This is my first post.
I have my Dad's old Fischer 8ft bar table that he bought used in the mid 1960's. I also have the original balls that have held up rather well considering the abuse we gave them off ond on over the past 50 years. I'm pretty sure they are Aramith. They look similar to Premier but with a straight line under the 6 and 9.
I recently picked up an older Aramith set, this one with the cureved line under the 6 and 9, that looks unplayed, not a mark on them. They all weigh between 5.6 and 5.7.
I measure them and they are all between 2.220 and 2.230. Then I take out the old ones and they measure about the same... undersize by .020 to .030.
I don't particularily mind using them because the pockets on the table have always been really tight, but is there any reason, other than a mistake, why they are undersized. I didn't pay much, but I find it odd to have 2 sets that are all undersized by about the same amount.
Any ideas?
John
I have my Dad's old Fischer 8ft bar table that he bought used in the mid 1960's. I also have the original balls that have held up rather well considering the abuse we gave them off ond on over the past 50 years. I'm pretty sure they are Aramith. They look similar to Premier but with a straight line under the 6 and 9.
I recently picked up an older Aramith set, this one with the cureved line under the 6 and 9, that looks unplayed, not a mark on them. They all weigh between 5.6 and 5.7.
I measure them and they are all between 2.220 and 2.230. Then I take out the old ones and they measure about the same... undersize by .020 to .030.
I don't particularily mind using them because the pockets on the table have always been really tight, but is there any reason, other than a mistake, why they are undersized. I didn't pay much, but I find it odd to have 2 sets that are all undersized by about the same amount.
Any ideas?
John