Super Aramith Pro vs. Brunswick Centinnials

P

pip9ball

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hi everyone,

Just curious on wether you like playing with Aramith Pros versus Centinnials? I have a set of Aramith Pros and they seem to scuff an awful lot. It could be because of the pockets on my old table or the balls themselves. Has anybody experienced a difference between the balls and the scuffability factor (I think I just made that word up!)

thx,

pip9ball
 
I definately prefer Centennials. I think they are the most consistent balls out there. They certainly look the nicest too. (IMHO). Their finish is brilliant, and I think they clean up much easier than any other balls I've used.:D
 
14oneman said:
I definately prefer Centennials. I think they are the most consistent balls out there. They certainly look the nicest too. (IMHO). Their finish is brilliant, and I think they clean up much easier than any other balls I've used.:D
Click to expand...

From what I understand they are made by the same people that make the Super Pro Aramith Balls!!! They are the same weight and the only difference is the classic look verses the modern look. From what I understand they are made from the same phenolic material!

The Super Pros clean up just fine. I have had mine for Six months and play everyday, and they still look like new!
 
Brunswicks are best

14oneman said:
I definately prefer Centennials. I think they are the most consistent balls out there. They certainly look the nicest too. (IMHO). Their finish is brilliant, and I think they clean up much easier than any other balls I've used.:D
Click to expand...
I totally agree here. The Centennials are the best balls on the market.
 
most tournaments i play in we use the centenial balls, however at my pool room, i always practice with the Super aramith pro tv set balls, they are a bit lighter which makes them travel faster farther.....i can notice more of a difference especially when the weather is humid, the centenials will drag on the table & the aramith wont..
 
txplshrk said:
From what I understand they are made by the same people that make the Super Pro Aramith Balls!!! !
Click to expand...

Shark-man,
The Billiards Digest article on the Aramith company reported that Aramith sends the Super Pro blanks to Brunswick, who imprints them with their color scheme. The balls are basically identical except for color scheme.

I have known some who would claim that the coloring of the balls changes their playing characteristics, but I personally can tell no difference between the 2 brands.
 
no comparison

centennial by far aramith scuff and break. not my centennials.


How about the worst ones?

level best

Al
 
I don't think there is any significant playability difference between the Centennials and the Aramith balls. However, IMHO, the Centennials look the best. :D
 
Williebetmore said:
Shark-man,
The Billiards Digest article on the Aramith company reported that Aramith sends the Super Pro blanks to Brunswick, who imprints them with their color scheme. The balls are basically identical except for color scheme.

I have known some who would claim that the coloring of the balls changes their playing characteristics, but I personally can tell no difference between the 2 brands.
Click to expand...

I thought the color was supposed to go all the way through the ball?

I have a set of both at home. I got them a couple months ago when I got my table. The older ones may have been different but the two new sets I have seem to play exactly the same. I have noticed that at the pool hall I play some of the cue balls with the Centennials seem heavier but it maybe new cue balls with older balls that have been worn down from cleaning. I do prefer the look of the Centennials.
 
This is probably the 10'th time I've read this on this website.. From the other threads I'll tell you what was said. Yes it's true the centenials are in fact made by aramith! What is not true is that they are exactly the same. Brunswick gave aramith a set of "tolerances" that are their standard for balls. It was never surely defined what those tolerances are, but it seems across the board that everyone thought they were tighter toleranced then the aramith pro's. Also the entire centinial rack is matched to each other (including the cue ball) Basically if your looking for the best of the best a new centinial rack would be hard to beat.

In reality, they both play great, and honestly while you might notice a difference on how the two sets of balls play.. I doubt you'd notice a difference how they play amongst themselves. (not sure if I worded that correctly) More or less you'll be more then happy with either decision.

Personally I prefer the styling of the centinials.

DJ
 
PlynSets said:
Brunswick gave aramith a set of "tolerances" that are their standard for balls. It was never surely defined what those tolerances are, but it seems across the board that everyone thought they were tighter toleranced then the aramith pro's.
DJ
Click to expand...

DJ,
I'm not really sure that is accurate. The Aramith article reported the blanks were exactly the same for both balls. A friend at Brunswick is completely unaware of any "tighter tolerance" for the Centennials. I'm afraid this may fall into the "urban legend" category.

