PDA

View Full Version : Brunswick Centennial Balls vs Super Aramith Pro



Warbler
10-25-2007, 05:05 PM
Hi, I am considering buying a new set of pool balls. I want to get a very nice set this time around. I am prepared to spend a lot of money. Which do you think is better, the Brunswick Centennial Balls or the Super Aramith Pro? Or do you recommend another kind of set? Please help me with your expert opinions.

Ralph_Kramden
10-25-2007, 06:00 PM
Both the Centennial and Super Pro are very nice sets of balls and either would serve you well. I have no preference as far as the way they play but prefer the look of the Centennials.

There are somewhat less expensive balls made by Aramith that play and sound very good also.

They used Centennials at Ames. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

av84fun
10-27-2007, 11:25 AM
I don't know this for a FACT because I have never been in the manufacturing plant but everyone I've asked over the years including more than one HUGE billiard product distributors tell me that they are the EXACT SAME balls with the only difference being the look of the numbers and stripes.

Assuming that is correct, your choice would be based only on cosmetics since the physical balls themselves are identical.

Regards,
Jim

Chopstick
10-29-2007, 08:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>
Assuming that is correct, your choice would be based only on cosmetics since the physical balls themselves are identical.

<hr /></blockquote>

Brunswicks all the way for me. I have both. They are not identical. The Arimiths have some kind of yellow film ooze that builds up on them no matter how many times you clean them (even with their official cleaner and rag). The Centennials will stay cleaner with minimal maintenance.

Sagittarius
11-06-2007, 11:52 PM
Both are made by Aramith.


Sag.

av84fun
11-07-2007, 02:07 AM
I checked again with two MAJOR pool table dealers in business for a total of about 75 years and they confirmed that both Centennial and Super Aramith balls are not only made by the same company (Saluc in Belgium) but are IDENTICAL and come off the EXACT SAME production line. The ONLY difference is the paint SCHEME...the paint itself is IDENTICAL.

There is nothing in either ball that would "ooze out." Saluc produces 80% of the pool balls used in the world with ONE set of phelolic resin ingredients and the exact same technology so to suggest that ANY of their balls are consistently defective strains the facts.

I have used both balls (and own both) for years and have never noticed any "film" of any sort except that which gets on the balls due to the touch of human hands.

I mean no disrespect to you at all and I am sure that you have experienced what you say you have. Please take no offense. I just can't explain why you have had that problem and can only take a wild guess that when you were using the SAs you may have had some sort of hand cream...after shave...hair product that imparted the film you refer to.

Regards,

Jim

Rich R.
11-07-2007, 06:24 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sagittarius:</font><hr> Both are made by Aramith. <hr /></blockquote>
Both Brunswick and Aramith balls are made by Saluc, not Aramith.

av84fun
11-07-2007, 10:50 AM
Right. I decided to ask someone who would know for sure. Here is a reply to my e-mail:

Our Centennial pool balls are manufactured by Saluc in Belgium.



Joan Ledanski
Administrative Projects Manager
Brunswick Billiards

Fran Crimi
11-07-2007, 10:56 AM
If they're supposed to be exactly the same, how come they don't weigh the same?

Just curious...

Fran

Ralph_Kramden
11-08-2007, 10:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> If they're supposed to be exactly the same, how come they don't weigh the same?

Just curious...

Fran <hr /></blockquote>


The BCA Equipment Specificatons for Pocket Billiard Balls states they must have a weight of 5 1/2 to 6 ounces.

They also must have a diameter of 2 1/4 inches, plus or minus .005. ( 5 thousandths of an inch is less than the thickness of 2 hairs )

How much difference can there be if they meet the BCA specifications? Are all the balls in a set exactly 5 1/2 ounces and all the balls in another set exactly 6 ounces? I have my doubts, and unless weighed no one would know.

My own thinking, the only way all balls in one set could have exactly the same weight would be by individual selection. That way all the balls in one set possibly could weigh a 'little' less than 6 ounces or a 'little' more than 5 1/2 ounces and still meet the specs.

