Shamrock Marbles

To All: Here is a link to a YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOiTwnadb5A I think this machine was resurrected and produced marbles this year. Some of these marbles are on eBay, but I'm not sure which auction listings. Any factual information would be helpful. Would like to see the auger surface now and a close-up of the marble surfaces. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Galen: Neat looks just like the Alox orange peel and nothing like the Vacor IMO Yes, Galen. I would agree with your opinion. The orange peel that you see on the Wheaton Village "marble" is more like that on the ALOX run. If you read my posts, the last sentence of Post #48: You did open my eyes to the Vacor orange peel as a variant of orange peel. I will get to the Vacor variant, but first the ALOX... First, I want to apologize to whoever I downloaded these pictures from. If I were to guess, they may be Ron Shepard's. Here is a "raw" ALOX machine: Rusted and pitted augers. Here is a "close-up" of the ALOX machine in action: Here are some "marbles" made on the ALOX machine: Notice the orange peel surfaces? Now looking at the surface differences between the first two photos, it appears that the augers were cleaned up. Looking at the lack of rust even at the shaft, I speculate that the augers were media blasted. Maybe someone can comment on "if" or "how" the augers were cleaned before testing? Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mike, Great photos!! I have many questions, but will refrain. Thank you, again!! To All: No one posted a photo of a Wheaton marble. So, I went looking in my boxes-o-stuff. Here is a "marble wanna-be" with orange peel: This rough surface ("orange peel") is simply from a soft, plastic glass gob touching the rough surface of the rollers. Not from: the glass is too cold, the glass is too hot, the rollers are too cold, the rollers are too hot, the glass shrunk or the glass was blah, blah, blah.... It was run across these rollers. True, the rollers where "cleaned up" quite a bit, but in the end, the surface was still pock-marked and rough. My understanding is that Scott put quite a bit of elbow grease and sweat into making that lady presentable. Ideally, one would have to re-machine the surface down to remove the surface defects. Very expensive. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mike, That is awesome! Thank you for digging in and sharing this information! Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Galen: I understand the thinking that the hot rollers could keep the surface of the marble hot long enough to allow the cooling shrinking glass on the interior to start pulling at the glass on the surface. Good theory. No. Bad theory. Take a day-trip and run this down to the engineering department at Stanford. Be prepared for strange looks of derision or just laughing. Temp(Auger) < Temp(Marble Surface) < Temp(Marble Core) I am not sure anything I can say or show is going to sway John into believing Orange peel can form on marbles made on smooth rollers. I don't think you've really said anything congruent or substantial. One of your first comments was: A cooling piece of glass can develope orange peel surface without ever touching rollers That statement is true and false. A further explanation is required. (<<Notice I said "true".) As far as showing anything, you've supplied some nice photos. Even photos that had nothing to do with the original question. Thank you. It's easy to say, "The apple falls from the tree", but can you explain why? Will you even try? ...Orange peel can form on marbles made on smooth rollers Let me see your logic based on your previous statements: Vacor makes millions of marbles. Millions of marbles running across augers makes them smooth. Therefore, all Vacor augers are smooth. Vacor makes marbles with orange peel. Vacor marble machines have smooth augers. Therefore, marbles with orange peel come from smooth augers. Disregard the above postulate, because... A cooling piece of glass can develop orange peel surface without ever touching rollers Maybe someone else can? I will leave the rest of this discussion to others. I like this argument technique. It implies that you hold the high ground of truth and facts, while you have exhausted yourself trying to raise me to your position. I can just see you throw your arms in the air as a futile surrender. I doubt you'll leave this discussion to others. You checked out once before (on post #25), but only to return. It's in your nature. Just look at the blue glass, that is not from anything pushing in on the glass!!!!! Love the extra exclamation marks. It is a great way to socially emphasize your frustration. Yes, I have looked at the blue glass in the photos posted in #18 and #28. I even have actual Vacor samples in my possession. Yes, there are pushing forces. Gravity pushes the molten gob into the face of the augers. The rotational drive of the downward roller pushes the gob toward and into the upward