Brunswick Wellington...?

betyouaint

Registered
Apologies if you've already seen this in the main forum but after posting I was pointed here for a more precise answer. It was suggested that my table is a Brunswick Wellington but on further investigation there seems to be a number of design cues that are inconsistent with this model. E.g. the lower taper on the leg (pic 6), the additional profiled pieces on the base directly above the legs (pic 5). Were there variations over the years or is it possible that it was modified at some point? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree altogether?


PT00.jpg


PT01.jpg


PT02.jpg


PT03.jpg


PT04.jpg


PT05.jpg


PT06.jpg


PT08.jpg


PT09.jpg
 
Last edited:

betyouaint

Registered
Yeah... that was my first stop. The guy I bought it from said he thought it was a Brunswick and the recess in the rail suggested it once held a Brunswick plaque. Unfortunately, I couldn't match it to anything on the Brunswick site, which makes me doubt its supposed origin. It's clearly a very old table and it has seen some abuse; I daren't imagine how many layers of stain and varnish have been carelessly slapped on over the years. Ideally, it needs stripping back but I fear I would cause more damage. Maybe that's a task for my retirement. Right now, I'm more interested in getting the slate laid and potting a few balls with friends and family. It would be nice to have some history to bore them with while we play.

Are there any other ways to date the table, e.g. types of bolts, pockets, etc...?
 
Last edited:

betyouaint

Registered
A few photos of the bolts and screws. Also a picture of the older set of balls that came with the table. Not sure if they are original but they don't look in great shape. Also pics of the slate and pre-assembled pieces.

PT10.jpg


PT11.jpg


PT12.jpg


PT13.jpg


PT14.jpg


PT15.jpg
 
Last edited:

ROB.M

:)
Silver Member
I have seen a few of these mystery tables. I'm getting ready in a few weeks to start on one.
Remove the cloth off one of the rails to see what cushions are on the table, take pictures of the cushion with the rail cloth removed top& bottom and post it up. It might help.
My guess is the table is early 1900's maybe even late 1890's
A.E Schmidt,JE came or Brunswick. But there was a lot of cabinet building going on back then by craftsman in that trade who needed to feed there family's so they see what is base line and knock build and sell what's popular.
I have talked with a few resources about these type of tables that keep popping up all of the sudden and got kind of idea about these tables..there all similar in some ways..
You have 4 or 5 digit stamped?
-
- ever seen the moon side of the table?
Must only be set up in the winter at night I guess?????
-
Rob.M
 

Attachments

  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356591273.596607.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356591273.596607.jpg
    48.6 KB · Views: 1,357
  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356591351.277854.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356591351.277854.jpg
    43.9 KB · Views: 1,294
  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356591426.700002.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356591426.700002.jpg
    37.9 KB · Views: 1,283
  • ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356591451.715299.jpg
    ImageUploadedByTapatalk1356591451.715299.jpg
    49 KB · Views: 1,317
Last edited:

betyouaint

Registered
Thanks for the info, Rob. I too am starting to think that this may be a "rogue" table. There is a 4-digit stamp on all the main pieces, 4685, although oddly, one of the rails has a slightly different number, 4683...? The base pieces are also numbered for assembly with a single digit.

Moon side...?

Your photos show a very similar basic construction. Interesting...

Unfortunately, the cushions were replaced not too long ago. I bought the table from my boss (Mike) who had had it sat dismantled in his basement for several years. He in turn had bought it off another colleague (Bob) who had it re-cushioned and recovered. Bob had rescued it from one of his in-laws and before that the trail goes a bit cold. I think Bob had also tried to do a little research before he sold it on but didn't drew a blank.

I have a guy coming in the next few weeks to complete the construction of the table and lay the slate. Maybe he has some insight too...
 

ROB.M

:)
Silver Member
Table

Your rails have the #3 pocket irons. Replacing the cushions on those rails as your buddy did was kind of a boo-boo.. Those rails can not directly accept todays modern cushions...the chushions 100 years ago is different than the present cushions today..K-66 might fit but it's not the proper application.
That set of rails is a job for mark gregory, his workshop is set up for miracle work on pool table/Billiards tables.
-
PM sent>
-
-
Rob.M
 

matteroner

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Your rails have the #3 pocket irons. Replacing the cushions on those rails as your buddy did was kind of a boo-boo.. Those rails can not directly accept todays modern cushions...the chushions 100 years ago is different than the present cushions today..K-66 might fit but it's not the proper application.
That set of rails is a job for mark gregory, his workshop is set up for miracle work on pool table/Billiards tables.
-
PM sent>
-
-
Rob.M
yeah ...k-55's would work okay but make the playing surface small.
k-66's need to be set really low on the setting strip .....they don't look right but they play pretty good and keep the surface correct.

however getting the recalibration is the way to go ...

