Which is Your Ball Set of Choice?

Which Ball Set Do You Like Best?


  • Total voters
    177

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
I use the Cyclop set with normal traditional colors. I have a Cyclop TV set (skittles), but I've never bothered to put them on the table.

I use an original Aramith measles ball. I have pretty much most every modern cueball and several not so modern. The measles ball has been my favorite since they came out.

I don't use the Cyclop cueball because under my LED light panel (Brian Butler), that cueball glows. The resin is translucent like the Red Circle, and it's newness makes the glow distracting. Eh, I've got plenty of non-glowing cue balls.

Freddie <~~~ shooting the eye out
 

fastone371

Certifiable
Silver Member
Pretty sure Brunswick Centennials are made by Arimith.....
...stacking the deck?
\

I have a set of Centennials and Aramith Tournaments, both sets are less than 2 years old. I also have a Diamond ball polisher that I use Aramith ball cleaner in. The Centennials get little "dots" on them from contacting each other, this is noticeable after about 10 games with the Centennials. The Aramiths stay cleaner for much longer than the Centennials do for some reason, it seems rather odd especially considering they are both made by Aramith. If anyone knows why this is happening I would be curious to hear. I also have an old set of Centennials from the early 70s from the original purchase of my GCII, they have yellowed pretty bad but I will have to see if these mark up like the newer Centennials. I guess I will have to get a Cyclops set before I get a set of Aramith Super Pros now.
 

Cornerman

Cue Author...Sometimes
Gold Member
Silver Member
it seems rather odd especially considering they are both made by Aramith.

I find it odd anyone thinks they should be the same. Two different companies, one contract manufacturer.

The specifications and tolerances for pool/ billiard balls are "governed" (recommended?) by the BCA and the WPA. Whether a ball company (e.g. Brunswick Corp or Aramith) wants to hold a tighter tolerance, YYYY surface finish, ZZZ% resin contact is entirely up the the (the Brand owner).

If the Brunswick Centennials and Super Aramith Pros are held to the exact same specifications, materials, method, etc., that's wholly happenstance and not the norm in Contract Manufacturing. And I doubt Brunswick just said, "whatever Saluc thinks best" else that'd be a fox/henhouse scenario that cannot happen.

If Brunswick agreed on the same specs that Super Aramith Pros are held to, then there had to be a disclosure and sign off (which certainly could have happened), but the SA specs wouldn't be automatic just because Saluc was making the balls. Saluc makes plenty of phenolic ball sets that aren't to the standards of their SA set.

Freddie <~~~ and here we go
 

asiasdad

Banned
When playing a player of less skill with cyclop balls, tell him you'll give
him the Wazowski:

MIKE-monsters-inc-4207219-500-375.jpg
 

AtLarge

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
I have a set of Centennials and Aramith Tournaments, both sets are less than 2 years old. I also have a Diamond ball polisher that I use Aramith ball cleaner in. The Centennials get little "dots" on them from contacting each other, this is noticeable after about 10 games with the Centennials. The Aramiths stay cleaner for much longer than the Centennials do for some reason, it seems rather odd especially considering they are both made by Aramith. If anyone knows why this is happening I would be curious to hear. I also have an old set of Centennials from the early 70s from the original purchase of my GCII, they have yellowed pretty bad but I will have to see if these mark up like the newer Centennials. I guess I will have to get a Cyclops set before I get a set of Aramith Super Pros now.

As I understand it, Super Aramith PRO balls and Brunswick Centennials are made with the same phenolic resin, which was Saluc's top of the line resin until the Aramith Tournament balls were developed.

The Aramith Tournament balls, the top of the line for over 5 years now, are made with what Saluc calls their Duramith technology and a new resin formulation.

That may well account for the cleaning differences you are seeing between the Centennials and the Tournaments.
 

CoreyClark

Registered
I'll play with any of them, though I don't like the eye on the cyclops cue ball, so I'd swap it out with a measles ball
 

dmgwalsh

Straight Pool Fanatic
Silver Member
I play with Aramith Tournament Balls most of the time. I think they stay clean longer and break up better than the others.

I also have Aramith Super Pro and Brunswick Centennials that I play with once in a while. They are pretty good, too, but maybe not quite as good as the tournament.

I have a ball cleaner and usually make sure they are polished up pretty good.

I hit the Cyclops a few times down at Derby last year and don't really like them.


I play mainly straight pool and good clean balls play better.
 

PeoriaPool

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Aramith makes 4 different quality types of pool ball sets

Aramith's parent company is Saluc and they make all of the ball sets for both Aramith and Brunswick. With that in mind...

- Brunswick only has 1 set of balls... Centennials

- Cyclop makes 2 different colored sets, but they are both the exact same formula.

- Aramith on the other hand makes 4 set of balls (Tournament, Super Pro, Premium and Premier) in that order of quality.

- Aramith also makes 3 other specialty sets (Glow in the Dark, Stone and Camouflage). They also make countless other balls including (Fun, Snooker, Carom, Pyramid and may other ball sets).

http://saluc.com/html/billiard/


My point is that if even with Aramith leading the charge in the poll, there are actually at 'least' 4 different sets of pool ball sets in the discussion everyone seems to keep getting confused. The Aramith Super Pro ball set is identical to the Brunswick Centennial formula both made by Saluc, except a different Font is used on the Brunswick balls. If there was an even comparison between all 3 brands (Aramith, Brunswick and Cyclop), then it would be with the Aramith Super Pros. If you throw the Aramith Tournament w/Duramith technology into the mix, then there really is no comparison whatsoever as they are heads and shoulders above the rest.
 
Last edited:

fastone371

Certifiable
Silver Member
I find it odd anyone thinks they should be the same. Two different companies, one contract manufacturer.

