Best table...

DeeDeeCues said:
If you haven't played on a diamond, they play way differently than real pool tables. Don't spend 10k on one without playing on a diamond for a few hours.

They are also ugly. The only thing diamond got right is the flush pockets.

If you are willing to spend diamond money, I expect you will be happier with a gold crown that had been restored. They will be what you were used to playing on in the nineties.
Click to expand...
Worst take I’ve ever heard. The Diamond Paragon they use for the US Open Nineball is one of the most attractive tables made and they play better than anything else. Literally anything else
 
DeeDeeCues said:
The paragon looks like a constipated dog trying to squat one out. The proportions are all wrong.
Click to expand...
You’ve seen it in person? Agree to disagree but the elegant simplicity of the design is wonderful. None of these odd designs in the wood to try and make it look fancier than it is. It’s simple and classy. You’re the only person I’ve heard to dislike it. And you like goldcrowns? They’re classic but UGLY. Definitely a look from the days of cigarette ash and hustling, they look like they need to be in bars. Diamonds made pool look good, they’re sturdy and got some heft that just generally feels better to play on from a sporting perspective. Gold crowns just don’t have that power in the look unfortunately, they look weak
 
I'd look for a GC, If you can find one, It will maintain it's value, you can get parts, Those are very well made.

mine was free but a brute to move.. Its a Brunswick balk Collender with snooker style pockets and I'm really loving it .. Excellent quality.
They just don't make them like that anymore..
The subframe however is one giant piece and it does not come apart.. Moving the 3 piece slate was the easy part, the frame is way larger and it's extremely heavy.

I like old stuff, antique furniture, anything made of that particleboard crap I took to the dump.
The thing I personally don't like with a lot of the modern pool tables is they are basically made from particleboard , coated with a plastic material. if particleboard ever gets wet, or is exposed to dampness then it sucks up the water and it basically gets elephanitis. often the rails will start to delaminate , that plastic clad material shrinks and the glue lets go. some of the lesser quality tables alrready suffer from this issue.. one of the reasons why I'd personally gravitate towards an older table is you may find, If it's old enough , the rails are made of hardwood which looks beautiful and is longer lasting..

If the rails are coated with a plastic laminate . like the diamonds, and you like that look, all the power to you. I personally hate that stuff, wheather it's office furniture, counters or a pool table, its all becme the standard of today.. real wood, especially nice hardwoods are much more expensive..

there are different types and grades of particlebard, medium and high density particleboard..

If you think way back to early school years , the tops of those desks was a type of particlenborad but it was very dense heavy stuff.. loaded with some sort of glue. that was a lot more durable than most of the pastic clad particleboard junk of today.. it may have been saturated with materials which are not used today.. whatever that stuff is, youll almost never se one of those old school desks delaminating.. the things were dimensionally stable but unlike modern particleboard..

I think brunsick used a material similar to that and you don't see the brunswick rails all delaminating too often, some may, but not to the degree of the chinese imports. copies of the GC etc..

I think they used a material more like the old 60's school desks and it's unlike modern particleboard.. looks similar but much more stable and higher quality.

Most of the diamond tables aren't there quite yet as they are relatively new.. I can't say wheather they will all display this delamination issue or not..
i'ts somethign I'd personally try to steer clear of if I have the option.. some of the really old pool tables are solid hardwoods, oak and such. Beautiful quality.. Thats the market I'd be interested in personally..

if you are devoted to 8 or 9 ball you don't want rounded pockets.

You might like the diamonds if you play in leages and thats what they use. Some want to practice on the exact same type of table they may play on in competition and thats what they wantp base their choice upon.. from that standpoint alone there is some sense in it.

This one i got suits me perfectly because I love snooker, I have a true appreciation for quality antiques. It cannot go down in value.. I am certainly not getting a 12 footer in the house so at about 100 inches x 50 inches it's absolutely perfect for my needs..
I was very happy with free and it had new cushons and really good quality felt in nice shape. I reused the felt.

if you have time to look , you will likely find someone moving houses, thats when you can get a bargain.. they are not easy to sell. I see many free ones near me because of property values.. Allowing space isn't something everyone can afford .. Im seeing 5 story appartments and tall towers spring up everywhere, not new houses.. The only new houses here are preceeded by teardowns.

If the cost is a consideration I'd look used and not be in a huge rush.. If you can afford to spend on a new one , then so be it. go for what you want. Some people just want new things and are able to give up quality for the look of new things. that's personal and my feelings are directly opposite,, You should get what you want. Id sway towards an older classic GC, but I;d also look at any table of the size you like..
Arguing over style is a fools game, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. one of my favorite styles is Art Deco. the legs on a lot of the realy early ones were really ornate hardwood. Im actually not a big fan of fake wood but a lot of the GC's were just that.. I personally do'nt like fake wood that is made to look like wood that has black paint on it or stark white stuff, but that's a modern style now.

you did specify that YOU want a NEW table,, so thats what you should have then.. It just wouldn't be my choice. Thats ok.. weight up YOUR options.. You might talk with your local pool table mover/mechanics.. and sales people, see what your local options are.
 
Last edited:
DeeDeeCues said:
The paragon looks like a constipated dog trying to squat one out. The proportions are all wrong.
Click to expand...
Sounds like it's a matter of taste.

The Paragon looks fine in our Gameroom.

Looking NE SM 02.jpg
 
iusedtoberich said:
Play on them, then go play on the GC's 6 feet away from them. The rails bounce completely different. I personally hate the way the Diamond's bounce.
Click to expand...
15 foot pounds on the rail bolts makes a world of difference. The idiots that installed mine didn't even get that right.
 
Interesting to see such mixed views on Diamonds. I like the Gold Crown 3 and 4, but they are not attractive. And the new ones costing more than a Diamond is ridiculous. Hurts marketability.

I keep wondering when Rasson is going to make a big push in the US. I am surprised Diamond has had a near monopoly on high-end tables for serious players for so long.

I've only played on 7 ft Diamonds, and they didn’t bank short. Going to have play on a nine footer before I buy one.
 
all depends on your shooting. if you are a rec player or family plays, you may not want a tight diamond. despite what fellers here will lead you.

if its furniture in your house than maybe an olhausen which is less than half the price of a diamond and have tables that fit in living spaces.

also get drop pockets with all leather webbing. if its going to be played on while someone is sleeping. olhausen and old brunswick have those.
downside of olhausen is the pockets are cut wide in the back and more balls will rattle and not go in. irritating for many.
 
What size are the pockets on a standard GC 3? Thats what I mostly play on.

i have an Olhausen at home for now. Pockets are too big and indeed they rattle too much.

My wife doesn’t mind the looks of a GC 3, but she really does like the Diamond with oak finish and blue cloth.
 
jbart65 said:
What size are the pockets on a standard GC 3? Thats what I mostly play on.

i have an Olhausen at home for now. Pockets are too big and indeed they rattle too much.

My wife doesn’t mind the looks of a GC 3, but she really does like the Diamond with oak finish and blue cloth.
Click to expand...
5" I believe but it could be 4.75"
 
I’ll have to measure. The GCs I play have smaller pockets than my Olhausen.

Got to wonder why Diamond never changed the rails so they don’t play short. Raises the question: are the Diamonds more angle accurate or are most of the other, older brands?

As I noted, though, the new Diamond 7-footers I played on did not bank short. I wonder why. I understand they have different cushions than the 9 footers. If so, why not use those cushions on the 9 footers …
 
jbart65 said:
I’ll have to measure. The GCs I play have smaller pockets than my Olhausen.

Got to wonder why Diamond never changed the rails so they don’t play short. Raises the question: are the Diamonds more angle accurate or are most of the other, older brands?

As I noted, though, the new Diamond 7-footers I played on did not bank short. I wonder why. I understand they have different cushions than the 9 footers. If so, why not use those cushions on the 9 footers …
Click to expand...
Having the rail bolts properly torqued to 15 foot pounds makes them bank much better.
 
the bounce the rail provides has a lot to do with how it is attached to the slate, by design..
On some tables the rails go through the slate from the top and on better ones the rails are locked in to the slate itself by way of bolts that are horizantal..
Attaching this way adds the weight of the slate to that of the rail and improves bounce.. The other way to accomplish this is to add a big hunk of steel to the rail, the weight helps a lot.
if the rail height is wrong, or if the rubber isn't optimal this also reduces the bounce..
if the rail is not very heavy or if it has a poor attachment design, then the bounce is affected..

to observe this difference you can just try bouncing balls off the rails of a really high quality table, the rails themselves are quite silent because the impact is returned rather than basically making the rail itself resonate upon impact.. that resonation reduces the effectiveness of the bounce , the rail is moving by some microscopic amount and absorbing the impact rather than returning it to the ball..
a good table is very silent and has a solid feel.. Most tables have a lot of room for improvement.. they are generally made just "good enough" rather than as good as they can be, to save manufacturing costs.
If the rail is held by bolts that are vertical and tightened up (most are like this) then the impact is not transferred to the slate through the bolt very well, as it is pushing the bolt sideways and relying on the torque of the bolt to hold the rail steady..

Its a lot cheaper to build them with bolts that run through the slate top down, than to put the bolts horizontal so they can enter the edge of the slate.. The second method provides a much more solid attachment.. It's more expensive to put the rail attachment bolts horizantally, because the slate needs to be milled out from underneath and blocks need to be installed into those pockets for the bolts to lock into..

If you are comparing tables, I'd pay special attention to the design, material, composition and actal weight of the rails , and by what method they are locked in to the slate itself to provide the rigidity. Try to bounce some balls off really high end tables and then on the more common ones.
you can put your hands on the rail and have someone else take hard shots at it.. on the higher quality tables you can barey feel the impact, on a cheap table or one with loose rails you can literally feel the thud of impact transition through the rail.. this is lost energy. The more solid and heavy the rail is, the better it returns the ball's energy.
 
snookered_again said:
the bounce the rail provides has a lot to do with how it is attached to the slate, by design..
On some tables the rails go through the slate from the top and on better ones the rails are locked in to the slate itself by way of bolts that are horizantal..
Attaching this way adds the weight of the slate to that of the rail and improves bounce.. The other way to accomplish this is to add a big hunk of steel to the rail, the weight helps a lot.
if the rail height is wrong, or if the rubber isn't optimal this also reduces the bounce..
if the rail is not very heavy or if it has a poor attachment design, then the bounce is affected..

to observe this difference you can just try bouncing balls off the rails of a really high quality table, the rails themselves are quite silent because the impact is returned rather than basically making the rail itself resonate upon impact.. that resonation reduces the effectiveness of the bounce , the rail is moving by some microscopic amount and absorbing the impact rather than returning it to the ball..
a good table is very silent and has a solid feel.. Most tables have a lot of room for improvement.. they are generally made just "good enough" rather than as good as they can be, to save manufacturing costs.
If the rail is held by bolts that are vertical and tightened up (most are like this) then the impact is not transferred to the slate through the bolt very well, as it is pushing the bolt sideways and relying on the torque of the bolt to hold the rail steady..

Its a lot cheaper to build them with bolts that run through the slate top down, than to put the bolts horizontal so they can enter the edge of the slate.. The second method provides a much more solid attachment.. It's more expensive to put the rail attachment bolts horizantally, because the slate needs to be milled out from underneath and blocks need to be installed into those pockets for the bolts to lock into..

If you are comparing tables, I'd pay special attention to the design, material, composition and actal weight of the rails , and by what method they are locked in to the slate itself to provide the rigidity. Try to bounce some balls off really high end tables and then on the more common ones.
you can put your hands on the rail and have someone else take hard shots at it.. on the higher quality tables you can barey feel the impact, on a cheap table or one with loose rails you can literally feel the thud of impact transition through the rail.. this is lost energy. The more solid and heavy the rail is, the better it returns the ball's energy.
Click to expand...
OK who builds pool tables where the rails bolt to the edge of the slate? Diamond don't, Rasson don't , GC's don't and I don't believe Predator does either? I would think killing the slate like that to mount from the edge would create a week point .
 
a lot of the older tables were constructed with rail bolts places horizantally, No it didn't "kill the slates" I'm not sure why you would even think that.. mine is over 110 years od and still "alive" ;-)


the main point there is a lot of energy can be lost or that better bounce characteristics can be obtained by either weighting the rails with added steel plates, or by making the connection between the rails and slate more solid and yes various manufacturers have attempted various methods of attachment.
If I was shopping for new tables I'd want to examine this further before making my purchase especially when dropping literally thousands for one table.

many tables have felt between the rails and cushions, this felt basically can contribute to the issue as it acts as a vibration isolator.
its poor engineering to isolate the rail from the slate and allow it to move independently if the objective is to solidify it. what you want is for the two to be positively locked together in order to combine their weights, this makes the rail more solid. a rail mounted more solidaly will return the ball more efficieently.

the mechanics of a bolt can either work such that the bolt is simply engineered hold things that pass through the bolt holes clamped together. the bolt is a lot more effective if the bolt's "holding force" is perpendicular to the bolt than by way of depending upon the bolt's clamping force to clamp the pieces together. especially true when the torque is limited by the nut being imbedded int he rail and unable to be torqued down very firmly. if you go and over torque the bolts, higher than the manufacturer's spec, the way the captive nuts are held in the rails will be a cause of issue. they can slip or simply crush into the th wood as that's all there is retaining the nut.

