Gold Crown 3 issues.....??
- Thread starter garczar
- Start date
There's no difference in the games between a 1,2, or 3.
I've heard that frames on the 3 were laminate as opposed to solid wood. True/untrue? What is the advantage of doweled slates? Do "un-doweled" move around or what?
Not true on the frames, and pin & dowels helped keep the seams flush, or that was the idea at the time anyway. But after causing more problems than it solved, that and the improvement in slates, it is no longer needed.
Thanks 'Cobra. One last thing: when the 4 came out what was the biggest improvement over the 3? Flush pockets and slate leveling screws? again, thanx for answers and Merry Xmas.
Last edited:
The design of the III frame is different from the I/II.
On a I/II frame, the short members attach between the long members.
On a III frame, the short members attach to the ends of the long members.
Consequently, the ends of the GC III frame have a tendency to sag.
Possibility of a drawing/diagram? Can't visualize "short" and "long" members or how they're attached. Found a video of a 3 being installed but i can't really see what you refer to. Thanks for all your answers as well. This place is awesome for this stuff.
The flush pocket castings and drop pockets were about the only useful improvements.
9
I owned 3 pool rooms from 89'-92' all with GC3's, trust me, I know what the frames look like.
Wrong, the GC4 frame came out at the end of the production cycle of the 3's, beginning of the 4's and not until about 96'. The 3 frame is no different than the 1s, 2,s as I said.
I owned 3 pool rooms from 89'-92' all with GC3's, trust me, I know what the frames look like.
Last edited:
JC
Coos Cues
I had a 3 and never had the opportunity to have a real professional set it up for me as we don't have any here. So I did it myself repeatedly over the years. It never felt solid to me. Always had some sort of vibration throughout it.
Have a 2002 vintage diamond professional now that "a guy" passing through in his truck did some little tweaks and such to and set up for me and I'm never going to let it go. Feels like the rock of Gibraltar compared to my old brunswick. Also you don't appreciate diamondwood until it's gone. That black stuff they are using now is shit. Glad I have an early table.
PS if my pockets were the size of the ones in the GC in this thread I would take some time off from pool
Then I would quit forever.
JC
Have a 2002 vintage diamond professional now that "a guy" passing through in his truck did some little tweaks and such to and set up for me and I'm never going to let it go. Feels like the rock of Gibraltar compared to my old brunswick. Also you don't appreciate diamondwood until it's gone. That black stuff they are using now is shit. Glad I have an early table.
PS if my pockets were the size of the ones in the GC in this thread I would take some time off from pool
Then I would quit forever.
JC
That one looks a little tighter than mine, are those 4" pockets?? Arent the GCV pocket castings flush with the top of the rail or do they sit a little proud too? I have never seen one in person.
That one looks a little tighter than mine, are those 4" pockets?? Arent the GCV pocket castings flush with the top of the rail or do they sit a little proud too? I have never seen one in person.
The GCV pocket casting are sorta flush. They take a little work to get them all to sit flush.
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
Your rather polite contradiction prompted me to do a bit of research.
At some point during the production of the GC III, the design changed from inner-mounted end sills, to end-mounted end sills. Based on the GC III's that I have worked on, it was much earlier than 1996. Even still, the GC IV frame is much different from the later model GC III frames.
Guess we were both wrong.
For reference, see the attached images.
Attachments
Great diagrams. This is what i was wondering about. Very clear now. Thanx.
The bottom drawing sure looks like a crappy way to mount the frame ends. Do the people who design this stuff not have an education in some sort of engineering? If not then anybody would be capable of scribbling some pictures up of how to build something if strength and longevity was not an issue.
WHY did the GC4's go to this build method? Cheaper? Faster? Was the previous method with the end sills between the side sills stronger? Costlier? I can see why RKC came up with his frame-sag solution. A simple and stout looking fix.
No, I wasn't wrong. At the end of the GC3 Production run, it overlapped with the GC4 Production design. Brunswick made the frame design change to the 4 frame, but still had GC3 rails and blinds left over from the 3's, so rather than continue producing the 3 frame design, the substituted the 3 with the 4 frame until all the GC3 rails were sold off as GC3's, then went into the GC4 Production to include the 22 point leveling system, which was not available on the GC4 frame being used in the last of the GC3 Production end of run.