roller. The curvature of the groove, auger offset and auger pitch create horizontal forces and push the gob sideways. While you're at Stanford talking to the professor about that heat transfer theory, tell him your thoughts that there is nothing pushing on the marble surface. I know paint forms orange peel with out touching any thing Using paint is a bad analogy. Paint orange peel can occur from improper target preparation, droplet size, wrong angle of spray, etc. When paint dries, the carrier (water or a voc) evaporates. When marbles are made, the shape is formed and heat is lost. Sorry, marble orange peel has zero to do with paint orange peel. and I have seen glass besides marbles orange peel without touching anything Where you in outer space or a zero g environment? How does a chunk of glass cool without touching anything? Was a hot gob of glass dropped from atop the Empire State building and the cool sphere caught at the bottom? [This is how Dippin' Dots are created. Drops of ice cream are dropped through a cryogenic tower. Frozen balls at the bottom.] so I don't see why marbles can not orange peel with out bumps on rollers creating the orange peel. I know you don't see. That's okay. Your whole argument has been that Vacor orange peel is coming from smooth rollers, so something else is causing the orange peel. And that "something" else must be how the marble is cooling. You did open my eyes to the Vacor orange peel as a variant of orange peel. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

To All: Let's start all over. Reset. Imagine if Steph asked, "Why is my tire flat?" Possible response could be: "There is no air in it." "It's only flat on the bottom half!" "You have a nail." "It's a Firestone." "It's December." They are simple responses. I give Steph credit in trying to ask technical questions. She's smart enough (along with the readers of this forum) to pull it all in and digest the info. I think it is a dis-service to give short answers to her (and readers). So, let's go back and revisit her original question(s): What Causes Orange Peel? Is it glass temperature and cooling rates? Is it something more complicated like the chemistry of the glass involved? Here is my direct response: What Causes Orange Peel? Since this is a marble chat board, I'm assuming you're referring to orange peel on spherical glass marbles as opposed to bottles, plate glass, car paint, etc. Is it glass temperature and cooling rates? Yes, kind-of, but let me develop this a bit more below. Is it something more complicated like the chemistry of the glass involved? I'm sure some chemical imbalance could be at play, but most glass formulae are well established. I wouldn't rule this out, but I would marginalize it to the less than 1% category. My response to her second question clearly states that I agree "glass temperature" plays a roll. However, my "kind-of" comment is really meant to say that there is more at play than just "glass temperature" alone. Now, just proceeding my response to Steph was: To All: I think the definition of "orange peel" may vary from individual to individual (myself included). Clarifying this may help in the discussion. Photo samples would help. Galen was the first and only one to offer a photo example. His picture was a sample of extreme orange peel on a large Vacor marble (actual diameter not shared). This type of orange peel is not normally found on vintage marbles. Again, please show me a 1-1/4" MFC, or 1" Peltier, Vitro Parrot or Alley with this extreme orange peel. (The closest I've seen is a surface on an AKRO Jolly Roger.) I will follow up on additional posts. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mike: Can you explain why a longer cooling time would yield the Vacor orange peel? Are you saying the surface stays pliable longer and gets imprinted with the auger surface? Is there another physical phenomena to which you refer? Do large Peltiers show this? Root Beer Floats? I didn't see this orange peel on the Vitro Parrots in the Boulders post. Did anyone else have the same exact type of orange peel? (Akro, Marble King, etc.) FYI, that orange peel shown in Post #18 and #28 is also on some of my Vacor 5/8" and 1" marbles. Obviously, the depth is less as the marble gets smaller (lighter). Just a thought, but I bet you Vacor media-blasts their augers to remove rust and improve friction. I blasted my tooling once to accelerate machine break-in. What a disaster! Terrible orange peel! Need to find those and look at their surface. Galen: Your post right after Mike's reminded me of Jon Lovitz. Yeah, that's the ticket. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyp9fh-u4w8 Thanks for the levity! Anyhow, you bring up a good point about showing samples of dirty rollers. How do you think Vacor would clean jacked-up augers? Maybe they would media blast them in place and not have to disassemble the machine? Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Galen: I guess you are saying that if the rollers are perfectly smooth one would never see the orange peel effect on these large marbles, Perfectly smooth, no. Look at this picture below. Focus on the light from my computer monitor. Notice the surface differences of the Shamrock (on the Left) and the Vacor (on the Right)? The Shamrock is 1.330" diameter and the Vacor is 1.316" diameter (around 1-5/16" diameter for both). The Shamrock weighs 51.21 grams and the Vacor weighs 49.19 grams. The Shamrock glass density is 41.57 g/in^3 and the Vacor glass density is 41.22 g/in^3. The Shamrock is COE 96 and the Vacor is an unknown COE. Glass hits my rollers anywhere between 1800F to 2200F. The rollers are at room temperature (55F-100F). Sometimes people, myself included, overlook the obvious right under their nose. These marble machines have been around for years (if not decades) and their auger surfaces have "aged". Here's the rub... The Shamrock marble was formed under the same laws of physics (dynamics and heat transfer) that the Vacor was subjected during it's creation. No uneven core shrinkage is evident on the Shamrock. Cooling glass does not behave like a dehydrating grape. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrHzi7fYezQ Between you and me, I'm good if we disagree, but I'm equally good if we do agree. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Griff: Now increase your assumed "blank"temp of 2200 by increments of 100. Sure, were does one stop? 2300F? 3000F? 10,000F? Do you know the average temperature of a gob of glass as it is delivered to the rollers? If you do, then that would be great and we could use that number! Please share! What happens to the contraction rate,and the contraction time? Contraction with respect to temperature is constant. Keeping all things equal, heat transfers at a constant rate. If you increase the initial temperature, it will take longer for the object to cool to the same target temperature. Machine made marbles cool from the outside,in,and expell the heat from the inside out. If I'm not mistaken, even hand-made marbles cool the same way. Come to think of it, pretty much everything else would, too. The flow of thermal energy is from higher state bodies to lower state bodies. The gob of glass is transferring it's energy to the surrounding environment through radiation, convection and conduction. Radiation via infrared. Convection via the air. Conduction via the rollers. Notice the orange peel,and COLD ROLLED marks on Ann's photo? Yes. Ann's picture is actually Galen's from post #18. I think I have responded to this photo in posts #20, #22, #24 and #31. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Galen: I like to look John, not think(LOL) Maybe thats why I often post with out first thinking (loL) . Darn. I thought you were an intellectual. So, when I read your posts to people asking questions, is there any way I would know if you've actually given it thought or just felt like hearing your keyboard "clack"? For some odd reason, I think you've just told everyone to ignore any of your posts. I do not believe those wrinkles in that marble were pushed in by roller issues, but then I am not sure you are saying they were? Or are you saying the rollers just don't have a chance to smooth out the wrinkles before they cool? but that seemed obvious? The imperfections in the auger/roller will dimple the surface of the glass. The large underlying mass of molten glass is still very fluid as the surface cools. The augers are placing forces to get the sphere to rotate on multiple axis. These forces cause the gob to be "kneaded". This kneading action will shift the surface that is still slightly pliable. Impressions ("dots") on the surface are localized weak zones. Some of the individual "dot" impressions will be merged together as the surface shifts, thus creating various length "ovals", "valleys" or "amoeba" geometries. Larger folding areas are larger collapse zones (I think a PC term is "cold roll marks"). Notice how some of the "longer" wrinkles are parallel to these longer "creases", "seams" or "cold roll marks"? Now, there are other defects not discussed here. Such as, football ends, nipples, rams heads, shear marks, shear tails, etc. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Galen: Way too technical for me. Sorry, it starts taking the fun out of it when I have to think too hard(LOL) So, says they guy that pulls out a high magnification scope studying micro-scratches on the surface of a toy marble in the effort to collect forensic evidence to validate the genesis of said marble? Now that's funny, right there! I have also seen fused glass come out of a kiln that got an orange peel texture. Make sure you're not looking at devitrification. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Steve, I don't know about chasing after something newer will get you any better results. Your base camera is probably more than enough to do the job. The optics (lens) is where I would look along with lighting (spot flash). What Micro lens do you have? The best ever macro pictures of marbles that have been taken and posted on marbles boards, where done almost 15 years ago on 2 mega-pixel platforms. Nikon 950 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp950 Olympus C2020 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusc3030z Sony F505 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf505 After the camera, the keys are the photographer, lighting and editing. Whenever you see a great photo (of an old exotic), I can guarantee that photographer took dozens of pictures and then spent hours in Photoshop. I wish you the best outcome on your quest! Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Galen: That just may be the process??, I think the wrinkles start forming in a fairly narrow time period when the glass starts cooling and the rollers have time to flatten the tops of many of the wrinkles before the marble gets hard. The wrinkle forming must be fairly fast and at a certain time or the wrinkles would be rolled flat or the tops not flattened?? Please don't take offense, but I'm going to let you develop your theory/explanation a little bit more. Here is where I scratch my head... Let's use COE 96 glass. The thermal linear expansion is 9.6x10^-6/K (0.0000096/K). The change in length = L1 x 0.0000096 x (K2 - K1) Assuming the molten glass hits the rollers at 2200F (1478K) and becomes rigid (no longer pliable or mechanically mutable) at 1000F (811K)... A 1-5/16" diameter marble (1.313") would change (1.313 x 0.0000096 x (811 - 1478)) = -0.0084". For argument sake, let's consider that the glass matrix is homogeneous (same throughout). I would presume that all the glass would shrink uniformly and not have zones or pockets of different COE glass. Just having trouble... Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Okay. Let me see... Are you saying that some of the outside layer is cold, but the underlying glass "collapses" or "shrinks" causing some of the glass to pull inward and create valleys?

Galen: Great photos! I can see what you mean. The wrinkling you point out that looks like your finger-tips pruning after being soaked in water for some time. They are not round like a crater on the moon, but more grooved or kidney shaped. Simply, they are dimples that have been distorted from the underlying "soft" glass shifting. Once that top surface develops an impression from the augers and cools, there is nothing the rollers can do to completely smooth out the surface. there are not the scratches inside the wrinkles one would expect to see if it was debris on the rollers causing these wrinkles. I'm not talking about debris on the augers. The augers are pitted from non-uniform oxidation. Next time you're near a machine, take that scope/camera and record the surface. Particularly the first three to four revolutions after the gob landing spot. Now incidental debris/dirt falling onto the rollers can cause impressions. Sometimes that debris hangs on. We've seen it with bits of refractory or fire-brick. But most frequently seen with bits of glass purposefully sprinkled on! The scratches inside the wrinkles comment has me baffled. Can you further explain this smoking gun theory? Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Alan: Chilled glass, including rollers that aren't up to temp. Can you elaborate a little more? My rollers are run at room temperature. Is there a certain temperature at which orange peel disappears? Cheese: I've also been told that if a marble is too big for the rollers it will get orange peel. Yes, that is because the whole surface of the marble comes into contact with the roller. But even, "right-sized" marbles can get orange peel imprints from the rollers. Ann: Sounds reasonable. But I seem to remember some smaller Euro sparklers with orange peel. In which case I'd have to go with the temperature thing. I'll check mine tonight . . . Going back to the premise that lower production numbers of products smaller than 5/8" and larger than 3/4" result in tooling that sits idle and becomes rusty. Add to the fact, that as general production decreased, even 5/8" machines were pushed aside into storage. I'm sure there are a few people here that have walked through a marble facility and see machines sitting on the side in various states of decay. Let's not forget about playing favorites. Machine operators "know" which machines are less prone to down-time and produce the best product with the least hassle. These are their "go-to" machines. If something on this machine breaks, they usually steal a part off one in the bone yard. Machines that are run more are broken in and don't have as rough rollers. When production picks up and they have to pull a machine from storage, what do you think they choose? Obviously, the best machine that runs. Does any modern marble factory have a "surface standard" in their quality requirements. Doubt it. Or they would be throwing away a lot of money. They don't even care if they're round or chipped! Orange peel is not even on their radar. Hi