Jump to content

New Book


ann

Recommended Posts

I'm sorry to hear that, Galen, but not too surprised. When I tried to research Arnold Fiedler a few years ago, I found very little solid info beyond the little Peltier bits I had.

mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If anyone wants a copy I have one for sale, cheap. Sorry to say I can not recommend anyone buy the pamphlet. Feel free to email me for a complete review.

Thats too bad. I have a couple copies on order myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone wants a copy I have one for sale, cheap. Sorry to say I can not recommend anyone buy the pamphlet. Feel free to email me for a complete review.

Don't sell it cheap Galen. On Amazon used copies are more expensive than new.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1456737023/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&qid=1310160409&sr=8-1&condition=used

Why don't you post a review here? After all, since you made the statement that you cannot recommend anyone buy it, you really should be telling us the basis for your recommendation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

In case anyone isn't up to speed on the timeline controversy, here is an interesting thread:

http://www.landofmarbles.com/phpbb/showthread.php?20233

p.s., the book does say that Fiedler worked at Peltier briefly starting in 1924, so the disagreement appears to be when he left Peltier to go to Christensen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are cancelled paychecks from Peltier to Arnold dated 1927 so there shouldn't be any disagreement. And there is no proof that I know of or even heard of that Arnold ever worked for Cambridge Glass. Lots of assumption and speculation, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I bought a marble collection a month or so ago that had been packed away for 19 years. The collector died in 1992 and his wife packed everything away. There were 3 Exotics in the collection, along with about 50 flames, that had to gave been purchased prior to that date, and most likely in the mid-1980s. If these are modern then someone was making them in the mid 80s when they were selling for a couple of bucks each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found some items in the book which appear erroneous to me. I admire Mr. Lucht's effort and if it opens a dialogue on Arnold Fiedler then that will be great. It has certainly led me to question a lot of what I assumed common knowledge. Makes me wonder how much of what has been written elsewhere about Fiedler is true and it has started me on a quest to find more records about him if at all possible.

An example of something from the new book which I had never heard before and would like to have corroboration for is the claim that Fiedler started the Cambridge Glass Company.

But the more I study the more I realize I don't have backup for a lot of the stories I've heard about Fiedler in any source. Even Baumann's version appears to have at least one error in it. Where did the information come from which we all consider "fact"? Is there documentation, or does everything we believe about Fiedler come from the same pool of anecdotes?

The book has a lot of great pictures and some leads to things I'd like to see more of. And it has sure been fun thinking about Arnold Fiedler so much. I love a good mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Books Movies etc that are sold to the public are open to review(s) Not everyone is going to have a high opinion of everything. If you bought it why not just give your review or opinion and not be so concerned about mine. It is getting a bit old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some stories are more credible than others. Some have more corroboration. People have a natural impulse to evaluate the credibility of the information they are hearing. Where there is secrecy warning flags go up; it's instinctual. People probe more. Now that many have read the book there is less of a feeling of secrecy but there are also more specifics to judge the book on, and it's natural for people to want to give feedback. I have a growing list of questions.

If Fiedler was working at Peltier in 1925 to 1927 as indicated by Peltier records, would he have been at the Christensen company in time to name it? That's one of the things said in the book - that Fiedler named the Christensen Agate Co.

There are other smaller errors. Like Peltier being in Indiana.

It's an interesting book. I'm glad I got it. Even if it is a compilation of stories which some others are familiar with, I wasn't familiar with them. So I'm glad I got it. But that doesn't mean I don't have questions.

I even ordered a copy of Greenberg's guide to marbles so I could read more about the Eagle Sulphides Fiedler was reported to have made. My interest has been seriously piqued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are cancelled paychecks from Peltier to Arnold dated 1927 so there shouldn't be any disagreement . . .

Oh, you know me. Only for 1927? Or are there others? If so when, what years? Are there enough so that you can tell if they are regular (weekly, bi-weekly) paychecks or the occasional "consulting fee"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help thinking that consulting is not new to our time period. He could have worked at one place (Peltier or Christensen) and consulted for the other. He could have continued to receive pay checks for consulting while working for the other. I know people who do this now. I haven't finished the book. I'm reading slowly because my son accuses me of "ripping through books". I don't think we have to dismiss the book because we can't prove it's correct. For the doubters of the veracity of the book, instead of criticizing loudly and telling people not to buy, be proactive. Do some research yourself and prove him wrong or right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, consulting was not new then. Henry Helmers, a glass chemist who worked for a number of companies, consulted with other ones -- including, apparently, Alley Agate and Christensen.

According to the new book on Helmers and his batch book.

Looking forward to answers to the paycheck questions --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The company was incorporated and named on January 29, 1925. This is well before Fiedler's association with it. Fiedler's name never appears in any newspaper articles as well from the inception in Payne till the close of the plant in Cambridge. The common thread to all of the marble companies at this time was the Hartford Empire Co - they held a monopoly on just about every type of glass manufacturing patent - including gob feeders - Jenkins did work for Hartford Empire. I wouldn't doubt it if Peltier also worked with Hartford Empire. Akro Agate surely did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fiedler Is listed in the Peltier payroll records as having an address in Ottawa, three blocks from the factory, from 1925 to 1927. He was the highest paid employee of Peltier during this period, with his pay about 50% more than that of Sellers and the top two executives of the company. His final payroll check from Peltier was canceled in March of 1928, but I believe he worked there only through 1927.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice Mike! That's real info to hang a hat on rather than someone's family story. Stories are just that unfortunately. Can't lie with company records, articles of incorporation, cancelled checks, court documents, etc. It's called hard proof!

Yep. And I'd like to see it.

No offense, Migbar, but with all that type of info (from the infamous safe) being held so secretly for so long, I can't just take it on faith that you (or Galen) are not -- well -- trying to sell me some snake oil.

You can say whatever you like. Show me the documents, and I'll accept what they say gracefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another issue with the timeline in addition to the claim that Fiedler started the Cambridge Glass Company (1901) is the conjecture that in 1903 he was making caster balls there using MFC technology.

Even if he was employed at Cambridge Glass at the time, it seems highly unlikely that they would have been using the brand new MFC technology, which Martin Christensen appears to have first announced to the world in the summer of 1903. Cambridge was a pressed glass company. The items in their 1903 catalog apparently came from their parent company's earlier line, so it seems to me that those were probably bullet mold casters. We know someone made the bullet mold casters. Looks like Cambridge might have been one of the manufacturers.

An article on the history of the Cambridge company (link) supports the idea that they would have been using molds in the early years. So I don't think their furniture casters were likely the instrument of Fiedler's debut into machine made marble making.

Lots of interesting info about glass making in Ohio at the turn of the century, but I question Fiedler being involved with Cambridge that early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...