Here is a visual comparison between pool balls. The faded 12 ball is from what I would assume the original set that came with the Brunswick Hawthorn pool table. I'm supposing that was manufactured in the '80s. The shiny brand new looking 12 ball is a newly purchased set from Dynasphere, specifically the Bronze model. The strange aspect of these two pool balls is that the new Dynasphere has a diameter of .249", and the old Brunswick set has a diameter of .229" . To me something sounds fishy, as I thought diameters of standard pool ball sets are 2 1/4 inches? I measured these with my calipers, which are spot on as far as measurements are concerned. This is the same device I use to measure when I reload ammunition and want to be very precise.
Pool Ball Weights
- Thread starter rexus31
- Start date
You are saying that the balls you measured are less than an inch in diameter. That is a very remarkable observation. More askew than fishy.
Ooops,that was a mistake. Move the decimal point over one spot to the right and you will have the correct measurement. I think I am right this time when I say the measurements are: 2.49" and 2.29" . Still, my question persists, those seem like strange measurements.
phreaticus
Well-known member
Your new numbers are suggesting a 1/4” difference, with the larger one being bigger than carom/billiard balls!?
I may be going out on a limb here but I’d say maybe something is a bit off in your measurements. Try again? Take multiple readings on each ball and try to get a consistent avg.
Cheers
No no, that's 2.249 and 2.229, 2.250 = 2 1/4
It's still off. I think you meant 2.249" and 2.229". Are you using a dial caliper (straight beam frame with sliding cantilevered jaws)? Or are you using a micrometer (C-shaped frame with screw spindle)?
Last edited:
so the new dynasphere balls are spot on, it is the original pool balls that are approx .020"smaller.
In the past during play, if we thought a set had diameter differences.
Here's what we'd do.
Take the ball that was in question and place it between two others the same diameter.
Take a straight edge over the top.
If the middle ball is different, it's obvious.
Here's what we'd do.
Take the ball that was in question and place it between two others the same diameter.
Take a straight edge over the top.
If the middle ball is different, it's obvious.
Last edited:
ironmaiden
New member
Interesting that the Dynaspheres Bronze set had the most consistent weight and size. I have a set arriving Monday. I'll weigh and measure them when they arrive and see if they are as good as the ones at the top of this post.
To me, they're one of the best values out there for pool balls. I've had mine about a year now and they look brand new. As far as weight is concerned, who is that good that they would notice a slight weight variance? For me, an intermediate player, I don't even have to weigh mine to feel like I've got a great set of pool balls. Even professional pool players wouldn't have a problem with these balls, as I believe it would have zero significance slight weight or size difference, if there is any difference at all in these balls. If I actually damaged them, I would turn around and buy the same set over again.
Weight difference is most notable when there is a difference between cue ball and object ball.
WillieRackam
Member
The 40 year old ball has been worn down in size from flyin' around on [quite probably] "chalky cloth" for 40 years. It was 2 1/4 inches when it was new.
WillieRackam
Member
Although he didn't "dangle any participles" he did "dangle the dot" ... He obviously meant "2.49" but typed ".249"
Yes, he explained the problem in later post. But 2.5 inches more or less would also be very remarkable for pool balls.
WillieRackam
Member
Major "oops" on my part ...
I didn't read it carefully enough [i.e., not NEARLY enough].
It's nice to "occasionally" be reminded that I am human ...
I've bought around 20 sets of these, and have weighed at least 6 of the sets, VERY consistent weights. I never saw more than a gram of difference. I feel like they also skid less often.
