Diamond tables don't bank "short". They play right and the others bank a little "long".....
Gold Crown 4 vs. Diamond
- Thread starter The Kiss
- Start date
Diamond tables don't bank "short". They play right and the others bank a little "long".....
That's exactly what I was talking about. The 4 is still a very good table, better than anything else available at that time. But the problem with the frame must be addressed. I personally favor the 2 in this series. I think it was the 3's that had brunstone "slate". Just in the first year or two I believe. Then they went back to real slate.
Higher rails don't make the balls bank short, that causes them to bank long and play slow:wink: question answered:grin:
Diamond offers a ball tray that fits on the bottom of the ball box. I don't know the price but they couldn't be too much. I took an old bridge holder from a Gold Crown and stuck it on my table. You can also buy two large J Hooks at a hardware store and make your own bridge holder. I've done that before too.
I am lucky enough to know the guys who own Diamond, and am very proud to call them friends. They build the best tournment boxes there are, the 1 piece slate is great, they can set up and break down a room fast. The tables are good 99% of the time, the Galvaston TV table with the "Devil pocket" was the exception not the rule. They are about the only table manufactors that are smart enough to still build their tables in America and still turn a welll deserved profit. I endorse their tables and have nothing bad to say about them.
I have both a Diamond and a GC5 in my house for the past 18 months. I'm very lucky to have such spoils.
I perfer Gold Crowns to Diamonds for playability. I dont like the bouncy cushions on Diamonds or the deep shelf pockets. There are too many old butchered GC's out there that I dont like either. I'm compairing new tables to new tables.
I dont understand the issue with pocket castings, if you have to worry about dinging you cue on them, you should: A. Drink less or B: Take up a different game, in 25 years of playing pool i have yet to ding my cue on any table. I dont buy that argument for a second.
If I had a tournment I'd 90% use Diamond tables, same if I opened a room. But thats business not my preferance.
I have both a Diamond and a GC5 in my house for the past 18 months. I'm very lucky to have such spoils.
I perfer Gold Crowns to Diamonds for playability. I dont like the bouncy cushions on Diamonds or the deep shelf pockets. There are too many old butchered GC's out there that I dont like either. I'm compairing new tables to new tables.
I dont understand the issue with pocket castings, if you have to worry about dinging you cue on them, you should: A. Drink less or B: Take up a different game, in 25 years of playing pool i have yet to ding my cue on any table. I dont buy that argument for a second.
If I had a tournment I'd 90% use Diamond tables, same if I opened a room. But thats business not my preferance.
If you remember fatboy...I told you I could make that Diamond play just like a Gold Crown 5 if you wanted me to, and you said NO:grin::grin:
Yep, I've got it on my table. You can put five balls on each side of the tray and then stack a second row of four balls. Perfect for One Pocket!
Sorry man, you've done as much as you can with the source material (The black skirts with the light-colored rails is a nice combination and obviously you have a lovely room) but for me every time I look at those damn squared-off corners I just cringe. If Diamond at least changed it to something more like the Gabriels Signature Pro it would make a huge improvement.
http://www.gabrielsbilliards.com/images/illustratie/pool.jpg
And have you even seen the legs? Square pedestals? It seems to me either Diamond make it this way because it's easier, or simply because they want it to NOT look like a Gold Crown with nice curves everywhere.
Last edited:
I don't find the plastic pockets of the GC a problem aesthetically as you can't see the difference until you are up close. On the GC IV and up where they are a one-piece flush fitting I actually think it looks a bit neater, although this is often ruined by the shoddy tolerances of the pocket castings that can leave huge, uneven gaps between the metal and the rail.
I'm also a sucker for the sound of a well hit ball slapping against the back of GC pocket, which is weird given I grew up playing Snooker on tables with leather pockets. I guess it just sounds more like Pool to me!
Just one more reason the mechanic is so important. :wink:
Banking short...
Diamonds do bank short - set up a simple 2 to 1 bank and hit with medium speed - no english - straight on. On my table I end up a quarter diamond short. It has to do with rail thickness - not rail height. I have been told on good authority Diamond is going to address this issue in the near future.
Diamonds do bank short - set up a simple 2 to 1 bank and hit with medium speed - no english - straight on. On my table I end up a quarter diamond short. It has to do with rail thickness - not rail height. I have been told on good authority Diamond is going to address this issue in the near future.
When purchasing a table, I believe there are 4 main criterias that should be considered. If money is not an object. First you have to start with what you can afford. The second criteria should be quality. The third criteria is playability. The fourth and last criteria is looks.
Everyone has their own preferance and criteria.
The Diamond table is a beautiful table and at the same time plays tough due to the deep shelf. You must hit the pocket properly and at the correct speed down the rails or it's just not going to accept it.
The pockets on a Diamond table are a big plus in my book, because I have no fear of damaging my cue when I bridge off of them.
The GCIV is also a nice table, and it can play tough as well given the pockets are cut to the right size. However the table will still play a little easier than the Diamond due to the shelf not being as deep.
They still use metal around their pockets, which amazes me. They refuse to listen to players as to what would make the table better. They just build the table because they've been building them forever, and they feel they know better. All they have to do is build one table without the metal and with leather pockets similar to that of a Diamond table, and see what the reaction of the pool world is. Bring it out to one of the tournaments as a display model and listen to what the players have to say.
