Shamrock Marbles

Galen and Ann, I do believe that "fantastic types", Guineas and certain Striped Transparents/Opaques are of the hand-gathered variety. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mon, MFC Patent 802,495 Lines 89-94 Roller H is purposely larger or of greater diameter than roller G, and for this reason is the master roll or roller of the pair, dominating roller G by means of its greater peripheral speed and at last controlling the discharge of the Ball or sphere O, as will he seen. The original patent/design was to have the larger roller (higher peripheral speed) drive down the marble through the working point, while the smaller (lower peripheral speed) wheel was lifting up at the working point. There is no description stating the sprocket-to-sprocket ratio in the patent. If they wanted to stop the driving down action, then they could have easily swapped positions of the rollers. Put the larger one where the smaller roller was, and visa versa. However, they chose to leave the forming wheels in their original positions and put a smaller sprocket on the smaller wheel. Anyhow,... Yes, I have teats! This is what happens when the peripheral speed of the lifting wheel is not sufficient enough to overcome the peripheral speed of the downward wheel combined with gravity. Additionally, the gob did not turn on axis because the "teats" on each end acted like out-riggers. Notice the chevron twist? Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mon, The MFC auto released worked. However, it worked so good that the marble never got to cool before being ejected. What I thought was interesting is why they didn't swap the wheel positions versus changing sprockets. The video I posted was from Thursday evening of Marble Crazy 2014 after Cathy Richardson's demo. I had just re-assembled the machine that afternoon and everything was out of adjustment. (I took the machine apart to fit in my van for a trip to Mark Matthews' studio in Sauder Village.) The clear marbles are test marbles. We did them so I could adjust the machine and Larry/Brett could judge gob size. It was then that we determined to target 1.25" diameter. The finished marbles were no more than +/-0.005" out of round. (Not perfect, but good enough.) The rounder the marble; the smoother it ran. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mon, No laughing here. There is a sharp guy who uses the phrase, "Thoughtful speculation." Amazingly in another post, we have moved from thoughtful speculation to definitive information. This is what a discussion board is about! Sincerely, John

Mike and Brian, Thank you, thank you!! I blew up Mike's image of the area where the shearing was happening and you can see the Gob Cup with Handle resting atop a bracket. The testimony along with the photos really clears up some questions that I had. Again, thanks! Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mon, Yes, I do believe that some (if not all) CA striped opaque and transparent marbles were hand-gathered. Your idea about the double-nozzle is worthy of thought, for it is not too different from Peltier's execution in his two patents. Just some questions? 1) Why do some guineas have "dots" or round blotches and some have "streaks" only? 2) Why do some guineas have a combination of "dots" and "streaks"? 3) Why do some guineas have only one "cut-line"? (Not a fold-over.) Great questions! Love your inquiring mind. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Road Dog, Here is a link to an old glass publication with an article about William J. Miller. National Glass Budget, September 18, 1915. As you scroll down to continue reading on page 12, please take note of the Miller advertisements. He took out a prominent ad for his shearing device on the top half of page 7. https://books.google.com/books?id=EfpYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT294&lpg=PT294&dq=william+j+miller+move+to+columbus+from+coffeyville&source=bl&ots=WdFzDsL2aB&sig=eCmdF28kbFQWZ6UfB9V8VWdddG0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mY6uVJOrMcGOyASpy4KYCg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=william%20j%20miller%20move%20to%20columbus%20from%20coffeyville&f=false Also, in one of Miller's advertisements he claims a breadth of equipment for making things as small as marbles up to 6-foot glass caskets. The glass casket is from his time in Coffeyville, Kansas. If you want creepy, then visit the glass museum at Wheaton Village. They have a child's glass casket on display. Imagine how heavy that was! http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/13183 I believe there is a patent for this "novelty". https://www.google.com/patents/US1326765?dq=glass+casket+miller&hl=en&sa=X&ei=npSuVK29Nc-vyAT-k4HQBw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg Enjoy! John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Sorry. Try Now.

