Shamrock Marbles

Steph, LOL! I know how you feel, but don't be disheartened. Galen and Craig, Thank you for coming back. Craig, The Don Rios color study is very interesting! I don't ever remember reading any post on any board with this information. Is this something that you can bring to the light for all to see? Is it a word document? PDF? I think something like this would add to the body of knowledge and be helpful to the collector community. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Nantucketdink, No. That is too wide a brush stroke. Everyone needs as much information to come to their own conclusion. Spend as much or little effort as you see fit, but one must make up their own mind. In fact, you are welcome to change your mind. What camp are you in? 1) They are real CA marbles. That's what I've thought from the start and believe to this day! 2) They are real CA marbles. I was doubting them at first, but after careful analysis, I've decided that they are real. 3) They are real CA marbles. I didn't buy any, because I'm into Catseyes. 4) Some are real CA marbles. The early ones are real, but the later ones are not. 5) Some are real CA marbles. You just have to educate yourself to know vintage from modern. 6) They are all fake. I had some, but got out. 7) They are all fake. Never held one, but I have an opinion. 8) Create your own camp and insert here >>(______). 9) Mix and match any of the above. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Hansel, Thank you for your pictures! I rather fancy that red and white one. Mon, Yes, I have handled some exotics (say 20 or so). Some are very beautiful and some are too dark/muddy. There was nothing that made alarm bells ring in my head. I don't recall them "feeling" different. The ones I held appeared to be shear cut and machine rolled with no signs of a punty mark. I did not look under high magnification for bubbles or signs of torchworking. One marble did stand out, but it was due to the reduction of the glass surface. How do you handle a statistical anomaly from a group of statistical anomalies? Personally, I would like to have some, but not at the current price-point. I liked your collection so much that I probably have your photo saved on my hard drive in 10 places. They are simply beautiful marbles. ---- I want to clarify something. When I commented about a company transitioning from a hand-gathered to an automated system, it appeared that I implied this transition was rather binary. I don't believe CA made hand-gathered marbles on Friday and walked in on Monday to be fully automated. In fact, I think they were bi-modal. They probably continued hand-gathering while the automated systems came on line and continued to do so for some time. It wouldn't be hard to believe that there was a repair on the automated unit that forced them to hand-gather while repairs continued. Ann, The deer-in-the-headlights is something I see when I demonstrate to marble collectors. What I have typed in this post are some of the conversation highlights from the past 12 years. I've even speculated on the hush-hush: 1) A contracted excavator improperly removed items from the site. This violated the contract terms and could jeopardize future jobs with the city or county. Imagine loosing thousands of dollars in future contracts for some glass balls for which crazy people pay big money? Might not have enough other non-government work and force bankruptcy. How are you going to make payments on that back-hoe with no paying jobs? 2) Every employee at the old Cambridge/Christensen site know about those crazy collectors and the marbles, cullet and such. They all are aware about the policies of not digging or profiting from the stuff. Someone finds a box of goodies and takes it home. Wants to profit from the contraband, but it must remain quiet. They could get fired and lose there City/County government pension. Can't imagine a ton of great paying jobs in that part of Ohio. 3) They are part of a departed loved one's collection. There is no provenance. The decedent never worked at a glass factory. The features look like CA, but there is no proof. Let's make up a story and say they were found near the old CA plant during a sewer dig. Yeah, that's the ticket! Instant provenance. 4) Make up your own story/theory and insert here> (_____). Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Hansel, My apologies if I slighted anyone with my omission. Yes, Chemistry hasn't changed in 100 years. I might add that the laws of human nature haven't changed either. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Sami, I want to elaborate a little bit more on the glass color issue. When I started out, I used stained glass from a local shop. The cost per pound was quite cheap ($7-$9/lb.), plus they had a scrap bin where the prices were more attractive ($2-$3/lb.). The products they sold were Spectrum (96 Coe) and Bullseye (90 Coe). Some Wissmach, Kokomo and Uroboros were also on the shelf. I really like the Bullseye, because they have an awesome green aventurine. However, some of the Bullseye colors didn't stand up well in a torch environment. Spectrum had a beautiful red, orange and yellow that really popped. Later on, I started using Moretti (104 Coe). What I liked about Moretti, is that it had higher colorant densities and held up in the flame. Moretti was NOT designed to be a stained glass with light transmittive properties (unless it was a transparent). What I mean, is that some solid/opaque Bullseye and Spectrum glass still allowed light to pass through. It should be noted that I used colors straight from the manufacturer. No blending or mixing of colors to change shade or tone were done. When I look at one of my marbles, I can tell you whether it was made from Bullseye, Spectrum or Moretti. ----- Many years ago Bo Stiff talked about bubbles in the glass. If you read what he wrote, he specifically talked about torch working. Torch working requires that you put the glass directly into the flame. Oxygen mixed propane burns much hotter than Air mixed propane. This is what I call a "hard" heat. Glass with narrow cross-sections heat first and have a tendency to over heat. This over heating creates bubbles that can be seen where the edge or corner once was. Snip the end of a rod of Moretti and heat it. Bubbles will form at the circular edge. Most torch workers know to peel or strip this material away. Since I use stained glass, I need to cut the glass into strips (say 1/2" wide x 3" long). There are twelve edges on that piece to create a bunch of micro bubbles (approximately 14 linear inches). Not the best way of making bubble free marbles. If I were to fuse or slump the glass first, then it would remove the sharp edges and dramatically reduce the chance of bubble formation. There will be highly skilled torch-workers that will contend that they have the skills and knowledge to work glass and not create bubbles. I wouldn't argue with them. They probably do. Most don't. [Clarification: Bo is not here to elaborate on my comments or his. Bubbles do occur in marbles. However, I believe the bubbles Bo is referring to are those in a linear pattern - like one dot after another (......). Most can be found at the surface. Sometimes there are sub-surface bubbles that erupt through the surface when reheated. If there is a color on the top, then this color is moved and formed into an "o". Kind of looks like a volcano from the top. Sometimes a line of color will have a bubble through and it will look like this (===o===).] Now, what happens with a "soft" heat? I consider a soft heat as one generated from an atmospheric burner pointed into a chamber. Yes, a glory hole or a glass furnace. When using a glory hole, the glass worker doesn't place the glass into the flame directly. The chamber envelopes the glass with a penetrating heat. This soft heat doesn't create the tell-tale bubbles as noted by many. Glass workers that make stemware, vases and such in a glory hole usually start with a crystal clear, then add color by rolling in frit. Frit or glass shards have a multitude of sharp edges and a narrow cross-section. However, in a soft heat environment, the frit has the chance to melt slowly without the formation of bubbles. Could you imagine the quality of their product with a million tiny bubble? Just wouldn't happen. It would be safe to say that CA didn't do torch work. Their source of heat was a furnace/glory hole. ---- So, Sami, an answer to your question: The Christensen glass used back then is available today. It can be existing CA marbles. It can be existing CA marble halves or fractures. It can be dug CA cullet. It can be Cambridge glass bowls and candlesticks. It can be dug Cambridge cullet. Glass recycles. One could probably make some fanciful Akro Exotics!! Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Okay, let's flip this coin over and talk about the possibilities! First, let's talk about context and progression. The context is that CA moved to Cambridge, OH in 1927. MFC is defunct. Akro is going strong and has been producing their own marbles in Clarksburg, WV for about twelve years (since 1914/15). Peltier is starting to make marbles in Ottawa, IL in 1927. (Did I miss someone?) If you started CA, what would you make? Hand-gathered slags? Sure, easy enough at first, but how would you compete in the wholesale market against the likes of Akro? Akro had to be kicking out a boat-load of marbles. If you can't compete on price, what can you do to differentiate yourself? With all those beautiful Cambridge colors next door, how to you construct or develop a marble to stand out? How do you progress? Guineas? Glass workers have been rolling bodies of glass in frit for years (and still continue to this day). Grab a punty. Get a gather of cobalt blue at the monkey pot. Roll in frit. Reheat. Take to machine to be sheared. Repeat. The roll in frit and reheat adds more time than a regular slag, but the results are fantastic! Tired of cobalt blue, then use amber or crystal clear. Okay, what else do you offer? What