An interesting ball study was performed by Jack Koehler, Ph.D. In his book he tested the tolerances of cheap balls vs. expensive balls (without naming Aramith or Brunswick or any other brand name). The CHEAPER balls were more closely matched in size and weight than the expensive balls - go figure. I agree that you can't go wrong with either one (I have both).
 
Williebetmore said:
DJ,
I'm not really sure that is accurate. The Aramith article reported the blanks were exactly the same for both balls. A friend at Brunswick is completely unaware of any "tighter tolerance" for the Centennials. I'm afraid this may fall into the "urban legend" category.

An interesting ball study was performed by Jack Koehler, Ph.D. In his book he tested the tolerances of cheap balls vs. expensive balls (without naming Aramith or Brunswick or any other brand name). The CHEAPER balls were more closely matched in size and weight than the expensive balls - go figure. I agree that you can't go wrong with either one (I have both).
Click to expand...

Interesting to say the least! I was just repeating what was (has been) said on this website multiple times, even recently. The theory sounded logical, but I admit I have not studied them myself. I thought that I had a really accurate scale down here at my shop, but alas I don't, it went somewhere by the wayside years ago. :( I do have some REALLY accurate measuring tools though that are portable that I could take down to billiards and barstools and measure up some balls to see what's what as far as diameters are concerned. I have a triple beam scale that's pretty accurate but portable isn't exactly what i'd use to describe it.. LOL Plus it's up in my loft and I'm too lazy to get it down.

As far as cheaper vs expensive balls. Something to consider would be how long do they last? Are the wear qualities of the materials used to produce the balls as good? etc.. How "UV" stable are they? There's a million questions that can be asked where even if the cheaper balls were better at one point, will they be better 6 months from now? etc..

I've "heard" (again never verified myself) from 100's of people over the years though that centenials are a matched set. Each set matched to each other (including the cue ball).. Very well could be an urban legend though as you pointed out.

I can tell you something that's not an urban legend though. Balls are consistently getting "lighter" as years progress. I have a set of centenials at my house that are god knows how old, and they are CONSIDERABLY heavier then the newer sentinials and aramith's of today. Point in fact if you watch the videos I put up you can hear that they make that old "pool hall" sound. New balls have more of a click sound to them, the old ones sound..... different (don't have a good word to describe it)

DJ
 
Last edited:
I use Super Pros here at home and they do scuff a lot. I blame that on the Olhausen leather pockets more than the Aramith balls though. If I had a set of centenials (sp), I'm pretty sure they'd get scuffed up just as much as the Super Pros.

IMO, the most important thing is that the rack is completely one or the other. I hate getting mixed sets of balls at the parlor.:)
 
Thanks for all the replies! I'll most likely pickup a set of centinnials before my new table arrives.

-pip9ball
 
I have a set of Aramith Premiers, and like the way they play :) I also bought the Pro-cup CB too.

I've also played with a set of Centennials. And they play nice too, but for some reason i like the Aramiths better.

I dont know why??? maybe its just cuz i use my set alot and am just usta them. I dunno.

I will say this. I'd rather have the Aramith sets. And I am sure that for personal use, the Aramiths will last just as long as the Centennials, and cost half as much too...

Plus, I'd say that for business stand point, you can buy the Aramith Set's and save a bit of money and get the same amount of use outa them.
 
My Thursday league uses the Cents. and I have a set of the Super Aramith Pros at home. I prefer the Cents for strictly playing, I wish they would come out with a spotted cueball though. I love that cueball with the Aramith set.

Could always mix and match but I would rather use the complete set.
 
Balls ...

I like the super Aramith pro balls although I think the Centennials play more consistent over the long run. I am used to playing with Aramith, and went to a city close by to play in a 32 player 8 ball tournament that was using the red dot cueball (smaller, lighter), and I overran shape most of the day, especially draw shots.

Without having played with them, I did like the IPT balls. They were vibrant, liked how they are marked, and they seemed to play well. As I understand it, they were a special run for the IPT by Aramith.

I am not much for the 'faddish' balls like Elephant, NFL, or other ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top