Please Post Examples Of Cac Exotics

[Shamrock Marbles]

The Secret Marble Machine?

One premise in this whole deal is that there was some lone wolf with a secret marble machine in his basement or garage.

True, I have run my machine in my basement and garage, but it has been many other places, too.

For the record, I know of at least six machines that where built by their owners.

I have two (#1 & #2) and we know of Chris Robinson's (#3).

Remember the three-wheel marble former that showed up on Ebay the last few years? (#4)

There is a machine in the southern hemi-sphere. (#5)

And another on the West Coast of the U.S. of A. (#6)

(The above are not in chronological order.)

But that doesn't mean anything.

You only need four things to create a machine-made marble.

1) Source of heat.

2) Glass.

3) Marble machine.

4) Glass Worker/Artist.

I want you to think about what happens at a marble factory late at night.

Management has gone home and there are no cameras.

People involved in private runs know some of what I talk about.

1) Source of heat. Furnace.

2) Glass. Vintage cullet or marble halves/bits.

3) Marble machine. Enough said.

4) Glass Worker/Artist. An employee scraping by day-to-day with an imagination and a need for money.

It was fun to watch peoples faces when they demonstrated the Jabo/Vitro marble machine at Wheaton.

I could freely observe as a third party.

If there was only one thing that I hoped people would take away from this, it was:

"It doesn't take much to make a marble if you have the ingredients."

Oh yes, those Wheaton marbles where terribly misshaped with horrendous orange-peel surfaces.

What's Galen looking for?

"I did say that their surface under a 40x illuminated microscope has the identical manufacturing patterns and surface markings as vintage CAC slags etc. So if they are new they were made on CAC equipment with CAC glass in the exact same way as all the other CAC Striped opaques transparents etc that everyone excepts as vintage." - Galen, 3/23/15.

So, I am going to speculate that Galen is inspecting the surface of the marble.

Hand-made marbles rounded with a graphite or cherry wood molds have a certain surface texture.

Machine rounded marbles have a completely different surface signature.

Since my machine is "new", the surface is different than one that has been "used".

I would speculate my marbles are smoother, but vintage CA marbles have a slight "orange-peel" to them.

What is Orange-Peel?

When a marble machine is new, the forming surface is pristine.

Too pristine is a problem.

It is too "slick" and will not "grab" the glass and turn it.

Once the forming surface wears in, it develops a groove.

You can see this on a machine after it has run for some time.

It is like looking at a newly oiled bowling alley with a bowl rolled down it.

Or seeing the tracks of a motorcycle ahead of you on a rainy road.

Over time, when machines are idled or moved out to run a different size, the metal surface of the rollers oxidize (rust).

The rust causes pitting.

The more rust the more severe the pitting.

So, technically, each forming machine would have an orange-peel profile (like a finger print).

I guess when you hear someone state that they can trace a marble back to the original equipment. They are GOOD.

The questions I have:

1) Do all CA marbles have the same profile?

2) Wouldn't earlier marbles such as slags have a smoother surface than say swirls that came later?

3) Do the Exotics exhibit surface profiles closer to the beginning or end of production?

4) Do all Exotics have the same identical surface texture?

Sincerely,

John McCormick

"Shamrock Marbles"

[mibstified]

A late night hypothetical could also be applicable to CAC factory workers facing an inevitable plant closing. Got all this Cambridge off spec product and cullet lying around. No more production runs needed because distributer contracts have already or soon will be expiring and won’t be renewed. Boys, let’s have some fun making marbles out of all this leftover glass…….what the heck.

[mon]

A late night hypothetical could also be applicable to CAC factory workers facing an inevitable plant closing. Got all this Cambridge off spec product and cullet lying around. No more production runs needed because distributer contracts have already or soon will be expiring and won’t be renewed. Boys, let’s have some fun making marbles out of all this leftover glass…….what the heck.

And now that we are done,

lets put them in a box and bury them!

let one of us take them home and never remove them!

lets split them up and have them surface at one time!

let all get our pay checks for eating up overhead with nothing to show for our work!

remind me to lock the doors!

Added.....much easier to ask galen and craig to tell us how they were discovered!

[mibstified]

Well, I have no first, second or third hand information to support or dispute how these marbles came to market or the circumstances leading up to and after the CAC plant closure. Hypothetically, I would think marbles this beautiful would have been taken home by the workers, like as a keepsake or remembrance of a place that had become an integral part of their lives, maybe even a place that defined who they were within their community. And hypothetically, if there came a point when access to the plant was abruptly denied, maybe due to bankruptcy proceedings or whatever, I can see how there may have been a lot of marbles left at the site, probably for years. If there really were marbles uncovered by a work crew however long ago the story goes, who would know the circumstances as how they got there. Would I like to know all the answers to all the questions that surround these mibs?....absolutely! But based on all the information that has been kicked around (and around) for 10 plus years regarding my exposure to it, I choose to collect them and enjoy them. To each his own, right?..........

[Shamrock Marbles]

A late night hypothetical could also be applicable to CAC factory workers facing an inevitable plant closing. Got all this Cambridge off spec product and cullet lying around. No more production runs needed because distributer contracts have already or soon will be expiring and won’t be renewed. Boys, let’s have some fun making marbles out of all this leftover glass…….what the heck.

One of the question posed to me was:

"Why would they make only a few of these marbles?"

Get Hellmers' book.

Look at all the different formulas.

The differences in color formulas require different amounts of ingredients.

These differences can alter the coefficient of expansion (COE) for the glass.

If the COE differences between two glasses is high enough, you will get failures (fractures and split marbles).

Formulae can be altered to fit glasses.

When it comes time to do a marble run with two different glasses, do you just hope and pray that the two glasses are compatible?

Do you just run 100 or 1000 pounds of glass with your fingers crossed?

If I were running an operation, I would want to test glass compatibility.

I have speculated that some of these marbles where compatibility tests.

No need to produce many, just enough to get a sample.

Keep these samples in a box in the lab for future reference.

During two conversations, I tried to describe how modern torch workers check for COE compatibility.

It was the stringer method.

Watch this video:

Somehow, this was translated into pulling a cane for testing.

I guess you could call a stringer a micro-cane.

So, imagine "fitting" two glasses, then now try "fitting" four or five colors together.

Companies like Fenton that made single color pressed articles didn't have to worry about fit.

The same color could vary from batch to batch without consequences.

Look at the Gabbert Cullet website.

Notice the varying COE?

http://www.gabbertcullet.com/list.html

Mixing and matching these can have disastrous results.

Funny thing about marbles, is that their spherical shape allows for some incompatibility.

They may not break at first, but will fail later.

Usually an internal bubble is the start of the failure propagation.

Food for thought.

Sincerely,

John McCormick

"Shamrock Marbles"

[mibstified]

Hello John. I understand that combining glasses with differing COEs will cause tremendous internal stresses, leading to fractures if not complete destruction (marble halves) as the marble cooled. So anyone making those mibs would have to have good glass chemistry knowledge and/or prior experience in working with the individual glass components so the effects of combining them in a formulation would be predictable.

Bill

[Shamrock Marbles]

Hello John. I understand that combining glasses with differing COEs will cause tremendous internal stresses, leading to fractures if not complete destruction (marble halves) as the marble cooled. So anyone making those mibs would have to have good glass chemistry knowledge and/or prior experience in working with the individual glass components so the effects of combining them in a formulation would be predictable.

Bill

Bill,

Anyone who works with glass, COE is one of the first things you learn after "don't touch that, it's hot."

You don't need to know the "how", but the "why".

Chemists such as Fiedler and Hellmers know the "how".

The guys on the floor understand the "why".

You would suspect that after all these years people making marbles understand this basic.

However, if you watch what is thrown into a furnace during a marble run, one wonders why there aren't more failures.

The answer is fundamentally the shape of the end product.

A marble has the same distance from the center to the edge.

If the same COE (or close) are used and they are properly annealed, there should be no problems.

However, if widely varying COE glasses are used, then no matter how much annealing is done, there will be internal stress imbalances.

If an air bubble or debris is included in the matrix, this will disrupt the balance of forces.

If you look at a number of halves, you will probably see an inclusion or air bubble from which the fracture propagated.

