what an enjoyable thread. :thumbup:
Thanks guys!
best,
brian kc
Thanks guys!
best,
brian kc
Pool Ball Collecting.
- Thread starter Rubik's Cube
- Start date
Good morning, Mr K.
Without doubt the finest GITD set available. Tell me, sir, have you ever researched your extensive magazine archives to determine when this fabulous set was created? And were Aramith the first to introduce such a wonderful innovation to market?
Many thanks again, dear chap, for yet another great contribution.
Best wishes,
RC.
I’m pleased to report back within one day after your challenging enquiry as to when the Aramith Glow In The Dark set was first introduced, RC....with findings and proof from Aramith directly! Please find their reply below, which confirmed my guesstimate period of the 1990’s. I had asked for an instruction sheet that may have been included with the entire “kit” since the NIB set I have was absent any guidance as to setting up the table with their GITD tubing...[Dear Sir,
Thank you for your e.mail.
To our knowledge we have been the first company producing such a set. It has been intruduced beginning 1999.
The difference is that the dyes or pigments used are specific to glow in the dark under UV black light.
Please find attached the instruction sheet.
With best regards.
ARAMITH - BELGIUM]
For those folks/collectors out there, here are the enclosures Aramith sent to me that should accompany the GITD sets;
What I found most interesting was the way they decided to outline the pockets - create a loop over the opening itself. No wonder so many reviews I’ve seen and researched regarding this set over the years expressed dismay by not having an idea on how to (outline) the pockets - it comes back to not following the instruction sheet. Perhaps theirs was missing as well
~ K.
Last edited:
That is absolutely fantastic, Mr K.
What a wonderful response to discover such unimpeachable evidence so swiftly. And from Aramith themselves no less... a laudable feat in itself as they are famously elusive.
Thank you so much for devoting your valuable time in finding this information, dear fellow. I shall strive to use it wisely.
Best wishes,
RC.
What a wonderful response to discover such unimpeachable evidence so swiftly. And from Aramith themselves no less... a laudable feat in itself as they are famously elusive.
Thank you so much for devoting your valuable time in finding this information, dear fellow. I shall strive to use it wisely.
Best wishes,
RC.
Aramith Premier Ball Set
I know this isn't really a collecting reply, but you guys are the experts so I thought I'd ask here.
The set I have is supposedly 4 or 5 years old, of infrequent home use only. They are pretty clean and shiny, but not as shiny as the ones you display here! I weighed them to see how consistent they are and this is what I found. (The most sensitive digital scale I have with a range within which these balls fall resolves only whole grams.)
12: 164g
cue, 1, 8 9 10 11 13 14 15: 165g
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 166g
I weighed them twice at different times of the day and different room temperatures with the same result.
My question is, is this a reasonable spread for just ordinary play? And, what's with that 12 ball?
Would one expect to find the higher grade balls to be closer in weight?
Thanks very much!
jv
I know this isn't really a collecting reply, but you guys are the experts so I thought I'd ask here.
The set I have is supposedly 4 or 5 years old, of infrequent home use only. They are pretty clean and shiny, but not as shiny as the ones you display here! I weighed them to see how consistent they are and this is what I found. (The most sensitive digital scale I have with a range within which these balls fall resolves only whole grams.)
12: 164g
cue, 1, 8 9 10 11 13 14 15: 165g
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 166g
I weighed them twice at different times of the day and different room temperatures with the same result.
My question is, is this a reasonable spread for just ordinary play? And, what's with that 12 ball?
Would one expect to find the higher grade balls to be closer in weight?
Thanks very much!
jv
Good afternoon, Mr J. 
I would consider a variation across an entire set of just 2g to be excellent, sir. Aramith’s 1g snooker balls are widely heralded as the best available, so your own pool balls at just outside that weight range is still mightily impressive.
Because they bear the brunt of harder collisions, cueballs and the number 1s can sometimes be slightly smaller and lose a little weight over the years.
Best wishes,
RC.
