Dynasphere Bronze balls......$100

[Rocket354]

Too late for me to check but I wonder if the dust matches the color of the tray?

Hu

That's a great point. The tray definitely looked like it had been jostled some as a piece of the edge had even broken off. It's hard to tell color with dust particles, but having a cheapo tray that sheds would explain it.

Just means I may want to find another place to store them than the provided tray. But for now, it's my previous $300+ set of balls that's getting stored.

 

[ShootingArts]

OK, I ran a handful of racks with the Bronze balls. First, those new shiny balls in the right colors are sweet! These balls seem to bank honestly, one test of balls for me is if they bank the same. Balls that seem to roll OK on other shots will sometimes roll wonky, to use a scientific term, when banking. I also made some cut shots that would have shaved the hair off of a lizard's back, shots I would never play in competition. Cutting shots in from over 85 degrees and basically touching an end rail from about two feet out.

All in all I played like Wally Mosconi with these balls! Expected results are somewhat suspect in the scientific world but I would say buy the Tungsten if price is more important than traditional colors. If traditional colors matter to you, buy the Bronze or a higher end set. I haven't tried the highest priced sets to judge them but I suspect the manufacturer isn't lying about them being no better. If I had young children I might buy a set of Tungsten balls for them and a set of Bronze for adult play. Of course two sets of Bronze balls wouldn't break the bank either!

Hu

 

[garczar]

OK, I ran a handful of racks with the Bronze balls. First, those new shiny balls in the right colors are sweet! These balls seem to bank honestly, one test of balls for me is if they bank the same. Balls that seem to roll OK on other shots will sometimes roll wonky, to use a scientific term, when banking. I also made some cut shots that would have shaved the hair off of a lizard's back, shots I would never play in competition. Cutting shots in from over 85 degrees and basically touching an end rail from about two feet out.

All in all I played like Wally Mosconi with these balls! Expected results are somewhat suspect in the scientific world but I would say buy the Tungsten if price is more important than traditional colors. If traditional colors matter to you, buy the Bronze or a higher end set. I haven't tried the highest priced sets to judge them but I suspect the manufacturer isn't lying about them being no better. If I had young children I might buy a set of Tungsten balls for them and a set of Bronze for adult play. Of course two sets of Bronze balls wouldn't break the bank either!

Hu

I heard once that George Hamilton had bronze balls.

 

[ShootingArts]

I heard once that George Hamilton had bronze balls.

I have always suspected that there might be guys that knew for sure. Maybe not though, George might have just been able to laugh at himself and his Ken doll image.

Hu

 

[garczar]

I have always suspected that there might be guys that knew for sure. Maybe not though, George might have just been able to laugh at himself and his Ken doll image.

Hu

I think he laughed all the way to the bank.

 

[hang-the-9]

OK, I ran a handful of racks with the Bronze balls. First, those new shiny balls in the right colors are sweet! These balls seem to bank honestly, one test of balls for me is if they bank the same. Balls that seem to roll OK on other shots will sometimes roll wonky, to use a scientific term, when banking. I also made some cut shots that would have shaved the hair off of a lizard's back, shots I would never play in competition. Cutting shots in from over 85 degrees and basically touching an end rail from about two feet out.

All in all I played like Wally Mosconi with these balls! Expected results are somewhat suspect in the scientific world but I would say buy the Tungsten if price is more important than traditional colors. If traditional colors matter to you, buy the Bronze or a higher end set. I haven't tried the highest priced sets to judge them but I suspect the manufacturer isn't lying about them being no better. If I had young children I might buy a set of Tungsten balls for them and a set of Bronze for adult play. Of course two sets of Bronze balls wouldn't break the bank either!

Hu

I just ordered a set of the Tungsten to try, my wife was kind enough to accept a cost of $60 for pool since I just got a multi thousand dollar bonus from work, mighty kind of her LOL Although not without saying "why do you want those when you already have two sets", clearly not a pool player.

 

[MTfish]

Mine just arrived. No dust on them and they look great for $100. Looking forward to playing with them this evening.

 

[tuffstuff07]

I got mine today. The box had a small crush in it but was sealed with the qc sticker and the balls look new and clean


Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[boogieman]

You said you did not find it odd that a $100 set of balls was the same quality as a $300 one due to the design. I don't see how a pool ball set can be marketed at three times the price of another form the same maker if the quality is the same on both. It's way more than paying "a little more".

The quality in pool balls vs price does not really follow the same thing as cues which are often sold by the design as much as the construction quality.

