Anniversary, GC or Diamond?

measureman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
After playing on Diamonds I find the GC to be slop buckets given the same pocket size.
Diamonds are a challenge to play on.
But I would seriously consider an Anniversary table just for the history and looks.
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Gold Crown II

Easier to set up than a GC I.

Main frame side members run the full length of the table and the end frame members run in between.

Adjustable feet

Other than the P. Lam. clad rail caps, it's as low tech and as servicable as it gets.

I would suggest drop pockets rather than ball return.

You'll never want for more.
I and II frames are identical and all but the early GCI's came with adjustible feet. The I and II are virtually identical except for aesthetics.

49622721612_87e36a1f40_c.jpg
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I would personally go with a Gold Crown. They are relatively inexpensive used and you can make them look every bit as nice as a brand new table. I bought mine for $400 and invested about $3K in cosmetics, subrail extension, new rubber, setup and a matching custom light I built. I much prefer the aesthetics of the Gold Crowns (especially the I's) over the Diamonds.

49622667162_d9aece492c_k.jpg


49725546583_91ffeab4da_k.jpg
 

lakeman77

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
For a table at home, choose what you normally play on at your local rooms. If you practice on a GC and your local room has Diamonds you will be "behind the 8 ball" as they say :)
 

jtompilot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I personally hate the way the pocket lip sticks up on the GC1-3. The GC4 has the newer spec cushions but still has the GC look that we grew up on and it plays almost the same as a Blue label Diamond. I do love the Anniversary and would just have to accept the pocket design. Most of the rooms I go to have Diamonds so that's probably what I'd pick.
 
Gold Crown II

Easier to set up than a GC I.

Main frame side members run the full length of the table and the end frame members run in between.

Adjustable feet

Other than the P. Lam. clad rail caps, it's as low tech and as servicable as it gets.

I would suggest drop pockets rather than ball return.

You'll never want for more.
I've been looking for an 8' OS GC IV but I would consider a II if it came in 8 or 8 OS. I know where I can get an Anniversary, but I'm torn between my admiration for it's looks and fear of getting a project more complicated than I am up for (your comments in the mechanic section were instructive). I know exactly what I can get for $8k. I don't really want to spend that much, in part because I know what I should be able to get for around $4k +/- restored and set up, that I would enjoy playing on just as much, if not more.
 

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Diamond because of all the design and manufacturing issues with the GC. I've whined about them in excruciating detail elsewhere. The players who bonded to GCs in the 60s through the 90s are unable to see those faults. Greg Sullivan did see those faults and designed his table to get rid of them.

The GC was designed and built poorly. Some models are better than others.
 

rexus31

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've been looking for an 8' OS GC IV but I would consider a II if it came in 8 or 8 OS. I know where I can get an Anniversary, but I'm torn between my admiration for it's looks and fear of getting a project more complicated than I am up for (your comments in the mechanic section were instructive). I know exactly what I can get for $8k. I don't really want to spend that much, in part because I know what I should be able to get for around $4k +/- restored and set up, that I would enjoy playing on just as much, if not more.
I'm fairly certain the II did not come in OS 8' size. The II's are very rare as they were only made for a couple of years. Most all the early Gold Crowns are I's as production ran for 14 years.
 
Last edited:

iusedtoberich

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Diamond because of all the design and manufacturing issues with the GC. I've whined about them in excruciating detail elsewhere. The players who bonded to GCs in the 60s through the 90s are unable to see those faults. Greg Sullivan did see those faults and designed his table to get rid of them.

The GC was designed and built poorly. Some models are better than others.

True this. Its amazing after 60 or so years the new GC6's still have the pocket castings that stick up all over the place. I wonder if the metal still tarnishes to all hell. I know the 1-4's did. I don't have personal experience with the 5 and 6.
 
You can buy my restored Centennial and have all of it in one table ;)
Love the Centennial too. I have a Centennial light in my room actually. No matter what table I get it's simple elegance and neutal color (silver/pewter) will work. I don't want to spend that much on a table in general and I can't do 9 (wish I could, but can't).
 

measureman

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Diamond because of all the design and manufacturing issues with the GC. I've whined about them in excruciating detail elsewhere. The players who bonded to GCs in the 60s through the 90s are unable to see those faults. Greg Sullivan did see those faults and designed his table to get rid of them.

The GC was designed and built poorly. Some models are better than others.
Kind of like the big 3 auto makers during the '50's and '60's putting out crap cars because they had 95% of the market.
Why bother to increase quality when you have no competition.
 
I would personally go with a Gold Crown. They are relatively inexpensive used and you can make them look every bit as nice as a brand new table. I bought mine for $400 and invested about $3K in cosmetics, subrail extension, new rubber, setup and a matching custom light I built. I much prefer the aesthetics of the Gold Crowns (especially the I's) over the Diamonds.

49622667162_d9aece492c_k.jpg


49725546583_91ffeab4da_k.jpg
Beautiful table. $3500 or so all-in is great for a table like that. I would do the same.
 
Diamond because of all the design and manufacturing issues with the GC. I've whined about them in excruciating detail elsewhere. The players who bonded to GCs in the 60s through the 90s are unable to see those faults. Greg Sullivan did see those faults and designed his table to get rid of them.

The GC was designed and built poorly. Some models are better than others.
Do you have a link to the "excruciating detail" that I can read? I've played on GCs a lot, but at a time in my life when the nuance of table performance was something I wasn't aware of. Everyone's got tables they love, usually their own, and some faults are easy to overlook or simply don't make a material difference in play.
 
I'm fairly certain the II did not come in OS 8' size. The II's are very rare as they were only made for a couple of years. Most all the early Gold Crowns are I's as production ran for 14 years.
You're right. It came in standard 8 but I suspect there aren't many out there, at least compared to 9.
 

Lawnboy77

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Sellingboe, you can do a forum search to see what most folks dislike about the Gold Crowns. Just compare the GC to Diamonds on the search function and there will be plenty of reading for you.
 
Top