Table differences
- Thread starter bbb
- Start date
A few years back I was ready to change to a competition table and I found a lot of good info on this site. It really helped with my decision, that info is archived and you can access it via the search feature at the top of this page. Play around with key words a little and let us know what you decide:wink:.
Last edited:
Lot depends on what Gold Crown (and Diamond for that matter) you're talking about and if it has standard pockets,tournament pockets or specially done after market pockets.
I'd say the current Crown V Tournament and Diamond both play tough with the Diamond being maybe a bit tougher. This opinion is based on watching the pros play on both.
I'd say the current Crown V Tournament and Diamond both play tough with the Diamond being maybe a bit tougher. This opinion is based on watching the pros play on both.
I forgot that the search feature can be harder to beat then the ghost on a Diamond table so I dug a little for you.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=189026&highlight=table+diamond+gold+crown
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=189026&highlight=table+diamond+gold+crown
thanks cuebuddy for the link. it will take alittle time to go thru all of the posts.
what table did you choose and what were the differences or characteristic that made you choose that table?? as best as you can recollect.
There are many possible differences between tables involving pocket geometry, cloth and cushion properties, and ball conditions. For more info, see:
Regards,
Dave
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/pocket.html
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/table.html
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/draw.html#cloth
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/table.html
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/draw.html#cloth
Regards,
Dave
Wanted to add since it might not be clear from my previous post. If you are talking about nine foot then all in my previous post applies. If you go down in table size the Diamond will clearly be more difficult since I think Diamond uses the same tight pocket as their 9' on their 8' while I think Brunswick uses their standard pocket on their 8' model.
I went with the Diamond Pro. I chose it for a multitude of reasons, some of which are 1. Buyers choice of woods and colors (If you are buying it new) 2. I had played on both Gold crowns and Diamonds and I liked the way Diamonds played better.
3. All wood and leather, no Formica or metal
4. Flush mounted leather pockets that are the NUTZ.
5. Artemis rail rubbers that play very consistent.
6. Diamonds sit a little higher the Brunswick's (about 1").
7. Larger drop pocket capacity.
8. Choice of hardwood rails or Dymondwood rails (they are so hard a cat couldn't scratch em:wink:.
9. A new Diamond cost about 1/3 less then a new Gold crown.
10. Same price for league cut pockets or pro cuts ( I think that Brunswick's are about a grand more for their tight pocket table.
11. Thicker slate.
12. Wider rails (I think)
13. Made in America!!!!!!:thumbup2:
14. It was shipped right to my house.
15. Glen Real King Cobra had no problem going out of his way to set it up for me cause he likes them too:grin-square:.
I would post more but I am out of time, good luck on your choice.
Attachments
Much depends on if you are buying new or used. Obviously with a new table Diamond offers more choices in woods and finishes etc. And the pro-cut pockets are tighter than on a typical Gold Crown (though the GC5 Tournament table comes with 4.5" pockets). The list price on a Diamond is less than a GC. I'm not sure that GC's come standard with Simonis but obviously the Diamonds do.
The biggest difference in playability is the deep shelf on the Diamond. Diamonds are available without the deep shelf but on this board when your talking about Diamonds generally you are talking about the deep shelf version. Not everyone agrees on the deep shelf concept in spite of all the rave reviews Diamonds get around here. More balls will hang up or rattle on a deep shelf Diamond, including some balls that contact the facing in the pocket inside the points. It stands to reason this will be the case because the shelf goes deeper into the pocket. Even some professionals don't care for this characteristic of the deep shelf. I myself am not sold on the concept. I just find it interesting that the same thing that so many people find endearing about the deep shelf Diamond is the same thing so many people dislike about the Olhausens, this being propensity to rattle balls especially when hit down the rail with speed. Having said that, I only have minimal experience playing on Diamonds and didn't have a problem at all with the pockets accepting shots but I don't have much time on them. I've read enough about it on here from people that do to know they will reject even a good shot sometimes.
