GOLD CROWN IV
mike vaughn
off. I like the fact that you can tell the whole damn world about this
problem. They can run but they cannot hide. I'm looking at a different table
now, a diamond. If I can sell mine, that's what I'm gonna get.
MULLY
privately in the event anyone else has any opinions on the subject.
The boss bought 2 Brunswick Gold Crown IV's for the room. Beautiful tables.
I've been looking forward to playing on them for about 2 weeks now but have
been down with a cold and didn't really have a chance to put my heart into
it until this past Wednesday. Jimbo was aksing me what I thought about them
so I said I'd post a review after I had a chance to fully evaluate the them.
Anyway, I put a few hours into table 8 on Wednesday and thought it played
really nice. The pockets aren't really that tight but they'll spit at you if
you don't put a little effort into it. I like the fact that you can cut a
ball down the rail, have it scrape the side rail around the first diamond
and still go in. Our other tables will not allow this. And the pockets are
bigger than the GC's. Go figure. The cushions on the GC feel real nice and
it's a pleasure having to bank a ball. Overall the table feels great and I
have no complaints about the way it plays.
For the down side I'd like to comment on the construction of the table. In
Japan, the majority of tables use the ball return system. As a matter of of
fact, I've yet to see a table with drop pockets. With this being said I'd
like to say that the GCIV has some serious gulley problems. Balls are
constantly flipping over the side of the gulley and hitting the floor.
Especially around the side pockets. Another flaw is the box that the balls
go to from the gulley. The balls have a tendency to bounce when they hit the
floor of the box and occasionally jump over the lip of the box and come out
onto the floor. If this was something that only happened every once in a
while it wouldn't bother me, but I had to go after balls at least 5 times
during the 3 hours I was playing. This is enough to warrant a complaint. I'd
like to note that this isn't only happening on one table. It's happening on
both of them. And I'd also like to point out that there are 3 other GCIV's
in this area and the other rooms have the same complaint. That's 5 out of 5.
If anyone from Brunswick is in this NG I'd like to request that you look
into this problem and do something to resolve it. Oh yeah, one other thing.
The GCIV has those things with the bearings under the feet. These are a no
no. Our room has a
tiled floor. On a break shot if your leg hits the table with any amount of
force the table actually slides forward. Those things under there are too
slick for a tiled floor.
This is about it. I love the table, because it's a Brunswick and it plays
really nice, but the design of the gullies and other small things need to be
worked on. The table costs too much to have these things happen.
MULLY
Ron Hudson
>The GCIV has those things with the bearings under the feet. These are a no
>no. Our room has a tiled floor. On a break shot if your leg hits the table
>with any amount of force the table actually slides forward. Those things
>under there are too slick for a tiled floor.
The gully problem certainly sounds like a design flaw that Brunswick should
address, but I wonder if some sort of non-slip pad under each leg wouldn't be an
easy fix for the sliding problem.
Ron
-----------------------------------------------------------
What do you want in a pool league?
Take the Survey
http://www.localpool.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
MULLY
>>no. Our room has a tiled floor. On a break shot if your leg hits the table
>>with any amount of force the table actually slides forward. Those things
>>under there are too slick for a tiled floor.
>
>The gully problem certainly sounds like a design flaw that Brunswick should
>address, but I wonder if some sort of non-slip pad under each leg wouldn't
be an
>easy fix for the sliding problem.
>Ron
We already thought about putting some rubber under them but decided to just
leave them out altogether. Brunswick should be the ones to fix it on all
their tables. Like I said, 6 grand isn't anything to laugh at.
MULLY
MULLY
mike vaughn wrote in message <7745ar$fkv$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
What does it do? Balls jumping out of the gullies? Balls flying from the
return box? I'll stick with Brunswick, although I think Diamond makes a
great table. One thing that bothers me is that Diamond has those leather
pocket liners around the edge of the pocket and Brunswick kept that plastic
garbage on the IV. Sure, they set it down so it's not in the way, but
leather looks so much nicer and is friendlier on the cue and balls. My
personal opinion is that if Brunswick wants to stay above the rest they need
to do better than the others. Plastic vs leather, take your pick. I'd also
like to see them, this is real petty mind you, get rid of those logos over
the corner pockets and put the Brunswick plate back on the head rail. Man,
that plate is a signature that I really miss. And I also don't want to have
to explain to my grandchildren what "float the cueball up and leave him at
the Brunswick" used to mean.
