brunswicks and diamonds

[Biloxi Boy]

This is not meant to start a war. The answer or answers to these question are beyond me. A properly set up and maintained Gold Crown seems to me to be the perfect platform -- I detected no deficiency or need for improvement. Maybe I am wrong, but if I am correct, I cannot understand why Diamond would come along and change the essential element of the game. Why not just make tables that played like Gold Crowns? To my way of thinking, what any player in any sport seeks is consistency -- knowing that I can cause the object ball to hit a rail at a point in a certain manner and it will go in the chosen pocket, from table to table to table, is a thing of beauty. Pool is difficult enough without having to adjust for substantial differences which could have been avoided. What did we gain from Diamond's changes? Were the changes really necessary?

 

[Saturated Fats]

I think Diamonds gained popularity because they have become the first choice platform for the big name tourneys. I think they became the first choice because of their one piece slates that can be setup and taken down much easier than any three piece. They require only a fraction of the time it takes to setup 30+ tables with three piece slates. And they are, of course, a quality table. The average player wants to play on the same table as the big boys.

 

[muskyed]

All this talk and opinion on whose rails play right, and who is to know for sure. Food for thought, just because Gold Crowns play different than Diamonds, does that actually mean they are correct, and Diamond isnt and should follow them? Maybe actually Diamond is correct for today's cloth and play, and Gold crown isn't? Times change, and if they didn't, we would all be driving model T's. Interesting, but not something I want to do. While I think Gold crowns are great, there is not one anywhere in my extended area to play on, except for in people's homes. Only thing to play on in my area is 7' Valleys, and 7' Diamonds. One place actually has one 9' Diamond, but it stays covered up, and they put a board over it to eat on. Also I really don't see any televised tournaments on Gold Crown's. Gold Crown's are really classy tables, and I would love to own one if I didn't already own a Diamond, but just maybe when their owners have them recovered, if they are worried about the rail bounce compared to a Diamond, they should upgrade their rails to play like Diamonds do, or just appreciate their table for what it is. Times change, that's the way life goes.

 

[ChrisinNC]

I think Diamonds gained popularity because they have become the first choice platform for the big name tourneys. I think they became the first choice because of their one piece slates that can be setup and taken down much easier than any three piece. They require only a fraction of the time it takes to setup 30+ tables with three piece slates. And they are, of course, a quality table. The average player wants to play on the same table as the big boys.

I didn’t think the one piece slate 9-foot Diamonds were produced until more recently?

 

[logical]

They are a quality table and did two smart things. They made them different enough than a Gold Crown that they weren't just seen as a copy and they were willing to spend marketing dollars by supplying tournaments. I don't love or hate Diamond tables but have a nostalgic attachment to Brunswick in general and Gold Crowns specifically so never considered owning one.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

 

[lakeman77]

To me, both are good. They play different. Not better or worse. I find it helps to practice on what I am going to play league or tournaments on.
Like Chinese 8 ball, if you play it, better practice on a Joy 8 ball table.

 

[realkingcobra]

I didn’t think the one piece slate 9-foot Diamonds were produced until more recently?

Been in use since DDC Jan, 2001

 

[jtompilot]

In times past Gandy, Ohlausen, Murray, and Connelly all sponsored tournaments. None of them are great tables. When they quit sponsoring tournaments they dropped like a rock except Ohlausen. Diamond didn’t get popular till they dumped the Red and came out with the Blue Label. Now that’s almost all you see in Big sponsorship tournaments. It’s a great table and plays very close to the GC4 and newer.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Gold Crown 1, II and III have metal trims and corners . They do ding the cue . The scorer at the foot spot is just horrible .
The IV did address those issues .
GC tables really do not have PRO SPECS. Corner pocket openings are for the amateurs .
Diamond tables have pro specs and can even be tighter .
But, as the Biado-Sky match is showing, leaving them at 4.5" corners is tough enough when the cloth wears out .

 

[realkingcobra]

In times past Gandy, Ohlausen, Murray, and Connelly all sponsored tournaments. None of them are great tables. When they quit sponsoring tournaments they dropped like a rock except Ohlausen. Diamond didn’t get popular till they dumped the Red and came out with the Blue Label. Now that’s almost all you see in Big sponsorship tournaments. It’s a great table and plays very close to the GC4 and newer.

