Raschig new old stock review

Ah, Man! What fantastic pictures. Thank you very much.

One more thing: the white circle around the numbers was lovingly referred to as the "Stick" by the old timers at ABB Co. The stick is a long dowel of phenolic resin which is cut to length and inserted into the mold. The heated, malleable phenolic resin is poured in and cured. As the balls cool, the resin shrinks and forms an unbreakable bond with the stick. Because thermodynamics are involved, the exact diameter of the stick is a little bit unpredictable. If time permits, please check the diameter of the stick on your Raschig set.

Best regards,
Boxcar
 
Last edited:
Wow! Since I had all my measuring equipment out, I checked 2 balls from my Dynasphere Tungsten set. Bought brand new in 2020. Measured immediately upon opening the box. Then played 200 rack of 9 ball, while keeping 10-15 in the box. After that, I put 1-9 back in the box, and they have been sitting in my closet since.

I only measured the CB and the 13 ball today. Both shrunk .003" from the 2020 numbers.
 
The diameter of the white is very consistent. .910" to .920" across the 3 balls I measured. (also measured the back side of the 8 it was the same as the front side of the 8). Its hard to measure as the calipers are lined up by eye, so there is some amount of judgement involved.

IMG_7090.jpeg


IMG_7091.jpeg


IMG_7093.jpeg


IMG_7092.jpeg
 
@Bob Jewett after seeing the .015" under nominal diameters on this Raschig set, .003" difference while in storage for 2 years Dynasphere set, and doing a search I came across this thread https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/balls-do-they-shrink-or-do-they-wear.338655/ where a member had the exact same experience with new old stock Centennials. I'm leaning towards ball shrinking being the dominant factor in ball size reduction, not wear due to play/cleaning. I think everyone has been mistaken on this for decades. My measuring is an order of magnitude more precise than most everyone else, as I'm using micrometers calibrated to a 2" micrometer standard, and everyone else is using calipers with cantilevered sliding jaws and .001" resolutions. I also have before and after measurements separated by 2 years with zero play during that time (dynasphere set).
 
iusedtoberich said:
I have another long term test going. I bought a new set of Dynasphere balls 2 years ago, measured each one. Then played 200 racks of 9 ball only. Then I was going to measure all 15 again. This would show wear. The funny thing is they got bigger! That's what led me down the path of seeing how much temperature has an effect on the measurements and I had made a post about that at that time. It's funny when trying for very precise measurements. I haven't touched that set since, they are still in the box half played half untouched.
Click to expand...
It makes a huge difference. In our lab we maintain 68-72 year round. Normally it's 69-71. We measure mainly steel parts but plastics are even more subject to temp changes. Materials shrink and grow like crazy, and the more accuracy you're chasing, the more important climate control becomes.

The HVAC unit on top of our building is about half the size of a train engine car.
 
iusedtoberich said:
The diameter of the white is very consistent. .910" to .920" across the 3 balls I measured. (also measured the back side of the 8 it was the same as the front side of the 8). Its hard to measure as the calipers are lined up by eye, so there is some amount of judgement involved.

View attachment 679882

View attachment 679885

View attachment 679883

View attachment 679884
Click to expand...


EXCELLENT!!!! thank you very much. The photo of the 8-ball is very descriptive. The numbers on phenolic resin balls are added after the ball has gone through centerless grinding and then sent to any of a wide variety of overhead routing arrangements where the ways for the numbers are plowed out. The ways are then hand filled with malleable black phenolic resin which is warm but not to hot to touch. Again, the issue of thermodynamics comes into play. By the time the balls are machined to receive their black number filler, they are at ambient temperature. If the atmosphere in the curing area is too warm, the filler resin can swell. If it's too cool, it can shrink. ABB Co. balls were notorious for having swollen numbers, but New York in the winter can get cold and the plant was kept warm. Additionally, the black number filler was mashed into the ways and there was a possibility of rebound. But all of that could become moot because in most procedures the balls are are returned to finish centerless grinding and then brought to high polish in the buffing and polishing area. Raschig's procedures could well have varied significantly from ABB Co's, but there aren't but so many ways to build a pool ball. Point is, of course, that the numbers on all balls should have been flush with the surface after final polishing. What happens after that is Voo-doo.

I agree, .92, just an RCH scant, is a good number. I really appreciate the help!
 
Boxcar, did you work at one of the ball plants? I’m curious how you know all this:)

Do you have any knowledge of the phenolic resin shrinking over time (due to inherent chemical properties, not friction wear). Do you know if the manufacturing plants tested for this?
 
iusedtoberich said:
Boxcar, did you work at one of the ball plants? I’m curious how you know all this:)

Do you have any knowledge of the phenolic resin shrinking over time (due to inherent chemical properties, not friction wear). Do you know if the manufacturing plants tested for this?
Click to expand...
No, I did not work at ABB Co. and of course they were the only plant in the USA that manufactured phenolic resin balls. I have had a couple of acquaintances who were fairly close to the plant and I have asked questions over the years. As boogieman said, temperature affects plastics. The good news is that it usually affects plastics of the same molecular structure about the same way. Phenolics react differently from styrenes and poly resins, etc. Boogieman would know a lot more about that than I do.