MULLY
fred....@nypro.com
"MULLY" <lis...@shizuokanet.ne.jp> wrote:
<snip>
>
> For the down side I'd like to comment on the construction of the table. In
> Japan, the majority of tables use the ball return system. As a matter of of
> fact, I've yet to see a table with drop pockets. With this being said I'd
> like to say that the GCIV has some serious gulley problems. Balls are
> constantly flipping over the side of the gulley and hitting the floor.
> Especially around the side pockets.
I've seen this happen many times on earlier GC's with the rail style gulley.
If the gulley system is the same, then I don't think it's a new problem.
That's a shame.
<snip 2>
>Oh yeah, one other thing.
> The GCIV has those things with the bearings under the feet. These are a no
> no. Our room has a
> tiled floor. On a break shot if your leg hits the table with any amount of
> force the table actually slides forward. Those things under there are too
> slick for a tiled floor.
I couldn't help snickering about this one. I can just imagine that if this
went on unnoticed, and if there's alcohol in the room, some of the patrons
would be scratching their heads wondering if the next table is getting closer
or if it's just the booze.
--
Regards,
Fred Agnir
Leominster, MA
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Frank
>>The gully problem certainly sounds like a design flaw that Brunswick should
>>address, but I wonder if some sort of non-slip pad under each leg wouldn't
>>be an easy fix for the sliding problem.
>
>leave them out altogether. Brunswick should be the ones to fix it on all
>their tables. Like I said, 6 grand isn't anything to laugh at.
enough to be a pain). I think this is an installation problem. My
other table was a Gandy, and was on a tile floor. I put small pieces
of inside/outside carpet that had a rubber back under the feet to stop
it from sliding. This should be done when the table is set up,
otherwise you may damage the table by lifting it (or damage your back
;-} ) At the least you risk unleveling the table.
Frank
Frank
GSTEYECHEA
pitch on the ball return gulleys so as to slow down the ball and not have it
hit the receptacle box with such speed so as to fly out of it.
May not be a flaw but an installation modification.
George
gide...@my-dejanews.com
<snip>
> In Japan, the majority of tables use the ball return system. As a matter of
> of fact, I've yet to see a table with drop pockets.
<snipped complaints re faulty ball return system>
Bummer. I'd be pissed too for that kind of money.
Just out of curiosity, what is the attraction of the ball return system? Is
is just to avoid having to walk around the table to get the balls, or the
pocket being filled in one-pocket, or what?
--
Gideon
Nixon
Gully problems are easy to fix if one has a bit of patience
and mechanical ability.
On my GC-III, rather than change pitch and slow the balls
down, I simply cut up some elegant carpeting and
arranged the pieces in the box to prevent the problem.
Result: fast return, no jump-outs, very quiet !
Either fix is satisfactory. I like the carpeting because it
subdues much of the noise of the balls rattling around.
Dave
GSTEYECHEA wrote:
--
/s/David Nixon
n...@worldnet.att.net or n...@m-y.net
Optimism; the only attitude that makes any sense in this world.
Paul J. Mon
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, what is the attraction of the ball return system? Is
> is just to avoid having to walk around the table to get the balls, or the
> pocket being filled in one-pocket, or what?
>
I guess that you tend to get used to it. Somewhat like having
power windows, mirrors and door locks on your car.........Paul
Paul J. Mon
>
> Nixon wrote in message <36963A6A...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >You're entirely right, George
> >
> >Gully problems are easy to fix if one has a bit of patience
> >and mechanical ability.
>
> have to fix anything. That's just my opinion though.
>
> >On my GC-III, rather than change pitch and slow the balls
> >down, I simply cut up some elegant carpeting and
> >arranged the pieces in the box to prevent the problem.
> >Result: fast return, no jump-outs, very quiet !
> >
> >Either fix is satisfactory. I like the carpeting because it
> >subdues much of the noise of the balls rattling around.
>
> higher it would solve the problem. Does anyone know how Brunswick takes
> suggestions from customers? We could all just be blowing hot air out our
> backsides on this.
> MULLY
MULLY,
I called Brunswick last week with a rail rubber problem on a GCIII
and they sent me new rubber at NC. My side pockets will occasionally
dump a ball on the ground only if it barely falls in the pocket!!!???.