I would consider a variation across an entire set of just 2g to be excellent, sir. Aramith’s 1g snooker balls are widely heralded as the best available, so your own pool balls at just outside that weight range is still mightily impressive.
Because they bear the brunt of harder collisions, cueballs and the number 1s can sometimes be slightly smaller and lose a little weight over the years.
Best wishes,
RC.
Good afternoon, Mr J.
I would consider a variation across an entire set of just 2g to be excellent, sir. Aramith’s 1g snooker balls are widely heralded as the best available, so your own pool balls at just outside that weight range is still mightily impressive.
Because they bear the brunt of harder collisions, cueballs and the number 1s can sometimes be slightly smaller and lose a little weight over the years.
Best wishes,
RC.
Thanks very much, RC! Always very pleasant helpful, you are.
If it wasn't for that darned 12 ball I'd have a 1g spread! I wish I had a scale that resolved tenths of grams, so I could see how close they really are in to 1 gram.
I don't know a lot about pool balls but a little about scales. If your scale only resolves to 1g chances are that tolerances are about 1 g too. So I would never worry about such measurements. There are different classes of scales and really accurate ones can become very expensive. For the purpose of weighing pool balls a relatively cheap one going down to increments of 0.1g (display) would probably be better. However, there are cheap scales showing 0.1g increments but they are not even nearly as precise. Still, chances are that they are precise to about 0.5g, even if cheap. Some manufacturers guarantee certain tolerances.
Also, scales going to 10 or even 20kg resolving to 1g are normally much less precise than scales with a max weight of 1 to 5 kg. Scales sold for kitchen purposes are normally less precise than those for mail - unless they are made for weighing really large parcels.
So, don't worry - the result is good enough. If you want a more precise result, borrow scales going down to 0.1g with a max weight up to about 2 or 3 kg but I don't think it will help you. I would only start to worry if my balls are 5g apart on such a 1g-scale like the one you used.
I do have two precision scales and I always double-check the kitchen scales and other cheap ones and it is astounding how far off some of them are. More so if you place the weight just a little off-center.
Also, scales going to 10 or even 20kg resolving to 1g are normally much less precise than scales with a max weight of 1 to 5 kg. Scales sold for kitchen purposes are normally less precise than those for mail - unless they are made for weighing really large parcels.
So, don't worry - the result is good enough. If you want a more precise result, borrow scales going down to 0.1g with a max weight up to about 2 or 3 kg but I don't think it will help you. I would only start to worry if my balls are 5g apart on such a 1g-scale like the one you used.
I do have two precision scales and I always double-check the kitchen scales and other cheap ones and it is astounding how far off some of them are. More so if you place the weight just a little off-center.
That’s very interesting, Mr M.
It sounds a bit like bubble spirit levels. The cheaper models one finds in the hardware store are often way out.
It sounds a bit like bubble spirit levels. The cheaper models one finds in the hardware store are often way out.
Scales, precision and accuracy
Thanks Mr M, and Mr. RC.
I could go on and on about measurement precision and accuracy! I'm an engineer, and a bit obsessive about this topic.
For the balls, it's just out of curiosity once we've established that they are acceptable for play.
There's an old saw that goes "precision is repeatability; accuracy is truth." For evaluating a pool ball set we need only precision, and even very inexpensive scales are remarkably precise, thanks to electronics.
I have four digital and one analog scale. The most sensitive unfortunately don't have sufficient capacity for billiard balls, as they are designed for reloading cartridges. The ones that do are a Royal postage scale, and a 50 lb. capacity parcel scale I use to weigh-out grain when brewing beer.
There's another old saw that goes "two plus two is five, for large values of two." This means that, for example, 2.4 plus 2.4 equals 4.8; rounding these yields 2 + 2 = 5.
I have this vague notion that I haven't pursued seriously that one could, by weighing combinations of balls together and one at a time, figure out how close a ball that indicates 165 was to 164 or 166; but I don't have the time lately.
When resolving to only one gram the worst case is that mine vary by as much as 2.9 grams, best case 1.1.
