So, are the old Gandy Big G tables really all that bad?

[Fatboy]

In the mid 80’s I played a lot on Gandy’s. I can’t knock them. They ain’t the end of the world. I prefer GC’s but they weren’t bad. Fast forward to the 2000’s and some didn’t age too well and they weren’t as good. But when they were newer or kept up properly they were fine.

 

[Boxcar]

In the mid 80’s I played a lot on Gandy’s. I can’t knock them. They ain’t the end of the world. I prefer GC’s but they weren’t bad. Fast forward to the 2000’s and some didn’t age too well and they weren’t as good. But when they were newer or kept up properly they were fine.

I tend to agree. The major structural difference between an early GC and a Gandy of the same period was the huskiness and heftiness of the components. The best example can be found in a comparison of the mainframes of the two tables. In sectional view, both frames are "L" shaped. The vertical member of the Brunswick frame is 3 1/8" thick x 4 7/8" tall. The horizontal member of the Brunswick is 1 3/4" x 9 1/4". Conversely, the vertical member of the Gandy is 1 3/4" x 5 7/8" and the horizontal member is 1 3/4" x 4 1/4". The pocket castings of the GC1 and the GC2 are very sturdy polished aluminum. The pocket castings of the GC# are Copper plated zinc. The pocket castings of the Gandy were made of one or more of the iterations of ZAMAK, a family of allows. They are thinner in thickness, and smaller in size than their Brunswick counterparts and not nearly as sturdy. They can be disfigured when being connected to the rail. Both tables have 3 bolt rails. Both tables use plastic laminate covered poplar rails, but the Brunswick rail is more substantial than the Gandy rail.

When a Gandy is properly installed, it plays quite satisfactorily, it is, however a more fragile table. The aprons of many of the Gandy tables are plastic laminate clad 1/2" chipboard. The Brunswick table's aprons are made of 3/4" edge glued poplar.

 

[Fatboy]

I tend to agree. The major structural difference between an early GC and a Gandy of the same period was the huskiness and heftiness of the components. The best example can be found in a comparison of the mainframes of the two tables. In sectional view, both frames are "L" shaped. The vertical member of the Brunswick frame is 3 1/8" thick x 4 7/8". The horizontal member of the Brunswick is 1 3/4" x 9 1/4". Conversely, the vertical member of the Gandy is 1 3/4" x 5 7/8" and the horizontal member is 1 3/4" x 4 1/4". The pocket castings of the GC1 and the GC2 are very sturdy polished aluminum. The pocket castings of the GC# are Copper plated zinc. The pocket castings of the Gandy were made of one or more of the iterations of ZAMAK, a family of allows. They are thinner in thickness, and smaller in size than their Brunswick counterparts and not nearly as sturdy. They can be disfigured when being connected to the rail. Both tables have 3 bolt rails. Both tables use plastic laminate covered poplar rails, but the Brunswick rail is more substantial than the Gandy rail.

When a Gandy is properly installed, it plays quite satisfactorily, it is, however a more fragile table. The aprons of many of the Gandy tables are plastic laminate clad 1/2" chipboard. The Brunswick table's aprons are made of 3/4" edge glued poplar.

Spot on, great post

 

[Boxcar]

Spot on, great post

Thank you!

 

[trob]

The ivory billiard room here in york pa had all gandy’s and 1 gold crown. I was young in my playing life so I don’t remember them playing that easy but I remember the gold crown having triple shimmed pockets and I was not good enough to play on that. I avoided it like the plague.

 

[60inchcueguy]

The Robertson Black Maxx was a fantastic late-80s iteration of the Brunswick Anniversary style; and, IIRC, retailed quite less than 1/2 the price of a new GC. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a GC-man thru-and-thru; but, I played on these a lot back in the early/mid-90s and really enjoyed them. A very solid table, and the rails played slightly 'springier' than a GC; which, worked/bothered some people more than others.

Speaking as a person who loves the styling of the Anniversary - but doesn't dig today's prices of a vintage B'wick - I'd love to see some enterprising person start making these again AND at the same relative price-point to that of a new GC6, to that of which Robertson was turning them out for before their factory fire.

You can find these used up and down the East Coast and especially in Florida - where Robertson is still located as a non-manufacturer - and, I've seem them offered from as low as $500, up to $1500.

The only complaint I can recall ever hearing about these from back in the day, was at one point in order to keep up with demand early in their production, it seemed Robertson was using Tulip Poplar for the frame which was not properly kiln-dried, and some of those warped a bit, which required being re-worked. And, IIRC, the original Black Max was supplanted by the Black Maxx II.

Good memories overall. - GJ

View attachment 673198

I know this thread is old, but I'm in the market for a Black Max.

