Albany was making balls within spec (+-0.005) in the 1970s. Well, except for the few I saw with bulging eyes, but those were over 2.255 and not under.
Raschig new old stock review
- Thread starter iusedtoberich
- Start date
How many sets did you measure?
Eight or ten. It was at a tournament.
Bob, do you recall the design?
It was the Roman numeral design in 1976. Romanique? 1976 for sure.
Thanks, Bob, that's really good information. I remembered last year when you asked if I knew the dates of manufacture of the Romanique balls, so I got my unplayed set out and measured each ball. They were under 2 1/4" but not by much. In fact, they were almost exactly the same as my late 70s/early 80s Vitalites.
OK, this is really gonna be a dumb question, but do you remember what you used to measure the balls. It must have been pre-digital equipment. Did you use a micrometer or dial calipers like "iusedtoberich"?
The fact that the tournament was held in 1976 is very exciting. Do you remember the month? Remember, it was 1976 when David Carey and his investors purchased ABB Co. It was also 1976 when the Bicentennial balls were introduced. I can't remember the exact date, but I can find it. This might be a little bit of an historical breakthrough for me, so anything you can add would be greatly appreciated.
I'll see if one of my buddies has dial calipers.
"Iusedtoberich," all of a sudden I realized that we were hijacking your thread. Please forgive me! I think there is a possiblity that we can bring something of value to the discussion. If our examples suggest age related shrinkage, then that may help explain what happened to your shrunken numbers, and the disparity in the diameters of your Raschig balls. Rupert Ashford has a world class collection of Raschig balls. Maybe he will chime in. He's very busy right now, so I won't pressure him, but he could be VERY helpful. Also, my experience has been that all phenolic resin pool balls were built using phenolic resin to make the numbers. The bond between number and stick or open field must be thermodynamic in order to hold the numbers in place during their years of hard contact with other balls.
If you want us to withdraw, please say so and I will gladly do as you wish.
Best regards,
Boxcar
Last edited:
Boxcar, I'm not sure you have enough time to devote to that (but I suppose it wouldn't take more than writing that in the form of forums posts). You should seriously consider writing a book (ar at least an essay) on the history of ABB Co.
And maybe any other relevant piece of history you are aware of. That's priceless, for real.
(Note that a book by Rupert A. is already assigned
)
And maybe any other relevant piece of history you are aware of. That's priceless, for real.
(Note that a book by Rupert A. is already assigned
)
Hello, gentlemen.
This is a great thread. Thank you so much for generously sharing such a wealth of valuable knowledge.
Boxcar was kind enough to mention my Raschig collection. Thus far it consists of…
Nine Ball Turniersatz x 2.
Standard Spots and Stripes.
Darted Spots and Stripes.
Four Players.
One Pockets.
Prototype Rings.
Snooker.
I also have a CBB Spots and Stripes set from 1949, the casting of which was under the supervision of Dr Max Koebner.
What I don’t have, alas, is equipment with which to measure or weigh the balls accurately. I’m rather ashamed to admit this and will endeavour to address such a pitiful situation as soon as possible.
This is a great thread. Thank you so much for generously sharing such a wealth of valuable knowledge.
Boxcar was kind enough to mention my Raschig collection. Thus far it consists of…
Nine Ball Turniersatz x 2.
Standard Spots and Stripes.
Darted Spots and Stripes.
Four Players.
One Pockets.
Prototype Rings.
Snooker.
I also have a CBB Spots and Stripes set from 1949, the casting of which was under the supervision of Dr Max Koebner.
What I don’t have, alas, is equipment with which to measure or weigh the balls accurately. I’m rather ashamed to admit this and will endeavour to address such a pitiful situation as soon as possible.
Last edited:
It was the Asbury Park 14.1 championship run by the PPPA, August of 1976. I'm not certain of the exact model but I do remember the roman numerals.
I had a steel plate with two round holes bored in it: 2.245 and 2.255 inches -- a go/no go gauge. A friend of mine was the maintenance supervisor for the Student Union and he got a local machine shop to make it for me. Maybe about 1975. A round hole is better than just a micrometer as it is easier to detect bulges and such, but you only get a few sizes, usually.
If you have the ability, please check to see if the 3, 5 and 7 balls have bulging eyes.
I wish I had this set in my collection to accommodate your request! I pulled the pic via Google search. These are high on my acquisition radar as are the even more rare Romanique I's.