John -- So is it glass temperature, but not related to the temp. of the rollers? Or something off in the glass mix, maybe? Yes, one variable is about the glass temperature. But most glass is delivered to a marble machine in a molten (pliable/plastic) state. The fundamental purpose of the marble forming machine is to spin (on multiple axis) the hot, molten gob of glass into a sphere before it cools and it's shape is locked. Roller temperature does play a roll, but so does the ambient temperature. Even the temperature of the shearing device and any surface the glass comes into contact before hitting the augers. (There are other variables at play also.) Different glasses have different working times. Spectrum cobalt blue gets stiff really quick, but the opaque white stays pliable longer. But neither glasses have a chemistry that give an orange peel surface to a marble. MarbleDawg86 I've noticed on practically all Peltier NLR's there is some degree of an orange peel on the surface, usually not noticeable unless under magnification. It's usually a good way to tell if one has been buffed:polished, as this will remove the orange peel. You bring up a great point. What orange peel are we talking about? Severe enough to be easily seen with the naked eye (20/20) at 12" distance under X lumens? I will concede that even minty marbles have imperfect surfaces under magnification, but are still a direct reflection of the marble machine surface. Griff: What kind of glass do you use,John? Is it similar to the vintage,or something differant? Moretti/Effrette, Spectrum, Bullseye, Kokomo, Youghiogheny, Wissmach, Uroboros, Spruce Pine, Kugler, Reichenbach and various cullet from Gabbert (Fenton red, etc.). Galen: The orange peel I am most familiar with is the type often seen on large Vacors. Under close examination it does not appear to be associated with dirty rollers but more like what happens to some paint as it dries. My scope is not working right now but when I get it going again I will post picture to show what I am talking about. In the mean time here are some roller marks on an absolute Wet Mint CAC. I am familiar with the surface on Vacor boulders. There are two surface characteristics (orange peel and wrinkles). The orange peel on the surface is a direct reflection of the marble auger surface. The wrinkles are from the underlying molten glass shifting and causing the thin cooled surface to fold. Kind of like the folds you see on a Miller swirl or rams head marble. I don't know if Steph's original question was directed at high magnification defects. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

To All: I think the definition of "orange peel" may vary from individual to individual (myself included). Clarifying this may help in the discussion. Photo samples would help. Steph: What Causes Orange Peel? Since this is a marble chat board, I'm assuming you're referring to orange peel on spherical glass marbles as opposed to bottles, plate glass, car paint, etc. Is it glass temperature and cooling rates? Yes, kind-of, but let me develop this a bit more below. Is it something more complicated like the chemistry of the glass involved? I'm sure some chemical imbalance could be at play, but most glass formulae are well established. I wouldn't rule this out, but I would marginalize it to the less than 1% category. Bumblebee: Rough rollers? The definition of "rough rollers" can vary. If you are referring to the commonly found pocked surface ("orange peel") of marble machine augers, then I can agree. It was my assumption orange peel happened due to surfaces on the marble machine, because I've only seen it on very large mibs. I figured the heavier big marbles while still malleable would gather these dimples by virtue of their weight. Just a theory, though. I would agree with your general assessment, but let me run with it a bit more. Hope we can all agree that small and large marbles can get orange peel, but why big marbles more than small ones? A 5/8" marble has a volume of 0.12783 in^3. A 3/4" marble has a volume of 0.22089 in^3 (1.73x larger than a 5/8"). A 1" marble has a volume of 0.5236 in^3 (4.1x larger than a 5/8"). A 1-1/4" marble has a volume of 1.02265 in^3 (8x larger than a 5/8"). [using glass with the same density, a 1" marble weighs 4.1x more than a 5/8".] Just a guess but probably 90% of all marbles run are 5/8" with the remaining 10% of smaller and larger marbles (of which shooter 3/4" are included). Large marbles (say over 3/4") are infrequently run, because they are expensive to produce and the demand wasn't there. This meant that marble rounding machines for large spheres where mostly idle throughout the year. Rounding augers are made of steel. The environments of Illinois, Ohio and West Virginia vary wildly from Winter to Summer. An idle marble machine would warm up from the heat of mid-Summer day. As the sun fell and the air and marble machine cooled, the moist, humid summer air would condense on the surface of the augers. This surface water