Pocket Advice, please

[JohnnyP]

My brother bought a Gold Crown 1 from a table supplier in Tacoma several years ago. He's using it more now, and complains the balls often rattle and hang up in the pockets. He thinks it's the way the rails are cut.

I haven't asked how much he would spend on fixing it.

Recommendations?

 

[HNTFSH]

I don't have an answer but that is tighter than my original GC1.

 

[philly]

My GCIII is tight with diamond cut pockets.
I like it that way.
You have to hit em right.
Get on a table with standard pockets and they seem like buckets.

 

[JoeyInCali]

That needs rail extension , new cushions and pocket angle redoing . That angle is too wide and do spit out balls on rail shots .

 

[SBC]

-Those pocket facings get cupped by repeated hits on balls especially down the rail.
-Also the area contacted by the ball midheight gets flattened so the downward angle of the facing is gone, and the ball goes airbourne accross the hole.
-The facings look a bit rounded in the photo.
-The facing angle looks more open then it should be which deflects the ball accross the shelf and not into the hole.

You need a good mechanic to build out the pockets with wood to better specs, apply new cushions and facings. Can tighten the pocket then also...can do Diamond specs.

Cheaper alternative is to just replace facings...won't last long likely because the faces of the subrail get indented from decades of shots.

 

[jeffj2h]

That’s a very deep shelf. And wow, those rounded facings are going to do more than rattle; they will spit balls back across the table.

 

[jtompilot]

That’s the deepest shelf I’ve ever seen, with some funky looking cushions. Something doesn’t look right, Are the two balls suspended in mid-air?

 

[JohnnyP]

Thanks for the replys. I sent the link to this thread to my brother, haven't heard back from him yet. I told him to either sign up or use my log in details.

 

[Black-Balled]

Concave facings are a common feature on gold crowns and it behooves one to walk around the table and look at the 8 corner facings before any play of importance.

 

[jviss]

That’s a very deep shelf. And wow, those rounded facings are going to do more than rattle; they will spit balls back across the table.

I don't know what you're looking at, but it's not a very deep shelf. You can see light beneath the balls, and part of the ball return gulley. It looks just like the shelf on my GC I.

 

[rexus31]

Agreed, the pockets are cut too wide. There could be more going on with the rails but you won't know until they are removed and he cloth is pulled. The best solution is to extend the subrails, recut the pocket openings and install new rubber. I see you are in SoCal. The best guy for the job is Steve Leistikow. Expect to pay $1,500-$2K depending on the rubber you go with. It would be ideal to replace the bed cloth too while everything is apart. Just be sure to hire a qualified mechanic like Steve and not some install company you found on Craigslist.

 

[rexus31]

I don't have an answer but that is tighter than my original GC1.

Those are buckets. You don't measure pocket tightness at the throat of the pocket. I bet those are 5.5"+ wide at the points. By comparision:

 

[jviss]

I have a Gold Crown I, likely a 1962 model. The pocket pictured above looks like a standard GC I slate and rails, where an extra layer of facings has been applied to tighten up the pockets. This is never a good idea.

To fix this, the most expeditious and inexpensive way would be to simply replace the facings. I would recommend reverting to the standard GC I, which is right around the "standard table" per Dr. Dave's table difficulty factor (TDF); you can find a sticky thread on this in the main forum.

This could probably be done without replacing the cloth, or even removing it entirely from the rails. Just make sure you use a firmer, neoprene facing of 1/8" to 3/16" (Durometer 60 or so.)

I personally am not a proponent of tightening pockets. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish, of course. Mine is a family fun table, even though I take it more seriously. I can measure my skill by my runs, etc., on a standard table, don't need tighter. And, it is still fun for the family, who enjoy pocketing balls.

 

[jviss]

BTW, there'a s good comment here about why balls rattle out of pockets, from our infamous RKC:

Table Difficulty Factor (TDF)

 

[JohnnyP]

Little Joey is near Tacoma.

 

[logical]

The angles on the cushions don't even match each other and neither looks right. Do the ends feel soft like the rest of the cushion or hard as a rock?

Sent from the future.

 

[rexus31]

I have a Gold Crown I, likely a 1962 model. The pocket pictured above looks like a standard GC I slate and rails, where an extra layer of facings has been applied to tighten up the pockets. This is never a good idea.

To fix this, the most expeditious and inexpensive way would be to simply replace the facings. I would recommend reverting to the standard GC I, which is right around the "standard table" per Dr. Dave's table difficulty factor (TDF); you can find a sticky thread on this in the main forum.

This could probably be done without replacing the cloth, or even removing it entirely from the rails. Just make sure you use a firmer, neoprene facing of 1/8" to 3/16" (Durometer 60 or so.)

I personally am not a proponent of tightening pockets. It depends on what you're trying to accomplish, of course. Mine is a family fun table, even though I take it more seriously. I can measure my skill by my runs, etc., on a standard table, don't need tighter. And, it is still fun for the family, who enjoy pocketing balls.

Sorrry, I disagree. Those pockets need to be built up and recut. The facings follow the angle of the pocket and those are much too wide to take a ball hit down the rail with any pace. New facings will not change this. The points of the pockets are also quite rounded. They almost look like snooker pockets. We're all shooting blind. He won't know what's going on with the rails until they are taken off the table and the cloth is removed. It's possible the subrail wood is all chewed up which is causing the issue.

 

[rexus31]

Little Joey is near Tacoma.

That Glen Hancock territory. He's one of the best mechanics in the country.

 

[jviss]

Sorrry, I disagree. Those pockets need to be built up and recut. The facings follow the angle of the pocket and those are much too wide to take a ball hit down the rail with any pace. New facings will not change this. The points of the pockets are also quite rounded. They almost look like snooker pockets. We're all shooting blind. He won't know what's going on with the rails until they are taken off the table and the cloth is removed. It's possible the subrail wood is all chewed up which is causing the issue.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree. I'm basing my remarks on the assumption that only the facings are screwed up, and that the table is basically an original configuration GC I, which, I think, is the most likely scenario. Sure, " It's possible the subrail wood is all chewed up," but why assume this with zero evidence? Why assume the angle of the rails into the pocket have been altered?

Agreed, it's just blind speculation based on one crummy photograph, but I'm taking the tack that it was a simple mod that tightened up that pocket from a stock GC I.

 

[rexus31]

Those are not stock cut Brunswick pockets. They look worse than Olhausen pockets. Why assume pocket facings will fix the problem?