Pockets/Gold Crown vs Diamond

Island Drive

Otto/Dads College Roommate/Cleveland Browns
Silver Member
Having grown up on GC I's II's III's and then played on Diamonds, it seems with the same pocket openings.......the Diamonds will not accept the object balls at as high a speed (especially down the rail) as the Gold Crowns, why?
 
Last edited:
Good point, I'd like to know if any table mechanic or player has a good idea as to why this is. :confused:
 
I do not know the answer, but I do know that the shelves are cut differently. If you look at the shelf on a diamond, it is a lot more straight across than a GC, which is more rounded. Could be part of it.
 
I've found the same thing when comparing GC to Diamonds. I think there are three factors which determine the demanding nature of Diamond pockets.
1. The corners are cut sharper. On a Diamond, if you are shooting straight into a pocket, the ball can be 9/10th in the pocket, but if it barely clips a point, the ball will rattle. The same shot on a GC will go in 90% of the time.
2. The face angle of the pocket corners is less accepting on a Diamond. The angle rejects imprecise shots, where a GC seems to capture the ball.
3. The pocket shelf is a bit deeper on a Diamond, and that furthers the rejecting pattern of the other two factors.

With all that, though, I still consider the Diamond ProAm (or Pro, if you like drop pockets), the finest table I've ever played on. The pockets are tight, but fair. If you make a good shot, it goes in just fine; if you don't, it tells you. I believe that is the way it should be.

The short of it is, Diamonds are designed to reject marginal shots and GC are designed to accept them.
 
i wonder why GC's cant have the diamond type of pockets. i like the gc's but i like fair pockets.
 
desert1pocket said:
I do not know the answer, but I do know that the shelves are cut differently. If you look at the shelf on a diamond, it is a lot more straight across than a GC, which is more rounded. Could be part of it.

I agree, is it the facing angle or is the cushion height smaller making the face smaller, because the speed of the ball entering the pocket 'now' has to be slower. I find this aspect ok for some games, but for 9-ball where more ball speed is needed to get around table it has changed the game. Seeing great players in their prime like Sigel or Rempe in their heyday, the raw offense pocketing power of long tough shots has been taken away.
 
Island Drive said:
I agree, is it the facing angle or is the cushion height smaller making the face smaller, because the speed of the ball entering the pocket 'now' has to be slower. I find this aspect ok for some games, but for 9-ball where more ball speed is needed to get around table it has changed the game. Seeing great players in their prime like Sigel or Rempe in their heyday, the raw offense pocketing power of long tough shots has been taken away.


Not so. However, you better be accurate when you pound a ball. In my view, the Diamond table makes you a better player because it forces a player to play closer, tighter position, thereby avoiding the need to fire long shots in for position.

I believe the Diamond is great at separating (revealing) players' speed. The player that controls his game will have a much easier time on the Diamond than the one who relies on shotmaking.
 
Maybe it's just that my game is sloppy, but I disagree with those saying they like a pocket that "rejects a sloppy shot." I'd prefer a table with 3.5" pockets, parallel pocket facings, and very shallow shelves, over a table with 4.5" pockets, oblique facings, and deep shelves.

To me, "tight but fair" means you have a small target (the pocket opening), but if you hit that opening, the ball's going to fall. That's the kind of table I would want, for practice or competition. I hate those oblique facings and deep shelves on some tables, where if you hit the ball with any speed, you're risking the ball hanging up, even if you hit it with near-perfect aim. I think a small opening that accepts balls is way more fun to play on, and in fact more "fair", than a moderate-size opening that bobbles them due to facing angle and shelf depth.

-Andrew
 
Island Drive said:
Having grown up on GC I's II's III's and then played on Diamonds, it seems with the same pocket openings.......the Diamonds will not accept the object balls at as high a speed (especially down the rail) as the Gold Crowns, why?

I.D.,
I'm going to have to say this is quite a generalization.

The standard GCIII has a bigger pocket opening than the Diamonds, and a shallower drop. End of story; more balls will be made on the GC with less rattling; buckets will do that.

