lstmmrbls

Some of the oldest swirls have the smallest streams (Think Flames). And some of the smallest streams I have seen are found in the veilglas (SP) marbles

In looking at my slags I find many that appear to be machine made and have no seams. But the glass is obviously different than the swirls I own? If I get a group of marbles it is usually fairly easy to pick out the slags with out looking close enough to even bother looking for patterns?

I usually call them seams. And I don't think swirls have cut lines, shear marks or seams. The stream is so liquid and small on a swirl there really is no cut line shear mark or seam to be found IMO. The end of the stream is some times not buried in the marble but thats all it is. The end of the stream. No shear mark is found. Many machines had actual scissor like shears, many had the blade like V shaped and many had the sliding block shear shown above, similar to the set ups at Jabo and others.

Dave has managed to produce similar patterns with his machinery. Maybe you can get him to tell you how its done. Probably nothing too difficult as the pattern appears on some of almost all makers. Tons of them happened to early Jabos. I do not believe Peltier did this on purpose.

NLRs were produced from multiple nozzles and seperate color tanks, Completely different set up.

I have not noticed a shear mark on any CACs swirls or Alley swirls that I have, You can sometimes find the end of the stream and often on CACs it will be folded back upon its self , I see that on some Champions but not Alley agates, I do see a folding that is some what similar but CACs seem to flame completely around the marble and many Alley flames will have folding on one side, I think Alley consistantly used a thinner stream than CAC which results in different busy patterns than found on CACs, I have never seen either shear so I do not know if they were of the same type. Here is a classic CAC "tongue"

Some statements in that patent definitely make me believe it was for the feathered slags Among the objects of the invention is to provide a novel method of and novel means for producing variegated or striated vitreous objects, such as glass marbles with included striae, with the striae or streaks or the like distinctly appearing in the mass or body of the object and thoroughly well distributed therein ally, or both, and to cause a piling of the vibrated or wavered stream so that the clear or transparent component of the mass may cohesively pile or weld together or unite, and hold the stria I in a more or less tortuous, intermixed or interlaced form or condition, which might be expressed as being held in suspension in the clear mass

And I still think that patent was for the feathered effect Among the objects of the invention is to provide a novel method of and novel means for producing variegated or striated vitreous objects, such as glass marbles with included striae, with the striae or streaks or the like distinctly appearing in the mass or body of the object and thoroughly well distributed therein I also noted he talks about a stream 8 inches long being best, was this so the stream piled up circularly making the striations the run through another orifice before being sheared for a marble. He talks about a lot of manipulation to the glass?

With Sellers bright mind I doubt this was an accidental non-physical happening. I also believe that many (if not most) of the processes used at many of the marble making factories were never patented. That may be the case with this process. It is found to a lesser degree on the base glass of the Realers and a few others. I wonder if it was a mixing method that created a desired effect. I also know for a fact that the machinery being used for the production of many(if not most) items is often very different in actual use than what the drawings of a patent may show. Many folks have and still do think patents are not always necessary or in the best interest so production proceeds with the hope the equipment stay a secret as long as possible. CAC may be a great example of a company using unpatented machinery and processes. I believe a lot of equipment used at Peltier Glass probably had no patents associated with it. I also really haven't seen too many Pelts I would really call swirls (piled up etc like that patent shows, If that part of the patent was even ever used)

Up and out early this morning

Working now, Likey

they will not open for me either.

These pics clearly show we have a case of several furnaces and I believe just a ceramic rod that extends out of the crucibles in one furnace holding the glass to be "injected" to the mechical parts outside, The base glass(Clear) is in one furnace and the other colors are in the injector receptacles that sit in another furnace. The very last pic shows several streams from seperate furnaces thought to deal with the Corkscrews.

Its that time again. I hope you all have a wonderful day and stay safe over the Holiday.

One must also remember that many of the patents were never used. And also, what did end up actually being used quite often barely resembled what the patents actually show.

Scale appears to be not in any way accurate. . Are there 2 furnaces and this is the area of the gob feed system were the 2 streams of glass come together at the shear.Hoe did the glass get to these 2 areas???? Or is all that apparatus inside a single furnace(looks possible)(complicated crucible system a tiny bit similar to the Jabo type crucible set up) I would think at that time any of the materials touching glass or in the furnace would need to be some type of ceramic. There are patent pictures of multiple tanks with Akro cork set ups.

I agree Jabo and have several similar

There was a long row of machines at MFC with a gatherer on one side and a shearer on the other< I believe pots of glass were brought to each team. Machine mades were gob fed and probably a single stream. Ann do you have a copy of the patent that you are sure was used for the feathered machine made slags.(and I do believe all the true feathered typed are machine made(gob fed) I only saved the NLR patent pics? Found the patent Ann may be refering to and it sure does look and sound like it may have been associated with the feathered slags. https://www.google.com/patents/US1927650?dq=Sellers+Peltier&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ggJ6VNbKFdOwogTWooLgCA&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ

They are definitely done with a type of injection probably very nearly the same as Sparklers,( At least the so called Tigereye types)

I am willing to bet there were many methods used that were not patented. Somewhere I have pics of injection type feeders but I believe they may be on the old computer. Off on the hunt.

I always wondered why I was called a ragamuffin . Now I know!!

Looks More Alley to me.

It wouldn't be a pot, The question would be whether different glass streams from separate furnaces met before the neat feathered effect was produced.

none IMO it is really glass quality that seems to make a difference. It is possible many slags had the 2 colors of glass combined in a pot not the furnace? I believe this was definitely the case with some of the hand gathered types. Especially the early types made at Leightons factories. I think the glass was layered in ways to make special effects like the horizontals.