That's the difference in a nutshell.

to put that differently, it is very hard to stretch a bolt, it is much easier to shift the sections of the bolt which are merely being held sandwiched together..

What commonly happens is the bolt isn't fitted to either hole accurately, the hole is larger than the bolt to allow adjustment.
If the rail can move about and the only thing holding the rail to the slate is the clamping force of the bolts. this isn't as positive of a connection as a bolt which is tightened into and against the slate.

the rails themselves have different materials and weights which are unique to each table.

have a look though this thread and you can argue with whomever you wish to . I'm not trying to promote branding, like some in this thread are.

I agree it would help to show various new makers and compare the way things are held together..

you can have a look at the older method here:

try comparing that methodology that to the way diamond does it by relying on the sandwich clamping of rather lightweight rails in this video..


I think this comparison shows the key reason why the diamond table has inherently poor bounce characteristics, by comparison to older tables. the method used is inferior in design to that above.

You are quite right that many makers incorporate this same methodology, I've even seen wood screws used, or very weak ungraded metric bolts in some of the made in china tables.

Even just peering beneath the rails to compare the type of fasteners used gives some indication of the table's quality.

this method does work, Many tables are like that, its just not really a superior connection method.. It's done this way to save money.

I believe that if you were to remove the rails from a more superior quality table you'd find variations.. If you are just comparing new with new, well then the intracacies of that mounting design would be somethign I'd personally be focused upon in making my choice.

most pool tables, especailly new ones are finished on the outside but if you remove the rails and flip them over then you can feel their weight , look at their materials and the way the fasters are attached. many rails nowadays are simply particleboard junk coated in plastic. there are some small manufacturers that use better matierials than particleboard.. note that in the video showig the rails being isntalled he mentions not too tighten the pocket bolts toomuch and to take care when flipping , you can see the ossibility of overtighteningor stressing the rail acausing that cheap paeticleboard stuff to fail. They can be made from hardwood. Personally I wouldnt pay much for a table with cheaply constructed particleboard rails, but many do. a lot of the new tables are only that.

this video shows some far superior rails being built for a snooker table,, and it gives you a better picture of how the weight can be added to the rails. you can bet this one played nicely, the quality level is completely incomparable to most of the common tables.. look at the end view of the rails, hes not using garbage particleboard, hes used good quality plywood and hardwoods.
while yes, this is a snooker table, there is no reason a pool table cant; be manufactured using decent materials,

fact is, most new tables are particleboard junk, even though the buyer is paying thousands, well big surprise, the new stuff is almost all made offshore at the lowest possible price and then retailed as if it is good quality.. parts built ffshore, some in taiwan imported and "assembled int he US maybe"
That's quite typical of the standards of today. particleboard junk coated in plastic , being sold for thousands.. Its become normalized.

I think if you go to a manufacturer like this you might be able to get the quality level of an older table. There are small manufacturers that still exist. This video shows how the heavy steel plates are incorporated into the far superior rail design. what this guy is doing screams quality by comparison.



heres the old thread.. similar subject.

T Rail vs Vertical bolt rails

I've always felt that T Rail tables have a better rebound, faster with a more solid feel. I maintain that I can shoot a bank on a table and tell if it is T Rail without looking all other things being equal, K 55 cushions same cloth etc. Is this my imagination or has anyone else tested this or...
forums.azbilliards.com
 
Last edited:
I still believe t- rails are not as good of a setup. Like the thread you linked they are noisier as well and I believe more apt to loosen up. Some people complain about the Diamond but I don't necessarily believe in the complaints. Those that do not like the Diamonds are comparing them to Gold Crowns and guess how those rails are mounted?

If the T-rail was better dont you think Diamond, or Rasson, or Predator or Brunswick would still be using them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top