about "colorful" slags? According to patent 1,828,216 (filing 1928): Prior to the present invention, most glass marbles of the type just mentioned have been made of glass charges gathered by hand, the gatherer collecting on his punty portions of each gather from two or more supplies of differently colored glass and manipulating his punty so as to effect a winding of the glass of a secondary color or colors at or close to the surface of glass of the base color. If you look close enough, some of the construction features you see in CA Slags, you can see in some striped opaque and transparent marbles. One could argue that a ST/SO marble is just a colorful slag! No argument from me. Okay, okay. All this hand-gathering is still too expensive. We need to automate. Well, at the time, the Hartford-Empire Company has a stranglehold on glass patents and technology. You don't have the capability to do something in-house, so you contact them to see what technology or equipment you can license or buy. Akro is the big dog in the industry, so Hartford is probably giving them the best equipment and technology. Akro corks hit the market around 1928/29? (Based on patent dates.) Your volume isn't high enough to warrant engineering a custom solution. That is why you see Peltier patent their own two technologies. You license basic "swirl" technology. Nothing sexy except you have some awesome colors. You can't look back. You can't afford to hand-gather marbles for resale. Time to move on. Goodbye hand-gathered guineas. Goodbye hand-gathered slags. Goodbye hand-gathered swirls (ST/SO). Even with automation, the competition and the market crash/depression bring an end to the ride. Remember, back in the day they were childs' playthings. Not objects of art as we see them today. Some food for thought. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mon, "Was it your goal to mimic the CAC design?" No. The goal was to build a machine. The challenge to me was building something that I knew nothing about. Remember, the machine came before I even started glasswork (proverbial cart ahead of the horse). Who do you call if you have questions? Much of this had to be figured out by trial and error. My first attempts were to do slags (blue and white). Then all the other questions followed: How do they get that "nine"? Can you do a cork? What about ribbons? How do you get those dots on a Guinea? Why are some Guinea patterns stretched and others not? Boy, that cut line looks like those on a CA. Why do some CA marbles have one cut line? Why two? Why is one cutline smooth (blended in) and the opposite one slight raised (rough)? How are flames made? The questions are endless (as you well know). "How hard is it to keep the colors from blending or bleeding?" It is a function of the glass, temperature and how the glass is merged together. Torchwork has a tendency to overheat the glass and cause certain glasses to flow into each other. "How hard would it be to match the colors of known CAC colors and whip them off your machine?" Why match? Everyone touts how Arnold used the same glass as Cambridge. People have documented this. Why not buy some Cambridge Glass off Ebay and bust up into pieces? Why not get some dug cullet or broken pieces? (Crickets...) "Do you think or have you ever tried to put the "S" trait in a marble?" The "S" is a result of the fluid glass twist between shearing actions. No "S" on single cutline marbles. Look at my avatar (bottom left view). Look at the photo of marbles I sold to MarbleAlan (bottom right). There is your "S". It is a natural occurrence and it is not necessary to "try" to replicate. The pattern of the glass, the engagement of the shear and fluidity of the glass contribute to this feature. Hope this helps. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mon, You're welcome. My timeline is pretty transparent. In fact, one could argue that my appearance onto the scene was at the end of the Exotic reign. I don't think I was the meteor that caused the extinction, but I'm sure I didn't help. Let me share my history: My wife and I married in 1989 and we lived in a 300 square foot apartment. Since it was so small, we spent many hours away from the confines visiting friends and family (that had larger places). My brother and sister-in-law dealt in antiques and collected Gonder Pottery (Zanesville, OH). For a Christmas gift, I decided to find and buy a piece or two for a Christmas gift. We drove everywhere in search for the elusive piece. It didn't take long, that we started picking up other antiques to decorate our apartment. Then we progressed to auctions to get better pricing. Before too long, our apartment was bursting at the seams. We started selling out of a booth at a local antique mall to move our inventory. Around 1990, we went to an auction at an old tobacco barn in Weston, MO. There was a long table of box lots. One box interested us (flow blue plates), so we kept an eye on it. (An old auction trick is to move items from one box to the next to avoid competitive