Thanks Mr M, and Mr. RC.
I could go on and on about measurement precision and accuracy! I'm an engineer, and a bit obsessive about this topic.
For the balls, it's just out of curiosity once we've established that they are acceptable for play.
There's an old saw that goes "precision is repeatability; accuracy is truth." For evaluating a pool ball set we need only precision, and even very inexpensive scales are remarkably precise, thanks to electronics.
I have four digital and one analog scale. The most sensitive unfortunately don't have sufficient capacity for billiard balls, as they are designed for reloading cartridges. The ones that do are a Royal postage scale, and a 50 lb. capacity parcel scale I use to weigh-out grain when brewing beer.
There's another old saw that goes "two plus two is five, for large values of two." This means that, for example, 2.4 plus 2.4 equals 4.8; rounding these yields 2 + 2 = 5.
I have this vague notion that I haven't pursued seriously that one could, by weighing combinations of balls together and one at a time, figure out how close a ball that indicates 165 was to 164 or 166; but I don't have the time lately.
When resolving to only one gram the worst case is that mine vary by as much as 2.9 grams, best case 1.1.
Exactly. And even at 2.9 grams I doubt anyone way below Efren's level would notice.
The bad thing about measuring stuff is that you don't get it out of your brains afterwards. More so when the measurement is off the expected value.
hey guys;
went to the pool hall yest and my good buddy and reg doubles partner, Dennis, came up to me with a box of Hyatt Bicents in very nice used condition asking if I knew what the value was. I think I do have a general idea but there are much better informed ball collectors in this thread who could be more precise, I'm sure.
So...
no sugar coating, just the facts.
What would you guys say the successful sale price could be for these as opposed to the pie-in-the-sky-kidding-oneself-it'll-never-sell-for-price?
He is interested to sell these, btw.
here's a few pics for reference and thanks for the assist.
best,
brian kc
went to the pool hall yest and my good buddy and reg doubles partner, Dennis, came up to me with a box of Hyatt Bicents in very nice used condition asking if I knew what the value was. I think I do have a general idea but there are much better informed ball collectors in this thread who could be more precise, I'm sure.
So...
no sugar coating, just the facts.
What would you guys say the successful sale price could be for these as opposed to the pie-in-the-sky-kidding-oneself-it'll-never-sell-for-price?
He is interested to sell these, btw.
here's a few pics for reference and thanks for the assist.
best,
brian kc
Attachments
Last edited:
Hello, Brian.
I hope you are well, sir.
I’ll go first with my two pence worth. I believe a fair and reasonable price range to expect for an unused set of Bicentennials, in original box with certificate, would be $350 to $400. As your buddy’s set has seen some light use and appears to be without its certificate, my valuation here would be a level $300 plus shipping.
Of course it is quite subjective this collecting game, dear fellow, so please take my opinion with a pinch of salt amongst many others.
Best wishes,
RC.
I hope you are well, sir.
I’ll go first with my two pence worth. I believe a fair and reasonable price range to expect for an unused set of Bicentennials, in original box with certificate, would be $350 to $400. As your buddy’s set has seen some light use and appears to be without its certificate, my valuation here would be a level $300 plus shipping.
Of course it is quite subjective this collecting game, dear fellow, so please take my opinion with a pinch of salt amongst many others.
Best wishes,
RC.
Oh, one other thing I forgot to mention, sir. In my view the value of this iconic set is only going one way: Up. They’re a good investment.
It has been a while since I monitored ball prices on Ebay, but here are some asking prices and sale prices:
1976 Bicentennial balls (Hyatt with stars by numbers, inscribed cue ball)
reserve greater than $565, Oct 99; (not sold)
$270 Mar01 to Carl XXX;
with box and certificate $578 Nov01;
used set without eight ball, $150 Apr02;
full set with certificate and box, $530 Sep02;
with cert and box $243 Nov02;
with box and certificate, $228 Jan03;
$225 used, no box, Nov03;
new with box and certificate, $301;
worn box and certificate, $203 Sep04;
eight ball missing, $178 May05;
I wonder if that set without the eight ball went by twice.