If you make a multi-colored wine glass, the cross-section of the foot, stem and bowl vary significantly.

Because of the different thicknesses, any COE delta would probably result in an immediate failure.

Marbles are more forgiving.

So, if your question is to whether high-level intellectual analysis was done in making marbles, then my answer is probably not.

"Lets see what these three colors will do." is probably more like it.

Mix, knead, fold, heat and cut. Next!

A nice read about glass:

http://museumofglass.org/document.doc?id=13

Another nice read (see how quickly COE is brought up?):

http://mickelsenstudios.com/articles/SOFTTCH1.HTM

Sincerely,

John McCormick

"Shamrock Marbles"

[lstmmrbls]

I have stated this many times before but will do it again. On the surface of many CAC marbles is a pattern that looks like many small flat scuffed areas. Not sure what caused them?? Maybe the way they bounced down the rollers?? Also there is a definite construction design, the "S" being part of it. These are two of the things I find in almost all the ones I believe are CAC. And I have not seen an any other types show these same traits except minimally and in forms that can be separated from the CACs IMO. Thats it from me, please no more, I am really burnt out on the discussions and just want to enjoy them as beautiful marbles I believe are CAC. I really don't care if anyone wants to think they are modern..

[Shamrock Marbles]

I have stated this many times before but will do it again. On the surface of many CAC marbles is a pattern that looks like many small flat scuffed areas. Not sure what caused them?? Maybe the way they bounced down the rollers?? Also there is a definite construction design, the "S" being part of it. These are two of the things I find in almost all the ones I believe are CAC. And I have not seen an any other types show these same traits except minimally and in forms that can be separated from the CACs IMO. Thats it from me, please no more, I am really burnt out on the discussions and just want to enjoy them as beautiful marbles I believe are CAC. I really don't care if anyone wants to think they are modern..

Galen,

Thanks for the reply.

I must admit that I don't recall the "many small flat scuffed areas" as an identifying feature.

Then again, I must admit that I haven't read all of your 5,534 posts on this board.

Puzzling. I must do homework.

Second, the "S" trait is only found on dual cut-line marbles. True?

I always thought the "S" was the pattern in the glass that started on the bottom side of a cut-line, then twisted up through the equator to finally terminate on the top side of the second cut-line.

This trait is usually on one side of the other, but not the other.

So, marbles with only one cut-line will not have the "S". True?

With this feature missing on a single cut-line marble, one has to rely on other factors. True?

Thanks for hanging with us all.

Sincerely,

John McCormick

"Shamrock Marbles"

[lstmmrbls]

Yes that is the S. I have seen it on other types as well but very minimally in definition. And there usually are 2 seam examples of the single seam types. Find me at a show I love to discuss them in person. Really really no more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MC

[Shamrock Marbles]

Yes that is the S. I have seen it on other types as well but very minimally in definition. And there usually are 2 seam examples of the single seam types. Find me at a show I love to discuss them in person. Really really no more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MC

Galen,

Thanks. It is nice to clarify that we are talking about the same thing.

So, if you have a two cut-line marble with a "S" (along with other identifying traits), then it is a CA.

If you find a single cut-line marble with no "S", but the same coloration to match a previously identified two cut-line CA marble, then the single cut-line is certified CA.

Now, if you find a single cut-line marble with no "S", then you have to place that marble into the "unverified" CA category, until an identically colored two cut-line certified CA is found to match. Correct?

Love to talk with you also.

Have been demonstrating in public here in KC for 12 straight years.

I know you'd enjoy the machine.

You should come to the show.

Southwest airfares are quite economical.

Finally, your photo "Fake-CACs.jpg" has subtext of "MC".

Is that for Mark Capel or Mark Christensen?

I understand if you don't answer.

Sincerely,

John McCormick

"Shamrock Marbles"

[lstmmrbls]

It is a Christensen, Mark, and I would not argue with the last post although at this time I usually can tell fairly quickly whether I think it is a real CAC or not when I have a marble in hand. I have been fooled once by being too quick.

[mon]

C'mon people.....how many more times do you think some will get involved in this topic again? It is huge ..it happened during these boards ..we are setting a standard for things like this to happen again! Maybe the next "cloudy find" will be jamming your collection type. Lets do what's right!