bidders.) Low and behold, some old fart moved something into our box! I ran the bid up just to jack with him and we won. He followed me when I grabbed the box. Guess what he wanted to buy out of my box? A jar of marbles!! They weren't there at first, so I told him to get lost. Put the marbles in a glass rolling pin and placed them for sale in our booth. Marbles sat there for months and then the mall shut down. We packed everything up and stored boxes and boxes in my parents basement. (Remember, the apartment was too small.) Bought our first house in 1991 and my parents told me to move the boxes out of their basement. Our family grew and we bought our second house in 2000. Moved all the boxes from the basement of house #1 to the basement of house #2. When going through the boxes, I rediscovered the marbles. Spent hours on Ebay trying to figure out what they were, let alone what they were worth. While searching the internet (AltaVista) I came across Moon Marble. Took the marbles over to the Moon to see if they could tell me what they are and what they are worth. It was the Spring of 2001 and I had just missed the inaugural Marble Crazy. Watched Bruce Breslow demonstrate how to make a torch-worked marble to a group of Boy Scouts. I was hooked! Left without having them look at the marbles. Kept coming back and watching more demos. Over time, Bruce and I got to talking. When he found out that I was an engineer, he suggested that I build a marble machine. Bruce pulled out this large laminated photo of a dual-auger machine (Mid-Atlantic). Was he nuts?! That would cost a ton of money to make! Mess up one thing and you have yourself a +$20,000 boat anchor. Man, I want to learn about torch-work, not build a contraption. Later that year around Thanksgiving, Bruce introduced me to Cathy Runyan-Svacina. Bruce unleashed her onto me and she suggested (in her enthusiastic way) to build a marble machine. Out pops that photo again. I told her that I would look into it. Around December 2001 or January 2002, there was a discussion on Alan's board about patents. Brian Graham was referencing the MFC patent. I emailed Brian and he shared the patent number with me. When I went to the US Patent and Trademark website and downloaded the patent, I was amazed. Wow, this is simple. I could make that and without much cost. Spent hours at USPTO downloading other marble machine patents. Started preliminary design work the Spring of 2002, but there were a ton of unknowns. The information in the patents were void of specifics. What are the wheel diameters? What are the shape of the grooves? How fast are they spinning? What material did they use? Etc. I kind of hit a wall and put the design on the back burner. Traveled to Philadelphia for a family reunion that Summer (August 2002). Afterwards, I took the family to Wildwood, NJ. Stopped in at Wheaton Village along the way. Paid our admission and walked in. Went to the right and I could not believe my eyes! Sitting outside under an awning (entrance to the exhibition hall) was a dual-auger marble machine. We where the only people there, so I stepped over the plastic chain and started taking pictures and notes. This was enough to break my mental log-jam. Went back home and started finalizing the design. Made parts at work and used some of my 2002 Christmas bonus to have the wheels machined. The machine was basically finished by year end (December 2002). Guess what? I have a machine, but no glass equipment. Used a gift certificate that my mother gave me for Christmas to buy stuff at Bearden's Stained Glass. Bought: 1 Hot Head, 1 glass cutter, 1 sq-ft of transparent cobalt blue stained glass (Spectrum), 1 sq-ft of opaque white stained glass (Spectrum), bead mandrels and some frax for annealing. Got everything set up in the basement and attempted my first marble in March 2003. What a disaster! Nothing worked. Only two gobs survived and they look like dirt clods. One gob exploded during a test and the hot shards landed amongst the corrugated boxes under the stairs. I thought I was going to burn the house down. Went back to the patents and did more studying. Got a real torch and a real kiln (around May 2003). Started hand making marbles to get a feel for the glass. Once I got comfortable, I went back to the machine (now in the garage). It wasn't until the end of August 2003 that I made "round" marbles. Demonstrated the machine at Moon Marble in October 2003. Went to Hannibal for the December show to meet up with Chris Robinson. Brought the machine along. Went to John Hamon-Miller's shop to see Chris' machine. Chris and I shared a table next to Les Jones on Saturday. This was the first time I met Les and he let me handle some of his expensive guineas. We talked briefly about marbles, but he kept his distance. I got a sense he was trying to figure me out. No harm. Marble Crazy 2004 came in the Spring and I took some of my marbles to the Holiday Inn. Went to Les' room and showed him my shoe box. He looked them over and dismissed them. We got to talking