I hear what you are saying, but the fact that it appears blue means blue light is coming from it - "emitted" or reflected, I don't think it makes a difference.
Favorite Brunswick Gold Crown I Color Scheme?
- Thread starter jviss
- Start date
I hear what you are saying, but the fact that it appears blue means blue light is coming from it - "emitted" or reflected, I don't think it makes a difference.
Light coming off a blue cloth is not considered a blue light source. Not even close to the same. Blue light comes from a light source. LED and fluor. bulbs and most all digital sources emit blue light. You get eyestrain from the type of light you have not the cloth. I recently played on a table with "too blue" led lights and after about an hour my head hurt. Because of the increased contrast blue Simonis is actually easier on your eyes.
Last edited:
Nothin' looks better than a GCI corn blasted, then sanded then stained, then 3 coats of clear. If I remember correctly, the early GC I were NOT done in the pastels, the GC II's I think got that Family Game look, as did all the Brunswick bowling alleys. They had the same color scheme.
When yah get the table finished it will....
Look as good as a 16' 1962 Mahogany Chris Craft inboard with an 8 cylinder and the engine Not running.
When yah get the table finished it will....
Look as good as a 16' 1962 Mahogany Chris Craft inboard with an 8 cylinder and the engine Not running.
My understanding is that the GC I's were all painted, white legs for all, and "Blue, Gold, Tangerine and Classic White (aprons); cloth colors of Tangerine, Blue, Gold and Monarch Green." (From the Brunswick catalog.)
The GC II came out in 1975 with "Color Options: Rosewood" - period! The first GC in a wood-grain finish, apparently with a rosewood colored stain.
The GC III came out in 1997 with "Color Options: Mahogany, Matte Black, Poly Black." So, 13 years of I's painted, 21 years of II's with rosewood stain, and so on.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lots of beautiful tables, color combinations. I love them all! I especially like the blue with gold cloth combo.
@tusmadpark, is that gray? Looks great.
I love the tangerine, too, @playonepocket.
On the blue cloth and blue light, I must respectfully disagree with my correspondent on this topic. If you perceive blue, blue light is hitting your retina, whether from a light source or reflected, no difference. And, blue has typically associated with more eye strain and reduced acuity, hence yellow shooting glasses, legal pads, and so forth. I honestly don't know how it works with pool table cloth, though. Tournament blue looks very sharp! I think traditional green will be easier on the eyes. But, no matter, get what you like, or live with what you have!
On natural wood, yes, it looks great! It turns out that all of the Gold Crown rails, from the beginning, were plastic. From the Brunswick archive site for the GC I: "Rails: Melamine plastic, rosewood finish, resistant to stains, burns, mars. Easy to maintain." But the painted legs and aprons can look good stripped, sanded, stained and coated. Someone said "blasted," I don't think sand blasting is a good idea!
All in all, a beautiful and functional, stable table.
@tusmadpark, is that gray? Looks great.
I love the tangerine, too, @playonepocket.
On the blue cloth and blue light, I must respectfully disagree with my correspondent on this topic. If you perceive blue, blue light is hitting your retina, whether from a light source or reflected, no difference. And, blue has typically associated with more eye strain and reduced acuity, hence yellow shooting glasses, legal pads, and so forth. I honestly don't know how it works with pool table cloth, though. Tournament blue looks very sharp! I think traditional green will be easier on the eyes. But, no matter, get what you like, or live with what you have!
On natural wood, yes, it looks great! It turns out that all of the Gold Crown rails, from the beginning, were plastic. From the Brunswick archive site for the GC I: "Rails: Melamine plastic, rosewood finish, resistant to stains, burns, mars. Easy to maintain." But the painted legs and aprons can look good stripped, sanded, stained and coated. Someone said "blasted," I don't think sand blasting is a good idea!
All in all, a beautiful and functional, stable table.
You're DEAD wrong on the color deal. Read this then contact Simonis. http://www.billiardsforum.com/billiard-equipment/green-or-blue-pool-table-cloth A blue cloth(or tennis court) is NOT the same as a blue light source. Simonis spent quite a bit on research that proves that tournament blue offers best contrast and least eye strain. I'm going waaaaaaaay out on a limb and will say that they know more than you, i or anyone else regarding this. Believe whatever you want.
Last edited:
So, is that linked article supposed to be some definitive, scientific paper on what's "better?" Ha! It's as subjective as any other source.
Blue light is blue light. Period. I'll reconsider f you offer a scientific paper that contradicts that. I spent too many hours in engineering classes, labs, and forensic science research and study to change my mind based on such flimsy sources. So, yea, believe whatever you want, to you, too!
I don't really care. It's pretty clear from a long history that green is easier on the eyes than blue. It's also well known that blue colors are less distinct to the eyes - hence, yellow shooting glasses, "blue blocker" glasses, and so forth. Does it make a difference on pool tables? I guess not.
How much have you actually played on Tournament Blue Simonis? Its FAR easier to see edge of ball on it compared to green. Green has just been the traditional color until they learned better. BTW, i used to shoot a LOT of skeet. Depending on day, you don't always wear yellow lenses. There's blue, purple, brown, red, vermillion. Yellow is used on overcast days to increase contrast. On normal days i used blue or purple a lot.
You are simply wrong. I'm sorry, I know the word blue shows up in both and it's a lot to digest. I'm guessing you think someone in a blue mood actually has s blue brain or that when BB King played blue smoke came put of his ass.
Try this. Look a blue cloth table. Now turn off the lights...does it still look blue. Is it emitting light of any color?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Exactly. The blue you see when white light hits a blue object is nothing like the true "blue light" emitted by a light source such as LED or floresc. bulbs. Because TournamentBlue offers such higher contrast there is less eye strain. The fact that it shows wear better is icing on the cake.
Ha, me, too! I found a pair of glasses I really like, for all-around shooting and hunting, a Zeiss yellow lens pair. No eye strain as you might get with the plastic ones.
No, I have near zero experience with the blue cloth. I'd like to try.
Are either of you guys physicists, engineers, scientists, or anything like that?
I know we disagree, but I don't find it necessary to resort to insults to make my case. I really don't care if you agree with me or, not, it's inconsequential in the end.
As a matter of fact I am. It's not a big deal but I'm sure about this issue.
Well, then, we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I'm sure you're wrong on this.
Try this, it may help your understanding.
https://www.quora.com/Is-looking-at...s-or-melatonin-suppression-just-as-blue-light
Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk
Great article. Its a REAL SCIENTIFIC explanation of what we've been trying to tell this guy all along. I tried to find the Simonis technical paper on this subject but what you just posted is even better. Thanks.
Scientific Paper?
First of all, guys, logical and garczar, a nicely-illustrated answer to a question on Quora is hardly a "scientific paper," or even "article." Are you serious? The so-called article is even extremely poorly written, suffering several simple grammar and punctuation issues. Further, there are four answers to the question listed, and they contradict one another.
Second, let's get specific here. I never argued that the "blue light from displays" phenomenon was the issue here. So, your attempts to assign that position to me and argue against it is a pretty weak straw horse.
There are many characters to light. But one thing is certain, and that is that if you visually perceive a blue color, blue light is striking your retina. The assertion in the so-called scientific paper, i.e., the answer on Quora, that "[a] diffused color of a pigmented blue object does not penetrate and reach the retina" is absolute nonsense. It is true, however, that light sources may be diffuse or point, narrow-spectrum or wide, and so forth. But blue is blue, regardless of whether it is emitted by a source or reflected.
It may be so that folks find it easier to play on blue, and to discern the edges of balls on blue better than on other colors. I don't know. But I do know that folks have found out over time, over a long time, that greens and some yellows are generally easier on the eyes, and result in less eye strain over long periods.
Third, I really don't mind if we disagree on this topic. I understand that not all people agree on everything and it neither irks nor upsets me. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I must say that a set of internally contradicting answers on Quora is not going to do it!
Finally, this thread is about folks' favorite color combinations on Gold Crowns, and this tangent takes away from that.
Can we agree to respectfully disagree, and move on?
First of all, guys, logical and garczar, a nicely-illustrated answer to a question on Quora is hardly a "scientific paper," or even "article." Are you serious? The so-called article is even extremely poorly written, suffering several simple grammar and punctuation issues. Further, there are four answers to the question listed, and they contradict one another.
Second, let's get specific here. I never argued that the "blue light from displays" phenomenon was the issue here. So, your attempts to assign that position to me and argue against it is a pretty weak straw horse.
There are many characters to light. But one thing is certain, and that is that if you visually perceive a blue color, blue light is striking your retina. The assertion in the so-called scientific paper, i.e., the answer on Quora, that "[a] diffused color of a pigmented blue object does not penetrate and reach the retina" is absolute nonsense. It is true, however, that light sources may be diffuse or point, narrow-spectrum or wide, and so forth. But blue is blue, regardless of whether it is emitted by a source or reflected.
It may be so that folks find it easier to play on blue, and to discern the edges of balls on blue better than on other colors. I don't know. But I do know that folks have found out over time, over a long time, that greens and some yellows are generally easier on the eyes, and result in less eye strain over long periods.
Third, I really don't mind if we disagree on this topic. I understand that not all people agree on everything and it neither irks nor upsets me. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but I must say that a set of internally contradicting answers on Quora is not going to do it!
Finally, this thread is about folks' favorite color combinations on Gold Crowns, and this tangent takes away from that.
Can we agree to respectfully disagree, and move on?
Wasn't it you that said green cloth produced the least eye strain? Again, have you EVER even played on TB Simonis? The clearness of the balls and the LACK of eyestrain is obvious to anyone that's ever played on it. Well, i guess most anyone.