The GC's use superspeed cushions while the top of the line Diamonds use Artemis rubber. Both play well but the Artemis Intercontinental is definitely known to last much longer.
As for the pockets themselves, yes I like the flush mount pockets like the Diamonds have. But the GC4 and GC5 also come with flush mount pockets. I actually prefer the pockets on these GC's better because they are flat to the playing surface unlike the Diamonds that are raised in the middle of the pocket. If you are shooting on a Diamond and using the pocket to support the cue then the cue is going to be on an angle to the pocket tending to want to slide sideways down the slope. I just find it somewhat awkward. The pockets on my GC4 do NOT rub off on to the shaft like they do on some of the earlier GC's. Don't know about the GC5 but I assume it's the same as the 4. The GC4 pockets have a capacity of 8-9 balls. That's plenty.
The rails are shaped a little different on the GC's vs. the Diamonds. I don't dislike the Diamonds but I just find it a bit more comfortable when using a bridge on the GC rails.
If buying used a lot of these differences go out the window. For instance, when I had my GC set up I put on new Artemis Intercontinentals. I told my mechanic what pocket size I wanted and let him use his expertise on the angles etc to cut them to make the table perform best. And I put Simonis 860HR on. Obviously you are still left with the difference in shelf depth, pocket material, and rail shape.
My opinion is that Diamonds and Brunswick GC's are by far the best tables out there. They stand alone at the top. The differences in playability are for the most part a matter of personal preference. Whichever you decide on, you will be a very happy pool player. :grin-square:
The biggest difference in playability is the deep shelf on the Diamond. Diamonds are available without the deep shelf but on this board when your talking about Diamonds generally you are talking about the deep shelf version. Not everyone agrees on the deep shelf concept in spite of all the rave reviews Diamonds get around here. More balls will hang up or rattle on a deep shelf Diamond, including some balls that contact the facing in the pocket inside the points. It stands to reason this will be the case because the shelf goes deeper into the pocket. Even some professionals don't care for this characteristic of the deep shelf. I myself am not sold on the concept. I just find it interesting that the same thing that so many people find endearing about the deep shelf Diamond is the same thing so many people dislike about the Olhausens, this being propensity to rattle balls especially when hit down the rail with speed. Having said that, I only have minimal experience playing on Diamonds and didn't have a problem at all with the pockets accepting shots but I don't have much time on them. I've read enough about it on here from people that do to know they will reject even a good shot sometimes.
The GC's use superspeed cushions while the top of the line Diamonds use Artemis rubber. Both play well but the Artemis Intercontinental is definitely known to last much longer.
As for the pockets themselves, yes I like the flush mount pockets like the Diamonds have. But the GC4 and GC5 also come with flush mount pockets. I actually prefer the pockets on these GC's better because they are flat to the playing surface unlike the Diamonds that are raised in the middle of the pocket. If you are shooting on a Diamond and using the pocket to support the cue then the cue is going to be on an angle to the pocket tending to want to slide sideways down the slope. I just find it somewhat awkward. The pockets on my GC4 do NOT rub off on to the shaft like they do on some of the earlier GC's. Don't know about the GC5 but I assume it's the same as the 4. The GC4 pockets have a capacity of 8-9 balls. That's plenty.
The rails are shaped a little different on the GC's vs. the Diamonds. I don't dislike the Diamonds but I just find it a bit more comfortable when using a bridge on the GC rails.
If buying used a lot of these differences go out the window. For instance, when I had my GC set up I put on new Artemis Intercontinentals. I told my mechanic what pocket size I wanted and let him use his expertise on the angles etc to cut them to make the table perform best. And I put Simonis 860HR on. Obviously you are still left with the difference in shelf depth, pocket material, and rail shape.
My opinion is that Diamonds and Brunswick GC's are by far the best tables out there. They stand alone at the top. The differences in playability are for the most part a matter of personal preference. Whichever you decide on, you will be a very happy pool player. :grin-square:
bbb
Dave, I couldn't find info on your site about the difference in rebound angles on soft vs. firm cushions.