Greg in VA
11-09-2007, 12:45 PM
I have Centennials and also the ability to weigh them very accurately as I manage an R&amp;D lab....... The weights vary WITHIN my set of Centennials. Going from memory the range was 10 grams... I was ASTONISHED! And they have no visible flaws whatsoever.... Just my 2 cents

av84fun
11-09-2007, 05:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Greg in VA:</font><hr> I have Centennials and also the ability to weigh them very accurately as I manage an R&amp;D lab....... The weights vary WITHIN my set of Centennials. Going from memory the range was 10 grams... I was ASTONISHED! And they have no visible flaws whatsoever.... Just my 2 cents <hr /></blockquote>

Really interesting and answers Fran's question. I would be curious to know the weight of EACH ball but I would hazard a guess that the 10 gram weight differences are pretty evenly distributed such that any two given balls would have only a 5 gram difference which is only 0.18 ounces difference which, of course is not much...maybe 3 sheets of typing paper.

Clearly, the manufacturers could get the weight tolerances closer but then we'd have to pay a lot more for a set of balls.

I wonder what the SIZE differences might be because size and not weight affects aim. But I imagine that the size differences are so tiny as to be irrelevant.

Regards,
Jim

dr_dave
11-09-2007, 05:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Greg in VA:</font><hr> I have Centennials and also the ability to weigh them very accurately as I manage an R&amp;D lab....... The weights vary WITHIN my set of Centennials. Going from memory the range was 10 grams... I was ASTONISHED! And they have no visible flaws whatsoever.... Just my 2 cents<hr /></blockquote>I am also astonished. That's a +/- 3% variability, assuming 6 oz balls!

I don't think the WPA/BCA equipment specs deal with mass variability, but they do specify a diameter tolerance of +/- 0.005". Assuming 6 oz homogeneous-material balls, that works out to a mass tolerance of less than +/- 0.7%, which is much, much better than the +/- 3% your numbers imply.

Regards,
Dave

Warbler
11-09-2007, 10:35 PM
s***! does this mean I should have bought the Aramith instead of the Brunswick? Well, its too late now. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Ralph_Kramden
11-10-2007, 01:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Greg in VA:</font><hr> I have Centennials and also the ability to weigh them very accurately as I manage an R&amp;D lab....... The weights vary WITHIN my set of Centennials. Going from memory the range was 10 grams... I was ASTONISHED! And they have no visible flaws whatsoever.... Just my 2 cents <hr /></blockquote>

After reading your ASTONISHED memory of the weight range for your Centennial balls I decided to weigh mine.

The weight of my Centennials range from 167.5 grams to 169 grams. That's a total difference 1.05 grams. A far cry from the 10 grams that you remember what your balls weighed.

That means my set of Centennials then weigh 5.91 ounces for the lightest ball to 5.96 ounces for the heaviest ball. That's well within the range for the BCA ball specifications.

If I put my lightest ball on the scale and then place a penny by the side of it, the weight goes over the specified limits. My whole set of Centennial balls are matched within less than the weight of one penny.

I also then checked the diameter of each of the balls with a calibrated micrometer. All the balls were within .004 of being the same diameter, about the thickness of a human hair. That is closer than the +/-.005 BCA specs allow.

If I were you I would weigh my balls again to refresh your memory. Do you have the Brunswick box they came in? If they really are 10 grams difference they may not be the real thing. 10 grams would use up the total tolerances allowed.

I haven't checked out the Arimith Super Pro balls but they have to meet the same specifications as the Centennials. They can't weigh more tha 6 ounces or less than 5 1/2 ounces and must have a diameter within +/-.005 of 2 1/4 inches.

Centennials and Super Pros DO weigh the same. Individual cueballs that are played a lot will lose their diameter faster due to wear from the friction of the cloth.

av84fun
11-10-2007, 03:17 AM
Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time and posting the results.

"I haven't checked out the Arimith Super Pro balls but they have to meet the same specifications as the Centennials."

They are the exact same balls. Only the paint scheme is different.


Regards,
Jim

BigRigTom
11-10-2007, 09:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warbler:</font><hr> Hi, I am considering buying a new set of pool balls. I want to get a very nice set this time around. I am prepared to spend a lot of money. Which do you think is better, the Brunswick Centennial Balls or the Super Aramith Pro? Or do you recommend another kind of set? Please help me with your expert opinions.

<hr /></blockquote>

Check these out on Ebay....
Brunswick Centennial Balls on Ebay (http://cgi.ebay.com/Brunswick-Centennial-Pool-and-Billiard-Balls-Set_W0QQitemZ250185639876QQihZ015QQcategoryZ75193Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)

You may get a great deal on them.