 

[jasonlaus]

Red label diamonds had to be one of the worst tables ever built, blue label is getting just as bad with balls hanging up or getting spit out.

I said what I said

 

[skip100]

Red label diamonds had to be one of the worst tables ever built, blue label is getting just as bad with balls hanging up or getting spit out.

I said what I said

pretty funny how the Olhausen rattle is infamous but no one seems to care about the Diamond rattle.

 

[trob]

pretty funny how the Olhausen rattle is infamous but no one seems to care about the Diamond rattle.

Yeah if you hit them bad they don’t go in.. that’s whats supposed to happen.

 

[book collector]

I had a 9 foot Gandy Big G before I got my GC 3 , The Big G was fine for regular Joes , but was not for serious play. Some people don't like GC3s, I think mine plays great, balls roll true even close to the rails and I can make most trick shots or accuracy shots on it, with enough tries {my fault, not the tables}

 

[axejunkie]

I play most of my pool on them these days; they aren't my first choice in tables but work with my schedule and location. Decent playing tables as some have said here, but a notch or two below a Diamond or GC in my view. Good for lower and mid level league players as the pockets will suck in softly hit shots.

Negatives would be they spit firmly struck balls out, I think due to the poorly designed pocket liners. The side pockets are notorious for doing that where I play. Lean into the table with enough force and you might feel some sway or hear a rattle. The pocket liners leave a black streak on your cue if you shoot over them. Kick shots hit hard with a high ball sometimes reverse the angle into the rail, which I can't understand.

 

[white1]

Red label diamonds had to be one of the worst tables ever built, blue label is getting just as bad with balls hanging up or getting spit out.

I said what I said

I absolutely agree. I bought a brand new diamond Arkansas model about 2001 for a new home I built. It was terrible in most every way. I hate the new diamonds. They bank short…period. They are too bouncy. They are bad.

 

[realkingcobra]

I absolutely agree. I bought a brand new diamond Arkansas model about 2001 for a new home I built. It was terrible in most every way. I hate the new diamonds. They bank short…period. They are too bouncy. They are bad.

It's funny that you never hear these complaints about the Diamond tables from the players at the DCC, US Open 9 ball, the international 9 ball open, the APA nationals! But I guess that's just the difference between those players and you, they can actually play pool!

 

[jasonlaus]

It's funny that you never hear these complaints about the Diamond tables from the players at the DCC, US Open 9 ball, the international 9 ball open, the APA nationals! But I guess that's just the difference between those players and you, they can actually play pool!

The pockets suck and not in a good way. Spit out way too many balls. Just watched it all weekend at TS

 

[tim913]

The pockets suck and not in a good way. Spit out way too many balls. Just watched it all weekend at TS

Did you notice this before the tight pocket craze too?

 

[jasonlaus]

Did you notice this before the tight pocket craze too?

Not sure, but its definitely a problem now.

I have a 10' Arcade with 4 1/16 - 4 1/8 pockets and it doesn't have this problem, I specifically told the mechanic if I hit a ball 100mph down the rail it should go in if properly hit. He cut the new rails accordingly.

 

[white1]

It's funny that you never hear these complaints about the Diamond tables from the players at the DCC, US Open 9 ball, the international 9 ball open, the APA nationals! But I guess that's just the difference between those players and you, they can actually play pool!

You are right about both things. They can play well and they like diamonds. This is America cobra man. And this is a forum where people share opinions. I think everything about them sucks and wouldn’t play on one if they gave me one.

 

[skip100]

Why is it an “Olhausen rattle” on an olhausen but “you’re not good enough” when a Diamond rattles even worse?

Diamond sure has great PR.

 

[jay helfert]

Not sure, but its definitely a problem now.

I have a 10' Arcade with 4 1/16 - 4 1/8 pockets and it doesn't have this problem, I specifically told the mechanic if I hit a ball 100mph down the rail it should go in if properly hit. He cut the new rails accordingly.

A well set up GC would still be my personal preference, but I had a tight Diamond in my home for years because all my pro player friends wanted one to practice on. I got used to how it banked for the most part, but never could figure out a three railer on there.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

Why is it an “Olhausen rattle” on an olhausen but “you’re not good enough” when a Diamond rattles even worse?

Diamond sure has great PR.

I am an American living in Germany, and because the base table is older Gold Crown 2's and such, I have some experience with tables regularly "rattling". All the club tables are tightened up using hard pocket facings, because otherwise they would be buckets. And Diamonds only "rattle" when balls are terribly struck. The tables at the club reject well struck balls all the time, simply depending on angle/speed you strike the pocket facing. I assume the Olhausens are the same. I have never in my life seen a Diamond reject a well struck ball. Too many players are simply accustomed to "sliding" balls in off the rail, and will complain about any table that does not allow this.