Gold Crowns and the term Diamonized

Snooker Theory

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Someone help me understand how this helps anyone's game? Especially those who play in tournaments? Seeing as in ALL Diamonds, newer GCs and rasson tables are 141 and 102, why would anyone want to practice on anything different than what they would play on at a tournament?


TFT
What's the average size pocket on diamonds, GC's and Rassons?
 

fastone371

Certifiable
Silver Member
Sorry. I thought I was clear on my original post. I am not considering diamonizing a gold crown.

The three gold crowns that I am looking at (that appear to be in nice shape) are all purporting to be diamonized.

I am trying to think through what kind of can of worms I might be getting into depending on what diamonize actually means to these three owners. If I had my druthers, I would prefer a close to stoke gold crown and make my own decisions.

Thanks for the input so far.

"Diamondizing" a Gold Crown is much more than changing the pocket opening, the sub-rails must also be modified. I am guessing "Diamondizing" came to be because people wanted tighter pockets and new cushions on older Gold Crowns which were equipped with Monarch Suerspeed cushions. The Monarch profile is no longer made and there is no cushion that directly replaces it. So people started installing current cushions on early Gold Crowns and to do so properly the sub-rail had to be cut to a different angle. People were also just putting current cushions on without modifying the sub-rail but then you lose that twice as long as it is wide ratio and the diamond system mo longer plays correct. My guess is people asked that their Gold Crown be modified to current Diamond specs to try to get them to play similar and thats were the term "Diamondizing" came from. I have a GC1, my sub-rails were modified for current Artemis cushions and the pockets were modified as well as tightened to 4 3/8" , when I shoot the cue ball around my table it plays almost spot on compared to other 9' Blue Label Diamonds. I am extremely happy with the way the table plays, about the onloy thing I might have done differently is put Superspeeds on instead of Artemis, but I am not unhappy with the Artemis cushions.
 

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
"Diamondizing" a Gold Crown is much more than changing the pocket opening, the sub-rails must also be modified. I am guessing "Diamondizing" came to be because people wanted tighter pockets and new cushions on older Gold Crowns which were equipped with Monarch Suerspeed cushions. The Monarch profile is no longer made and there is no cushion that directly replaces it. So people started installing current cushions on early Gold Crowns and to do so properly the sub-rail had to be cut to a different angle. People were also just putting current cushions on without modifying the sub-rail but then you lose that twice as long as it is wide ratio and the diamond system mo longer plays correct. My guess is people asked that their Gold Crown be modified to current Diamond specs to try to get them to play similar and thats were the term "Diamondizing" came from. I have a GC1, my sub-rails were modified for current Artemis cushions and the pockets were modified as well as tightened to 4 3/8" , when I shoot the cue ball around my table it plays almost spot on compared to other 9' Blue Label Diamonds. I am extremely happy with the way the table plays, about the onloy thing I might have done differently is put Superspeeds on instead of Artemis, but I am not unhappy with the Artemis cushions.
Congrats to you.
I hate my Artemis.
 

fastone371

Certifiable
Silver Member
Congrats to you.
I hate my Artemis.

The only way to know if I hate my Artemis cushions would be to put Superspeeds on mine and see if it makes a difference. When I had my table done everyone was using Artemis, about a year later it seemed like everyone now preferred Superspeeds. It has been so long since I spent a fair amount of time shooting on anything other than a Diamond or my GC that I dont know if my table banks short or not. Theres a pool hall in Milwaukee that has like 50 GCIII's that are all original as far as I know that I have been wanting to go shoot at again, its a little over an hour drive for me, maybe I will make it down there this winter yet.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The only way to know if I hate my Artemis cushions would be to put Superspeeds on mine and see if it makes a difference. When I had my table done everyone was using Artemis, about a year later it seemed like everyone now preferred Superspeeds. It has been so long since I spent a fair amount of time shooting on anything other than a Diamond or my GC that I dont know if my table banks short or not. Theres a pool hall in Milwaukee that has like 50 GCIII's that are all original as far as I know that I have been wanting to go shoot at again, its a little over an hour drive for me, maybe I will make it down there this winter yet.
Romines. Great spot.
 

jviss

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
has like 50 GCIII's that are all original as far as I know

I have heard that when Brunswick did the GCIII they changed cushions, and the ones on the III's get hard pretty soon after delivery. If original I wouldn't expect them to bank properly.

On the other hand, many much older GCI's and II's have original rubber that is still fine.

I did some medium-speed banking on my GCI after I read this and it banks perfectly. And although I don't have an objective test method for the quality of the rebound, it seems quite lively.
 

jtompilot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have heard that when Brunswick did the GCIII they changed cushions, and the ones on the III's get hard pretty soon after delivery. If original I wouldn't expect them to bank properly.

On the other hand, many much older GCI's and II's have original rubber that is still fine.

I did some medium-speed banking on my GCI after I read this and it banks perfectly. And although I don't have an objective test method for the quality of the rebound, it seems quite lively.

I had a GC4 for ten years. The 4 has modern specs for the rails and don’t need any work to replace the cushions. As far as I’m concerned, the GC4 plays very close to the blue labels. It would be a total waste to put Artemis on it. The only problem was that the table had extra shims to tighten it to 4.5/5 Extra shims suck for 1P/banks. I would have liked rail extensions to close it to 4.125 or 4.25 with superspeeds.
 

Lawnboy77

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Congrats to you.

I hate my Artemis.



