Welcome back Glen. Johnnyt
Reached the next level of obsession today.
- Thread starter kiddcutty
- Start date
Welcome back Glen. Johnnyt
What people fail to understand is that every change difference between a GC 1 & 2 came out on the GC1. GC 1's started out with the plastic name plate at first, then switched to the metal one a few years later. It started out with non adjustable feet, then switched to the adjustable feet a few years later. The long extrusion moulding used to mount the rail blinds in the beginning were shortened up making it easier to mount the rail blinds. The two biggest changes I'm aware of between a 1 & 2 is that on the 2 the pocket castings were thinner aluminum, and the figure 8 nut plate was replaced with the capture nut mounted in a cavity inside the rails cut out from the front. GC 2's were only made for a few years before they were replaced by the GC 3's, and even then, the first GC 3's started out with the GC 2 end rail hardware, but the extruded moulding to mount the rail blinds was dropped for a longer rail skirt, that bolted up to the bottom of the rails with 20 each 5/16" bolts.
And, unless you were a table mechanic that paid attention, no one knew that the GC 3's changed something on the design of the rails 4 times during its production cycle.
Wow, I really was kidding
- but now the plot thickens.
The pics most def show GC I rails, but I spy with my little eye what certainly
appears to be a factory Tangerine pedestal - tho it could have be a repaint -
or from a II
I owned several GC Is over the years, had trouble with all of them with
the glue breaking down and cushions coming loose - never had that
problem with a II.
Dale
- but now the plot thickens.The pics most def show GC I rails, but I spy with my little eye what certainly
appears to be a factory Tangerine pedestal - tho it could have be a repaint -
or from a II
I owned several GC Is over the years, had trouble with all of them with
the glue breaking down and cushions coming loose - never had that
problem with a II.
Dale
The IIs PLAYED better...
For details I would respectfully defer to sfleinen(Sean) who is a far better player than I.
(please see above post)
Though visually - they appear to vary only in color scheme - I assumed it might be
a change to Taiwan rubber - but could never locate any info. But that was before
...Geek Alert... DARPANET became Inter-ed
Dale
The IIs PLAYED better...
For details I would respectfully defer to sfleinen(Sean) who is a far better player than I.
(please see above post)
Though visually - they appear to vary only in color scheme - I assumed it might be
a change to Taiwan rubber - but could never locate any info. But that was before
...Geek Alert... DARPANET became Inter-ed
Dale
Same exact cushions on the 1's, 2's, and early 3's. GC 2's were only produced between 74-76 with one major change, that was the replacement of the figure 8 nut plate with the floating capture nut which held the rails down much better than the fig 8 nut plate did. GC1's were produced between 61-74, so almost every difference between the 2 models being made to the GC1 first which paved the way to the GC 2.
Last edited:
Glen:
Dale is too kind with his praise. I guess I have everyone hoodwinked. ;-)
Honestly, though, there are lots of idiosyncracies with the GC-III that I never liked, that never seemed to be a problem with earlier models. I'm 2 miles away from a pool hall filled with Gold Crown IIs -- Jack N Jills Billiards Cafe in Brewster, NY -- and these tables have a "play" that I've never seen on a GC-III. (Just for reference, I used to manage the leagues at the Danbury, CT branch of Boston Billiards for many years. Boston Billiards had exclusively GC-IIIs, and I played on these tables in not only the Danbury branch, but also the Worcester, MA and Nashua, NH branches. Even though set up by different table mechanics, they all played the same, and I have a picture in my mind of what a GC-III plays like.)
To me, the GC-III looks and plays like it was built offshore. It doesn't seem to have the attention to detail that the earlier GC's had. And it has classic GC-III problems, too -- like the screwheads in drop-pocket being right at the level where incoming pocketed balls would hit. Have one of these screws come loose, and you get a nasty <clang!> sound as well as a chipped ball. (This was an ongoing problem at Boston Billiards, and I even carried a small screwdriver set in my cue case for impromptu fixes.) Another thing was the sharp edges of the score counters on the foot rail raising/protruding, and causing nasty cuts and dings on cue shafts or even someone's bridge hand. Another was the loss of the wooden dowel that divided the top row of the ball collection bin on ball-return tables -- that was a real pain in the petutie for games like one pocket, when one of your balls would roll through to the opponent's side.
That's just a couple of the cosmetic/functional things with the GC-III table (I have a veritable list of 'em). I just think the quality of the Gold Crown product was compromised when it was off-shored. Lots of shortcuts in the design.
These are just my thoughts from a player / someone who's handy with tools and knows a little sumpin'-sumpin' about good design. I don't compare that experience with yours as an elite mechanic, Glen. Night and day.
-Sean
I hear what you're saying, but every GC ever built has had flaws built into it by Brunswick in their design department, but to compound those problems even more has been the lack of knowledge by the so called table mechanics that have worked on them over the years which is evident on every GC I've ever worked on any where in this country, so it's not limited to just one area. When all that's ever done to the GC's is changing the cloth on them, and nothing more, and yet during that process rail bolts are over tightened, rails not lined up properly, casting bolts over tightened, pocket screws not tightened correctly or replaced with nails to hold the pockets in instead, mixed up parts. Wrong cushions being used to replace factory cushions....the list goes on and on as to why the GC's go down hill as far as playability goes. The LEAST amount of abuse applied to the GC's is from people actually playing on them. The laminate being smashed down, or missing chips out of it along the feather strip Dado is solely from the abuse of a table mechanic, not the players. Figure 8 nut plates pulled loose is solely on the table mechanics over tightening rail bolts, not from pool cues being used to play pool. A real pool table mechanic can take any model of GC and make it play better than Brunswick ever built it in the first place, producing a table that only a few have ever had the enjoyment of playing on, and can without a doubt tell the difference in how the table plays.
The IIs PLAYED better...
For details I would respectfully defer to sfleinen(Sean) who is a far better player than I.
(please see above post)
Though visually - they appear to vary only in color scheme - I assumed it might be
a change to Taiwan rubber - but could never locate any info. But that was before
...Geek Alert... DARPANET became Inter-ed
Dale
I agree. I have a II and two friends of mine have III's.
The II just sounds so much more solid with the balls hit the cushion.
All of our tables have been re-cushioned.
My GCII has the dowel in the middle of the ball storage shelf. It also has the Brunswick tag on the stretcher yet, it says Model # AR-6100, I noticed the GCIIIs with copper colored trim have a different model # on the stretcher for whatever that is worth. Hey Glen, why do you think Brunswick changed the model name from GCI to GCII? Where they just trying to increase sales by getting people to think it was a redesigned table?
JC
Coos Cues
I could be wrong but I think this:
Is superior to this:
As well as the quality of the irons that attach to them.
JC
But, what people don't realize is the GC3 rail you showed is in fact the 3 rd version of the rails. The first version GC 2 was in fact, GC 2 rails modified to accept the new bolt on style rail blinds, so it was kind of a GC 2 1/2---3.
JC
Coos Cues
Actually the second rail is a late model AMF Grand Prix rail. They stole the GC3 bad idea and ran with it.:smile:
I have literally seen 4 different versions of the GC3 rails, factory built, not modified. I delivered a GC3 to a friend of mine in Idaho, that had casting mounting hardware that I've never seen before or after on any GC....ever. It looked just like the GC 2 hardware, but only wider and thicker steel was used, and like I said, this is the ONLY GC I've ever seen it on, yet it was factory installed.