and their equipment, the best "factual" information is what is in the US Patent record and their assertions. The rounding machines are described in US Patents 1,488,817 and 1,596,879. Both patents refer to glass being fed from both "gatherers" or "feeders". Only the second patent refers to shearing technology (see post above). What is apparent, is the omission of any reference to hand-shearing with a pair of manual scissors (like those used at MFC). Jenkins clearly shows and explains his shearing mechanism (Helicopter Shears). He also refers to shears on an automatic gob feeder being an integral part of that equipment. So, depending on that technology or supplier, those shears are usually mechanically timed to the gob feeder. Finally, Jenkins' patent refers to employing pneumatic shears ("in common use") when hand-gathering. Who's make and model are not exactly described. Homemade? Purchased from Miller? I will concede that we have no factual knowledge of the shoes sizes of any CA employees. However, your argument is that the lack of "hard" documentation voids all logic (unless your mind agrees with itself). Most of your posts boil down to: "No it isn't. Prove it." I haven't seen any of your logic or reasoning displayed in a public forum for group testing. Do you have any proof that your marbles were made by CAC? Would love to see your completely documented provenance (purchase orders, packing lists, sales receipts, etc.). Everything should trace back to the 1920's. --- I think almost all the info about CAC is assumption except they were the first to use gob feeders if my memory has not failed me completely. Okay, here's your chance to share with the community. Would like to know more myself. Looking forward to your response. --- I have examined numerous patents dealing with marble making that were never actually used any where Are you asserting that one or both of the Jenkins' patents were never used at CAC? Can you supply factual information to support? In support of your theory, you bring in a "red herring" of unemployed patents. I may be wrong, but my guess is that you're probably going to assert that Peltier's patent 1,865,787 was never used in production. If I am right, then please feel free to explain in detail why this was so, instead of alluding to vague references. (Mike Barton probably has files that you've seen or read.) Okay, you did use the plural of patent. If you do use the Peltier as an example, can you give us a second example and explain in detail why you know this was never used? If you don't use the Peltier as an example, then give us two examples with full detailed explanations. Just because a patent wasn't used in production, doesn't mean that Jenkins' patents were not used in production at CAC. Bad logic. Finally, would love to see your analysis and explanations of the numerous patents you've examined. Sincerely, John

I also qualified my statement by using "partially". There is also another way to get color down into the matrix. Sometimes a gather can get away from a worker and it begins to extrude off the end of the punty (darn gravity). "Drip and Wind" I've seen workers rotate the punty to wind the elongated gather back up into a ball. They usually lift the end of the punty upward while twisting. It looks like they are fishing. Not dissimilar to gathering molten glass out of a pot. I would consider this to be a natural reflex of a glassworker. "Drip and Loop/Fold" I've also seen where the elongated gather end is placed on a marver table. Then the worker loops the far end of the gather back onto the punty end. This creates a loop. I've seen it done twice to bring it back together further. I've also seen it Looped and then Wound. Either way, the glass had cooled too much and had to be reheated. John

Steph, When making items with sub-penny pricing, every minor detail can impact cost (profit/loss). The time it takes to clean off a punty would not be accepted. Even point-to-point travel distance is evaluated. It has been commonly stated that a pair of glassworkers at MFC could produce 10,000 marbles per day. Imagine if the marble machine was just 6-inches further away from the monkey pot. The Gatherer would have to travel 9,999 extra feet per day (1.89 miles) or 473 miles per year. This would be like walking from Akron to New York City. Little things can add up quickly. John

Galen, An "assumption" is a belief without proof. I'd like to think we've moved this cart down the road with a little more practical knowledge (you might not be in the cart). The law's of physics, economics and human nature really haven't change too much since the 1920's. I'd like to call it an "educated guess", but let's not quibble over labels. -- The fact is, Jenkin's design patent is founded on Hand-Gathering with his "suitable" shearing mechanism. To broaden his patent claims, he cites the removal of his shears for use with pneumatic shears (like Miller's design) and/or automatic gob feeders. Jenkin's "helicopter" shears spin twice for each funnel/wheel set. (That is one scary design. Where's OSHA?) It is because of this design, that you can experience a pre-cut (false cut-line) on the bottom of the gob as you lower it into the ring. When enough is hanging through, then you get a final cut-line as the gob is severed from the punty. Timing is everything. John