Making a marble on the "Mark-II" machine during Marble Crazy 2014 at Moon Marble. Cooling time is around 48 seconds. Marble size is 1.25" diameter John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Fantastic piece and would have loved to have it in my collection. In my opinion, the guinea artifact is not a "cane" remnant and it is not a "stream" fragment. It is a knock-off from the end of punty rod. Keep in mind, this is from my opinion that guineas were hand-gathered marbles. From the appearance of the shear mark on the guinea artifact, that glass had cooled too much. The glass did not release cleanly from the shear as the punty was being retracted, thus stretching the remaining material. Below is a Shamrock artifact that occurred back in 2004, when I was experimenting with various techniques. Many more of these were created. I kept only this one survivor, while others found collections. Length is 1.5". Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mon, Yes, I agree with you. There are three (3) oil cups (round objects) visible in the "Top View". The stationary shaft of the smallest wheel (right side) has two cups. Order of items from Top to Bottom: Small Forming Wheel, Bearing/Oil Cup, Belt Pulley, Bearing/Oil Cup and Sprocket (13T). The movable shaft (left side) has one oil cup and it is the one you point out in your post. Order of items from Top to Bottom: Large Forming Wheel, Bearing/Oil Cup, "A"-Frame Tower and Sprocket (16T). If you look at the photo of the gentlemen working, the heal of the left-hand/thumb pad is resting against the outside of the stationary "A"-Frame Tower. I suspect that the cut-off man has extended his index and middle fingers around the oil-cup. All he would have to do is "pull the trigger" to make the cooled marble drop. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Craig, The two marble machines that I have are based on the MFC patent, but with ideas from other patents and one of my own. Gen-One machine has quick-change tooling with the drive shafts connected via chain and sprockets. There is one small and one large wheel per set. There are four (4) sets of tooling: Set 1: Marbles from 3/8" to 5/8" Set 2: Marbles from 1/2" to 7/8" Set 3: Marbles from 7/8" to 1-3/8" Set 4: Marbles from 1-1/4" to 2" Mark-II machine has basically fixed tooling. The wheels can be swapped, but would take more time to change-over. Shafts are geared electronically and both wheels are the same diameter. Tooling is for marbles from 1" to 1-1/2" diameter. With respect to the cup: Many years ago on this site, Brian G. posted a rusted cup that was found on the MFC property. It looked like a ladle. If my memory serves me correctly, I don't recall a hole in the bottom. Mike is correct about gathering the right amount. Think about a professional dart player. They develop such accurate muscle memory, that allows them to deliver a dart to the bulls eye with uncanny precision. Glass workers do the same. Imagine doing this 5000 times a day over 6 days a week? I think you would get good at it pretty quickly. I too, deliver the glass to the roller driving down to the "working point". Something I had to learn through experimentation. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Photo as shown: Small Roller Sprocket = 13 Teeth Large Roller Sprocket = 16 Teeth

Mike, Thanks for the added postings! Three-quarters of the way down Page 70 has a sentence of interest: "We have tried that, tried to gather two at a time on it. Mr. Christensen and I did that ourselves. We didn't try it in regular production." This is in the context of dropping glass directly into the machine instead of an intermediate cup. Is he stating that they tried but did not use in production multiple cuts for a gather? One gather = one cut = one marble? Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mike, Great stuff and thanks for sharing! Tons of information. Love the "teats" comment! Happy New Year. John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mike, A very short sleep and off to a meeting. This reminds me of the arguments over what caused the extinction of dinosaurs. Was it a meteor, the earth tilting on axis, a virus or...? Then boom!! Gary Larson comes along and he shows how dinosaurs really became extinct in his one panel illustration. Talk soon! John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mike, Finished up my response early in the morning after a night of CAD work. Eyes red, neck hurts, but still a smile on my face. Always enjoy your posts and your engaging debate! Going to bed. John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mike, John, I'm glad you got nothin' to sell, because with all due respect, I'm still not buying it. No problem. The illustration of the finished marble in the patent drawing is inconvenient in that it does not resemble a feathered slag, but it does appear to be what this set up would produce. No, not inconvenient, just incorrect. Why is it incorrect? Look at Figure 6 again. "Remove" in your mind the dark squiggly lines overlaying the hanging gob. You will see the lines stretched vertically on the gob (as described in his patent). Any glass pattern created upstream will be stretched from gravity as it passes through the second orifice. No way would it be possible for a "wire-pull" or a swirl gather to survive intact (as drawn in Figure 7) as it extrudes through the nozzle. By diverting the stream in this manner by causing the stream to adhere to the heated inclined surface 24, the stream will be caused to come in contact with the lower part of the auxiliary furnace rather than falling directly through the opening 30 in the lower bushing 25. The heat in the auxiliary chamber 23 is preferably so controlled and distributed, as to cause this downwardly flowing column of material to adhere to one side of the cone throat 34—35 of the block 33 as clearly shown in Fig. 1 of the drawings. This supplements the effect of the oriffice surfaces 13-12, in drawing out the more or, less irregular mass of the striating ingredient into the desired striae. The flowing body of the components, passes through the auxiliary furnace chamber 23 where it is allowed to be further elongated and produce a more finely striated stream of molten material. The piled material will then slowly flow towards and through the opening 30 of the lower bushing 28 and pass downwardly into an elongated form, as clearly shown in Figs. 1 and 6 of the drawings. Patent US1927650 is a utility patent not a design patent. Sellers is trying to protect the machine and process from his competition and the predatory business practices of Hartford-Empire. If Sellers wanted to protect the style of marble, then he would have applied for a Design Patent. Figure 7 is technically inconsequential, but becomes rather a distraction (red herring). False argument: The patent document doesn't show a "feathered" marble, therefore, this patent couldn't be for making "feathered" marbles. Back in the day, you had to apply for patents through law firms. There is a very specific language that must be used. Not only must the language be specific, but the illustrators/draftsmen had to be trained in the "art". You scan send your typed description and sketches to the lawyer, but they will be massaged to conform to the expectations of the patent examiner. These documents went back and forth many times between the parties. It is not uncommon for "translation" errors to occur. The guys doing the work in the law office are completely disconnected from the actual equipment. Still pretty much as it is today. I never met the lawyer handling my first (and only) patent and he never saw the equipment. I am adamant in my belief that feathered slags were made by casting chunks of white cullet onto the surface of the base glass in the furnace, as opposed to ladles of molten glass. The patent drawing shows a pool of glass below the first side port, that would have been added in a molten state with the charging ladle, and it is stretching out toward the discharge well as a single line of glass surrounded by the base glass. No argument here. In fact, the patent leaves open the actual delivery method and heated state of the glass. It even suggest multiple ports to apply glass. However, Sellers doesn't specifically state that chunks of cullet or large frit must be used in order to provide a plethora of mini-streams necessary to get the desired effect of fine striated glass. As it piles up on the inclined surface below, it would be a mass of looping lines in all directions, as shown in the drawing. The drawings do not show looping lines in all directions. Figure 1 shows the accumulation against the side of the second conical nozzle. Figure 6 is a magnified, 90-degree (side) view of Figure 1. Figure 6 clearly shows the glass winding back and forth upon itself like ribbon candy you get at Christmas time. Glass is viscous stuff, and at the fast pace that the gobs are cut, while flowing out the hole to be cut (ka-chink-ka-chink-ka-chink), Don't know how this statement applies to either support or refute any opinions. All I can ask is, "What is fast pace?" "How many cuts per minute?" "Did the shear really make the sound 'ka-chink-ka-chink-ka-chink'?" I seriously doubt, even at high temperature, that nested chevron patterns would be formed continuously on the gob or drip. Okay. That's your opinion. There would be some pattern movement, surely, Agreed. This is a process that is fluid and ever changing. Definitely not a "set it and forget it" operation. but I suggest that the feathering aberrations of the stream would be more likely to occur in a different set up, due to interaction with a plunger, and without the 9" drop into a piling up chamber. This is where we disagree. Feathering isn't a statistic aberration, but a designed outcome. And it is this set-up, as described in the patent, that results in "feathered" marbles. I consider marbles with inferior "feathering" as statistical aberrations. I continue to believe this is more likely a possible set up for the wildly patterned so-called "Millers", and the "burnt" marbles. There is plenty of reason to use opaque glass in a process that piles up the glass, even if you can't see inside the marble, because the resulting patterns on the surface of the marble could be extraordinary, if you like folded loops and flames and stuff. I think Sellers Peltier realized that, too. Really, not part of this discussion. Dave, wanted opinions as to whether Patent US1927650 was used to make feathered slags. Maybe another thread you can start and lay out your argument? You may scoff and laugh, if you like. No scoffing or laughing here in Kansas. Oh...as for the nice reverse twist marbles, as much as I've always wanted to believe that Sellers Peltier made those on purpose, I never found any info to back up that hope, and I have to agree that they just happen sometimes. Agreed. My belief is that these are statistical outliers and an indication that the marble machine wasn't "just right." Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