I like the looks of the Diamond better than that of the GC's, but for overall playability I prefer the Gold Crown. I prefer the rails of the GC's. I can judge the speed coming off of those rails better than the rails of a Diamond. To me the rails are too hot on the Diamond tables. It almost seems as if the balls pick up a lot more speed coming off of the Diamond rails. That is just my personal opinion.
I spoke to a couple of the pro's last year at the US Open and asked them which table they preferred playing on and surprisingly, both said they prefer the GC's. One said that the GC's play more consistently from table to table as compared to the Diamond's. He also said that if the table and the rails aren't perfectly clean, that the Diamond's don't play well.
They are both excellent tables or they wouldn't use them in pro tournaments. They each have their own characteristics that separate them from each other, but that is the beauty of having a choice.
You can't really go wrong with either one.
Everyone has their own preferance and criteria.
The Diamond table is a beautiful table and at the same time plays tough due to the deep shelf. You must hit the pocket properly and at the correct speed down the rails or it's just not going to accept it.
The pockets on a Diamond table are a big plus in my book, because I have no fear of damaging my cue when I bridge off of them.
The GCIV is also a nice table, and it can play tough as well given the pockets are cut to the right size. However the table will still play a little easier than the Diamond due to the shelf not being as deep.
They still use metal around their pockets, which amazes me. They refuse to listen to players as to what would make the table better. They just build the table because they've been building them forever, and they feel they know better. All they have to do is build one table without the metal and with leather pockets similar to that of a Diamond table, and see what the reaction of the pool world is. Bring it out to one of the tournaments as a display model and listen to what the players have to say.
I like the looks of the Diamond better than that of the GC's, but for overall playability I prefer the Gold Crown. I prefer the rails of the GC's. I can judge the speed coming off of those rails better than the rails of a Diamond. To me the rails are too hot on the Diamond tables. It almost seems as if the balls pick up a lot more speed coming off of the Diamond rails. That is just my personal opinion.
I spoke to a couple of the pro's last year at the US Open and asked them which table they preferred playing on and surprisingly, both said they prefer the GC's. One said that the GC's play more consistently from table to table as compared to the Diamond's. He also said that if the table and the rails aren't perfectly clean, that the Diamond's don't play well.
They are both excellent tables or they wouldn't use them in pro tournaments. They each have their own characteristics that separate them from each other, but that is the beauty of having a choice.
You can't really go wrong with either one.
I agree with everything in your post except what i quoted above.
Ok I gotta call BS on this one. Scott Frost and I had a conversation last time we were gambling and both of us agreed that the reason that pros prefer diamonds over gold crowns is that they can practice on a diamond in Cali then go to new york and play in a tournie on a diamond and have the tables play near identical (humidity excluded ofcourse). That doesnt happen with Gold Crowns. I can play at pockets in tucson on there Gold Crowns and then got to Bull Shooters in Pheonix and play on there Gold Crowns and what a world of diffrence. Anybody who thinks about all the gold crowns the have played on in there life will have to agree there is a wide degree of playability from one to the next.
Now if the RKC setup every gold crown in the country then I would agree with your statement, until that happens Diamonds will always play more consistent from one to the next.
RKC would you like to chime in on this one?
I would have to agree with you on this one, because of the fact that most ALL GC's have been worked on by less experienced mechanic's, had the cushions changed at one time or another, pocket angles recut, double or tripple shimmed, and the older the GC is, the more it's been exposed to more mechanics that thought they knew what they were doing. So, Diamonds on a whole play more the same where ever they're at than most GC's do, and that's not my opinion, that's my professional knowleage, as I've worked on all models of GC's from coast to coast, and seldom do I ever see the same work on a GC from one area to the next.
Glen
The answer to your question is right here:wink:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=132657
I had a GCIV and liked it. It played great. The pockets were a little big. No complaints really. Got rid of it to try something different.
I sold the GC to try out a Gabriels. I like the Gabriels a lot but the pockets were too big...and I suck, so that is saying something. The look of the table was awesome and probably most appealing of the three. As far as construction, it was very heavy duty and easy to set up because everything was so precise. It was by far the most structurally sound table I've ever seen...maybe overkill. When the tornado sirens went off...that was where I went:wink:
I traded the Gabriels for a 7' Diamond Proam, mainly due to room size constraints. The Diamond is also well built and looks great. I love the way the table plays. Poorly hit balls that rattle on my Diamond would have easily dropped on my GC or Gabriels. The Dymond wood is nice too. My 3 and 5 year old are far worse on my equipment than your average drunk at a bar. That being said, the table still looks great.
I sold the GC to try out a Gabriels. I like the Gabriels a lot but the pockets were too big...and I suck, so that is saying something. The look of the table was awesome and probably most appealing of the three. As far as construction, it was very heavy duty and easy to set up because everything was so precise. It was by far the most structurally sound table I've ever seen...maybe overkill. When the tornado sirens went off...that was where I went:wink:
I traded the Gabriels for a 7' Diamond Proam, mainly due to room size constraints. The Diamond is also well built and looks great. I love the way the table plays. Poorly hit balls that rattle on my Diamond would have easily dropped on my GC or Gabriels. The Dymond wood is nice too. My 3 and 5 year old are far worse on my equipment than your average drunk at a bar. That being said, the table still looks great.