There are some very smart marble makers, glass experts and experienced marble collectors that have been around for a long time trying to sort this out. Please take advantage of this and post your thoughts, feelings and facts as you know them.

Lots of readers....can you post if you believe or not....anything?

Thank you! mon

[mon]

How about this..if you don't want your name tied to a question or comment, pm me and you will remain anonymous and I'll paste it here!

[machinemades]

Mon,

Your frustration is understood. We want a solid outcome and answers by this time after all this talk. It ain't going to be easy. Here is another observation... Cut lines were part of the early marbles because of the limitations of the early machinery. It was not something to be desired to have on the marbles. Christensen would love to produce Guineas with no cut lines. Interesting enough, those cut lines are one of the most important identification tool we use today to distinguish between the old and the new. Shamrock and whoever else added the cut lines to their marbles these days did it either for proof that the early marbles could be reproduced and faked or simply to deceive and make money. John is number one option I believe. However, Shamrock's cut lines are not exactly the same as Christensen's. I will take a close up picture for comparison purposes as soon as I can locate my setup after a big move.

[Shamrock Marbles]

Mon,

Your frustration is understood. We want a solid outcome and answers by this time after all this talk. It ain't going to be easy. Here is another observation... Cut lines were part of the early marbles because of the limitations of the early machinery. It was not something to be desired to have on the marbles. Christensen would love to produce Guineas with no cut lines. Interesting enough, those cut lines are one of the most important identification tool we use today to distinguish between the old and the new. Shamrock and whoever else added the cut lines to their marbles these days did it either for proof that the early marbles could be reproduced and faked or simply to deceive and make money. John is number one option I believe. However, Shamrock's cut lines are not exactly the same as Christensen's. I will take a close up picture for comparison purposes as soon as I can locate my setup after a big move.

Sami,

Thanks for helping add to the body of knowledge.

Looking forward to your photos.

First, I would like to clarify that I did not "add" the cut-line.

The cut-line is an artifact and a witness to severing the gob of glass from the punty.

It is a feature that I must live with.

In fact, whether the glass is severed from a punty or from a continuous stream of glass, early and modern equipment still create a shear mark.

The shuttle shearing device on modern equipment can hide the shear by rolling it amongst the swirl.

You'll find Jabos, Sammy's and DAS marbles with shear marks.

Easily found to this day on modern Marble Kings.

True, I have overheated a gob and had it drip/drop off the punty before I could cut it (zero shear mark).

When this occurred, it was so liquid that it fell through the rollers onto the table.

They be came blobs or "gems".

Other times, there was a short tail that was pressed into the marble or a long tail that wrapped around the marble.

In either case, the fine cross-section of the tail cooled so quickly and chilled that the remaining heat in the gob could not remelt the tail and smoothly incorporate it into the body.

We've all seen these marbles with "drizzles".

It was these "defective" marbles that I mainly placed in my 50-cent box (later raised to $1).

Funny, but collectors loved these and they were always the first to go.

At one show, my wife sat next to a well known and highly respected glass artist.

(I do respect him. His talent and vision are second to none.)

He scoffed at the dollar scrap box.

By the end of the show, he was amazed by the wad of Washingtons my wife accumulated.

So, back to the idea of letting the gob drip/drop off (let us call this the "gravity" sever).

This is doable, but the results are very inconsistent.

Some patents reference letting gathers or gobs drip, but they end up referencing using a form of shears for consistent results.

---

Second, I have made marbles with two shear marks.

When demonstrating, people have asked, "Why do some CA marbles have one and others have two shear marks?"

I predominately make single gather marbles, so those marbles exhibit only one shear mark.

We all work from a paradigm, and glassworkers have formed some pretty rigid paradigms (so have collectors).

Considering their backgrounds, most glassworkers have suggested to make a cane and cut off each marble.

Understood. The Germans did it this way. Contemporary marble makers using a furnace do it this way.

Why not?

I've made mini-canes (a mass that could make 2 to 3 marbles).

The first marble has one cut line, and the following have two cut lines.

