Gold Crowns and the term Diamonized

olgoat

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I am looking at three Gold Crowns. None of the owners know which GC model they have. But all three toss the term diamonize around. (Is it diamonize or diamondize?)

I searched through the forum here looking for what the term diamonize actually is supposed to mean. I didn't find much detail.

Pocket width only?

Subrail extention to achieve a narrower pocket opening?

How is the term misused in the field? IE shimmed pockets referred to as diamonized?


Thanks for any thoughts on the matter.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I am looking at three Gold Crowns. None of the owners know which GC model they have. But all three toss the term diamonize around. (Is it diamonize or diamondize?)

I searched through the forum here looking for what the term diamonize actually is supposed to mean. I didn't find much detail.

Pocket width only?

Subrail extention to achieve a narrower pocket opening?

How is the term misused in the field? IE shimmed pockets referred to as diamonized?


Thanks for any thoughts on the matter.
Been covered a lot on here. Mostly has to do with changing pocket size/angles. https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=207168
 

olgoat

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well that thread covered the definition pretty well.

"
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCue'sProtege View Post
Ok, I've read about diamondizing a table in another thread to a small degree. But since i've already got one of the ultimate tables - that being a Gold Crown IV - it got me to thinking about some things. So, i thought i'd start a discussion of this topic. here goes......
Quote:
1) Why would i want to change a Gold Crown when tons and tons of major championships were played on it for 30+ years and its still considered either the best or 2nd best table out there?
Diamond tables have been taking over the tournaments here in the US for many years now, just look at every major tournament held here and ask yourself which tables are being played on. I'm not knocking Brunswick...but Brunswick has failed to evolve with the stricter demands of the pool players today, so much so that they didn't even come out with a tighter pocket by extending the sub-rails until the GC5...and even then it's set at 4 9/16" openings. The GC4 tournament edition used thicker facings in an attempt to tighten the pockets. My buddy Mark Gregory is the table mechanic that designed the GC5 pockets for Brunswick...so I know what I'm talking about here. What somebody did in the past, has nothing to do with what they're doing today. Brunswick LET Diamond get into business 25 years ago...by doing nothing to make their tables play better, in order to stop Diamond from trying to make a better playing table, that's Brunswick's bad business decisions...not Diamond's. This is the very reason Brunswick's resale value is so low, and why Diamond's is so high...it's called customer demand, the more something is wanted...the more it's going to cost. Ever tried looking for a used Diamond 9ft ProAm?...you'll come across 1,000 GC's before one ProAm, and if you FIND that ProAm....it's not going to be priced cheap like a GC.


Quote:
2) What would be done to a Gold Crown IV if it were diamondized?
First of all, the rails would have to be calibrated to have the exact same thickness at the top edge of the sub-rail where the cushions line up at the down angle bevel, as different thickness rails are going to give you different nose heights of the cushions. I'm not going to give exact numbers, but there is an exact sub-rail thickness that is needed in order to align body of the cushion in proportion to the nose of the cushion when the nose height is set at 1 7/16"...and Brunswick rails are missing the sub-rail thickness mark by a mile, which effects the play of the cushions and the alignment of the nose of the cushions.

Then the cushions would have to be replaced with the Artemis Intercontinental K55 cushions, because these are the only cushions made that'll cross breed the table with the banking of a billiards table...with pockets. I can not describe how a table plays when this is done right....other than to call it a billiards table with pockets....it's something you have to see for yourself.

Then the pocket miters have to be corrected to 141 degrees, because with the 4 1/2" pockets, you want the pocket angles to deflect the balls being pocketed at pocket speed a little deeper in the jaws of the pocket instead of rattling the balls out if they're hit good. Some people would believe that making the pocket angles parallel to each other then tightening the pockets to 4" makes them play harder...wrong answer, as all that does is make the target smaller...but have a straight hallway so to speak for the balls to shoot right through, meaning either you're in...or your out....because there is no rattle of the pocket...so in that case, you have to focus all your attention on the smaller target if you don't want to miss the shot...and shoot your next shot basically from where you land the cue ball....because to combine position play with 4" pockets...is a stroke of luck in most cases.