The shimmed GCIV's I've played on rattle more balls than the tight Diamonds locally due to a wider pocket angle. The deep drop of the Diamond is offset by what is in my mind a perfect pocket angle. It would be hard to improve on the Diamond spec's; a shot well hit does not in my experience rattle on a Diamond - I believe they are definitely more "accepting" than a shimmed GC. JMO.

I know nothing of the GCI's, and II's.
 
Williebetmore said:
I.D.,
I'm going to have to say this is quite a generalization.

The standard GCIII has a bigger pocket opening than the Diamonds, and a shallower drop. End of story; more balls will be made on the GC with less rattling; buckets will do that.

The shimmed GCIV's I've played on rattle more balls than the tight Diamonds locally due to a wider pocket angle. The deep drop of the Diamond is offset by what is in my mind a perfect pocket angle. It would be hard to improve on the Diamond spec's; a shot well hit does not in my experience rattle on a Diamond - I believe they are definitely more "accepting" than a shimmed GC. JMO.

I know nothing of the GCI's, and II's.

I agree. I rattle a lot less balls on my Diamond with Pro Cut Pockets than I do a shimmed GC.
 
Gabriels vs GC vs Diamond

How do Gabriels' pockets compare with a Diamond or GC? I have only played on a GC and I like mine (GC) but I purchased a Gabriels signature pro to try out. I haven't picked it up yet, hence the question.
 
CamposCues said:
How do Gabriels' pockets compare with a Diamond or GC? I have only played on a GC and I like mine (GC) but I purchased a Gabriels signature pro to try out. I haven't picked it up yet, hence the question.
The Garbriel's will take balls better down the rail than the Diamonds'.
Diamonds' end-rail facing is too flat imo. It points to the second diamond of the near end rails. While the Gabriels' points closer to the side pocket.
Shimmed GC's will spit out balls b/c they're not angled right either.
Ernesto Dominguez extends the rail and puts ONE shim in there at a good angle. Ernest makes the side-pockets too tough though if you let him. :eek:
 
The gold crowns that I play on bobble way more than any diamond. They have big pockets which are cut so they reject more and have really bouncy shims. I hate playing on tables where you hit the inside of the pocket and it doesn't go in.

Bobbling has to do with a multitude of things such as cloth speed, pocket angle, shelf depth and also the bounciness of the facings.

I have a Gabriel at home and it never bobbles unless you miss the pocket. The Gabriels come with about a half inch of shim on each side of the pocket so they absorb alot of the speed instead of rejecting the ball. It sucks going to the pool hall where you have to everything soft for it to go in.
 
xidica said:
Good point, I'd like to know if any table mechanic or player has a good idea as to why this is. :confused:

There's a lot of contributing factors that make a Diamond different than a Gold Crown.

1 Diamond makes their top rails out of oak instead of poplar like Brunswick which makes for a more solid rail when banking balls.

2 Diamond 9fts have 4 rail bolts per rail which also means the spacing of the rail bolt are actually closer to the pockets which means there is more of a solid hold down of the rails nearer to the pockets, Brunswick only uses 3 bolts per rail. Note: place your hands on the rails of both tables and bank the balls hard into the rails and see which one you can feel with your hand more.

3 Diamonds pro pocket tables have 4 9/16" corner pocket opening using single 1/8" inch facings. In order for a Brunswick to have the same corner pocket openings they have to be shimmed a minimum of at least 1/4" inch on both sides. This creates more of a catchers mitt in the pocket because thicker facings have a tendency to absorb impact instead of deflecting it.

4 Brunswick pockets use a metal casting to create their pockets which when loose will absorb ball impact. Diamond's don't use corner castings.

5 The slate shelf on Diamond 9fts go farther back in the pockets and do Brunswick's therefore making it a little harder for the ball to fall into the pockets.

6 Diamond uses Artemus rubber which has a tendency to be a little bit more lively than other rubber. Brunswick does not use Artemus rubber.
 
Island Drive said:
Having grown up on GC I's II's III's and then played on Diamonds, it seems with the same pocket openings.......the Diamonds will not accept the object balls at as high a speed (especially down the rail) as the Gold Crowns, why?

I love GC pockets. The backs are high and rounded down into the pocket. GC pockets catch balls even if they are air-born... It sure is nice to shoot over a Diamond pocket, but the back of the pocket is so low that you can't jam a ball in there as wild.