The ball box dosen't have any problems. The guy at Brunswick that I
talked with was very helpful (think his name was Russ). I'll try and
find the 800 number for you..............Paul
Paul J. Mon
>
> Nixon wrote in message <36963A6A...@worldnet.att.net>...
> >You're entirely right, George
> >
> >Gully problems are easy to fix if one has a bit of patience
> >and mechanical ability.
>
> I'll agree with this. But when you pay $6000.00 for a table you shouldn't
> have to fix anything. That's just my opinion though.
>
> >On my GC-III, rather than change pitch and slow the balls
> >down, I simply cut up some elegant carpeting and
> >arranged the pieces in the box to prevent the problem.
> >Result: fast return, no jump-outs, very quiet !
> >
> >Either fix is satisfactory. I like the carpeting because it
> >subdues much of the noise of the balls rattling around.
>
> Well, if Brunswick would make that lip on the edge of the box a little
> higher it would solve the problem. Does anyone know how Brunswick takes
> suggestions from customers? We could all just be blowing hot air out our
> backsides on this.
> MULLY
Brunswick Hotline 1-800-336-8771
fred....@nypro.com
n...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> You're entirely right, George
>
> Gully problems are easy to fix if one has a bit of patience
> and mechanical ability.
>
> down, I simply cut up some elegant carpeting and
> arranged the pieces in the box to prevent the problem.
> Result: fast return, no jump-outs, very quiet !
>
> Either fix is satisfactory. I like the carpeting because it
> subdues much of the noise of the balls rattling around.
>
and
> GSTEYECHEA wrote:
>
> > As to the gulley problem, maybe that can be remedied by not placing such a
> > pitch on the ball return gulleys so as to slow down the ball and not have it
> > hit the receptacle box with such speed so as to fly out of it.
> >
> > May not be a flaw but an installation modification.
> >
> > George
>
These fixes seem fine for the balls bouncing out of the bin, but maybe you
both missed the part about the balls falling off the gully rail around the
side pocket?
Regards,
Fred Agnir
Leominster, MA
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Roger Ballenger
in which the champions on the Brunswick payroll specialized.
Roger Ballenger
gide...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<775g7e$e8a$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <773rt3$3...@news3.newsguy.com>,
> "MULLY" <lis...@shizuokanet.ne.jp> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Just out of curiosity, what is the attraction of the ball return system?
Is
>is just to avoid having to walk around the table to get the balls, or the
>pocket being filled in one-pocket, or what?
><snip>
Nixon
(shortened; comments inserted)
>
> I'll agree with this. But when you pay $6000.00 for a table you shouldn't
> have to fix anything. That's just my opinion though.
Anything like a pool table that, of necessity, must be shipped unassembled,
will need adjustments by the assembler. (IMHO, of course)
> Well, if Brunswick would make that lip on the edge of the box a little
> higher it would solve the problem.
Don't really agree, MULLY. That makes the balls much more
difficult to retrieve. I think a slightly deeper box would do the
same thing without creating a problem. Also, they should
make the ball-indentations on the ball shelfs a bit deeper;
on mine I ended up gluing a quarter-inch piece of doweling
in front of each of the shelves. Worked just fine.
> Does anyone know how Brunswick takes
> suggestions from customers? MULLY
MULLY;
I've found Brunswick to be pretty good. Mine had paokets with
some sort of inferior rubber that tended to put black
marks on cue sticks. That was 13 years ago. I complained
in writing to the dealer and to Brunswick's home office.
Didn't hear much from either until about two years later when
they improved that material and, then, one day I received a new and
complete set of pockets that solved that problem. They are
not "perfection personified" by any means but the're pretty
good. And, it's comforting to know I can get a buyer for
a GC-III any day before noon if I should decide to take up
tiddly winks !! chuckle
Dave
Nixon
(shortened)
> Just out of curiosity, what is the attraction of the ball return system?
In any "call pocket" game; 14-1, 8-ball, Equal Offense, and in most other serious
games (ONE-POCKET, Golf, Around-th-World, etc.) the ball return elilminates
a lot of walking and shifting of balls. It's also very convienient when doing
solo drills; stand at the foot of the table and the balls always return to your
feet. All other things being equal, I'd always prefer a table with a good
ball return.