It seems you are saying if set A was 100 and set B was 300 but you liked how B looked better you can justify the huge increase in price based on looks alone? I just don't see how such a huge price difference can be only due to the design of the set vs material and quality control steps.

The Tungsten set is under $60, Bronze is $100, the Silver is $170, the Platinum are $330, there is no way they are all the same quality or construction. You seem to be saying that if they are all the same quality the $330 set is justified that on looks? If the other poster(s) are correct and they are indeed all made the same, you can get the same quality as the $330 top end set for $60. That is pretty much unheard of. With any other pool ball maker there is a clear difference even between their $100 and $150-200 sets and another clear step from 150 to the 250-300 sets.

The modern mindset is different. People have no issue buying a $1200 or more iphone or other cell phone. To many, $100 or $300 means not much, I've literally seen people pay more than that to pick a different color on their cell phone. Think automotive paint.

The only difference is supposed to be the intricacy of the design on the balls. It's obvious to see that the tungsten has less colors, so less of a process to make them. Less resin mixing, less parts in the mold or however they make them.

It might not make sense for the quality to be the same, but many consumers no longer "value shop." They just buy what they like the looks of, and often they like the looks of a higher priced item just because the higher price signals quality or exclusivity to them.

EDIT: As someone said earlier in the thread, they can't have just cheap balls, or they are seen as just another crappy company not worth trying. They can't have just high price sets because at that point people will just buy aramith and not take a chance on a new manufacturer. It kind of makes sense to have a different price range, even if they are the same formula and QC.

I once bought a set of $5 "MONK" earbuds. Best sounding earbuds I've ever heard, it's nuts. The company also sells very expensive headphones. If I wanted an expensive set, I might go with them since I found their "cheap" ones to be so good. Basically they can sell the more expensive ones if people are impressed with the cheap ones. It's kind of word of mouth advertising in the modern age. One bad review can ruin a company, so why risk getting a bad review by making something that plays like crap? Much better for even your cheap sets to blow away the competition.

Imagine buying a midrange set of Aramith for $150, then you play on a $60 set of tungstens at your buddy's house. The $60 set plays way better than your $150 set. Now you have some extra money to buy gear. Would you risk buying an expensive set from another manufacturer, when you know the makers of the $60 care so much about their cheap set? It would be much more logical to buy the ones where you felt the great quality at $60. If you have more than $60 to spend, that same manufacturer that you know has quality also sells more expensive sets, so why not buy them and "treat yo self."

Their pricing model makes them seem like they want everyone to play with top tier equipment, not just another old company who will sell good stuff along with crap to sell it for cheap. If you're able to make the best product, why would you sully your brand by making cheap sets with lower quality and worse resin as the competition does? I love this thinking, make the BEST at everything you do, or don't do it at all. By having your cheaper stuff less quality, it dilutes your brand.

If a cue company makes cheap beginner cues that are abysmal quality, once you outgrow it, you're more likely to buy a different brand, as the one you just used was crappy. No use taking a chance that their higher end models are the same abysmal quality.

 

[maha]

exactly

 

[gregcantrall]

I have started using a dab of silicon in my daily cleaning of the tungsten balls (my practice set). The 211 in Seattle was my first pool room, as I was bar table tuned. From the 211 the triangle chalk has always been my preference. So I knew that he applied silicone to the balls in their daily maintenance. Which made for slippery balls. My understanding was that T-Rink was a 3 cushion enthusiast.
Just a trace on my cleaning rag as I do my daily therapy for the fingers.

 

[hang-the-9]

I have started using a dab of silicon in my daily cleaning of the tungsten balls (my practice set). The 211 in Seattle was my first pool room, as I was bar table tuned. From the 211 the triangle chalk has always been my preference. So I knew that he applied silicone to the balls in their daily maintenance. Which made for slippery balls. My understanding was that T-Rink was a 3 cushion enthusiast.
Just a trace on my cleaning rag as I do my daily therapy for the fingers.

Lubricant like that would make the balls play strangely. There was a place that used to polish the balls up with something that made them slick, draw was sure fun since it took like crazy, but not predictable at all, the ball would spin in place before moving also. Spin off the rails took a lot less though. Cut shots would overcut from normal aiming and spin transfer would be non-existent since there is a lot less friction between the balls for throw to take place.

It's better to just have them clean without any extra lubricant on them to have a predictable hit.

 

[garczar]

Lubricant like that would make the balls play strangely. There was a place that used to polish the balls up with something that made them slick, draw was sure fun since it took like crazy, but not predictable at all, the ball would spin in place before moving also. Spin off the rails took a lot less though. Cut shots would overcut from normal aiming and spin transfer would be non-existent since there is a lot less friction between the balls for throw to take place.

