Table identification

B

billsey

Registered
I've got an opportunity to pick up a table at a reasonable price. They don't know the make or model though. It was supposedly purchased a number of years ago new from a location that sounds like Golden West Billiards, but it doesn't seem to be one of theirs.
Unknown1.jpg

Unknown2.jpg

Anyone have any idea what it is? Supposed to be three piece slate, standard 8 ft size.
 
I’m pretty sure that one is a generic Asian import. If it were any of the major brands like Brunswick, Olhausen, Connelly, etc. it would have their nameplate on a rail. They made, and continue to make those 44” X 88” tables by the boat load. I had one even back in the mid 70’s, typically 3/4” slate with huge pockets and a bit on the light side. Not really worth much at all these days.
 
I picked it up today, and as expected it's a non brand table. Slate seems fine and other than the last time the felt was replaced the installed didn't bother removing staples from the old it's in good shape. I'll get all those staples out of the way before starting on the new cloth.
 
More info, which potentially changes that. There is a pencil inscription inside that looks something like:
This table was built expressly for the XXX family by Pat Sheekas Sales 4/1/94 My ???? [signature]
I'm not sure about the builder's name, except the Pat part...
Pool Table Inscription.jpg
 
More info, which potentially changes that. There is a pencil inscription inside that looks something like:
This table was built expressly for the XXX family by Pat Sheekas Sales 4/1/94 My ???? [signature]
I'm not sure about the builder's name, except the Pat part...
View attachment 782717
 
It looks like the table was built by Pat Sheehan. The Sheehan's were three generation table mechanics out of the Portland area, though the third generation seemed to be a rip off artist 20-25 years after this table was built, based on reviews. So, not an Asian import and not a brand name... The table is solidly constructed and the base is pretty flat. When taking the slate off the only shims used were up to three playing cards. It remains to be seen if it will be that good as I reassemble in my place. I'm redoing the pockets to better match what Diamond has been using, putting decent cloth on it and new rubbers for the cushions (needed because they have to be a bit wider to allow for the narrower pockets).
 
billsey said:
It looks like the table was built by Pat Sheehan. The Sheehan's were three generation table mechanics out of the Portland area, though the third generation seemed to be a rip off artist 20-25 years after this table was built, based on reviews. So, not an Asian import and not a brand name... The table is solidly constructed and the base is pretty flat. When taking the slate off the only shims used were up to three playing cards. It remains to be seen if it will be that good as I reassemble in my place. I'm redoing the pockets to better match what Diamond has been using, putting decent cloth on it and new rubbers for the cushions (needed because they have to be a bit wider to allow for the narrower pockets).
Click to expand...
If it is a custom built table I don't see why anyone would use those skinny rails and those pockets, it also seems ridiculous of all rails to copy to choose to copy those rails, to me that screams cheap import table. I'm sorry for the not positive outlook I take on this, just giving an opinion. If I was building custom tables I would choose to copy a Gold Crown or Diamond rail, I prefer the GC a little more because the teardrop shape lowers the outer edge of the rail for hand clearance.
 
fastone371 said:
If it is a custom built table I don't see why anyone would use those skinny rails and those pockets, it also seems ridiculous of all rails to copy to choose to copy those rails, to me that screams cheap import table. I'm sorry for the not positive outlook I take on this, just giving an opinion. If I was building custom tables I would choose to copy a Gold Crown or Diamond rail, I prefer the GC a little more because the teardrop shape lowers the outer edge of the rail for hand clearance.
Click to expand...
there's been quite a few co's that make these home tables in the US. i've seen a couple that were built stout.
 
fastone371 said:
If it is a custom built table I don't see why anyone would use those skinny rails and those pockets, it also seems ridiculous of all rails to copy to choose to copy those rails, to me that screams cheap import table. I'm sorry for the not positive outlook I take on this, just giving an opinion. If I was building custom tables I would choose to copy a Gold Crown or Diamond rail, I prefer the GC a little more because the teardrop shape lowers the outer edge of the rail for hand clearance.
Click to expand...
The rail shape and pockets look a lot like my old Brunswick with T-rails.

I would imagine it's a lot easier to build than a teardrop type rail.

Billsey, is this a T-rail?
 
It doesn’t appear to be T-rail design. The slate side pocket cutouts go past half circle. On a T-rail the slate only goes under the rail as far as the subrail featherstrip. Typically the side pocket cutout innermost circle should line up with the nose cushion giving 0 to 1/8” shelf for side pockets. The OP’s table appears to have a side pocket negative shelf of 1 inch or so. The good news is…this could be corrected and made much closer to specs if all the rails were cut too long. I suspect the play field dimension is way too big for the slate design (44” X 88”). I would talk to a good mechanic who lives close and see if he can’t recut those rails to the correct length and subrails to the correct mitre and down angles. The tricky part, I think, would be to try and get the sights in the right location. Maybe RKC will chime in here. I’m not for sure, but I think this can be done without buying any materials since rails and blinds are too long.

Edit: just thought about the rail bolts and how to move them in…yikes it might be more of a pain than I initially thought. Okay maybe just keep that one as family fun, and nothing wrong with that.
 
