Pool Ball Collecting.

Icon of Sin;I compared these to my Aramith Super Pros and they are slightly smaller. Is that how they were then or is that just from years of playing and cleaning? [/quote said:
A few things could be at play regarding a slightly smaller size.

Tolerances and molding and the finishing process was completely different back then (I'll have to look at the "official" BCA published rule books for that era and see what they adopted for ball tolerances - if any different from today's numbers) which would account for the size.

Depending on the venue they were played most over the decades, it's possible whichever cleaning and/or polishing techniques they used could easily account for a small, uniform reduction in ball diameter. Did you use a calibrated electronic caliper device by chance to obtain your measurement - or something like two Super Pros on either side of the vintage Cents with a straightedge across the top? Either way, I'm sure your assessment is accurate, I was just curious if you had a number :-). The measuring technique could account for possibility number three for a size difference.

If you have polished them since taking ownership, how did they turn out?

Oh - one other thing - share a pic if you have the chance of both sides of the 15 ball number. It looks like it may be a replacement ball - same era and dart, yet the numeral/font is slightly different.

Thank you again for sharing your prized ball possession. Wish I were there to share a gaze or a game

K.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
 
Icon of Sin said:
Thanks! When purchasing they said they were from 1965, but that wasnt a purchasing factor as I had no idea how to date them and I'm sure they didnt either. Since you seem to be the expert, I compared these to my Aramith Super Pros and they are slightly smaller. Is that how they were then or is that just from years of playing and cleaning? ...
Click to expand...
The BCA rule book did not have a diameter tolerance on pool ball size until 1971 when +- 0.005 inches was first stated.

All balls wear down. Chalk is more or less pulverized sand so you are usually playing on fine sandpaper, not billiard cloth. Any set that has been in commercial use for a year is probably smaller than allowed by the tolerance above.
 
K2Kraze said:
A few things could be at play regarding a slightly smaller size.

Tolerances and molding and the finishing process was completely different back then (I'll have to look at the "official" BCA published rule books for that era and see what they adopted for ball tolerances - if any different from today's numbers) which would account for the size.

Depending on the venue they were played most over the decades, it's possible whichever cleaning and/or polishing techniques they used could easily account for a small, uniform reduction in ball diameter. Did you use a calibrated electronic caliper device by chance to obtain your measurement - or something like two Super Pros on either side of the vintage Cents with a straightedge across the top? Either way, I'm sure your assessment is accurate, I was just curious if you had a number :-). The measuring technique could account for possibility number three for a size difference.

If you have polished them since taking ownership, how did they turn out?

Oh - one other thing - share a pic if you have the chance of both sides of the 15 ball number. It looks like it may be a replacement ball - same era and dart, yet the numeral/font is slightly different.

Thank you again for sharing your prized ball possession. Wish I were there to share a gaze or a game

K.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No caliper. I just took the 4 and 6 ball from both sets and put them next to each other. The difference was very noticeable. Then I did the scientific pocket test where I put them frozen in the mouth of a pocket and there was a larger gap with the Cents. Even had the wife take a look (non-pool player) and she could see the difference too.
 
Icon of Sin said:
No caliper. I just took the 4 and 6 ball from both sets and put them next to each other. The difference was very noticeable. Then I did the scientific pocket test where I put them frozen in the mouth of a pocket and there was a larger gap with the Cents. Even had the wife take a look (non-pool player) and she could see the difference too.
Click to expand...
If you put a large ball in the middle of a ring of six small balls and freeze them as much as possible so there is only a single gap, that single gap is three times the diameter difference of the large ball.
 