It's better to just have them clean without any extra lubricant on them to have a predictable hit.

NO silicone should be used.

 

[DJKeys]

There is a clear difference between the Aramith ranges. Don't know about their novelty balls but I played with all the standard sets at one time or another, and you can tell how they hit and react and travel between the sets. The cheap ones work but play very light just don't feel like quality balls, midrange is a lot better but a step behind the Pro and Tournament sets. The ones with different designs made for home use I don't know about.

This is my experience as well. At home, I had a set of Aramith Pro (about $260) and when I played with Bob Jewett at the pool hall he brought his set of Aramith Tournament ($350). Big difference. My pro set did in fact play lighter, and retained tons of marks compared to the Tournament set.

-dj

 

[gregcantrall]

I am very sparing with the silicone. My experience with armor all sprayed on the rails of 2 beautiful gold crowns taught me about chemical effects on a table.
The new owners liked the way armor all made the rails look but had no clue about the effect of overspray on the cloth. The balls picked it up. There was enough on the cue ball to effect the leather tip on my cue. It swelled up like a balloon after one session.
Came across this thread The 211 Seattle which brought back some great memories. The history of the 211 and the owner leads me to investigate silicone on the balls.
My memory of the balls at the 211 was mainly the difference in the way the balls reacted coming off a rail. Pretty much the same as what I noticed with newly polished balls coming out of ball polisher with standard ball polish.
Most likely this comes under Don’t Try This At Home.
I wear a lab coat and appropriate PPE.
Sprayed a quarter size spot on an old ball then dried it best I could with a cleaning rag. I then used the rag on my practice balls setting the original aside. So far so good. My interest now is in the durability after one treatment.
Since I expect to see more action on bar tables with poorly maintained equipment and dirty balls, I leave my Cyclop set uncleaned or polished. If I survive the pandemic I will use them for practice before that type of event.
The play of tables in different locations is effected by so many variables that my theory is get there early.

 

[hang-the-9]

My Tungsten set came in, cueball is milky looking like the Cyclop ball, which is not how the Platinum set ball looks like. So there is a difference in construction there at least.

 

[maha]

the cyclop ball with the large single red dot is an incredibly good cueball. that is the one i insisted on after may first set came with the other.

 

[kling&allen]

My tungstens came in and they are nicer than I expected (I had low expectations). The colors are bright and vibrant and they seem to play like a proper resin ball when I compare them to my centennials. It will be interesting to see how they wear over time.

It would also be interesting for someone (Dr. Dave) to mechanically test the major ball brands for any difference in the various physics coefficients.

 

[hang-the-9]

After a few hours of playing with the $60 Tungsten set, it's a great set, especially for the money. I could not tell any difference between how the balls reacted and rolled vs the Aramith Pro set I was comparing it to, and they also played about what I remember the Platinum set to have been like. By far the best set for the money, if they made that set in standard colors it would be an absolute killer deal and the set to own.

The colors look nice, however they take time getting used to, everyone that played with them was missing shooting the 2 ball several times thinking it was some other ball, and it may be because it matched the blue cloth so well it blended in a bit to the table.

I had several people come up to ask about them, so the design was a hit with people at the pool hall.

I just don't see the economics of the company making such a great set at $60 and making the same set with different designs for over 3 times the cost. I may see paying another $40 for the Bronze set to get normal colors, but 250-330 for the higher stuff made the same? That's crazy talk.

 

[Mick]

but 250-330 for the higher stuff made the same?

The higher end stuff is not made the same though. It's the same base material, but the machining added to each step adds a ton of time needed. It's not only the time though. Each machining process introduces an area where a mistake may be made, and the whole ball needs to be scrapped. The cost of this needs to be factored in. Companies like Aramith do this as well, but you don't notice it because they artificially choose to make their lower end balls with inferior material.

For example, say one in every fifty tungsten balls needs to be rejected due to machining errors. Because of all the extra machining time the top end balls need, that number might be one in five. Not only are you losing ten times as many high end balls, but those balls are ten times as costly to make.

Looking at it this way, their price structure seems in line. Once they get established I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop their lower tier balls entirely. I'd imagine they are just using them to build their reputation and show their quality to as many early-adopters as possible.

Edit: I would even bet that the terrible colors of the tungsten set were selected to make them less desirable. Intentionally handicapping their lowest end offerings like aramith does, but keeping the top tier performance.