Fran Crimi
11-10-2007, 09:57 AM
I spoke with a very good source who's name I'm afraid I can't mention, and he did confirm that while they are made by the same company and have basically the same elements, there can be different specs applied to each in addition to the paint. So, unless you have it directly from the manufacturer of the balls that they are exactly the same, I wouldn't count on it.

I have been playing with both sets professionally for years, and there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that they respond differently. I am not crazy or stupid. I know what I see and feel. I know other pros who say the same as I do.

Fran

Warbler
11-10-2007, 04:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>I have been playing with both sets professionally for years, and there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that they respond differently. I am not crazy or stupid. I know what I see and feel. I know other pros who say the same as I do.
<hr /></blockquote>

and which set, in your expert opinion, is better?

Fran Crimi
11-10-2007, 04:41 PM
It's not a matter of which is better. It's more of a matter of which you prefer. Find out for yourself. Play with both.

Fran

Warbler
11-10-2007, 04:53 PM
unfortunately, I can't afford to buy both sets. I can only afford one.

Which set do you prefer?

Greg in VA
11-10-2007, 05:00 PM
I will re-weigh mine on Monday seeing as I have stirred the pot and relied on memory...... Which my bride loves to point out fails with each passing year, and there have been 27 so far.. I apoligise in advance if I 'm wrong and memory does not serve

av84fun
11-10-2007, 11:08 PM
Fran, I am sure no one thinks you are either crazy or stupid...just the opposite. Having said that, my source is a MAJOR billiard products distributor and he says they are identical except for the paint scheme.


In addition, I have asked several pros who are friends of mine and they would just as soon play with one set as the other.

In my personal experience, I've played with both sets for many years and have no preference because they seem to play the same for me.

But you have made me very curious. Without naming which set you prefer, what are the playing characteristics that you prefer in one set vs. the other? I have a set of each and I would like to test them based on what you have to say.

Finally, we all have to be very careful to take into account not only the brand but A) how OLD that particular set is and B) how well polished that particular set is because, as you know, those issues can make a RADICAL difference in how the balls play.

Respectfully,
Jim

Fran Crimi
11-11-2007, 11:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> Fran, I am sure no one thinks you are either crazy or stupid...just the opposite. Having said that, my source is a MAJOR billiard products distributor and he says they are identical except for the paint scheme.

In addition, I have asked several pros who are friends of mine and they would just as soon play with one set as the other.

In my personal experience, I've played with both sets for many years and have no preference because they seem to play the same for me.

But you have made me very curious. Without naming which set you prefer, what are the playing characteristics that you prefer in one set vs. the other? I have a set of each and I would like to test them based on what you have to say.

Finally, we all have to be very careful to take into account not only the brand but A) how OLD that particular set is and B) how well polished that particular set is because, as you know, those issues can make a RADICAL difference in how the balls play.

Respectfully,
Jim

<hr /></blockquote>


Jim, I believe you're right in that there are players out there who don't admit to any difference between both sets. I can't tell you whether they actually believe that or not. There are other players like myself who I know who do say there are differences. I'm referring to brand new balls, not old.

Try switching cue balls and see if you get a different reaction. Use the Super Aramith Pro cue ball with a set of Centennials and vice versa. See what happens.

Fran

dr_dave
11-11-2007, 12:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warbler:</font><hr> s***! does this mean I should have bought the Aramith instead of the Brunswick?<hr /></blockquote>No. But it might mean ball specs and manufacturing control should be a little better.

Dave

av84fun
11-11-2007, 05:02 PM
"Try switching cue balls and see if you get a different reaction. Use the Super Aramith Pro cue ball with a set of Centennials and vice versa. See what happens."

Fran, the reason I don't think I'll take the time to do that is because I would gain nothing for doing it.

We amateurs don't play with brand new balls but rather with various brands of balls in HUGE different levels of wear and polish.

We need to adapt to whatever the playing conditions are and must do that during actual competition because as we progress through the bracket, we are playing on different tables and different sets of balls.

Regards,
Jim

Greg in VA
11-12-2007, 10:35 AM
Ok...My memory partially sucks...
First off, I re-weighed my Centennials and found that the 10g range I first reported from memory is WAY OFF. My ball range from a low of 166.15g to a high of 167.79g. Almost exactly the range of R.K's set. Sorry that I mis-reported the weight info.