Jump an object ball over another ball and into the pocket on a GC and it goes; try this on a Diamond table and it might be off of the table!
 
I agree, a ball down the rail at speed NO matter what size the opening is should accept the ball hitting the facing unless hit too hard. What I have found interesting, if you look at the facing on a GC where the object ball hits, the white wear line is about half way between the table and top of the cushion facing. When you look at this same line on a Diamond facing there is very little facing above the hit line of the facing. The facing area is allot smaller. My thinking it gives the object ball the ability to stand up/jump up more when hit causing it to jaw.
 
When you shoot down the rail you are aiming at the facing. If it works on that shot ....

I found that when making a straight in shot (for example a ball on the centre spot to a corner pocket) that should be sent to the centre of the pocket, I was usually aiming (and hitting, accurate fellow that I am) the facing. And many balls woould rattle and refuse to fall.

Just one more flaw to fix.:D

The angle of the facing rejects the ball; the shooter refuses to adjust to the table.
 
Pocketing Balls on GCs or Diamonds or Olhausens

Most of you guys got it right......at least partially.

The ability to pocket a ball has to due to the following conditions:

1) The size of the opening
2) The depth of the shelf......measured from the line of the points to the center of the pocket
3) The cut of the shelf.....rounded or straight
4) The angle between the back of the pocket rail rubber the front of the pocket rail rubber.....the V of the pocket opening determines the rebound angle of the shot
5) The speed of the shot......the harder one shoots.....the harder the rebound off the pocket openin rail rubber

The smaller #1 is, the deeper #2 is, the staighter #3 is and the wider #4 is, harder the pocket plays. And remember #5 affects the rebound angle.

GCs seem to be have wider #4s; Diamonds seem to have deeper #2s and straighter #3s; Olhausens seem to have the deepest shelves

The KEY.....check each table.....I've played on table that are identical and side by side and found great differences in pocketing ability due to all of the above

If you want the WPA specs......here they are:

WPA Tournament Table & Equipment Specifications

(Effective November, 2001)

1. Purpose
The purpose of these specifications shall be to set standards for equipment used at all WPA World Championships, WPA World Tour events and other WPA sanctioned and/or recognized events. These specifications do not necessarily apply to tables manufactured for commercial home use. At its sole discretion, the World Pool-Billiard Association can sanction tournaments on tables not in compliance with these specifications.

2. Table Bed Height
Shall be between 29 ¼ inches [74.295 cm] and 31 inches [78.74 cm].

3. Design
Shall not have any sharp edges or materials that might cause injuries or damage clothes. Construction should be adequate enough so that the table will remain stable and level under all conditions of play.

4. Slates
The thickness must be at least 1 inch [2.54 cm], and the playing surface must be capable, either by its own strength or a combination of its strength and that of the table base frame, of maintaining an overall flatness within + .020 inches [.508 mm] lengthwise and + .010 inches [.254 mm] across the width. Further this surface should have an additional deflection not to exceed .030 inches [.762 mm] when loaded with a concentrated static force of 200 pounds [90.7 kg] at its center. All slate joints must be in the same plane within .005 inch [.127 mm] after leveling and shimming. Tournament tables must have a set of slates consisting of three pieces of equal size with wooden frame of at least ¾ inch [1.905 cm] thick lumber attached underneath the slate. The slate sections must be
secured to the base frame with countersunk screws or bolts.

5. Playing Surface
The playing surface (area) must be rectangular, and symmetrical when the pocket configurations are included:
9 foot - 100 (+ 1/8) x 50 (+ 1/8) inches (except cushions)/ [2.54 m (+
3.175 mm) x 1.27 m (+ 3.175 mm)]
8 foot - 92 (+ 1/8) x 46 (+ 1/8) inches (except cushions)/ [2.3368 m (+
3.175 mm) x 1.1684 m (+ 3.175 mm)]

6. Rail and Cushion
The rail width must be between 4 [10.16 cm] and 7 ½ inches [19.05 cm] including the rubber cushions. 18 sights (or 17 and a name plate) shall be attached flush on the rail cap with:

12 ½ inches [31.75 cm] from sight to sight on a 9-foot regulation table
11 ½ inches [29.20 cm] from sight to sight on a 8-foot regulation table.

