Diamond Pool Tables

Dunnn51 said:
You are right. 1 ball or 4 balls , yes you need speed and a thin cut. Thatsa tighter shot with that combination , and tighter still onna Diamond. Doubt I could make it, perhaps you could pot 10/10 RKC ??
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure he's talking about freezing 4 balls to the rail and each other and hitting one on the end as hard as you want to make the one on the other end. That's way easier than cutting a ball down the rail (since spin and throw come into play), but shows that it will go.
 
Matt said:
I'm pretty sure he's talking about freezing 4 balls to the rail and each other and hitting one on the end as hard as you want to make the one on the other end. That's way easier than cutting a ball down the rail (since spin and throw come into play), but shows that it will go.
Click to expand...

That would be right, it shows the pocket will take the ball, when the player says it won't!
 
Realkingcobra

I didn't know you were a diamond representative. I was just saying it would be nice for someone from diamond to comment on the shelf they use in the pocket.
 
Glen, tks for the info on the rails. But why then do diamonds bank so short? Banking balls has become a lost art on diamonds . I watch tourneys on GC's and the pros bank a lot of balls in 9 ball/10 ball. On diamonds, only Shane, Archer and a very few more , take a swing at a bank as they are a much lower % shot on a diamond. If the profile is the same, whats the difference?
Tks
 
Gunn_Slinger said:
Glen, tks for the info on the rails. But why then do diamonds bank so short? Banking balls has become a lost art on diamonds . I watch tourneys on GC's and the pros bank a lot of balls in 9 ball/10 ball. On diamonds, only Shane, Archer and a very few more , take a swing at a bank as they are a much lower % shot on a diamond. If the profile is the same, whats the difference?
Tks
Click to expand...

People don't bank on Diamonds because the pockets don't allow an inaccurate approach angle, for the reasons detailed above. On Gold Crowns, being able to hit the rail further from the pocket and still make the ball, meant that on a bank, you had a built in margin of error on banks, because on long banks, you could rub the rail and still make the ball, which with the Diamond pockets, the ball will hang.

The reason Shane, Archer, and a few more still shoot at banks on Diamonds is because they are accurate enough on their banks not to need "help" from the rail.. The y are banking for the center of the pocket. :-)

Short Bus Russ
 
realkingcobra said:
I commented for Diamond, what else would you like explained?
Click to expand...

Cobra, how many versions of the PRO Am are out there?. I'm familiar with the first one, with the very fast rails. Then they changed the rails to make it play smaller/slower.. .just a tad, but it def had less spring, which was a good thing.

Was there any other changes between the two above ?? Also, was the first one a red label? and was the blue label only when they changed the rails of the PRO AM ??
 
I believe the cut of the diamond pocket and the shelf have something to do with the lack of players banking at balls, but diamonds bank short compared to most tables. I've seen a lot of good bankers at the DCC play for one bank while semi-ducking because you can hit a bank pretty good and it will miss the pocket. I have a GC III with extended rails, artemis rubber , 4 1/2 inch pockets cut on the tight side, and it banks much better than a diamond. why do diamonds bank short? It's not just me. I have talked with a lot of good players, and most say they bank short. Why, I would like to know the reasoning behind it. If the profile is the same k55, what makes them bank so different?
Like I said before, I really dont care what the "pros ' play on. I do care what is available for me to play on. The trend to tighter and tighter pockets for most players is not helping pool at all.
 
DVD's

Made by lots of people that play lights out on Diamonds film there stuff on Gold Crowns.What do that tell you??
 
BogeyFree said:
I have a 7' with the Pro Cut pockets and it plays terrific. Best table on the market IMO.

http://[URL=http://s216.photobucket.com/user/sonnymayer/media/DSCN0991.jpg.html]
DSCN0991.jpg
[/URL]
Click to expand...

That's a 7' worth having! Sweet room as well..;)
 
BasementDweller said:
I've never read an explanation regarding the deep shelves on Diamond's pockets that made any sense to me. It's hard (if not impossible) to argue that a Diamond table is not a great table, but I don't understand how a deep shelf helps make the table play better. Sure it makes the table play tougher but so does a properly tightened up Gold Crown. The difference is the Gold Crown doesn't have those deep shelves that hang up balls that have historically gone into the pockets.