I am just wondering why artemis or even brunswick doesn't make the cushions .....really you can't make the cushions to fit on your 100 year old tables?
 

betyouaint

Registered
Feeling brave and bored I decided to lay the slate and felt myself. Against popular opinion, I used beeswax for the seams. So glad I did... spot on.

PT25s.jpg


PT20s.jpg


PT21s.jpg
 
Last edited:

Catalyze

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Great effort and outcome on a lovely survivor table. I hope it plays well for you.
Craig
 

betyouaint

Registered
Seems to be approx 1 5/16" (33-34mm) which I believe is a little on the low side. Then again, it's of no great concern to me as I'm by no means a proficient player. As long as I have a nice smooth and level surface, I'm fairly content. Obviously, I'd like to have a perfect table but only if it comes without significant cost. The greatest sin committed when this table had its rubber replaced was the way the cloth was folded on the ends of the rails. It was so bad that I had to redo a couple of them myself, and despite having no skill or experience in this area, I did a better job. Still, I only paid $200 for the table so I can't complain too much.
 
Last edited:

RackemBilliards

Player, Room Owner
Silver Member
Cool old table. Definately not a Wellington in my opinion. Brunswick did have a name plate in that shape. I love the construction of the old tables. The screws and the bolts holding the frame together do look like Brunswick to me.
 
Last edited:

psueric

New member
Just stumbling across this post years later. I've got what I believe to be a Brunswick Wellington Table from the Early 1900's, I've actually used a few Brunswick Catalogs to date the table to approx 1908. There are inconsistencies, and I've talked to other pool table antique enthusiasts, who claim that the manufacturing process back in that era was not like it is today, and that many variations existed because of low production volumes. The major inconsistencies with mine include the pocket iron style (the wellington appears to have the gold tabs which sit atop the rails, where my table has the pocket irons that extend inside the rails.) Also, my table tray is cut in half on the short sides, and the bolts which are used to hold the tray together were manufactured in a way to suggest that this was the design of the table, as opposed to an aftermarket "cut". But the original catalog for the Wellington shows a 1 piece tray that's not cut. I'll try to post supporting pictures, both pre and post restoration.
 

Attachments

  • DCP_2508.jpg
    DCP_2508.jpg
    173.7 KB · Views: 492
  • DCP_2511.jpg
    DCP_2511.jpg
    174.4 KB · Views: 465
  • DCP_2517.jpg
    DCP_2517.jpg
    177.9 KB · Views: 468
  • DCP_2553.jpg
    DCP_2553.jpg
    197.2 KB · Views: 456
  • DCP_2557.jpg
    DCP_2557.jpg
    191.4 KB · Views: 453

psueric

New member
More Pics from the 1908 Brunswick Wellington Project
 

Attachments

  • DCP_2558.jpg
    DCP_2558.jpg
    197 KB · Views: 454
  • DCP_2564.jpg
    DCP_2564.jpg
    193.4 KB · Views: 444
  • DCP_2566.jpg
    DCP_2566.jpg
    199.1 KB · Views: 459
  • DCP_2991.jpg
    DCP_2991.jpg
    194.8 KB · Views: 598
  • DCP_3273.jpg
    DCP_3273.jpg
    166.5 KB · Views: 468

Boxcar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Apologies if you've already seen this in the main forum but after posting I was pointed here for a more precise answer. It was suggested that my table is a Brunswick Wellington but on further investigation there seems to be a number of design cues that are inconsistent with this model. E.g. the lower taper on the leg (pic 6), the additional profiled pieces on the base directly above the legs (pic 5). Were there variations over the years or is it possible that it was modified at some point? Or am I just barking up the wrong tree altogether?


PT00.jpg


PT01.jpg


PT02.jpg


PT03.jpg


PT04.jpg


PT05.jpg


PT06.jpg


PT08.jpg


PT09.jpg

The "Wellington" was manufactured under 18 different construction patents from 1892 to 1905. In other words, your table was built using a number of different practices and construction designs. Much in the same way GC1's are very different from GC5's.

I'll try to post some old catalog pictures.
 
Top