The center of each sight should be located 3 11/16 (+ ) inches [93.6625 mm (+ 3.175 mm)] from the nose of the cushion. The sights may be round (between 7/16 [11.11 mm] and ½ inch [12.7 mm] in diameter) or diamond-shaped (between 1 x 7/16 [25.4 x 11.11 mm] and 1 ¼ x 5/8 inch [31.75 x 15.875 mm]). Any nameplates and score counters should be flush level with rail top. All rail bolts should be thus located that when properly torqued render a quiet and optimum rebound from any point of the cushion nose of the table.

7. Height of the Cushion
Rubber cushions should be triangular in shape with the width of the cloth-covered cushion being between 1 7/8 [4.76 cm] and 2 inches [5.40 cm] measured from the outer edge of the featherstrip to the nose of the cushion. Rail height (nose-line to table-bed) should be 63 ½% (+1 %) or between 62 ½% and 64 ½ % of the diameter of the ball.

8. Cushion Rubber
Table cushions should influence the speed of the table such that with placement of a ball on the head spot, shooting through the foot spot, using center ball english, with a level cue and firm stroke, the ball must travel a minimum of 4 to 4 ½ lengths of the table without jumping.

9. Pocket Openings and Measurements
Only rubber facings of minimum 1/16 [1.5875 mm] to maximum ¼ inch [6.35 mm] thick may be used at pocket jaws. The WPA-preferred maximum thickness for facings is 1/8 inch [3.175 mm]. The facings on both sides of the pockets must be of the same thickness. Facings must be of hard re-enforced rubber glued with strong bond to the cushion and the rail, and adequately fastened to the wood rail liner to prevent shifting. The rubber of the facings should be somewhat harder than that of the cushions.

The pocket openings for pool tables are measured between opposing cushion noses where the direction changes into the pocket (from pointed lip to pointed lip). This is called mouth.

Corner Pocket Mouth: between 4.5 [11.43 cm] and 4.625 inches [11.75 cm]
Side Pocket Mouth: between 5 [12.7 cm] and 5.125 inches [13.0175 cm]
*The mouth of the side pocket is traditionally ½ inch [1.27 cm] wider than
the mouth of the corner pocket.

Vertical Pocket Angle (Back Draft): 12 degrees minimum to15 degrees maximum.

Horizontal Pocket Cut Angle: The angle must be the same on both sides of a pocket entrance. The cut angles of the rubber cushion and its wood backing (rail liner) for both sides of the corner pocket entrance must be 142 degrees (+1). The cut angles of the rubber cushion and its wood backing (rail liner) for both sides of the side pocket entrance must be 104 degrees (+1).

Shelf: The shelf is measured from the center of the imaginary line that goes from one side of the mouth to the other - where the nose of the cushion changes direction - to the vertical cut of the slate pocket cut. Shelf includes bevel.

Corner Pocket Shelf: between 1 [2.54 cm] and 2 ¼ inches [5.715 cm]
Side Pocket Shelf: between 0 and .375 inches [.9525 cm]

10. Pocket Liners
The pocket liners and boots should be of long wearing plastic, rubber or leather. The material the liners and boots are made of should not permanently mark (stain) the balls or cues. The upper part of the inner wall must be so fashioned that whenever a ball hits the pocket liner wall below the rim at the top of the rail, the ball is directed downwards.

11. Ball Return and Drop Pockets
Both drop pockets and automatic ball returns can be used, but must be as noiseless as possible. Drop pockets must have a basket capacity of at least 6 balls. Automatic ball returns must be properly installed so that pocketed balls are not trampolined back to the table or off the table.
 
What's interesting, the event in Manila had a 1.8 pocket opening size, ie. 2.0 is four and a half inches. Therefore the openings were 1/5 th of a ball smaller than two balls. But history has shown us, whomever sets up the table has the last word. I wonder if the opening size of the Mosconi Cup tables were the same as Manila, if I was a betting man I would guess they were at least 2.0 +.
 
Back
Top