Why do people like deep shelves?
Click to expand...
I'll try and give you a history of the slate depth or shelf of the diamond table. Slate depth is very important to me. In fact this was an issue that got me in the pool table business. I played at a tournament in LA in the 80's. A funny thing happened. I found my cue ball froze on the rail half way between the side and corner pocket with an object ball deep in the corner pocket. I mean Deep. I couldn't even contact the object ball without first contacting a point on the far facing. This got me thinking about pool needs specifications to ever be considered a sport.
When I now talk about slate depth I'm talking about how much ball extends out into the playing area
while sighting down the rail with an object ball froze on the closest facing as deep as can be placed in the pocket ready to fall in..whew. Hope I haven't lost anyone. I checked the specification of a gold crown back then and found 40% of the ball to be visible. I followed thru today with that same 40%. Remember, gold crowns back then had larger pocket sizes of 4 7/8 to 5 1/8. Since my pocket size is 4 1/2 I had to have my slates made deeper to keep the 40% of the ball visible that brunswick used. Remember when you make a pocket smaller, as is being done on many gold crowns, you see the slate depth go away, which is not the way the gold crown were originally designed.
 
ShortBusRuss said:
Well, it wouldn't the the first time a pool hall catered to the lower skilled crowd.. ;):cool:;)

Short Bus Russ
Click to expand...

As a business,you do what brings in the money. If the customers say the pockets suck, get rid of them.

Disclaimer: the above is not a reflection of my opinions in Diamond tables,which I have not given ITT.
 
ChicagoRJ said:
Cobra, how many versions of the PRO Am are out there?. I'm familiar with the first one, with the very fast rails. Then they changed the rails to make it play smaller/slower.. .just a tad, but it def had less spring, which was a good thing.

Was there any other changes between the two above ?? Also, was the first one a red label? and was the blue label only when they changed the rails of the PRO AM ??
Click to expand...

The sub-rail desgn was first changed back in Oct 2010 starting with all the Diamond 9fts, then Jan 2011 for all the rest of the Diamonds. To mark this change the red name plate lable was changed to the blue lable. Any Diamond can be modified regardless when it was built, and changed to play like the newer blue lable Diamonds, including the pocket angles.
 
Here we go again.....first off Brunswick did use 66 cushions....they use 55 today....but still call them 66.
Diamond uses Artemis 55......but Artemis also make a 66 cushion among several other billiard cushions.
The pockets on Brunswick tables have down angles 13 degrees and miter angle 142 or 52 degrees.

Those specs create more of a soft pocket......but at the same time create ball rattle....because they use a shallow shelf and want the balls hit hard to hang.....but not hind behind the cushion.

Diamond tables use a down angle of 15 degrees.......and the miter cut is 141 or 51degrees.
The down angle of 15 helps trap the balls and send the ball to the back of the pocket....if the shelf was shallow like Brunswick everything would go.

GC 5 tournament edition with 4.5 corners....with Brunswick super speed cushions.....is a great playing table....and with out a doubt the best looking commercial table made today.

Diamond 7' bar table is without a doubt the best bar box ever....the cushions need help....they play to fast and spring big time.

Diamond 9' tables......are getting better????

Mark Gregory
 
3udu5u5a.jpg
yruse9et.jpg


Diamond isn't the first to have a deep shelf, this is my table which is a gandy from the 60's.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

But I got this table installed with new simonis cloth and new diamond black rails for 1200 dollars. So I still had money left over to pay my mortgage! I still would like to buy a diamond on day but until then this one plays pretty good.
 
Last edited:
My 9ft Brunswick Medalist I bought new in 1991 for $3400 with ball returns had 5" deep shelf pockets. Nightmare ball trapper for years. My tech had a nonconventional fix without going smaller than 4.5 inches. He shimmed the short rails only. Crazy as it sounds it worked like magic. The balls can still rattle but WAY less now. People dont even notice till I point it out. We shoot pretty decent and enjoy a pocket that is friendly at 4.5. Its a happy medium between Diamond proams and gc's. If I was picking a perfect table it would be a Diamond with less rattling corners.
 