Ron Shepard
<ball...@usmo.com> wrote:
>I would bet that this is a throwback to when 14-1 was the legit serious game
>in which the champions on the Brunswick payroll specialized.
>
>>Just out of curiosity, what is the attraction of the ball return system?
>Is
>>is just to avoid having to walk around the table to get the balls, or the
>>pocket being filled in one-pocket, or what?
>><snip>
These are two good reasons, in principle, for ball return systems.
Another involves the definition of a "scratrch". The definition of a
"scratch" includes the cue ball touching a ball that has already been
pocketed and then returning to the table (the BCA rule, at least). So in
principle, an ambiguous situation could arise on a drop pocket table where
the ball hits inside the pocket facings and then returns to the table; if
there is a ball, or several balls, sitting in the pocket, then the
opponent, or the referee, could argue that contact was made and that the
cue ball scratched. On a ball-return table (or a drop pocket with no ball
in it), there is no ambiguity in this situation: if the cue ball stays on
the table then it isn't a scratch, and if it drops, then it is a scratch.
Aside from this (rare?) ambiguous situation, when ball return systems work
correctly, they are fine, but when they don't, then they are more trouble
than they are worth. You have to roll balls into each of the pockets
trying to locate that stuck ball, or crawl under the table to see where
the missing ball is stuck. One bad thing about ball return systems, even
when they work, is that players sometimes get in the habit of sticking
their hands into the pockets to catch a scratching cue ball. They are
trying to save that 5 seconds that it takes for the ball to work its way
down to the return tray, and to walk around the table to pick up the
ball. The reason this is bad is that sometimes the ball doesn't drop, and
they are sitting there with their hand in the pocket with a guilty look on
their face trying to explain how they didn't really touch the ball, that
it stayed out all by itself.
If a player feels obligated to try to catch cue balls, he should at least
let them drop before trying to grab them.
I don't think I have ever seen a ball return system that works correctly
every time. I've seen balls get stuck on Brunswicks, Kim Steels, and
Gandys. If you look at the way the Kim Steel tables are built, you would
think that it is impossible for balls to get stuck anywhere, yet they do.
So there are problems both ways. You just have to pick your poison and play on.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Fred Agnir
wrote:
> These are two good reasons, in principle, for ball return systems.
> Another involves the definition of a "scratrch".
I don't think there's a definition for that ^.
<snipped>
> I don't think I have ever seen a ball return system that works correctly
> every time. I've seen balls get stuck on Brunswicks, Kim Steels, and
> Gandys.
I've always thought it peculiar that on many (most?) bar tables, there
is a hole in the center of the gully boot *just* big enough for a chalk
cube to pass. So if you're so unfortunate to drop the chalk in, it
doesn't stop at the boot; it goes into the unreacheable depths of the
gully. Then it's free to stop all oncoming traffic if it so chooses.
On a side note: I like the snooker drop pocket idea where there's that
little rail at the end of each pocket. I think it's usually long
enough to hold quite a few balls. Are there any pool table pocket
manufacturers who do this?
--
Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
http://www.talkway.com
Jeffrey Weiss
> ...I'd also like to see them, this is real petty mind you, get rid of those
> logos over the corner pockets and put the Brunswick plate back on the head
> rail. Man, that plate is a signature that I really miss. And I also don't
> want to have to explain to my grandchildren what "float the cueball up and
> leave him at the Brunswick" used to mean.
I think "leavin' him at the nameplate" has the same meaning whether there's
actually a nameplate there or not. I'd consider it a feature to explain the
meaning of the "lore" at some point in the distant future. One thing I
won't miss, though, is the reconstructive surgery that the actual nameplate
likes to do to my knuckles every few years or so.
BTW, one of my big complaints about GCs is how the side pocket liners end up
pulling out over time. Does it appear that they've done anything to improve
this?
--
jw (NYC)
MULLY
GSTEYECHEA wrote in message
<19990108102946...@ng-fw1.aol.com>...
>As to the gulley problem, maybe that can be remedied by not placing such a
>pitch on the ball return gulleys so as to slow down the ball and not have
it
>hit the receptacle box with such speed so as to fly out of it.
>May not be a flaw but an installation modification.
>George
I can't go for the installation excuse only because that's the way they're
made. If the angle of the gullies should be lower to slow down the ball then
Brunswick should make the arms that attach the gullies to the table a little
longer to make it like that. We only have these parts and this place to put
them. It's not installation. And hearing so many other stories like ours
it's blatantly obvious there is a design flaw somewhere.
MULLY
MULLY
>
>Gully problems are easy to fix if one has a bit of patience
>and mechanical ability.
I'll agree with this. But when you pay $6000.00 for a table you shouldn't
have to fix anything. That's just my opinion though.
>On my GC-III, rather than change pitch and slow the balls
>down, I simply cut up some elegant carpeting and
>arranged the pieces in the box to prevent the problem.
>Result: fast return, no jump-outs, very quiet !
>
>Either fix is satisfactory. I like the carpeting because it
>subdues much of the noise of the balls rattling around.
Well, if Brunswick would make that lip on the edge of the box a little
MULLY
Is
>is just to avoid having to walk around the table to get the balls, or the
>pocket being filled in one-pocket, or what?
Man, I don't have the slightest idea of why this is. But I can tell you that
I talked the owner of one of the pool rooms I go to to set up a table with
drop pockets. The pockets are on their way as we type. I'll personally
oversee the installation sometime next week.
MULLY
I'll ask someone why they prefer this though
MULLY
Nixon wrote in message <369660E5...@worldnet.att.net>...
>MULLY wrote:
>(shortened; comments inserted)
>
>>
>> have to fix anything. That's just my opinion though.
>
>will need adjustments by the assembler. (IMHO, of course)
Oh, I see nothing wrong with making adjustments. I do see something wrong in
design flaws though. The rails are made one way. There is only one place to
put them if you want them to line up with the pocket liners correctly. If
the balls fly out of the gullies it is not something that just needs to be
adjusted. I'm sure there isn't a gully table anywhere tht the balls don't
come out of occasionally. This GCIV (both of them actually) does it on a
regular basis. Matter of fact, if a ball didn't fly out on the floor I'd be
surprised. I have an idea about a gully design that would fix this all up.
Anyone know who I could talk to about it?
>> Well, if Brunswick would make that lip on the edge of the box a little
>> higher it would solve the problem.
>
>Don't really agree, MULLY. That makes the balls much more
>difficult to retrieve. I think a slightly deeper box would do the
>same thing without creating a problem.
What's the difference in a deeper box and a higher lip? Looks the same to
me.
>Also, they should
>make the ball-indentations on the ball shelfs a bit deeper;
Ooohh, I forgot to mention that one. :+) Good call!
>I've found Brunswick to be pretty good. Mine had paokets with
>some sort of inferior rubber that tended to put black
>marks on cue sticks.
That's prettty much standard fare with pocket liners isn't it? I carry a
pencil eraser in my case in the event I get that black garbage on my shaft.
Takes it right off. Hey, there's a little tip for everyone. :+)
>And, it's comforting to know I can get a buyer for
>a GC-III any day before noon if I should decide to take up
>tiddly winks !! chuckle
>Dave
Don't get me wrong, Dave. I think the GC is the best table out there and
probably wouldn't buy anything else. I just think that the ball return
system on the GCIV needs some improvement.
MULLY
Ed Mercier
> Just out of curiosity, what is the attraction of the ball return system? Is
> is just to avoid having to walk around the table to get the balls, or the
> pocket being filled in one-pocket, or what?
>
> --
> Gideon
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
None of the Lehmacher tables we've been using for the Wisconsin State Pocket
Billiard Championships the past few years have ball returns. They do have very
large pockets. You can fit 15 balls in a pocket easily. There is no issue in
straight pool or one-pocket about moving balls to ensure the pocket isn't full.
These were excellent top of the line tables. I consider them as good or better
than anything else I've seen by Brunswick, Diamond, or any other manufacturer.
Talking to Martin Gauger who brought the tables over, I asked him why they don't
have ball returns. This isn't even an option on this table. He said they make
too much noise. In Germany the game isn't played in the same environment as in
the US. The rooms are much quieter. The noise of dozens of ball returns would
not fit in with the atmosphere in their pool rooms.
Anyone who really wants a top of the line professional pool table should consider
a Lehmacher. They are imported to the US.
Ed Mercier
President
Billiard Congress of Wisconsin
http://www.execpc.com/~emercier/bcw/index.htm