Craig, I apologize. I was responding to the "Twist Cane" artifact. Yes, I've seen your other beauties you've posted earlier (on this post and others). These are quite lovely. Photos like this are hard to gage size. With respect to the one on the right: 1) What length and diameter is that? 2) Do you have views available from all six sides? 3) How many grams does it weigh? All three show signs of completely melted/integrated frit. Along with additional unmelted frit attachments. I have seen (on Ebay or on a Chat Board) Guinea Marbles with some unmelted surface frit (not chipped). You've handled many Guineas, have you seen this first-hand in the wild? This goes back to my belief of Hand-Gathered Guineas. I believe these to be end-of-punty remnants that have broken-off. If you get the punty too close to the shears, you run the risk of over-feeding the punty into the cut-zone and the shears close on the metal rod. Bam!! Your shears are damaged (if not broken). So, a glass worker will always leave a bit of room between the end of the punty and the shears. [On occasion, I do err with my hand scissors and get all kinds of nicks on the edge (get enough nicks on your shears and you will get "eyelashes" at the cut-line).] See this photo that shows an "End of Punty Remnant": Now, what does the glassworker do with this remnant? Brett, Larry and Mark pull and cut off the excess, so it won't be part of the next marble. Me? I toss my punty in a water bucket and start with a clean rod for the next marble. What would a worker at MFC, CA or Akro do? They wouldn't waste time, so they would go back for another gather. Yes, new hot glass right over cooler glass. This can partially explain how you see some frit colors down inside transparent Guineas. If you do this, you need to reheat the subsurface glass. Hot and soft on the outside, while cool and hard on the inside. -- Now, one of the things I always wondered about was the "working time" of these glasses. Even among the contemporary glass I use today, the working time varies greatly. I find that certain opaque whites stay soft longer, while my cobalt blues and blacks get stiff quickly. What I am trying to figure out is: Was CA getting or trying 1) One gather = One marble, or 2) One gather = Two marbles? In the MFC court documents, this question was asked. MFC tried to get multiple marbles from a single gather, but had poor results. So, MFC stuck with One Gather = One Marble. In another post, an article about Akro described a single gather/single marble (non-twist) technique (for slags?). The problem with the "two for one", is that the glass cools exponentially. By the time you cut off the second gob, the glass has developed an enamel surface. If it cuts at all, you get a "hard cut-line" and wear your cutting blade out faster. I call it "cutting crunchy glass". Thoughts? John

I'm sure they did, but didn't care. Probably not much academic digging was done. Most people are looking for (what they think are) significant items to keep or sell. One guy digging may be looking for complete or near complete marbles and tosses the other stuff to the side. Another may be looking for something totally different. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Frit in dirt would be hard to sift out. Who wants to work that hard? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PT5MS2POEQ I use the hot glass in water technique. Less work and dust. Sincerely, John

Who's to say yes or no? At one time, I too considered this thought. Could just be a miscellaneous doodling from a bored worker, broken onto the floor and then swept up with all the other glass debris. Only to be dug decades later. Could be ___________________. (<<Insert your idea in the "blank" to the left.) -- What if this was a base cane fed into a machine? Over the years, have you seen a Guinea with double cut-lines with long ribbons of color in a "cork" twist from end-to-end? Yes? No? -- Try thinking about standard ways glass workers made things. Try no to be overly complex. Keep it simple. The more time it took to make something, the fewer made per day with a higher unit cost. (Might explain the extinction of the Guinea and it's famed Company.) -- Automation was the mechanical/electrical means to replicate what a person did. M.F. Christensen improved the rounding process. Miller created an "on demand" pneumatic shear to replace a human with a pair of scissors. Miller further improved the rounding process. Akro had a spinning cup to replicate a glass worker twisting a cane. Peltier had their forehearth technology to "ribbonize" a glass stream ahead of the shears. -- Pretzel making machines today are designed to replicate manual efforts. Old way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2EihnC0hUw Newer way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eH_XSrZpX0 (Machines don't drink on the job.) -- Here is a Fenton / Dave Fetty Mosaic Turtle: A simple base glass, rolled in colored frit. The manipulation of hot glass will stretch a "dot" into an "ellipse". More stretching will result in a "line". I say that a "line" is nothing more than a stretched "dot". Closing shears will pull the glass together. Thoughts? Sincerely, John

Craig, Super sweet artifact!! Don't ask me why, but I enjoy the "oddball" stuff just as much as the "real deal"!! I believe it has found a loving home, where it is appreciated. Sincerely, John