Smartest guy in the room

Bob Jewett said:
If you put a large ball in the middle of a ring of six small balls and freeze them as much as possible so there is only a single gap, that single gap is three times the diameter difference of the large ball.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely terrifying to me that you know that. :eek: I'm sure it will come in handy when checking how much oversize a newer cue ball is than the rest of the balls. Would you recommend with solids and again with stripes (except the nine) to see if there is variance there also? I love showing guys how much smaller old cue balls are in some rooms. Then I show them how poor their draw stroke is with a cue ball that isn't undersized. ;)
 
EDRJR said:
It is absolutely terrifying to me that you know that. :eek: I'm sure it will come in handy when checking how much oversize a newer cue ball is than the rest of the balls. Would you recommend with solids and again with stripes (except the nine) to see if there is variance there also? I love showing guys how much smaller old cue balls are in some rooms. Then I show them how poor their draw stroke is with a cue ball that isn't undersized. ;)
Click to expand...
I have never tried to compare stripes vs. solids, but it seems like a reasonable thing to do if nine ball is the game of choice there.

For the "you don't really have any draw" demo, you can have them try to draw the 15 ball off the cue ball.
 
Bob Jewett said:
The BCA rule book did not have a diameter tolerance on pool ball size until 1971 when +- 0.005 inches was first stated.

.
Click to expand...


Bob is right on of course - 1971 was the first time ball tolerances of +/- 0.005" were printed. Before that (back to the first 1945 BAA/BCA rule book) they simply listed 2 1/4" as the ball specification. A little leeway there I would assume for the manufacturers



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
97ff5e1e97a5b3d63fcd53f8cdd6ac3c.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Here is a Direct Site set that's on Ebay right now for only $1700 or so...

DirectSite.jpg
 
Two wonderful sets there, Bob. Forgive my curiosity, but are they from your own collection, sir? Sincere thanks for sharing the photographs, always much appreciated.

Best wishes,
RC.
 
In staying with the fine offerings of sets "for sale on eBay" shown in the thread, I thought it may be time to share one of my favorites.

These beauties were manufactured by Hyatt back in the 1930's and they called them Fancy "O's"

85 years old. Some checking and indications of play over the decades but I'm quite certain they were well tended and cared for by the way they play today. Yes, I play these 85 year old veterans of the fine billiard ball era and do they ever sound sweet rolling across the baize. Pocket speed of course. I avoid combinations and anything requiring more than a fine touch out of respect for my elder balls to keep them crack-free and in fine playing shape for many years to come.

May I present to you all - my fine friends that go by the name of Hyatt. Men 1 through 15.

e749a4cd473c55b35807fc2909ceada3.jpg


"Perhaps a fine Scotch with your game, Sir?"

"Well, yes, I must, if you insist. Sir. Neat if I may."









Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
This thread just gets better by the day, some wonderful ball sets and photographs being posted.

I have many ideas for designs on the drawing board. My dream would be for one or two of them to one day reach the production stage.
 
Rubik's Cube said:
This thread just gets better by the day, some wonderful ball sets and photographs being posted.

I have many ideas for designs on the drawing board. My dream would be for one or two of them to one day reach the production stage.
Click to expand...



I say Let's move up the production schedule then, dear Rubik's




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Speaking of Hyatt....have you all listened to the 1937 CBS radio reenactment of John Wesley Hyatt's celluloid discover while trying to invent a substitute for ivory billiard balls?

You haven't? * gasp *

It's ok, we can fix that.

This was a weekly radio program called "Cavalcade of America", which on Jan 13th 1937 aired a skit portraying the events surrounding Hyatt's discovery of modern "plastics". Brought to you by DuPont of course lol.

Listen now:
http://www.chicagobilliardmuseum.or..._Cavalcade_of_America_-_Jan_13_-1937_-CBS.mp3
 
It's most definitely a tempting and compelling notion, K2K!

I fear, however, my personal desires and ambition could easily cloud any financial judgement when it came to commissioning the minimum production runs required by most manufacturers (usually something around 200 boxes). I believe my designs are beautiful, naturally, but will a couple off hundred other folks? That might be a problem, eh? :)

I wonder if it would be a good idea to post them up on here for appraisal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top