Last edited:
Lawnboy77 said:
It doesn’t appear to be T-rail design. The slate side pocket cutouts go past half circle. On a T-rail the slate only goes under the rail as far as the subrail featherstrip. Typically the side pocket cutout innermost circle should line up with the nose cushion giving 0 to 1/8” shelf for side pockets. The OP’s table appears to have a side pocket negative shelf of 1 inch or so. The good news is…this could be corrected and made much closer to specs if all the rails were cut too long. I suspect the play field dimension is way too big for the slate design (44” X 88”). I would talk to a good mechanic who lives close and see if he can’t recut those rails to the correct length and subrails to the correct mitre and down angles. The tricky part, I think, would be to try and get the sights in the right location. Maybe RKC will chime in here. I’m not for sure, but I think this can be done without buying any materials since rails and blinds are too long.

Edit: just thought about the rail bolts and how to move them in…yikes it might be more of a pain than I initially thought. Okay maybe just keep that one as family fun, and nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
Good observations, maybe Billsey can take some measurements and confirm the playing area.
 
Hard Knock Cues said:
Good observations, maybe Billsey can take some measurements and confirm the playing area.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m kinda guessing the playfield dimensions are 44” X 88”. Regardless of the playfield width those side pocket cutouts should never extend that far beyond the nose of the cushion. Maybe the designer just wanted to build a table that would satisfy the family fun aspect of pool, and basically just ignore BCA specs.
 
Last edited:
Lawnboy77 said:
Yeah I’m kinda guessing the playfield dimensions are 44” X 88”. Regardless of the playfield width those side pocket cutouts should never extend that far beyond the nose of the cushion. Maybe the designer just wanted to build a table that would satisfy the family fun aspect of pool, and basically just ignore BCA specs.
Click to expand...
It is a good question of the designers intentions. I wonder if he used slate from a older table and just didn't take it into consideration.

Because my old Brunswick is a little bit of a Frankenstein and has 1-1\2" thick slate, I dream of building a table and using the slate. Not sure if it'll ever happen but one can dream.
 
Hard Knock Cues said:
It is a good question of the designers intentions. I wonder if he used slate from a older table and just didn't take it into consideration.

Because my old Brunswick is a little bit of a Frankenstein and has 1-1\2" thick slate, I dream of building a table and using the slate. Not sure if it'll ever happen but one can dream.
Click to expand...
1.5" slate won't play any better than 1". Just adds un-needed weight to support it.
 
garczar said:
1.5" slate won't play any better than 1". Just adds un-needed weight to support it.
Click to expand...
I somewhat disagree. The added weight alone will help reduce energy loss when a ball contacts a cushion. It’s the reason old timers were putting sand bags in the pedestals of the Anniversaries and Centennials. From a structural standpoint the added thickness in the slates will greatly reduce cracking of the slates on the old T-rail tables around the rail bolts and inserts. With 1 inch slate T-rail tables all it took was one drunk customer to attempt to lift a corner of the table and snap goes the slate around one, or two of the rail anchors.
 
I still have it apart right now, working on getting the LED strips setup before I hang the light. Once the light is up I'll roll the base (up on casters to make it easy to move around the room) into position before putting the slate back in place. I can do measurements at that point. I'm going to rework the rails to narrow the pockets closer to the current preferences, I'm not too interested in having a table that's too easy or too hard. I want to redo the rails right rather than just adding in spacers to the rubber. I'm not in a hurry for that process, it's turning into a real learning experience. It's not a T rail design, the bolts come up from under the plywood, through the slate into the rails. Three bolts per rail and fairly heavy duty (3/8 maybe?)
 
Last edited:
Lawnboy77 said:
I somewhat disagree. The added weight alone will help reduce energy loss when a ball contacts a cushion. It’s the reason old timers were putting sand bags in the pedestals of the Anniversaries and Centennials. From a structural standpoint the added thickness in the slates will greatly reduce cracking of the slates on the old T-rail tables around the rail bolts and inserts. With 1 inch slate T-rail tables all it took was one drunk customer to attempt to lift a corner of the table and snap goes the slate around one, or two of the rail anchors.
Click to expand...
you would never tell the difference in play. keep believing that.
 
Lawnboy77 said:
It doesn’t appear to be T-rail design. The slate side pocket cutouts go past half circle. On a T-rail the slate only goes under the rail as far as the subrail featherstrip. Typically the side pocket cutout innermost circle should line up with the nose cushion giving 0 to 1/8” shelf for side pockets. The OP’s table appears to have a side pocket negative shelf of 1 inch or so. The good news is…this could be corrected and made much closer to specs if all the rails were cut too long. I suspect the play field dimension is way too big for the slate design (44” X 88”). I would talk to a good mechanic who lives close and see if he can’t recut those rails to the correct length and subrails to the correct mitre and down angles. The tricky part, I think, would be to try and get the sights in the right location. Maybe RKC will chime in here. I’m not for sure, but I think this can be done without buying any materials since rails and blinds are too long.

Edit: just thought about the rail bolts and how to move them in…yikes it might be more of a pain than I initially thought. Okay maybe just keep that one as family fun, and nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it almost looks like a ball could fall in a side pocket while rolling past the points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top