and he asked to see my box again. This time he dug through and pulled out a handful. Sold them for 50-cents apiece. Probably spent two hours talking with him and Ted Adams. Invited Les and Ted to come see the machine over at Moon Marble. The next day, Saturday, the two showed up. I did a couple demos for them. They both looked at each other with wide eyes. Les asked a few questions about patterns. Went to see Les Saturday night. He dug through my box again and told me that he knew someone that would be interested in these. We talked more about marbles and machines. A couple months later, I went to Amana (2004). This time I had a pistol case with "better" marbles. Left the case with him and went to walk the hallways. As I left, he picked up the phone and told someone to come to his room. When I returned, he had pulled out what he wanted and paid me about $5 apiece. Chris' machine was delivered to me by JHM at Amana 2004. Mark Mathews and Geoffrey Beetem came and saw both machines in the back of my minivan. Took Chris' machine back home to cleanup, document and rebuild. Sold sample marbles to MarbleAlan in July 2004. Marble Crazy 2005 was the first time the general public saw Chris' rebuilt machine. He did some demonstrations at the Moon. Met Hansel there for the first time. Sorry for such a long story. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

Mon, You have a ton of questions! LOL! Simple answers are very dangerous. There is a very intelligent guy I know that uses the term "thoughtful speculation." Thoughtful speculation can be used to support or dismiss whether these marbles are real or fake. I have lots of thoughts on both sides of the fence. In the court of law, you wouldn't want me as a witness for the plaintiff or the defendant. Here is what I know as fact: 1) The laws of physics haven't changed for the last 100 years. Marble King or Jabo have to work with the universe today just like MFC and CA did years ago. Therefore, what was done then, can be done now. Now, to your questions... "...would you agree that they are very close in design?" Some do and some don't. Some have looked and declared the lack of a side "s" is a giveaway. Some have looked and said they can see fine bubbles from torch-working. Some have said the lack of fine-lines and detail are marks of a contemporary. Some have said the colors are all wrong. Some have said, "Oh, crap!!!" Some have said, "You need to sign those!" "What did Alan have to say after receiving them?" I didn't know Alan, but only talked with him twice. He had a ton of questions (like you). Alan didn't reveal to me his opinion or in-depth thoughts on CA Exotics. He did suggest that I stay with modern glass and use aventurine. "...you believe these Exotics are hand gathered...right?" I think that Guineas were hand-gathered (not cane construction). I think some of the early CA marbles were hand-gathered. Manual manipulation of the glass comes first, then followed by automation. It would be easy to conclude through thoughtful speculation that early striped transparent and opaque marbles were hand-gathered. "How much of the design is contributed to the gatherer, glass, shear and rollers? Would you John be willing to give each a percentage seeing you have lots of knowledge in coming very close?" Don't know how to answer this using numbers, but I'll give it a try. Crazy color combinations (gatherer): 45.0% Crazy swirl patterns (gatherer): 45.0% Cut Lines (machine): 9.9% Rollers (machine): 0.1% Forgive me if I leave off here for comments. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

This is just not true.....just before he became ill and I mean just before, he sold all but one of mine over a 4 week period. Another collector and mine were mixed over that period and the last of these he sold. I talked with him many times and he had none and still had his doubts about them. Yes, he had many at first but the shamrock marbles threw him for a big loop! I swore to myself that I was not going to get involved in the validity of these again (I was the one who asked MC Marbles to remove my pic he posted).....and I truly don't know either way. But Craig, why won't you talk about this here? I'm sure most every member here would like to be informed. Can you at least explain the finder's accounts that you validated? thank you in advance! For the record: Here are a group of early marbles that I sold to MarbleAlan back in July 2004. Alan wanted them to study the construction features. Wonder what happened to them after his passing. Wish I had some of these early types. Sincerely, John McCormick "Shamrock Marbles"

I went! Bruce and Linda did another great job at Moon Marble. Twelfth year demonstrating the marble machine(s). Scott and Charles provided a wonderful show at the Holiday Inn. Full tables with lots of activity. Met many new faces and many marble veterans for the first time. Wonderful people they all are. Looking forward to next year. Sincerely, John McCormick "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"