I'm real interested in the procedures and practices used at the time of the birth of phenolic resin pool balls. Raschig was around before WW II and was working with phenolic resins then but there is no direct written or collected evidence that they were building phenolic balls at that time. If anybody reading this has a documented set of pre-war Raschig phenolic resin snooker balls, please let me know. Anyhow, Brunswick first cataloged phenolic resin "Red Dot" cue balls and phenolic resin "Centennial" Carom balls in 1948, which means that they had to have been available in 1947. Those balls were exported to Brunswick and ABB Co. from Composition Billiard Ball Co. in London England. CBB Co. and ABB Co. were both owned by the same consortium. The aforementioned balls were the brainchildren of the famous Dr. Max Koebner who, according to an unimpeachable source, oversaw their manufacture.

To the best of my knowledge (if anybody knows differently please post what you know) there was no thought of close tolerance testing then because pool balls of the past weren't viewed as something that had to be perfect. The same people who were buying phenolic balls still had access to Ivory (even until the early 80s) and ivory balls could get almost egg shaped and composition balls, also readily available, were in no way precise either.

Most all of the jobs at ABB Co. were unskilled labor jobs. In point, it didn't take an Einstein to build a pool ball. The took some gooey plastic and pushed it into a mold and let it dry. A few easy steps after that, they put them on the truck and shipped 'em.

There's an old joke from Albany that says that "from north of the City to south of it, the river bed of the Hudson River is made up entirely of rejected Hyatt balls."

Sorry, I didn't mean to babble.
 
I'm curious if the products used to clean the balls can have a long term affect on shrinking or if it is only temperature change. I've switched cleaning solutions to a mixture of 2 tablespoon Aramith Ball Cleaner to 8 ounces of 901% Isopropyl Alcohol. It cleans the balls great and leaves them with the fresh out of the box feel; smooth but not slick.
 
Do all phenolic balls shrink over time or is this an isolated incident due to storage conditions? Can they get so far out of tolerance you can't use them? I've been looking for a set of Raschig balls but didn't know they were storage sensitive.
 
CuseFan559,

I would say the answer to your question is "no." I have a couple of sets of Raschig research balls and the one I checked last night was dead nuts on the dia. measurements in the "iusedtoberich" Table above. I just checked the other set and they are almost all (one ball just barely outside s.d.) uniformly .20" larger. I have about 1/2 dozen sets of unplayed ABB Co. Vitalite balls from different years. Vitalite balls came from Albany and CBB Co. I just checked an older imported Vitalite set against a newer ABB Co. set and with the exception of one ball, both sets were as good as or better than the Table above.

I'd like to introduce a thought worthy of your consideration. How thick is Simonis 860? How much cushioning effect does cloth provide for a pool ball? Given the amount of cushioning that cloth offers a pool ball, would the cloth be smart enough to be able to tell the difference in the diameter of pool balls which measure within a couple of hundredths of an inch of standard deviation within a 16 ball set? Further, would cloth not absorb the difference between a ball with protruding numbers and a ball with sunken numbers? I tend to believe that it would, but I welcome the defended opinions of the members of this august body.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post but the ball diameters in the table in this thread are really, really lousy for unworn balls.
Click to expand...
Bob, thanks! What I meant was that my 60s through 80s ABB Co. Vitalite balls were as good as or better than the Raschig balls measured and shown in the Table above. Does that clarify my earlier remark?
 
Boxcar said:
Bob, thanks! What I meant was that my 60s through 80s ABB Co. Vitalite balls were as good as or better than the Raschig balls measured and shown in the Table above. Does that clarify my earlier remark?
Click to expand...
Kind of but you are comparing against a very low bar. If your balls are unused it sort of indicates that the Albany material also shrinks with age.
 
You could be right. I didn't measure them when I first bought them so I have no base line. If they shrunk a couple of hundredths over 60 to 70 years, I should imagine that would be believable. On the other hand, if they were ground and polished to their current dimensions 60 years ago, that also would be believable. I do, however, think there is a strong case that can be made for shrinkage. Of course, those tolerances are very unlikely to alter ball travel. Further, if all phenolic ball sets shrink consistently within their own boxes, shrinkage will have no effect on play at all.
 
Boxcar said:
You could be right. I didn't measure them when I first bought them so I have no base line. If they shrunk a couple of hundredths over 60 to 70 years, I should imagine that would be believable. On the other hand, if they were ground and polished to their current dimensions 60 years ago, that also would be believable. I do, however, think there is a strong case that can be made for shrinkage. Of course, those tolerances are very unlikely to alter ball travel. Further, if all phenolic ball sets shrink consistently within their own boxes, shrinkage will have no effect on play at all.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example measurement of the balls you have? In decimal form? And are you using dial calipers?I think there is a mistake in your prior post (you wrote .20”) This way we are comparing apples to apples:)
 
OOOOPS!

I use old Starrett calipers. I can usually get fairly close. What if I said 2 15/64", an RCH plump. I'm not smart enough to handle anything but fractions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top