Quote:
3) What are the costs? how long does it take? can it be done at my home?
Depending on the rails and the condition they're in, plus cushions, cloth, leveling the slates...and fixing any thing else that can be fixed...like the frame rails on your GC4 from sagging...in the neighbor hood of about $1,500 to $2,000. It can take anywhere from 2 days...to a week, and yes...I always do my work at the customers home.

Quote:
4) Does diamondizing a Gold Crown IV actually make it play better? or just play different?
Better and different....wouldn't that be about the same, because if the table played better than any table you've ever played on...wouldn't that be different?

Glen "

Interested in the comments on the misuse of the term. The thread cited was from 2010. A lot of water over the damn since then.

Thanks all
 

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
Don't do it.
Stick with Super Speed cushions .
4 3/8 to 4 1/2 corners but less than 141*. I suggest 138 to 139 degree max.
 

trentfromtoledo

8onthebreaktoledo
Silver Member
Just skip all the headaches and BUY A 9' BLUE LABEL DIAMOND.

A GC is never going to be a Diamond. "Diamondize" is a term for wanna be Diamond that never will be.

Just my $0.02

TFT
 

trentfromtoledo

8onthebreaktoledo
Silver Member
Don't do it.
Stick with Super Speed cushions .
4 3/8 to 4 1/2 corners but less than 141*. I suggest 138 to 139 degree max.

Where do you come up with this?? Those angles are completely wrong. 141 is great. Here is an example of a GC3 with 4.5" corners at 141.

TFT

P.s. it is NOT "Diamondized" it is a proper subrail extension with angles corrected to 141.
 

Attachments

  • 997dd76fcb38d53e923178fada2291c2d92da828-1.jpg
    997dd76fcb38d53e923178fada2291c2d92da828-1.jpg
    203.4 KB · Views: 423

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
Where do you come up with this?? Those angles are completely wrong. 141 is great. Here is an example of a GC3 with 4.5" corners at 141.

TFT

P.s. it is NOT "Diamondized" it is a proper subrail extension with angles corrected to 141.

Tell that to Ernesto .
Sorry Trent, I don't agree with 141* being great .
A little less than 4 1/2 with less flare play better .
And Ernesto and Oscar are world class players .
141 are spitters.
Down angle ? Don't even Diamondize GC's to Diamond's down angle.

And I agree, it's not " Diamondized ".
I had mine DE-Diamondized.

Blue Label is the solution to Artemis banking short.
Red Label with Super Speed play fine .
 
Last edited:

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Where do you come up with this?? Those angles are completely wrong. 141 is great. Here is an example of a GC3 with 4.5" corners at 141.

TFT

P.s. it is NOT "Diamondized" it is a proper subrail extension with angles corrected to 141.

I agree. My old table (4") was cut at 141 degrees and played great; accepted balls that should drop and spit balls out that weren't hit well. It certainly wasn't a rattle machine like Olhausens. IMO, Ernesto cuts his pocked too parallel for my liking.
 

trentfromtoledo

8onthebreaktoledo
Silver Member
Tell that to Ernesto .
Sorry Trent, I don't agree with 141* being great .
A little less than 4 1/2 with less flare play better .
And Ernesto and Oscar are world class players .
141 are spitters.
Down angle ? Don't even Diamondize GC's to Diamond's down angle.

And I agree, it's not " Diamondized ".
I had mine DE-Diamondized.

Blue Label is the solution to Artemis banking short.
Red Label with Super Speed play fine .

So the people who actually BUILD pool tables are wrong? Sorry, I dont care what Ernesto says. NO ONE accept him uses those specs, not other top mechanics or manufacturers. Diamond, Brunswick (gc4-6) and now Rasson all use 141 degrees on the corners. So why would anyone want to play on a table that is not the "norm" concerning pocket angles? NOT ME :)

As for your comment about the down angle, no you should not use the diamond down angle on a GC because the slate shelf is far deeper on the diamond.