Check your tournament support dates, Blue Labels came out October 2010.

 

[middleofnowhere]

All this talk and opinion on whose rails play right, and who is to know for sure. Food for thought, just because Gold Crowns play different than Diamonds, does that actually mean they are correct, and Diamond isnt and should follow them? Maybe actually Diamond is correct for today's cloth and play, and Gold crown isn't? Times change, and if they didn't, we would all be driving model T's. Interesting, but not something I want to do. While I think Gold crowns are great, there is not one anywhere in my extended area to play on, except for in people's homes. Only thing to play on in my area is 7' Valleys, and 7' Diamonds. One place actually has one 9' Diamond, but it stays covered up, and they put a board over it to eat on. Also I really don't see any televised tournaments on Gold Crown's. Gold Crown's are really classy tables, and I would love to own one, but just maybe when their owners have them recovered, if they are worried about the rail bounce compared to a Diamond, they should upgrade their rails to play like Diamonds do, or just appreciate their table for what it is. Times change, that's the way life goes.

Brunswick made some tables before the gold crown that I would prefer. I think the anniversary was a great table. The gold crown really in some ways isn't that great a table. That aluminum bead that goes all the way around you bang your cue against.

The pockets stick up and can also become an obstacle when you're playing.
I don't like the way the scorekeeper is mounted on the rail, the heavy corner Pocket castings.

You know they even once made a table that had ashtrays built into the corner castings. The diamond just seems like a pretty well thought out table. I like the pockets the way you can bridge across the pockets without a problem.

 

[jtompilot]

Check your tournament support dates, Blue Labels came out October 2010.

I didn’t put any dates out there. I said Diamond tables didn’t become popular till the Blue label came out. I remember rarely playing on them till the last 10 years is so.

Other than Bank Shot in Louisville and Diamond in Cape Coral, the Red labels never took off in popularity.

 

[ShootingArts]

So many thing affect banking that no table banks "true" every shot. I think a snooker table banks closer than a pool table but I don't get to play on one often. Interestingly, the championship Riley's have steel subrails, top snooker players can tell the difference! Now they are playing on some tables from china, star brand I think. Painted gold legs, they look cheap and terrible to me! No idea how they play, probably being played on because of money considerations.

To my way of thinking, a gold crown banks a little longer than a blue label and the blue label banks a little longer than a red label. A seven foot blue label doesn't have enough running room to get too far off and banks sweet.

I can be happy on any quality table. Somebody tried to start a hall with off brand home tables, cross side banks were about four inches short. I considered adjusting but decided no need, I wasn't coming back anyway!

Hu

 

[jasonlaus]

There's nothing like the sound of a ball hit in the center of a gold crown or anniversary pocket.

Love my anniversary with ball return.

Jason

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I think a snooker table banks closer than a pool table

Do you mean longer or shorter than a pool table?

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

Do you mean longer or shorter than a pool table?

pj
chgo

Closer to true, angle out is equal to angle in. All I have played on were antique snooker tables. Those old cushions seemed better than a pool table about the angle out being the reciprocal of the angle in, at least close. At the same time they seemed very dead, absorbed a lot of energy.

The snooker table banked longer.

Hu

 

[mikemosconi]

I will take a well set up Gold Crown or older premier Brunswick over Diamond every day. Just my own opinion. Personally, I prefer the Brunswick with 4 3/4 to 4 7/8 corner pockets- I just think it is what the game was meant to be played on- esp. 14.1

I very much dislike Diamond pro cut pockets- sorry but I don't play the game for hours on end every day - I like to enjoy it and play reasonably competitive pool- not and never was looking to make a living at it, just like 99.99% of the population.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Closer to true, angle out is equal to angle in. All I have played on were antique snooker tables. Those old cushions seemed better than a pool table about the angle out being the reciprocal of the angle in, at least close. At the same time they seemed very dead, absorbed a lot of energy.

The snooker table banked longer.

I think deader rails and banking longer are linked - the rail's crosstable rebound force is reduced, "lengthening" the rebound angle. The reverse may be why Diamonds bank shorter.

pj
chgo

 

[pt109]

Do you mean longer or shorter than a pool table?

pj
chgo

 

[Fatboy]

Been in use since DDC Jan, 2001

20 years, wow that went by fast. I was thinking 03. I didn’t answer cause I wasn’t sure.