Just curious as to why you dislike Artemis? I have a set of Superspeed rails (pro-cut) and my stock rails redone with Artemis, and while it’s early in the experimental phase, I can’t really tell much difference in the two. I did notice that the Artemis are a bit quieter on a hard hit shot straight on. Note: both sets torqued to 15 ft. Lbs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

angluse

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't know, but after playing on my new rails set at 4.5 *141 I think I can see why Ernesto wanted to decrease that angle for his pockets that go down to nearly 4 inch corners. Tight pockets are murder when it comes to making balls froze on the rail shot at a decent speed and the 138 would seem to help the situation some. I'm not saying it's right, or should be the standard, just thinking about the rationale behind the angle change.

I split my time between
a) 3 13/16", 141* T-Rail home table, Superspeed
b) 4" 141* GCs, Artemis (measured these when I was extending my home table, so I'm sure)
c) 4 1/4" GCs that I'm pretty sure Ernesto did. (didn't measure angles, but just eyeballing, they do look more parallel).

Opinions (I'm not a mechanic):

- (b) and (c) actually play about as difficult. I can definitely say that (c) rattles significantly more overall. Maybe (c) is more helpful at tight down the rail shots, I haven't paid enough attention to just those, to say for sure.
But overall, even with the 1/4" difference, and careful with pocket speed, there's a lot of :confused: ?!? rattles when, for example, playing matches on (c), after hours of (b), the same day.

- With (a) I obviously get plenty of rattles, but I hit plenty of down the rail shots on it. Not that I am to disagree with qualified mechanics, but after hours of play on each I still can't quite wrap my head around how more parallel openings actually help these specific shots. At least, not in any significant and measurable way; in other words, realistic and useful, esp. if most of the commercial tables you use are in the 140 range.
If one type of shot is helped, I guess I just wouldn't want the trade-off, negative effect on overall play.
Admittedly, (a) is hardly a good example to use in a realistic, playable table comparison. Obviously it's only for practice, not matches or entertaining. Only mentioning here since there are plenty of repeated down-the-rail shots on it.
 

jviss

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So, at a certain point, doesn't this start to be another game, something other than "pool?"

I mean, with 5", 142º corners and 5 1/2" 102º*sides, there are shots you can make that are unavailable with 4" pockets, let alone 3 13/16".

It's a completely different game with those tight pockets, don't you think?
 

Lawnboy77

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I split my time between
a) 3 13/16", 141* T-Rail home table, Superspeed
b) 4" 141* GCs, Artemis (measured these when I was extending my home table, so I'm sure)
c) 4 1/4" GCs that I'm pretty sure Ernesto did. (didn't measure angles, but just eyeballing, they do look more parallel).

Opinions (I'm not a mechanic):

- (b) and (c) actually play about as difficult. I can definitely say that (c) rattles significantly more overall. Maybe (c) is more helpful at tight down the rail shots, I haven't paid enough attention to just those, to say for sure.
But overall, even with the 1/4" difference, and careful with pocket speed, there's a lot of :confused: ?!? rattles when, for example, playing matches on (c), after hours of (b), the same day.

- With (a) I obviously get plenty of rattles, but I hit plenty of down the rail shots on it. Not that I am to disagree with qualified mechanics, but after hours of play on each I still can't quite wrap my head around how more parallel openings actually help these specific shots. At least, not in any significant and measurable way; in other words, realistic and useful, esp. if most of the commercial tables you use are in the 140 range.
If one type of shot is helped, I guess I just wouldn't want the trade-off, negative effect on overall play.
Admittedly, (a) is hardly a good example to use in a realistic, playable table comparison. Obviously it's only for practice, not matches or entertaining. Only mentioning here since there are plenty of repeated down-the-rail shots on it.



Interesting observation. The shots down the rail are going to almost have to strike the opposing facing on a tight pocket setup, so by decreasing the angle of the facing, it theoretically should take some energy off the OB and at the same time deflect the OB deeper into the pocket, as opposed to kicking back over to the opposite facing for that very familiar rattle.

Good topic, there are so many variables that come into play as well, such as age and condition of cloth and balls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Lawnboy77

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So, at a certain point, doesn't this start to be another game, something other than "pool?"



I mean, with 5", 142º corners and 5 1/2" 102º*sides, there are shots you can make that are unavailable with 4" pockets, let alone 3 13/16".



It's a completely different game with those tight pockets, don't you think?



I agree with you! Those are way too tight for me, but to each his own. If it works and develops top notch skills then go for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jviss

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I agree with you! Those are way too tight for me, but to each his own. If it works and develops top notch skills then go for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, well, note that they don't make tennis courts smaller for pros, nor football fields, table tennis tables, or 100 meters smaller or shorter for so-called "pro" play.
 

angluse

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So, at a certain point, doesn't this start to be another game, something other than "pool?"

I mean, with 5", 142º corners and 5 1/2" 102º*sides, there are shots you can make that are unavailable with 4" pockets, let alone 3 13/16".

It's a completely different game with those tight pockets, don't you think?

Absolutely. I wouldn't recommend it.

I only went down this road (extending was a lot of work!) because ~4" pockets at local places (one table 3 7/8" even), when I had to play a match on those, it really got in my head. Too many years on bar tables, I had a pretty sloppy stroke. I did this to alleviate that, and it definitely has.
Also, now I'm married to this table; if I ever wanted to sell, it would be pretty hard to find a buyer.
 

Lawnboy77

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yes, well, note that they don't make tennis courts smaller for pros, nor football fields, table tennis tables, or 100 meters smaller or shorter for so-called "pro" play.

Yes, but...I think we can look at it from a training perspective, not as folks trying to change the specs of the game. Talk to a commercial pilot and ask him what is easier, 8 hours in the simulator, or 8 hours of hauling passengers? The simulator time is always crazy challenging, much more challenging than a typical day of flying. It's really the same principle here.

The only problem I see is exactly what Anglus said, if you ever want to unload the training aide, who is going to buy it. Probably not a whole lot of folks wanting a pool table with 3-13/16" pockets.
 
Top