Outstanding! First, the date of the Tournament tells me that the Romanique balls preceded the Carey takeover so it can still be said that the design was invented by ABB Co. and no AHBB Co.
Next, did all the balls from each set pass through your "go/no go" instruments?
Bob,
The diameters at the numbers on my 3-ball and my 5-ball are smaller than at all other locations on the balls. The 3three check points on the 7-ball were nearly the same.
Incidentally, did you perform a head to foot to head roll test on any of the balls to check for roll-off?
The diameters at the numbers on my 3-ball and my 5-ball are smaller than at all other locations on the balls. The 3three check points on the 7-ball were nearly the same.
Incidentally, did you perform a head to foot to head roll test on any of the balls to check for roll-off?
Some of the 3s 5s and 7s at the tournament hung up on the large hole but only on the eyes. I was able to find four complete sets for the four tournament tables. I don't know whether the staff kept the good balls separated. All the other balls were within +- 0.005 so far as I could tell. My guess was that the process for the new design was slightly different (perhaps by oversight) and that resulted in the bulging eyes. Strange that it was only with the odd solids. Maybe they were rushing a step.
I did not do a roll-off test. That would have taken a long time and I had not noticed lop-sided object balls up until then. (But I have an amazing Cyclop 3 ball.
)I've got a 13-ball from an American Heritage Renaissance set that will roll off 12 inches (or more) in 100 inches. Like a Koufax curve ball.Some of the 3s 5s and 7s at the tournament hung up on the large hole but only on the eyes. I was able to find four complete sets for the four tournament tables. I don't know whether the staff kept the good balls separated. All the other balls were within +- 0.005 so far as I could tell. My guess was that the process for the new design was slightly different (perhaps by oversight) and that resulted in the bulging eyes. Strange that it was only with the odd solids. Maybe they were rushing a step.
I did not do a roll-off test. That would have taken a long time and I had not noticed lop-sided object balls up until then. (But I have an amazing Cyclop 3 ball.
I had a blue circle cue ball that was about 12 inches different on the head rail for a lag depending on which way you turned the ball. I was trying to do the old lag back to your tip drill.
That's what I'm talking about. If you set the stripe to roll like a wheel, it would break 12 to 14 inches to the left. If you set it so the numbers faced left and right, it would roll out about 2 inches to the right...or maybe not, depending on what kind of mood it was in.
SeniorTom
Well-known member
Post in thread 'Dynasphere Bronze balls......$100' https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/dynasphere-bronze-balls-100.528089/post-7449513
One theory is the phenolic shrinks over time. This topic is discussed in this thread:
One theory is the phenolic shrinks over time. This topic is discussed in this thread:
There is absolute proof at least some part of the balls shrunk over time. One look at the numbers sunken in and you can see it with the naked eye. If the numbers shrunk that much (not due to wear), it's not a stretch to think that the body of the ball also shrunk (not due to wear). I don't know the mechanism for this, but I'd imagine it's something along the lines there is a solvent used during the manufacturing process that has evaporated over the years, and the material shrinks as a result. That's how wood shrinks when it gets old, it dries out. I know pool balls are man made, but there may be something similar going on. I used to work with a phd in materials science, he knew everything about plastic inside and out, but I haven't talked with him in 10 years to pick his brain for this topic 
I have more measurments I can take to investigate this further. My main set of balls is an Aramith super pro set bought about 15 years ago new. I measured the diameter of each ball in 3 places (just like the Raschig) when they were new. I've been using this set for years, playing 9 ball 95% of the time, and straight pool 5% of the time. Now, if I measure them again today, and the difference in diameter for all 16 balls is the same compared to new, that would lead to shrinking being the dominant factor in ball size reduction, not wear. On the other hand, if the CB got much smaller than the 1-9, and 1-9 got much smaller than 10-15, that would lead to wear from play (friction plus impacts) being the dominant cause of ball size reduction.
I have more measurments I can take to investigate this further. My main set of balls is an Aramith super pro set bought about 15 years ago new. I measured the diameter of each ball in 3 places (just like the Raschig) when they were new. I've been using this set for years, playing 9 ball 95% of the time, and straight pool 5% of the time. Now, if I measure them again today, and the difference in diameter for all 16 balls is the same compared to new, that would lead to shrinking being the dominant factor in ball size reduction, not wear. On the other hand, if the CB got much smaller than the 1-9, and 1-9 got much smaller than 10-15, that would lead to wear from play (friction plus impacts) being the dominant cause of ball size reduction.
Last edited: