Who makes the best balls ?
- Thread starter lenoxmjs
- Start date
Rashig Balls
I have two sets of Rashig pool balls, out ot the 36 sets I bought in 1989. I was offered $600 a set for them in 2001 at the BCA trade show. They have never been used and are brand new in the original box. They are lighter than other balls at about 5.7 OZ. They are very bright and beautiful. They are realy a superior ball.
I understand Saluc bought the German chemical company, Rashig out so as to reduce competition. There was another great ball made in England caled Super Crystalate. They too were also bought out by Saluc. I don't think these companies couldn't make money on the balls because of competition between themselves. There was an American company that made the Brunswick Centenials called Albany Billiard Ball company or Hyatt. I think they are still in business, but don't make billiard balls anymore as is not profitable.
JPA
I have two sets of Rashig pool balls, out ot the 36 sets I bought in 1989. I was offered $600 a set for them in 2001 at the BCA trade show. They have never been used and are brand new in the original box. They are lighter than other balls at about 5.7 OZ. They are very bright and beautiful. They are realy a superior ball.
I understand Saluc bought the German chemical company, Rashig out so as to reduce competition. There was another great ball made in England caled Super Crystalate. They too were also bought out by Saluc. I don't think these companies couldn't make money on the balls because of competition between themselves. There was an American company that made the Brunswick Centenials called Albany Billiard Ball company or Hyatt. I think they are still in business, but don't make billiard balls anymore as is not profitable.
JPA
> I know that some people might agree or disagree,but I've always thought the Centennials "felt" like they were made out of a slightly different resin. They feel "harder" to me,like they didn't give as much,maybe because of the surface treatment someome mentioned earlier. They also tend to be heavier than some of the lower quality sets like the Crown. I like the Centennials and the Super Pro's best,but hate the Blue Circle and the Red Triangle/Aramith logo cueballs,preferring a matched Red Circle. I haven't played with the measle ball yet,but in the videos I've seen,except for Corey Deuel drawing it all crazy,it looks heavy and sluggish. Tommy D.
info
Now this is interesting. Thanks for the info. Butterflycuesmanwon said:
Bob Jewett said:
Bob my scales will measure in Grams or Oz. I re-checked the weight in grams and this is what found.
Brunswick Balls all weighed 166 grams or 5.9 oz
Aramith Pro-balls weighed Between 166 and 169 grams or 5.9 or 6.0 oz.
I think that everyone should be clear about the issue with counterfeit Aramith balls.
First off, if the balls are in a box marked Aramith that is not opened (still sealed in plastic), there is not a problem. I have seen some of the Asian balls, however, by speaking to other retailers like myself I have come to the conclusion that the counterfeit balls are not being sold in Aramith box's.
If they are being sold in Aramith box's I would like to see an un-open box in fact I will buy a set from anyone who has them.
Manwon
Thanks for the additional data. Now the question is whether this makes a difference or not. In the article atmanwon said:
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2005-12.pdf
I give an example of a cue ball being light due to wear. The analysis also applies if the ball is light from being made wrong. The measurements above show a +-1% variation in weight for new balls (at least I think they were new). In the article, I analyzed the case for a real cue ball that was 5% lighter than the object balls from normal wear on the table. This caused a two-foot draw shot to turn into a three-foot draw shot.
If the weight error is reduced by a factor of 2.5, I think the distance error will be reduced by about the same factor, so what should be two feet of draw will be about 2 1/3. For some shots, that's important. Amazingly, the BCA/WPA equipment specs seem to say nothing about how well the balls in a set should be matched.
Tommy-D said:
It is very possible that Brunswick has their own specifications to manufacturing, this is not uncommon. They may have also had Saluc sign a document stating that once they give them their manufacturing specs, Saluc can not use to make their own. Who knows just maybe this is the case because so many seem to like the centenials.
Fact, all of the Aramith Pro balls in our pool room have a cue ball that is smaller than the object balls. If this is due to wear then my question becomes, do the automatic ball cleaners speed up the wear? Would make sense.
Pete,
I don't think cleaning the balls would be an issue. After all, they all get cleaned together.
I think it's the fact that the cue ball obviously takes more abuse than any other ball. If you run out a rack of 9-ball, the cue ball was involved in at least 9 collisions while the object balls were hit only once or twice. Much more wear on the cue ball.
Steve
I don't think cleaning the balls would be an issue. After all, they all get cleaned together.
I think it's the fact that the cue ball obviously takes more abuse than any other ball. If you run out a rack of 9-ball, the cue ball was involved in at least 9 collisions while the object balls were hit only once or twice. Much more wear on the cue ball.
Steve
pooltchr said:
I often wondered about it, that is how much friction from the felt and friction from the balls colliding is the cause. The CB does roll and get spun much more than any other ball.
Thanks for the post.
pete lafond said:
This is what I was told by Steve Tipton at a WPBA tournament when he did some audience Q&A. He was asked why they weren't using the Pro Cup "Measles" cue ball for the televised round. The answer was they use the entire Brunswick Centennial set, including the cue ball, due to their sponsorship deal. He then said that although both the Super Pros/Pro Cup and Centennials are made by Saluc, the Centennials are made to a slightly higer tolerance specification from Brunswick, and specifically that the cue ball in the Centennial set (Blue Circle? Black Circle?) is manufactured at the same time and matched in size and weight to the rest of the Centennial set.