I will stick to 141 :)

Trent
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So the people who actually BUILD pool tables are wrong? Sorry, I dont care what Ernesto says. NO ONE accept him uses those specs, not other top mechanics or manufacturers. Diamond, Brunswick (gc4-6) and now Rasson all use 141 degrees on the corners. So why would anyone want to play on a table that is not the "norm" concerning pocket angles? NOT ME :)

As for your comment about the down angle, no you should not use the diamond down angle on a GC because the slate shelf is far deeper on the diamond.

I will stick to 141 :)

Trent

What down angle do you use on GC's?
 

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
So the people who actually BUILD pool tables are wrong? Sorry, I dont care what Ernesto says. NO ONE accept him uses those specs, not other top mechanics or manufacturers. Diamond, Brunswick (gc4-6) and now Rasson all use 141 degrees on the corners. So why would anyone want to play on a table that is not the "norm" concerning pocket angles? NOT ME :)

As for your comment about the down angle, no you should not use the diamond down angle on a GC because the slate shelf is far deeper on the diamond.

I will stick to 141 :)

Trent

Glen must have been wrong in cutting the angle to less than 141 on that right Diamond table used in one ppv match then.
 

trentfromtoledo

8onthebreaktoledo
Silver Member
Glen must have been wrong in cutting the angle to less than 141 on that right Diamond table used in one ppv match then.


Sorry, but, that is saying absolutely nothing. Factory specs on all production diamonds are 141, brunswick gc4-6 and Rasson too~.

TFT
 

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
Sorry, but, that is saying absolutely nothing. Factory specs on all production diamonds are 141, brunswick gc4-6 and Rasson too~.

TFT

It does to me.
Why do it if it doesn't play better .


It's called progress Trent.
Factory opening and angles on GC I's to III's were ridiculous .
Then people started tightening their tables.
GC's were not at 141* before.
The WPA still allows more than 141*.

If more people started clamoring for angles less than 141*, who's to say WPA wouldn't change their specs ?

Diamondizing GC's with Artemis to Blue Label specs is a costly conversion.
And you might not even like it .
 

trentfromtoledo

8onthebreaktoledo
Silver Member
You are not making any sense. 141 is the progress. You are the only one I have ever heard saying this stuff about wanting 138/139 degree corner pockets. I suppose you want the sides changed to 99 degrees rather than 102?

Again, ALL of the manufacturers are at 141 degrees on the corners.

I am completely AGAINST the idea of "diamondizing" a Gold Crown. I call it BASTARDIZING. I am all for changing the angles on a GC1-3 to 141 though. Of course keeping with Superspeed cushions.

Here is a pic of a client of mines GC1 in Vero Beach FLA. 4.25" corners at 141 degrees.


TFT

It does to me.
Why do it if it doesn't play better .


It's called progress Trent.
Factory opening and angles on GC I's to III's were ridiculous .
Then people started tightening their tables.
GC's were not at 141* before.
The WPA still allows more than 141*.

If more people started clamoring for angles less than 141*, who's to say WPA wouldn't change their specs ?

Diamondizing GC's with Artemis to Blue Label specs is a costly conversion.
And you might not even like it .
 

Attachments

  • 8dcda403b6e54ad1efd8b6f82eb822c9a78e4278-1.jpg
    8dcda403b6e54ad1efd8b6f82eb822c9a78e4278-1.jpg
    187.8 KB · Views: 298

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You are not making any sense. 141 is the progress. You are the only one I have ever heard saying this stuff about wanting 138/139 degree corner pockets. I suppose you want the sides changed to 99 degrees rather than 102?

Again, ALL of the manufacturers are at 141 degrees on the corners.

I am completely AGAINST the idea of "diamondizing" a Gold Crown. I call it BASTARDIZING. I am all for changing the angles on a GC1-3 to 141 though. Of course keeping with Superspeed cushions.

Here is a pic of a client of mines GC1 in Vero Beach FLA. 4.25" corners at 141 degrees.


TFT

That's what a pocket opening should look like, IMO.
 

olgoat

AzB Silver Member
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.
 
Top