The specifications and tolerances for pool/ billiard balls are "governed" (recommended?) by the BCA and the WPA. Whether a ball company (e.g. Brunswick Corp or Aramith) wants to hold a tighter tolerance, YYYY surface finish, ZZZ% resin contact is entirely up the the (the Brand owner).

If the Brunswick Centennials and Super Aramith Pros are held to the exact same specifications, materials, method, etc., that's wholly happenstance and not the norm in Contract Manufacturing. And I doubt Brunswick just said, "whatever Saluc thinks best" else that'd be a fox/henhouse scenario that cannot happen.

If Brunswick agreed on the same specs that Super Aramith Pros are held to, then there had to be a disclosure and sign off (which certainly could have happened), but the SA specs wouldn't be automatic just because Saluc was making the balls. Saluc makes plenty of phenolic ball sets that aren't to the standards of their SA set.

Freddie <~~~ and here we go

I suppose that is a very valid point. Looking at it from the point of the contractor you would think they would hire someone based on how the product looked/performed/and the durability. The Centennials are supposed to be the same as the Super Aramith Pros, at least according to what everyone says. I do not have access to the proprietary information though so I can not say this as fact, only word of mouth. I do not notice the equivalent Aramith sets that I have played with but do not own marking up like my Centennials do though. Its not that I don't like my Centennials, I like them very much, it just seems odd the way they get contact marks so quickly. I suppose I could try my 40+ year old Centennials and see if they mark up like the new set does.
 

Scaramouche

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In the 1989 Trade Show, Rashig tested better on a spherical micrometer
than any other ball. World legal is no more that five one-thousandths off
round. Raschig was two one-thousandths off round.......
....EXCEPT when a number or stripe was crossed...jumped to four.
....still within legal.

When Saluc bought Super Christalate and combined technologies, years
later, the Arimith STAYED within two one-thousandths even crossing a
stripe or number.

So the numberless 9-ball set was real good, except for the nine.

Don't think I have heard ball manufacturers bragging about superior roundness. :D

Aramith makes a tournament set of snooker balls - ARAMITH TOURNAMENT CHAMPION SuperPro1G - a matched set within one gram in weight.

http://www.saluc.com/html/billiard/index.php?idlien=42
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
Don't think I have heard ball manufacturers bragging about superior roundness. :D

Aramith makes a tournament set of snooker balls - ARAMITH TOURNAMENT CHAMPION SuperPro1G - a matched set within one gram in weight.

http://www.saluc.com/html/billiard/index.php?idlien=42

Super Crystalate had the lock for world legal snooker balls until Saluc
threatened to take the snooker authorities to court.
Later, they really solved the problem, Saluc bought the Crystalate company.
A friend bought their top set , at the time, 147s...the black ball was 4.5 ounces. :eek:
I figure the store switched in a Vitalite.
 

Sloppy Pockets

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have a set of Centennials and Aramith Tournaments, both sets are less than 2 years old. I also have a Diamond ball polisher that I use Aramith ball cleaner in. The Centennials get little "dots" on them from contacting each other, this is noticeable after about 10 games with the Centennials. The Aramiths stay cleaner for much longer than the Centennials do for some reason, it seems rather odd especially considering they are both made by Aramith. If anyone knows why this is happening I would be curious to hear. I also have an old set of Centennials from the early 70s from the original purchase of my GCII, they have yellowed pretty bad but I will have to see if these mark up like the newer Centennials. I guess I will have to get a Cyclops set before I get a set of Aramith Super Pros now.

I find your comments very interesting.

My table came with a set of Aramith Premier balls, which as far as I could tell played way better than me. After about a year I got a hankering for a set of classy looking Centennials. The price gave me sticker shock, so I found a NIB set on eBay for $175 and pulled the trigger.

These were the older set made by Aramith after they were first awarded the manufacturing contract from Brunswick, the ones in the white box with blue lettering. They looked pristine when I opened the box, except they were yellowed. I poured them out on the table and ran them all, threw them out again and ran them all again. That may not be an accomplishment for many players, but I'm only a C player, so running 30 balls in a row in a straight pool fashion (with no warmup) was pretty spectacular to me. At any rate, I had no problem adjusting to any difference in ball-to-ball reactions. In fact, they seemed to work better for me than my Premiers (maybe because of reduced throw?)

After several more racks I began to notice those small white dots appearing. They made no sense to me, but I began to suspect that the factory finish was breaking down as the balls played in. I finished the session with a serious hand polishing and quit for the day. The next day the dots began to appear again. They weren't really white, but just a perfectly round dulling of the surface. Also, some of them were bigger than the others. Suddenly it dawned on me that the size difference might be to do to ball compression during the collision, with high-energy shots leaving bigger circles than pocket speed shots. I polished them hard and they went away.

Fast forward two years now. I probably practice an average of an hour a day now, and played even more than that at the time I bought them. I practice by myself, no sitting in the chair, just hitting ball after ball. Tens of thousands of shots, so each ball has been hit thousands of times, and polished many dozen times. I'm pretty sure the "factory finish" is long gone. I still get those circles. I do not get them on my Premier set.

Also, I have the same difficult time keeping them clean that you mention. In particular, the dry winter air makes every minute dust speck stick to them in a most maddening way. I use well-worn restaurant quality dish towels to wipe them off. They are lint free, but all they seem to do is move the dust to another spot on the ball. Eventually I get it all off, but after a couple hours they get fuzzy again.

So, I don't think they are exactly the same as the other Aramiths, or at least not the same formulation as the Premier set. I really like using them, but I am now considering getting another set, or just going back to the dull and boring Premiers. Those Aramith Tournament balls look real nice. Any feedback on them?
 
Last edited:
Top