What is off by a range of 10g.(almost) are my 3 cue balls, which is what prompted me to weigh my ball long ago.
My set of Centennials was used when I got them. They came with a red dot cue ball which the original owner told me was not part of the set.
The red Dot weighs 158.58g.
I now have a red Circle which weighs 166.14g
Also a blue Circle which weighs 167.86g.

Additionally, the Centennials have a trend that can't be coincidence, all the stripe balls are heavier (167g.+) than the solids.....(except for the 9 ball). I play 9-ball WAY more than anything else, so I'm assuming (dangerous) that the weight diff. is due to increased play, or cleaning, or both....
Once again, sorry for being WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!

BigRigTom
11-12-2007, 11:33 AM
Don't sweat it Greg, anyone can be wrong, it takes a big man to admit it....let it go and just move on.
Thanks for the update.
I was watching for it because I am considering getting that Brunswick set....maybe my wife will get them for me for a Christmas present. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Ralph_Kramden
11-12-2007, 03:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>


Try switching cue balls and see if you get a different reaction. Use the Super Aramith Pro cue ball with a set of Centennials and vice versa. See what happens.

Fran

<hr /></blockquote>

I can get a different reaction from the SAME cue ball just by polishing it.

If my balls start looking somewhat grimmy and I polish them I notice they play differently. Maybe it's the polish I use but there will be a difference in reaction.

What I do now when I polish the balls is to clean the cue ball separately. I don't use my ball polisher on it because I can't control the draw as well afterwards. The cue ball after polishing seems to draw much more easily and I miss getting shape until I get a feel for it.

av84fun
11-12-2007, 06:27 PM
Ralph_Cramden..."I can get a different reaction from the SAME cue ball just by polishing it.

Right! Every time the balls roll over the cloth surface that has chalk dust imbedded in it...every time your bare hands rack the balls...every time the tip leaves a chalk mark...the balls will react differently then when they are well polished.

I routinely wipe the CB with a clean microfibre cloth before and during matches...which isn't nearly as effective as polishing but it does get SOME of the chalk dust and hand oils/sweat off.

No time to do that with the object balls but CERTAINLY, we all have missed shots (and/or shape) that we can't believe we missed and sometimes, the reason is a grunged up CB or OB that can DRAMATICALLY change throw/draw distance/rail rebound etc.

Regards,
Jim

Regards,
Jim

Cornerman
11-13-2007, 10:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Greg in VA:</font><hr>
What is off by a range of 10g.(almost) are my 3 cue balls, which is what prompted me to weigh my ball long ago.
My set of Centennials was used when I got them. They came with a red dot cue ball which the original owner told me was not part of the set.
The red Dot weighs 158.58g.<hr /></blockquote> Definitely not part of the set. The Centennials either had a blue dot (from decades ago), or a dark blue circle (mid 80's and up).

I've seen this light red dot cueball (as opposed to the Dynamo Red Dot, the heavies regular sized cueball out there). I'm guessing it isn't made by Saluc/Aramith.

[ QUOTE ]

I now have a red Circle which weighs 166.14g<hr /></blockquote> Beware of imposter red circle cueballs. The Champion Red Circle balls that I've weighed have all been lighter (&lt;165 g). The translucency of the Champion Red Circle is noticeably different than other Saluc cueballs, reportedly due the Carom Resin that they use for it. "Imposter" red circle cueballs have been circulating around the globe for several years. The price is one of the giveaways.

[ QUOTE ]
Also a blue Circle which weighs 167.86g.<hr /></blockquote>This sounds right for a Blue Circle Centennial.

Fred

Cornerman
11-13-2007, 10:35 AM
Okay... for those who don't know any better... a Brunswick distributor doesn't make him a manufacturing expert.

I am a manufacturing expert, and you can take that to the bank.

Saluc is a manufacturer. They are the world's leading manufacturer of phenolic cast balls. Bar none. They manufacturer for customers, since they are a custom contract manufacturer. Who makes the specifications? The customer.

Saluc manufactuers the Aramith balls, which happen to be their own brand. That is, they're their own customer. They uphold their own specifications.

Saluc also manufactures the Brunswick Centennials, which used to be made by the Hyatt Ball Co. in Albany, NY. Brunswick is responsible for giving Saluc the specifications for their balls.

