Shamrock Marbles

Bottom view.

Bought this at Amana 2003. I think it is an Andy Davis, but the signature is too rough. Thoughts? Sincerely, John

Mark Matthews' Micro-Signature (Matthews JM 2013): "Gum Ball" marble is 1-1/8" diameter (nominal). Signature is about 1/4" long. John

A marble that became a lemon.

John Hamon Miller 2001 (1-1/8" DIA)

Photo above is from Google search images. John

Craig, Can you tell if your advertisement is color printed or hand colored? There is a "red" ad on the internet. Thanks for sharing! John

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