Many people believe that Diamond tables bank shorter than do Gold Crowns. I assume that is due to the differences in cushion "give". It seems to me that softer cushions would allow deeper penetration, which in turn would cause narrower rebound angles. But it could be just the opposite.
Have you or Bob done any experiments with that?
Thanks very much! ~Doc
I don't have anything in particular on this topic; although, I do have a good summary of kick and bank effects (along with video demos and resources) here:
Rebound angle off a cushion is the result of a very complicated combination of physical effects, all of which can vary independently. It would be very difficult and time consuming to perform enough experiments to get an accurate explanation for all of the effects and how they vary from one table to another. Bob and I have actually done some experiments already dealing with rebound angle and how it changes with incoming angle and the type of spin on the ball. We hope to do more of these experiments in the future, but they are very time consuming (to do carefully and accurately). Some day, I hope to work on an accurate math and physics model that can predict rebound angles for all sorts of shots and for different conditions, but this probably won't happen very soon. Marlow's book (The Physics of Pocket Billiards, 1995) contains some simple modeling of cushion interaction, but I think it can be improved quite a bit.
The results of the modeling and analysis probably wouldn't be of much value to players wanting advice on how to play, but it would certainly be useful to people who want to develop physically-accurate and adjustable pool simulators. I think what is useful to players is to have a complete understanding and good feel for all of the effects and how they change in different situation.
Regards,
Dave
Thanks for your reply, Dave. I realize that there are many different variables that affect rebound angles. But considering the single issue of cushion rubber softness: if all other facets are equal, could one hypothesize that a ball would rebound differently from a soft rubber cushion in comparison to a hard rubber cushion? If so, would the ball tend to rebound at a narrower, or wider, angle from a soft rubber cushion?
Thanks~ Doc
Dave -
Say you walk up to many different tables --different brands in different rooms on different days--and try the standard pocket-speed three-rail kick from the corner pocket.
You find some bank very short (you need to hit the first rail way down near the corner pocket) and others bank very long (you need to hit right near the side pocket) and of course many in between.
I'm looking for your qualitative judgment here. What are the primary factors that cause this difference.
Slipperier cloth on the rails will make the balls bank longer, right?
Slipperier cloth on the bed will make the balls (apparently) bank shorter, right?
Are these key factors? nose height?
what else?
I think by "hard," you mean "stiff." I don't think stiffness alone is a determining factor. The cushion efficiency (coefficient of restitution), cushion nose height, and nose and table bed friction are more important than stiffness. Now, "soft" can mean "dead" or "inefficient" (i.e., very low coefficient of restitution), in which case balls go long.
With a less stiff cushion, the ball will tend to "bury" itself more, which can create more "throwback" (angle shortening) if the cushion provides sideways stiffness (tangential restitution), but there are also more friction losses which could create less or more angle, depending on the type of shot.
Again, this isn't a simple matter, and there are no simple answers.
Sorry,
Dave
I just thought of a video you might find interesting:
People usually say: "more speed shortens the angle," and this is true in general, but not always. Again kick and bank effects and cushion physics are not simple.
Regards,
Dave
People usually say: "more speed shortens the angle," and this is true in general, but not always. Again kick and bank effects and cushion physics are not simple.
Regards,
Dave
Honestly, I don't know what the primary factors are, but the factors certainly include: nose height, cushion coefficient of restitution (normal and tangential), nose cloth friction, rail-grove cloth friction and slate coefficient of restitution, ball conditions, table-bed cloth friction (which affects the post-rebound path), etc.
Yes.
I'm not so sure about this.
I don't know. That's why I would like to do more experiments and lots of modeling and analysis in the future.
I think nose height and cushion profile are critical factors that explain why three-rail tracks on a billiards table are different than those on a pool table. I would expect that nose height can make a big difference on a pool table (so it might be a "primary factor," but I'm not sure).
Regards,
Dave
Thanks for the Jewett link, Dave. I can see that a lot more work has to be done in order to understand the differences in playability between Diamonds and GC's.
Cheers~ Doc