The cold rolled marks are the result of the surface cooling quickly from contact with the Forming Rollers (Augers). Once in contact with the Forming Rollers, the gob is "twisted". Since, the surface has cooled, the glass has to "wrinkle" as it is twisted. I wouldn't argue calling these cold rolled marks. Once this surface is set, there isn't enough residual heat in the marble core to "remelt" or "smooth" the surface. One could torch the marble as it travels down the augers, but heat and water from the combustion process will just rust up the rollers. Fundamentally, the gob of glass is spinning on an axis parallel to the Forming Rollers and not turning on multiple axes as desired. A witness to this is the number of "Footballs" or "Easter eggs" created. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Thank you Griff. You proved my point. My position: Once Dave gets his Marble System variables in tune (particularly the Forming Machine), he won't be making anymore Rams Heads. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Fair enough, I wouldn't want you to divulge any trade secrets or violate a signed NDA. Question 1: In all the years and runs at Jabo, how many times have you seen "Rams Head" marbles?

Griff, Would it be fair to say that you have intimate knowledge of the machinery and various runs at Jabo, Sammy's and DAS? John

Gents, Yes, those are great examples of balanced "Rams Head", "Back Twist", "Chevron" style machine made marbles. There are also versions where only one pole exhibits the "Twist" or "Ying-Yang" feature. Go to the DAS Rams Head Marbles thread for continued discussion about this style. John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Ann, Are you sitting down? Here is the answer in its full unadulterated blasphemy: The marble augers twisted the glass. Yes, this is totally opposite from the widely held belief that the marble rounding machine does not alter the pattern. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles" The above is similar to "crop-dusting" your Boss' wife at a company cocktail party. Sitting back and eating popcorn.

Mike, Good to see you, too! As a lurker, I get to see you more than you see me (6:1). Always enjoy your posts, but thoroughly enjoy your spirit. Ron, I guess I need some schooling. The picture above from Mike shows some marbles that I would consider "Miller Swirls". Correct? What do you call the Peltier marbles that have a defined "twist" like the DAS "Rams Head" marbles? Peltier "Swirls"? Peltier "Twists"? Miller "Twists"? (Yes, I know some cringe a the word "Miller" and consider it a misnomer.) Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"