Considering the process for casting the ball, engraving for numbers, stripe width differences, and recasting, regardless if the final specifications for width, size, and material are exactly the same, the different process obviously make these two sets of balls different. If they weren't different, they would look the same.

The balls are different. They're different customers.

Fred

av84fun
11-26-2007, 06:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> Okay... for those who don't know any better... a Brunswick distributor doesn't make him a manufacturing expert.

I am a manufacturing expert, and you can take that to the bank.

Saluc is a manufacturer. They are the world's leading manufacturer of phenolic cast balls. Bar none. They manufacturer for customers, since they are a custom contract manufacturer. Who makes the specifications? The customer.

Saluc manufactuers the Aramith balls, which happen to be their own brand. That is, they're their own customer. They uphold their own specifications.

Saluc also manufactures the Brunswick Centennials, which used to be made by the Hyatt Ball Co. in Albany, NY. Brunswick is responsible for giving Saluc the specifications for their balls.

Considering the process for casting the ball, engraving for numbers, stripe width differences, and recasting, regardless if the final specifications for width, size, and material are exactly the same, the different process obviously make these two sets of balls different. If they weren't different, they would look the same.

The balls are different. They're different customers.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Fred, with GREAT respect for your manufacturing experience...which I accept at face value, while Brunswick is a different customer than Aramith (in house customer or not) are you personally informed as to the exact spec differences (if any) between the Aramith and Brunswick top of the line balls?

If you are, I would be very interested in hearing what they are and if not, then while the customers are obviously different, that does not mean that the end products are NECESSARILY different because SALUC could have said to Brunswick something like..."Our Aramith balls are the best in the world. So, why not have us exactly duplicate the balls and merely paint them in a different scheme.

As an experienced manufacturer, you know full well that LOTS of companies produce "private label" brands for various customers which are nevertheless IDENTICAL except for external cosmetics. THAT is why to many retailers offer a refund PLUS more money if you can find the EXACT product from a different store at a lower prices. They CANNOT lose that guarantee BECAUSE THERE ARE NO EXACT PRODUCTS anywhere else because what they sell was built exclusively for them...but with brown knobs instead of blace knobs etc.

All I am saying is that JUST BECAUSE Brunswick is a different customer than Aramith does not, in and of itself, mean that their balls are different...excpet regarding the paint scheme, which I am sure you would agree has nothing whatsoever to do with the intrinsic specs of the balls.

Regards,
Jim

leisure1
11-26-2007, 07:52 PM
Aramith Super Pro balls are THE BEST hands down !!!!

1) 80% of the pros shoot with Aramith ball because of their quality and consistent play

2)they are perfectly round and balanced

3)they are uniform for weight and hardness

4)they are made out of phenolic resin which lasts about 5 times longer than polymer or polyester balls

5)that is about 400,000 hits

6)all that for about $160.00

Rich R.
11-26-2007, 08:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote leisure1:</font><hr> 1) 80% of the pros shoot with Aramith ball because of their quality and consistent play<hr /></blockquote>
I can't say that I am qualified to disagree with most of your post, but I can't agree with this point.
Pros, like everyone else, play with whatever balls are used in a tournament or in a pool room. They have no choice. In major tournaments, one of the ball manufaturing companies is usually a sponsor and those are the balls used. It has nothing to do with whatever brand of balls are better quality.
If a pro uses a particular brand of balls at home, that is not material, as they are used for practice and not in competition.
BTW, IMHO, the brand of balls shouldn't make a difference to a pro. Part of being a pro is being able to adapt to equipment and other conditions.

av84fun
11-27-2007, 02:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote leisure1:</font><hr> Aramith Super Pro balls are THE BEST hands down !!!!

1) 80% of the pros shoot with Aramith ball because of their quality and consistent play

2)they are perfectly round and balanced

3)they are uniform for weight and hardness

4)they are made out of phenolic resin which lasts about 5 times longer than polymer or polyester balls

5)that is about 400,000 hits

6)all that for about $160.00 <hr /></blockquote>

Which of those characteristics are absent in the Centennial balls and by what degree exactly.

There is no difference in your point #4 because Centennial balls are made of phenolic resin too.

So,

#2. What is the roundness and balance error between the two?
#3. What is the weight and hardness error?

And I would accept the fact that Arimith balls are used at the majority of tournaments...but that could WELL be due to endorsement/sponsorship fees and not ball quality.