would evaporate the next day as the temperature rose. Little-by-little, oxides (rust) would form on the steel surface. The rust doesn't form evenly, but becomes micro-localized and develops an orange peel surface. https://abhsscience.wikispaces.com/Rusting+SB When it comes time to dust off the large machine for a run, the operators have to decide how to clean the auger grooves. Use a wire brush to knock off most of the rust on the surface, then run a bunch of glass through to get the remainder down in the little pockets/pits? I'm sure people have seen the first marbles come off a new run and there is rust on the marble surface for a while. The machine in the above photos is the Jabo machine at Wheaton Village before Scott Meyer reconditioned her. After the machine was rehabbed, they ran some samples across the rollers. Those samples exhibit extreme orange peel. Block auctioned a few of these and photos do exist (maybe someone can post?). All small and large glass gobs are molten as they are delivered to the augers. At the moment the gob touches the augers, the surface of the molten glass gets imprinted with the texture of the roller. However, the weight of a large marble does force the glass against the roller surface more than a smaller volume/weight gob. Larger marble=heavier weight=deeper impression. Smaller marble=lighter weight=lighter impression. Once imprinted, it can't be removed. I like watching people run a torch across the marbles as they run down the auger in the hopes of rounding a marble or smoothing the surface. The results of combusting gas (propane or other hydrocarbons) are CO2 and H2O (water). Yes, hot water is being blasted onto the steel augers below. And yes, surface rust forms instantaneously. Those marbles will have a light copper looking rust on the surface. I've got to run for now... Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

No secret here. My rollers run at room temperature. Pretty smooth and minty marble surfaces. Sincerely, John McCormick Shamrock Marbles

Hey Tall, Try Moon Marble. www.moonmarble.com 12 small stands for $3.60 ($0.30 each). https://www.moonmarble.com/p-1748-plastic-marble-stands-by-the-dozen.aspx or Land of Marbles http://www.landofmarbles.com/pc/s024/marble-storage-and-display.html $0.37 each for a qty of 50. Good luck! John McCormick Shamrock Marbles

Craig, Thanks for your effort to share and educate. Based from your photos, I would agree that three (if not four) of the marbles shown were made from CA cullet or marble fragments. (Top-Bottom & Left-Right): #3, #4, #6 & #7. I would say that the Guinea (#7) was made from marble fragments. The bubbles you can see are tell-tales that Bo was commenting about. Very prevalent in #7 & #8. Especially, those in a string (.........). Based from the out-of-roundness, fractures, and surface condition; I would say these were done by someone very inexperienced. Might even go as far as saying they didn't even have a kiln for annealing. Again, many thanks! Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Ahhh! Wildwood. Watch the tram car please! Morey's Pier http://www.moreyspiers.com/ Sea-n-Sun http://www.gotowildwood.com/en/ Thanks Steph! Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Bob, Are you okay? Can you blink? Sincerely, John

Steph, Absolutely relative to this board and a few threads. Transdisciplinary Social Learning and Cognitive Dissonance are two elements that struck home. Great read, but one has to read it multiple times before sinking in. Kind of like reading a patent. Thanks! Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Craig, Thank you. I figured it was part of your email from Don Rios, but didn't know if he communicated with you where he got the information and any more related context. I believe (and I am open to correction) that this list of colors was generated by early CA collectors looking at their marbles (circa 2002). Their goal may have been to determine the full CA color pallet. Another goal would be trying to determine color combinations of a 4-color marble. Some of those reference marbles in collections where guineas, slags, striped transparents and striped opaques. I do not know if "exotic" colors are included in this set. It would be interesting if a sample marble photo was submitted and the colors referenced (e.g., Marble #1 Cobalt Guinea, colors: #36-Cobalt Blue, #1-White, #2-Black, etc.). Also, would be interesting if these colors were then cross-referenced to known Cambridge Glass colors (e.g., #1-White = Carrara 1923). Again, thanks for you help. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Craig, Do you Know the genesis of the last list of colors in your post? I notice they are in a different font. Is this a list of colors generated by CA collectors in their hope to identify all colors and possible permutations and combinations (circa 2002)? That is, that last list is not an actual Arnold Fiedler/CA document of used colors. Thanks. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"