Therefore a set of Centennials with the original matched cue ball should be a more accurate matching set than a set of Super Pros. Oddly though I've always felt my seperately purchased Aramith Red Circle cue ball was best matched to my Super Pros than either the Aramith logo cue ball included in the set or the Pro Cup cue ball purchased seperately. Maybe I just got lucky when I bought it.
I cant say that I can tell the difference too much in balls. Cueball yes, definitely can tell the difference between balls but with the object balls I only really notice them when they do something abnormal like skid or chip/break.
Even being unable to tell the difference, I still bought into the marketing and bought Centennials and Super Aramiths for my home tables.
Even being unable to tell the difference, I still bought into the marketing and bought Centennials and Super Aramiths for my home tables.
Centennials for me
I usually purchase a new set of balls (no punn intended) every 5 to 10 years. I usualy replace with a set of Centennials but the second-last set I had were the Aramith's. When I replaced my old Aramith's (10 years old) with the Centennials I could not believe the difference. The Centennials were heavier and slow to start rolling. The difference was brother-some at first. I got out a scale and weighted the old Aramith set. The difference of the ball weight was remarkable. Balls weighted anywhere from high 5 oz to 6 1/4 oz. When I weighted the Centennials, they all weighted exactly the same. (don't quote me but I believe they were all 6 1/4 oz.)
It took me a full 2 months before I was completely use to the new Centennials.
Long ago and when it was allowed, Irving Crane use to take his own set of balls to the straight pool torneys. Now, I can understand the advantage he had.
Moral of my experience - Replace the balls with the same type every so often.
Best Regards,
Hal
I usually purchase a new set of balls (no punn intended) every 5 to 10 years. I usualy replace with a set of Centennials but the second-last set I had were the Aramith's. When I replaced my old Aramith's (10 years old) with the Centennials I could not believe the difference. The Centennials were heavier and slow to start rolling. The difference was brother-some at first. I got out a scale and weighted the old Aramith set. The difference of the ball weight was remarkable. Balls weighted anywhere from high 5 oz to 6 1/4 oz. When I weighted the Centennials, they all weighted exactly the same. (don't quote me but I believe they were all 6 1/4 oz.)
It took me a full 2 months before I was completely use to the new Centennials.
Long ago and when it was allowed, Irving Crane use to take his own set of balls to the straight pool torneys. Now, I can understand the advantage he had.
Moral of my experience - Replace the balls with the same type every so often.
Best Regards,
Hal
Well I'm not sure how crazy you want to get with it, but if anyone really wants to find out how closely matched there balls are in diameter, weight etc.. I can measure them for you.
I've been a machinist my whole life, and in my past as a mold maker had to some surface grinding to 50 millionths of an inch as far as accuracy. I could measure of some balls in about 5 seconds to tenths of a thousandth of an inch, and could compare balls to each other within 50 millionths.. With a simple V-Block and an indicator setup.
I also have a pretty wickedly accurate scale down here as well.
I gotta be honest though, I've never measured my balls (or anyone elses for that matter) but I'd be real impressed if they were even within 5 thou of each other..
My centenials are older then dirt so I don't think they'd make a great baseline.. After I get my new ones though (couple weeks) I'll measure them up and let you guys know what I find..
Problem is myself and the roomate are debating between Centinials or Aramith Pro's.. I swear they play differently. The Aramiths feel "lighter" and don't make as much noise when you play with them.
DJ
I've been a machinist my whole life, and in my past as a mold maker had to some surface grinding to 50 millionths of an inch as far as accuracy. I could measure of some balls in about 5 seconds to tenths of a thousandth of an inch, and could compare balls to each other within 50 millionths.. With a simple V-Block and an indicator setup.
I also have a pretty wickedly accurate scale down here as well.
I gotta be honest though, I've never measured my balls (or anyone elses for that matter) but I'd be real impressed if they were even within 5 thou of each other..
My centenials are older then dirt so I don't think they'd make a great baseline.. After I get my new ones though (couple weeks) I'll measure them up and let you guys know what I find..
Problem is myself and the roomate are debating between Centinials or Aramith Pro's.. I swear they play differently. The Aramiths feel "lighter" and don't make as much noise when you play with them.
DJ
I tried one of the less expensive Aramith sets, about $60.00 I think, and they did not hold up for very long. I also tried a cheap store set for about $50.00. They were junk. Don't waste your money. It only costs a little bit more to go first class. I would always take the top of the line Aramiths or the Centennials.
Dave Nelson
Dave Nelson
Dhakala said:
Ooops...he got banned for some reason...but I too thought the statement in bold was true until Cornerman educated me to the contrary on another forum.
Possibly he will share the reasons why the processes are not the same. I don't recall exactly, but it has something to do with the insets that create the unique look to the Centennial numbers.
It IS different than the other Aramith balls and takes more time.
Cornerman???
Regards,
Jim