The problem with this is that the glass cools so fast that I can really only cut one gob off before the remaining mass cools too much and I can't cut it..

I have to take the mini-cane back to the heat source.

Cold glass takes a long time to reheat.

Not the most time efficient or cost effective way to compete in an automated world.

Another problem with the reheat method, is that the cut line opens back up after heating.

What?

When the glass is sheared, the blade takes the outer surface of the glass and stretches it (tension) and the inner glass is pushed in (compression).

When reheated, the glass relaxes.

The surface recedes back like an eyelid opening, while the inside glass blooms out.

But wait! I've seen guineas and German circus marbles with ends like this.

Yes you have.

Hold on! You're contradicting yourself. Now you're saying that guineas were cane cut.

No, what I am saying is that the once cut end of that marble was reheated.

Please don't confuse marbles with thin gaps with those that have large gaps.

The thin gap is the result of enough thermal energy to allow the glass to slightly relax before setting.

---

What about cutting more than one marble from a gather?

Tried this with mixed results, but better than the cane method.

The mixed results have to do with the size of each marble.

They tend to vary in finished size.

One thing you can do is line up the striations at the cut line from one marble to the next.

The other problem is that I have only one groove to drop into.

Much easier to do if you have an auger style machine at your disposal.

Cut one, drop, auger index, cut two, drop, etc.

Again, the number of cuts is a problem, since glass cools exponentially.

Reheating the remnant glass on the punty and scraping/pushing it to the end will allow you to make another same colored marble.

----

Finally, I want to point out Howard Jenkin's patent 1,596,879.

This invention incorporates a shearing device unlike his previous patent.

This device sits atop the machine and has two counter rotating arms with blades on the ends.

(I call this the "helicopter" shear.)

Above this shear is an arm with a "target" ring for the gatherer to deliver his gob.

The helicopter shear makes two revolutions per forming roller set.

Now use your imagination, but don't think too hard...

The gathering boy has a gob at the end of his punty.

He positions the punty end over the delivery ring and lowers the rod.

The hot gather starts to drop and the helicopter shear "nips" the leading edge of the gob.

The gob drops further and the helicopter shear severs the gob from the body of glass/punty on the next pass.

Down it drops into the marble machine to be formed.

One gather -- two shear marks.

The "first" shear mark is smooth, because there was enough heat at the time of cut to allow it to blend in.

The "second" shear mark is more pronounced (visually and with fingernail), because time had elapsed and the surface cooled.

---

I've done this quick double cut test to see what the leading and trailing cuts and patterns look like on a marble.

These early "tests" can be found in Alan's samples.

And yes, some did exhibit the "S" on one side.

Look at the marble in the bottom right corner.

Food for thought.

Sincerely,

John McCormick

"Shamrock Marbles"

[ann]

I really don't how much access Christensen Agate had to the Cambridge transparent colors introduced in 1931. These were new to Cambridge and i am sure by then the marbles were not selling and production was coming to a halt. You don't see Carmen, Amethyst, or Heatherbloom in their marbles. So I don't think the green and blue that you do see was either Royal Blue or Forest Green. I think they made their own dark cobalt blue and green. They were also making electric colors which i think is the height of their contribution to the marble world. These include electric colored slags and the opaque electric orange, yellow, and green used on striped opaques and striped transparents. Also one has to prize their peach slag which was made with Peach

Blo and white opaque glass. The glass chemist, Fiedler, must have known the glass chemistry used in Czech glass

FYI, in 1930 Henry Hellmers (previously at Akro Agate) became the glass chemist at Cambridge Glass, and between then and 1932, when Akro persuaded him to come back, he introduced Carmen (a selenium red), Crown Tuscan, and other colors -- in addition to making some of their others heat-resistant for use in making dinnerware . . .

[ann]

And everyone, please keep going. This is the most informative thread on this topic I've ever seen. And even though nothing may eventually be resolved, the knowledge and observations being shared benefits everyone -- even those that have already made up their minds.

So, as you were saying . . . (and how lucky are we to have some of these posters on here!)

[mon]

Without knowing much...John, you have clarified and trashed many thought or opinions I had on hand gather vs machine made marbles. You are gifted in your way of explaining that I believe most can see. The relaxing of a sheared end for example, It seems so simple or logical now but never gave it much thought before.