Brian -
I’m in near-agreement with RC on the current valuation with a minor adjustment in price.....before seeing anyone else’s reply, and from I can gather from the decent pics, I was going to say $275 in person. $300 shipped. The certificate def would add some value, depending on the intended use of the buyer.
If they are to be played and enjoyed whenever possible, the certificate and box has a tad less “value” over time since most likely they will not be sold - and when they are, they’ll have normal use. With that said, the price could be $250 (min) to a “player” and about $300 to the collector. With the certificate and box in good shape, prices hop to $350-400 depending on the buyer. Some folks care less about price than having something they desire right now (speaking from experience here ;-)
Lastly - they will always go up slightly in value since most sets have issues.
All the best, Brian!
~ K.
I’m in near-agreement with RC on the current valuation with a minor adjustment in price.....before seeing anyone else’s reply, and from I can gather from the decent pics, I was going to say $275 in person. $300 shipped. The certificate def would add some value, depending on the intended use of the buyer.
If they are to be played and enjoyed whenever possible, the certificate and box has a tad less “value” over time since most likely they will not be sold - and when they are, they’ll have normal use. With that said, the price could be $250 (min) to a “player” and about $300 to the collector. With the certificate and box in good shape, prices hop to $350-400 depending on the buyer. Some folks care less about price than having something they desire right now (speaking from experience here ;-)
Lastly - they will always go up slightly in value since most sets have issues.
All the best, Brian!
~ K.
Last edited:
Hello, everyone.
A few other things to share real quick while thinking back on the last few posts about the....
Hyatt 1776-BICENTENNIAL-1976 Limited Edition ball set.
Here is one of my sets from this just this morning as I get them out for play this weekend:
The liberty bell cue balls are prone to appearing what looks like moderate dark brown streaks or veining you’d see in certain ivory balls, but is actually minuscule cracking below the surface from (usual) break shots. You can’t feel the spiderwebbing with a finger or nail usually, and performance isn’t an issue. To some, it’s not desired and yet many find that quality to be pleasing. IF you find a cue ball with zero stress veins (I’ll call them) it is a good indication they’ve never been played.
Another typical quality issue with these particular Hyatts is the slightly raised black phenolic stars, numerals and rings. Again, it’s to be expected. To find a set without any tiny, raised areas would be a rarity. I’ve not noticed any real playability issues from this either. That will depend of course on if you are a slow speed, light roll shooter or a more medium+ speed cueist.
Colors have proven to be somewhat less bright and lustrous on all Bicentennial sets and will appear to be a tad faded - some will use the word muted. Again, typical. Two types of people out there....one loves the typical, original patina or factory finish (think collectible motorcars) and the other wants and expects a perfect, modern finish and bright coloring. No wrong answers here, just pointing out both sides of what you may expect to find out there and perhaps you’ll reflect on the way they came from the factory. 45 years ago.
The storage ball boxes they come in have always been extremely thin and fragile. (I don’t think) the ball boxes were ever meant to be used as a place to return the balls after every play - so if you find a box falling apart, it’s a pretty safe bet you’ve stumbled across another “typical user”, since, how many folks actually have ball trays and keep the ball boxes put away? From my experience, the ONLY folks that have and use ball trays for their sets are the guys that I’ve given them to
Forever converted, I hope.
Lastly, the certificate. Many will have pinholes, tears or wrinkles. Half will be missing. They are all numbered, and come on a high quality paper stock. Here is a picture of mine that I have inside of an archival sleeve and acid-free backing board to help preserve it for future generations:
The best advice I can pass along - find two sets. One perfect and flawless, unplayed and pristine with it’s certificate and like new ball box. They’ll never go down in value. Easily a TOP TEN ball set to have in any collection - playable or for the shelf. The other set, whatever condition, clean and polish them and play them! The Hyatts always sound a bit unique and look fabulous when rolling on the table.
Cheers, everyone!
