Steph Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 LOL. Good one. Here's my (possibly) single seam cat eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIRE81 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Looks like a Single Seam Cheerio to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marboman Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Here is an early marble drawing taken from a cave wall located behind my house. "I draw marbles..." ROFLMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Possibly one diaper fold here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m!b$ Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Did I hear someone say that machine-made marbles have pontils?!? And diaper folds...I thought that was something that was primarily a CAC trait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psia-antique Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Steve,very early on,the principals of this post more or less defined diaperfold to be a marble with one seam CAC and that has been the subject.Wheter or not our subject fits your definition is not the subject.You have tried to hijack this thread and are trying again.Get with the program,single seam CAC call them what you like.Single seam CAC or diaperfold.I am side stepping this argument in favor of more marble fun.bo The definition you used is from 1998 by S.Block. The definition I used is the newer one by B. Block in 1993. Time and increased knowledge will not stand still for you just because you want it that way. I apologize that you think I am trying to hijack the thread. I was not and am not. I was just trying to help you avoid bibliographic echo. I feel badly for you and your friends who are afraid of defintions from the books. Maybe you write a treatise with all the proper definitions we should use. When you do, and set a standard of excellence,I will be the first to congratulate you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bermar Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Hey Steve, 1993 could not be "newer" than 1998. Typo? I don't have the books, so I can't check the dates. Help me know where to look so I will know what to call my "diaperfolds". Burt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akro gatherer Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 hmmmm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoop Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I sent a PM to Steve and I think, right about now, is a good time to go public with it... The basic concept was... Collectors were better able to communicate BEFORE books were published to help us.... I'm "Old School"..... Ok, we know that.... I'm going to say, right upfront.... There is no contempt intended here. There is no hidden meaning. The is no "favoritism" being expressed. There is simply the observations of a person who started out to learn... 'Learned a LOT when there were NO books or internet.... NEVER had a problem communicating with another collector, through mail or in person I've seen a LOT of changes in..... 43? years of collecting... Probably the biggest change is... I've gone from a 20-something kid that felt like and looked like an expert on TV, to a 55 year old who is afraid to open their mouth for fear every time I do there is an "Expert" waiting to shove their foot in it... These "experts" are out to correct us all in our terminology... Get it all in print, so that EVERYONE will be on the same page!!! The definition you used is from 1998 by S.Block. The definition I used is the newer one by B. Block in 1993. Now...... wait a minute... What page was that??? WHEN was that??? Oh Crap.... Now, even my concept of TIME is wrong.... I can't deal with it.................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marboman Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Looks like a diaperfold to me Sue wrote "These "experts" are out to correct us all in our terminology... Get it all in print, so that EVERYONE will be on the same page!!!" Sue I think it's about more than definitions,it's about $$$$$$$$$ got any? They want it! bo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoop Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Ya know Bo... You may be right... But, I'm not concerned about that. If it could be done in such a way as to REALLY work for everyone... I'd pay up. I have a stack of books I've paid for. The only thing that really seemed to pull everyone together for a fairly long time... Was Marblealan's FREE ID page... The sad thing was, it was a tremendous amount of work for one person and I'm SURE he took a lot of flack for conflicted ID's... Lately, I've seen Alan list marbles as something that I KNOW they are not. Going back to the Tri-Stage Swirls..... The original description was loosely defined. But, ABSOLUTELY understood by all (They weren't even called "Tri-Stage"... There was no absolute name. Yet, everyone knew what we were talking about, when we talked about them...) Then, a book gives a description... The description includes marbles that physically meet the description... Yet, are NOT what experienced collectors see as fitting the category... These marbles pull in a LOT of money!!! Well...... If they meet the proper criteria... If they simply MATCH the description, yet DON'T meet the criteria, they are relatively common!!! The thing is.... If someone consigns to Alan, where does he stand?? The BOOK calls it a Tri-Stage. But, HE knows it isn't what was intended to BE a Tri-stage.... Here's an example of a marble, listed by a very good seller, who is apparently in the same position... I hate to pin point anyone, because I understand their need to use the term... It would be slightling a consignor not to... BUT, if I don't use an example, my rant is pointless... So, with ALL apologies and a statement that I'm watching this marble, because it IS a WONDERFUL marble and no one should ridicule the seller... Here goes... NOT a Tri-stage Swirl... This marble (barely) meets the "Book" description ID of a Tri-Stage swirl... HOWEVER, it has absolutely NO resemblance to what experienced collectors of "Tri-Stage" swirls collect. This is not confusing to the "Newbie?" Well... Let me tell ya... I bet the guy who first listed this in a book made a little cash on the slip.... But now, honest sellers are conflicted over a correct definition... To appropriately represent their consignors, they are abliged to follow the "Book." However... To the newbie, who hears that "Tri-Stage" marbles are rare, pricey and a "Great addition to any collection!!" This is NOT the marble they are looking for. (Even though, it is beautiful, hard to find colors and a FABULOUS addition to any collection) If I thought, for ONE SECOND, that an ID website could be built, maintained and corrected, use an "open end" for desputable ID's (Here's what some think, Here's what other's think, you decide what YOU think.....) Available for a contribution, or free.... Without some fool raising a stink over every SINGLE detail.... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................ Here are 3 "True" Tri-Stage Swirls.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steph Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Thanks Sue. Interesting post. Suhweet mibs. I just love (NOT!) how modern collectors' definitions sometimes contradict manufacturers' own names. That's a hoot. I know that Joe Street was pretty careful when he listed names for the marbles at his site, Joemarbles.com. Careful in at least this sense: he tried to get currently used names, and he sometimes omitted names he thought might cause issues. On some of his marbles he has more than one name, some of which might be conflicting, because different groups seem to have different naming traditions. But mostly he's open to suggestions for changes, because he knows there will be places people think need changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoop Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Maybe we have a winner!!!! I'll check it out!! Rather than eliminate names due to conflict, I think it may be wiser to explain the conflict. Hey... We're hyjacking again... Should we fix it?? Let me know.... Split this thread?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marboman Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Not until I've said what I've been waiting to say from the beginning of this thread.Diaperfold got me looking at all of the CAC marbles that I have,looking hard.Then two days later I found myself looking at Exotics.I was able to return a second time and examine them again.There are some big differences between my CAC and the exotics,contruction.They were beautiful,but the colors are off.They seemed too pretty to be that old.I have looked at alot of marbles. Now I will build a scenario,hypothetical.Let's say you and I have some very good fake marbles and some jabo's, Lots!!! of common stuff,damaged stuff,polished or worse vintage marbles.Then we could leave the good stuff at home and sell the other stuff,that's what we are offering.Over time we discribe and put pictures of fake marbles in books and wala,now there is an unending supply of product and I still got the good stuff at home.We will redefine in 10-20 years.What is the definition of that? bo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoop Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 A third thread??? Snicker!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marboman Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Not a diaperfold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Diaper folds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m!b$ Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Fake CACs, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marboman Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Look like exotics to me.They are beautiful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoop Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Cool ice picture!!! Was that recent?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Fake CACs, IMO. You dont have a clue, imho. Whats ice have to do with diaper folds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m!b$ Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 The ice is from December 2007. Beautiful, but it did alot of damage and some of the stuff shown in the picture no longer exists because of it. I have no clue, SP. Why are you, a marble-maker, asking about diaper folds? You ought to know all that stuff. CHILL!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 If the "glob" is in it's tire/doughnut/cheerio form before it hits the rollers. It'll look like it only has one seam. If the the "glob" is still in the rolled out coiled form when it hits the rollers(like Scott Meyer's) you're going to end up with a single stream Swirl that only shows one shear mark. Both ends of that "stream/drip" glob never have a chance to meet. FWIW This is how I assumed the single seam was produced --- and I don't think I've ever seen the term "diaper fold" applied to anything but single-seam CACs resembling the drawing that steph posted. Is "diaper fold" a useful term to anyone, anyway? If not, maybe it should be allowed to die a natural death . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 If they simply MATCH the description, yet DON'T meet the criteria, they are relatively common!!! NOT a Tri-stage Swirl... This marble (barely) meets the "Book" description ID of a Tri-Stage swirl... HOWEVER, it has absolutely NO resemblance to what experienced collectors of "Tri-Stage" swirls collect. I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make between matching the description and meeting the criteria . . . they sound like the same thing to me. BUT at last I agree with you, Sue! That's a gorgeous marble, and I would NEVER have called it a tri-stage one either . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mswitzer3 Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 The ice is from December 2007. Beautiful, but it did alot of damage and some of the stuff shown in the picture no longer exists because of it. I have no clue, SP. Why are you, a marble-maker, asking about diaper folds? You ought to know all that stuff. CHILL!! I wanna see the diaper folds that "the connection" have in their collection! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now