Not to further derail the topic, but the 2 is identical to the 1, with the exception of color. Zero difference in construction. It would be like saying 'the Tangerine colored Gold Crown I was the worst'.Some models of the GC are better than others. The 2’s & 3’s being the worst the 1’s & 4’s being the best. The 5’s are ok. Idk about the 6’s yet as I have no experience with them yet.
Kindest regards
Fatboy
Actual Brunswick Gold Crown iii vs Brunswick Centurion review
- Thread starter Willowbrook Wolfy
- Start date
HAHAHAHAHA! this AZB, we can't take it all too seriously can we?? have finally realized it is a fun place to come and be WRONG AND RIGHT at the same time. I am on your side here! EXACT same table as the end production! Also the shortest production run of all the series, like 2 years I think. Hope you are well and business is crankin!
TFT
Found this old chart that shows the difference between the models.
Probably been posted many times here, but what the heck.
Problem is these specs were never written in stone. B'wick tended to use whatever parts they had laying around. For ex. a friend has a GC3 with a frame from a 1/2. Some of the early 3's used them until B'wick ran out. Some late 1's had adjustable feet. I've talked to mech's that told me you really have no idea until you open one up as to what parts is on it. Oh yeah, EVERY one of them was built better than any Centurion.
One LAST(promise) thing on this subject: Yrs ago you'd go in a room that had Centurion-type B'wicks or Gandy Big G's and you just felt like you were playing on cheap equipment. They didn't look as good, 'feel'(hard to explain this i get it) as good or sound as good. You walk in a spot full of Crowns and you just felt better about things in general. I'm glad this guy has a table he could afford and i'm sure it plays ok but PLEASE stop ANY comparisons of it and a Gold Crown. Done. Outta here.................................
One last guy that is not a mechanic or worked on the Brunswick Century or Centurion. OPINONS are great, but FACTS are much better.
TFT
On top of all that, the number of Frankenstein tables out there after all these years are probably too high to count.Problem is these specs were never written in stone. B'wick tended to use whatever parts they had laying around. For ex. a friend has a GC3 with a frame from a 1/2. Some of the early 3's used them until B'wick ran out. Some late 1's had adjustable feet. I've talked to mech's that told me you really have no idea until you open one up as to what parts is on it. Oh yeah, EVERY one of them was built better than any Centurion.
Willowbrook Wolfy
Your wushu is weak!
Thank you for the kind words. The debating can be fun but was getting a bit old on this one.
Willowbrook Wolfy
Your wushu is weak!
I found another downfall of the Centurion. But it might apply to any table. All my pockets are shimmed and flush to rail. But the action near the points isn’t the same as on a non shimmed GC. Next to the point usually flattens out the angle when you compress it. My rails don’t. Shims seem a little harder than cushions. Is one kind of shim superior in getting the correct action off of it? Or is it the table? It actually plays more true. But that’s not better in the case here because it’s not the same as one without shims. Without shims that’s the spot you can do weird things with.
Last edited:
All pockets have facings. Shim them too much and they play like shit.
You shouldn't stack facings to achieve a tighter pocket. Ideally, the facing (one at the end of each rail) should be 60 durometer rubber between 1/8"-3/16" thick. The facings should be more firm than the cushion. If they were the same as the cushion, they would play too lively. Stacking the facings make the corners play very dead on any table.