But what is your source of information that 80% of all pros use Aramith balls ON THEIR OWN TABLES?

And finally, what data can you point to that would show that there is any difference AT ALL (except for the paint scheme)between Aramith and Centennial balls given that they are both manufactured by the exact same company?

Thanks,
Jim

av84fun
11-27-2007, 12:16 PM
PS: I don't have personal knowledge that the balls ARE the same...but I have no personal knowledge that they are not.

I'm just interested to know whether they are or are not the same balls (chemically...except for the paint)based on factual knowledge...if anyone has any.

My main reason for wanting to know is that I bought a Centennial set which costs considerably more than the Aramith top of the line balls...under the admittedly often false assumption that if it costs more, it's better!

But as Cornerman as a manufacturer certainly knows, the higher price might be a function of their lower sales and therefore, smaller production runs such that they don't achieve the economies of scale as does Aramith.

But because of the price difference, I think it would be useful to KNOW whether the balls are identical...or not so I ask anyone with actual knowledge on that subject to post it.

Thanks,
Jim

av84fun
11-29-2007, 12:10 AM
Kinda funny how threads die out when people are asked for data to substantiate the statements they present as fact!

LOL

Ralph_Kramden
11-29-2007, 12:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> Kinda funny how threads die out when people are asked for data to substantiate the statements they present as fact!

LOL <hr /></blockquote>

Click on this website and read the paragraph that is written over the picture of the helicopter.

www.saluc.com/html/about-saluc.php (http://www.saluc.com/html/about-saluc.php)

av84fun
11-29-2007, 06:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ralph_Kramden:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> Kinda funny how threads die out when people are asked for data to substantiate the statements they present as fact!

LOL <hr /></blockquote>

Thanks! The article states:
"As the top of the line, the Super Aramith PRO set distinguishes itself by its beautiful design and numbers and the maximized in-depth vitrification of its More importantly, it is a fully matched professional set, where precise calibration of each ball guarantees maximum consistency within the set. The Super Aramith PRO also exists in the Centennial design produced for Brunswick."

Allowing for syntax errors in translating from French (what the Belgians speak???) to English, I interpret that sentence to mean the the spec of both ball brands are identical. Do you agree with that interpretation?

Regards,
Jim

PS: the missing words between "its" and "More" in the third line is the way it appeared on the web site.



Click on this website and read the paragraph that is written over the picture of the helicopter.

www.saluc.com/html/about-saluc.php (http://www.saluc.com/html/about-saluc.php)

<hr /></blockquote>

Ralph_Kramden
11-29-2007, 07:17 PM
What they say on the web page, as I understand it, is that the balls are exactly the same except for the design characteristics. This would include size, weight and resins in the manufacturing of the balls.

The Saluc web page could certainly use a proof reader. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

av84fun
11-29-2007, 09:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ralph_Kramden:</font><hr> What they say on the web page, as I understand it, is that the balls are exactly the same except for the design characteristics. This would include size, weight and resins in the manufacturing of the balls.

The Saluc web page could certainly use a proof reader. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

Thanks. That is my interpretation as well and stands as rather compelling evidence...from the horse's mouth, that the balls are chemically identical.

I will choose to believe that rather than the unsubstantiated opinions, however passionately expressed, to the contrary.

I only wish I had known that before buying the Centennials at a substantially higher price.

I am still curious as to why Brunswick prices their brand at such a premiym. My GUESS is that SALUC prices by order quantities and that Brunswick buys a significantly smaller quantity than the Aramith (in house) brand.

If so, props for street smarts to SALUC. They knew that Brunswick's only choices were to pay a premium for the SALUC balls or buy inferior balls from another manufacturer or (not an option really) make them in house at such small quantities that they would certainly lose money.

And props to you for noticing that quote on the SALUC website.

Regards,
Jim

Rich R.
11-30-2007, 07:56 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> I only wish I had known that before buying the Centennials at a substantially higher price.

I am still curious as to why Brunswick prices their brand at such a premiym. My GUESS is that SALUC prices by order quantities and that Brunswick buys a significantly smaller quantity than the Aramith (in house) brand. <hr /></blockquote>
My guess is, the increased price has something to do with the more stylized look of the Centennials. The Aramith balls are much plainer. It is definitely a matter of personal taste, but I like the look of the Centennials better and I don't mind paying the increased price.