Greg/Diamond said:
I'll try and give you a history of the slate depth or shelf of the diamond table. Slate depth is very important to me. In fact this was an issue that got me in the pool table business. I played at a tournament in LA in the 80's. A funny thing happened. I found my cue ball froze on the rail half way between the side and corner pocket with an object ball deep in the corner pocket. I mean Deep. I couldn't even contact the object ball without first contacting a point on the far facing. This got me thinking about pool needs specifications to ever be considered a sport.
When I now talk about slate depth I'm talking about how much ball extends out into the playing area
while sighting down the rail with an object ball froze on the closest facing as deep as can be placed in the pocket ready to fall in..whew. Hope I haven't lost anyone. I checked the specification of a gold crown back then and found 40% of the ball to be visible. I followed thru today with that same 40%. Remember, gold crowns back then had larger pocket sizes of 4 7/8 to 5 1/8. Since my pocket size is 4 1/2 I had to have my slates made deeper to keep the 40% of the ball visible that brunswick used. Remember when you make a pocket smaller, as is being done on many gold crowns, you see the slate depth go away, which is not the way the gold crown were originally designed.
Click to expand...

Greg,

Thanks for chiming in. That definitely answers the question of why Diamond Tables have deeper shelves.

I will say that it does make me scratch my head a bit. Everything I read about Diamond Tables leads me to believe that you guys are trend setters. It appears you have completely reengineered the design of the pool table (with some help from RKC on the rail designs), while bucking the status quo and just figuring out what works best along the way. However, when it comes to something as important as the shelf depth you are saying that you are using the old Gold Crown standard of 40% of the ball being visible when looking at it from along the end rail. That seems rather arbitrary to me.

Arbitrary or not, maybe you have the perfect pocket specs. I really don't know. As a table owner, one thing that would be nice about the deeper shelves would be - you could tighten up the pockets even more without having a finished product that included practically no shelf at all. I've seen this on a few Gold Crowns and I’m not sure that’s the way to go.

My current table is a Gold Crown Wannabe (AMF). It has 4.5” inch pockets and at 4.5” there are a few balls that trickle in that wouldn’t if it had a deeper shelf but overall I think I’m right at the proper pocket size/shelf depth ratio. If I went smaller with the pockets the shelf would be too short. Now I bet a standard Diamond Pro-Am with 4.5 inch pockets could go down to 4.25” and still have enough shelf depth for the pockets to play right. But if that’s the case maybe the shelf is just a hair too big to begin with???

The fact that professional players prefer Diamonds tells me that either way you guys have it pretty close to perfect. One thing’s for sure -- I wish there were more Diamond Tables near me.

Thanks again for the info.
 
perfectpocketz said:
Here we go again.....first off Brunswick did use 66 cushions....they use 55 today....but still call them 66.
Diamond uses Artemis 55......but Artemis also make a 66 cushion among several other billiard cushions.
The pockets on Brunswick tables have down angles 13 degrees and miter angle 142 or 52 degrees.

Those specs create more of a soft pocket......but at the same time create ball rattle....because they use a shallow shelf and want the balls hit hard to hang.....but not hind behind the cushion.

Diamond tables use a down angle of 15 degrees.......and the miter cut is 141 or 51degrees.
The down angle of 15 helps trap the balls and send the ball to the back of the pocket....if the shelf was shallow like Brunswick everything would go.

GC 5 tournament edition with 4.5 corners....with Brunswick super speed cushions.....is a great playing table....and with out a doubt the best looking commercial table made today.

Diamond 7' bar table is without a doubt the best bar box ever....the cushions need help....they play to fast and spring big time.

Diamond 9' tables......are getting better????

Mark Gregory
Click to expand...

Really? So I guess what you're saying then is that if someone owns a GC1 that needs new cushions, all they have to do is replace them with todays K66 profile cushions and they'll have the correct nose height automatically and be good to go...right? Becauze afterall didn't you just say Brunswick used a K66 cushion back then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top