So now comes two question.....This is going to sound really stupid ....How much influence would you give just a cut mark/seam in Iding a marble to a maker?

The "H" seam as it's been called on NLR....can you explain your thought on how this occurs? Off topic but we are here.....

[ann]

I'd like to add my stupid question, too -- (#3):

Re cut mark / seam influence (Mon's #1): I'm thinking of the mental comparisons I make when comparing CAC slags and German striped transparents . . . the CAC cut marks usually more "closed" than on the Germans. Or so I thought. Valid or not? Or maybe? (I can accept maybe as an answer).

[Shamrock Marbles]

Without knowing much...John, you have clarified and trashed many thought or opinions I had on hand gather vs machine made marbles. You are gifted in your way of explaining that I believe most can see. The relaxing of a sheared end for example, It seems so simple or logical now but never gave it much thought before.

So now comes two question.....This is going to sound really stupid ....How much influence would you give just a cut mark/seam in Iding a marble to a maker?

The "H" seam as it's been called on NLR....can you explain your thought on how this occurs? Off topic but we are here.....

"How much influence would you give just a cut mark/seam in Iding a marble to a maker?"

I think it would be safe to say that a single feature is not enough for complete identification.

Not for me at least.

I don't want to put words in Sami's, Galen's or Craig's mouth, but I think they are trying to look at the marble in whole.

Colors, patterns, surface texture, cut-lines, existing examples, provenance are all part of the big picture.

I guess that is what I'd like to hear from them, as part of educating us all, in what to use for proper identification.

There are bits and pieces, but not a complete compendium on the art and science of identifying CA marbles.

I think there is a healthy fear that if all was really known as to what to look for, then those features would be incorporated in future creations.

Can't argue that perspective.

One Collector Paradigm is that Arnold Fiedler shared none of his secrets and took all his knowledge to the grave.

When he died, so did the ability to create marbles and glass in the style of CA.

Here is my paradigm:

The laws of physics have not changed.

What was done then can be done now.

The only thing that is certain, is uncertainty.

"The "H" seam as it's been called on NLR....can you explain your thought on how this occurs?"

I'm not familiar with the term "H" seam when describing a NLR marble.

Can you elaborate?

Sincerely,

John McCormick

"Shamrock Marbles"

[Shamrock Marbles]

I'd like to add my stupid question, too -- (#3):

Re cut mark / seam influence (Mon's #1): I'm thinking of the mental comparisons I make when comparing CAC slags and German striped transparents . . . the CAC cut marks usually more "closed" than on the Germans. Or so I thought. Valid or not? Or maybe? (I can accept maybe as an answer).

Ann,

Yes, I would agree that CA Slag/SO/ST seams are more closed (if not completely touching), than those of their German counter parts.

Craig has shared some CA halves and you can see the wild color and pattern deep in the core of the marble.

People have back-lit CA Striped Transparents and you can see swirl activity deep in the matrix.

What I'd like to see is a deconstructed German marble.

My hunch is that the colors are more topical to economize on color expense (like Marble Kings).

Sincerely,

John McCormick

"Shamrock Marbles"

[ann]

What I'd like to see is a deconstructed German marble.

My hunch is that the colors are more topical to economize on color expense (like Marble Kings).

Without having any deconstructed Germans in hand, I think I can comfortably agree with your hunch. I've done a lot of staring at both CAC slags (an early machine-made favorite of mine, and the only CACs I thought I might be able to accumulate) and the German machine-made slags (I'm hesitant to use the term striped transparent, having been told one time that that term is reserved for marbles with at least one more striping color added to the white-in-transparent color, and I don't have any of those). But you know the ones I mean.

The white in the CAC slags seems very variable to me, but frequently it's deep in the matrix (also thinking of my pitiful but instructive 6 guinea halves), while in the main the white of the German machine-made slags is surface. Just general observations, but that's what I've noticed.

[ann]

Craig,

I am thinking on your breakdown of CA marble production. First HG, than swirls and last SO/ST. So where does Guineas fit? They have cut lines, so does SO/ST marbles. Then we are assuming the common swirls came before Guineas showed up. Of course we need to insert the flame swirls that are part of swirl period? If Guineas are HG, then ST/SO are also HG since they are similar in construction. I am thinking flames were at the same time period as Guineas and ST/SO and earlier than the common swirls that are produced to make money. Remember we are talking about a very short time period in history.

I don't have any quarrel with thinking they were all made simultaneously, with the hand-gathered ones coming first, of course. The guineas and ST/SOs were beautiful, and undoubtedly caused a flurry in their (regional?) market, enough so that -- for whatever reason -- they didn't entirely stop making them when the flame / swirl machinery got going. At least, I don't think it's out of the question.

And . . . experimenting with glass compatibility (all those colors! since they weren't combined with each other at Cambridge Glass) would also explain a lot, including all those guinea and cobra halves, and others . . .

[Shamrock Marbles]

Without having any deconstructed Germans in hand, I think I can comfortably agree with your hunch. I've done a lot of staring at both CAC slags (an early machine-made favorite of mine, and the only CACs I thought I might be able to accumulate) and the German machine-made slags (I'm hesitant to use the term striped transparent, having been told one time that that term is reserved for marbles with at least one more striping color added to the white-in-transparent color, and I don't have any of those). But you know the ones I mean.

The white in the CAC slags seems very variable to me, but frequently it's deep in the matrix (also thinking of my pitiful but instructive 6 guinea halves), while in the main the white of the German machine-made slags is surface. Just general observations, but that's what I've noticed.

Ahhh, guinea halves!

Ahhh, colors inside!

Ann, I want you to work with me.

Let's throw out the idea of cane constructed guineas (for now).

We'll work with my paradigm that CA Guineas were hand-gathered and machine-rounded.

It is early on in production at CA and all glass in the shop is batch glass made in a pot (not tank).

Okay, could have been batched in a tank, but it was poured into cullet.

Cobalt Blue cullet was remelted in a small monkey pot.

Adjacent or close to the opening of the furnace/monkey pot is a ledge.

You've sprinkled some multi-colored frit on the ledge.

Get a punty rod.

Heat the end of the punty so glass will stick to it.

Once hot, dip the punty into the monkey pot and gather a gob of cobalt blue.

Turn and lift.

Take the molten gob and roll it in the frit.

Bring back to the heat.

Turn the punty so the gob doesn't flow off the end.

Once it is hot enough, remove, get to the marble machine and present to the shears.

Snip.

One marble cut, now only hundreds (if not thousands) of marbles to go for the shift!

Glass workers today would take that punty rod and dump it into a bucket.

Maybe a bucket of water, so the glass will fracture and break off.

Not back then.

You've got production quotas to make and your not going to go back and heat up a new punty.

With the remnant glass on the punty (cobalt and colors), you go back to the monkey pot and dive for another gather.

Roll, heat and snip. NEXT!!

I know. You could have a bank of punty rods setting at a pipe warmer at the ready.

You may start that way, but when your buddy is kicking your a$$ using one rod, it wouldn't be long until you followed suit.

Are you telling me that some of the internal colors in a guinea are from a previous gather? Yes.

Why did they break?

1) Some of the frit colors had a different COE.

Glass workers know that you can put incompatible COE frit on the surface of an object and get away with it (sometimes).

But get it down into the matrix and you could be looking for trouble.

2) The remnant glass from the previous gather was too cool.

The reheating of the over-gather many not have penetrated through the whole mass.

The marble may break soon after forming.

3) Entrapped air bubble.

Easy to trap an air bubble during an over-gather.

This bubble in combination with one of the above would lead to failure.

Ever wonder why you see so many guinea halves?

----

Now look at one of your guinea halves closely.

Look right at the edge.

Notice how the colored frit dips into the base glass.

This is because the base glass was molten (soft) and the frit was colder (hard).

The frit pushes into the surface.

___________ (Surface)

U U U U (Frit)

This makes the periphery of the color blotch very distinct (not fuzzy).

Dudley Giberson describes this in his book, "A Glassblower's Companion."

Hope this make sense.

Sincerely,

John McCormick

"Shamrock Marbles"