~ K.
A few other things to share real quick while thinking back on the last few posts about the....
Hyatt 1776-BICENTENNIAL-1976 Limited Edition ball set.
Here is one of my sets from this just this morning as I get them out for play this weekend:
The liberty bell cue balls are prone to appearing what looks like moderate dark brown streaks or veining you’d see in certain ivory balls, but is actually minuscule cracking below the surface from (usual) break shots. You can’t feel the spiderwebbing with a finger or nail usually, and performance isn’t an issue. To some, it’s not desired and yet many find that quality to be pleasing. IF you find a cue ball with zero stress veins (I’ll call them) it is a good indication they’ve never been played.
Another typical quality issue with these particular Hyatts is the slightly raised black phenolic stars, numerals and rings. Again, it’s to be expected. To find a set without any tiny, raised areas would be a rarity. I’ve not noticed any real playability issues from this either. That will depend of course on if you are a slow speed, light roll shooter or a more medium+ speed cueist.
Colors have proven to be somewhat less bright and lustrous on all Bicentennial sets and will appear to be a tad faded - some will use the word muted. Again, typical. Two types of people out there....one loves the typical, original patina or factory finish (think collectible motorcars) and the other wants and expects a perfect, modern finish and bright coloring. No wrong answers here, just pointing out both sides of what you may expect to find out there and perhaps you’ll reflect on the way they came from the factory. 45 years ago.
The storage ball boxes they come in have always been extremely thin and fragile. (I don’t think) the ball boxes were ever meant to be used as a place to return the balls after every play - so if you find a box falling apart, it’s a pretty safe bet you’ve stumbled across another “typical user”, since, how many folks actually have ball trays and keep the ball boxes put away? From my experience, the ONLY folks that have and use ball trays for their sets are the guys that I’ve given them to
Forever converted, I hope. Lastly, the certificate. Many will have pinholes, tears or wrinkles. Half will be missing. They are all numbered, and come on a high quality paper stock. Here is a picture of mine that I have inside of an archival sleeve and acid-free backing board to help preserve it for future generations:
The best advice I can pass along - find two sets. One perfect and flawless, unplayed and pristine with it’s certificate and like new ball box. They’ll never go down in value. Easily a TOP TEN ball set to have in any collection - playable or for the shelf. The other set, whatever condition, clean and polish them and play them! The Hyatts always sound a bit unique and look fabulous when rolling on the table.
Cheers, everyone!
~ K.
Gents;
thank you all very much for weighing in with your knowledgable opinions on my friends set of Hyatt Bicentennials. I had them figured for $50 - $100 less so this was good news.
I will continue enjoying and learning from reading this thread.
best,
brian kc
thank you all very much for weighing in with your knowledgable opinions on my friends set of Hyatt Bicentennials. I had them figured for $50 - $100 less so this was good news.
I will continue enjoying and learning from reading this thread.
best,
brian kc
Hello again, Brian.
I paid $1100 plus recently ($1171 to be exact if memory serves) for a bundle of three sets of Raschig pool balls. Some folks would consider this deal to be a bargain, while others might reasonably look upon it as the outrageous folly of madman. Two things are for certain though, sir: It was an eye-watering sum relative to my humble finances, yet regardless of that sobering fact I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity.
As Mr Jewitt’s eBay records show, dear fellow, sometimes one just has to find the right buyer.
Best wishes,
RC.
I paid $1100 plus recently ($1171 to be exact if memory serves) for a bundle of three sets of Raschig pool balls. Some folks would consider this deal to be a bargain, while others might reasonably look upon it as the outrageous folly of madman. Two things are for certain though, sir: It was an eye-watering sum relative to my humble finances, yet regardless of that sobering fact I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity.
As Mr Jewitt’s eBay records show, dear fellow, sometimes one just has to find the right buyer.
Best wishes,
RC.
Last edited:
Game Hunter
Registered
Apologies for bringing up this old post but these looks like 19th century pool balls. Although the photo is a bit blurry they look very good for their age.