Cornerman
11-30-2007, 08:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> Kinda funny how threads die out when people are asked for data to substantiate the statements they present as fact!

LOL <hr /></blockquote>I didn't realize this thread was still alive. It's apparent that what was asked was answered, and you've interpreted what Saluc has on there sight to match whatever you want.

What I wrote is not contradictory. The balls are different. If they were the same, they'd look the same. That's an easy truth, yes?

I also said, and you can look to quote:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>Considering the process for casting the ball, engraving for numbers, stripe width differences, and recasting, regardless if the final specifications for width, size, and material are exactly the same, the different process obviously make these two sets of balls different. If they weren't different, they would look the same<hr /></blockquote>

Is there anything there that in any way contradicts what is said on the Saluc sight, regardless of how you want to interpret it???

Your comment on private labeling doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, since in private labeling, you're talking about products that are indeed identical. You do know that the Centennials do not look like the Super Pros, right?

Fred

av84fun
11-30-2007, 12:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr>


Considering the process for casting the ball, engraving for numbers, stripe width differences, and recasting, regardless if the final specifications for width, size, and material are exactly the same, the different process obviously make these two sets of balls different. If they weren't different, they would look the same.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

I didn't read your earlier post precisely enough. Now that it appears clear by statements on Saluc's own web sight that the balls are identical except for the paint, I read your post more carefully.

Possibly, we are on a different page re: the essential topic of the thread, which I took as a discussion as to whether the two brands are FUNCTIONALLY the same, or different.

As you point out, they LOOK different due to the different paint schemes and so you are obviously correct that they ARE different because they LOOK different.

But that begs the question as to whether the different paint scheme causes any difference in the functionality or playability of the two brands.

Unless you have data to show that a CB contacting the OB on its painted surface vs. the plain white surface causes different behavior, then it seems now beyond dispute that one should choose between the two brands simply based on price and appearance.

Since I don't think there is any paint related functionality differences, all that happens is that Saluc rolls the Arimith paint scheme on X number of sets on the production line and then rolls X number of sets with the Centennial paint scheme and they do so on INDENTICAL white "blanks" thereby ending up with two sets of utterly identical balls except for the paint scheme.

To approach the process in any other way would be utterly foolish since toying with either the formula or the production run would squander all the economies of scale.

I doubt that either Saluc or Brunswick is foolish and in fact, subcontracting the manufacture of the balls to Saluc was done precisely to capture the economies of scale I just referred to.

Regards,
Jim

Deeman3
11-30-2007, 03:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>
Since I don't think there is any paint related functionality differences, all that happens is that Saluc rolls the Arimith paint scheme on X number of sets on the production line and then rolls X number of sets with the Centennial paint scheme and they do so on INDENTICAL white "blanks" thereby ending up with two sets of utterly identical balls except for the paint scheme.



Regards,
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">I may be wrong but I think you just proved Fred's point on knowledge of the manufacturing process. </font color>

Cornerman
11-30-2007, 07:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>
As you point out, they LOOK different due to the different paint schemes and so you are obviously correct that they ARE different because they LOOK different.<hr /></blockquote> This isn't what I said. The difference in the two most certainly isn't the "paint." There is no paint. The parts are cast. Each casting has its own pigment. The balls aren't just cast once. They're progressively cast. I assume for stripes, the stripe is cast first, then the white is cast afterwords. Numbers are engraved, and recast. So, understanding that, there should be plenty of differences between the two sets, even if the resin, the final weight and size are being made to the same specifications. It's not like they cast a whole bunch of white balls and color them afterwards. I can't believe you actually believe this to be true!

Look at the 10-ball in this page:

http://www.saluc.com/html/billiard/index.php?idlien=4

Can you see that it's not a white blank? The proces has to have the blue of that ball cast first. Then that casting goes into another casting tool to fill the white. They take that casting, engrave the 10, and add black resin to fill it. They then have to centerless grind the thing to get in round. The first two castings are specific to the ball set. THat is, Aramith Super Pros are completely separate tooling from Centennials. There is another step at least to make the Centennials, due to the cat's eye ring on the numbers, for one.

Fred

Ralph_Kramden
12-01-2007, 07:50 AM
<hr /></blockquote>

Can you see that it's not a white blank? The proces has to have the blue of that ball cast first. Then that casting goes into another casting tool to fill the white. They take that casting, engrave the 10, and add black resin to fill it. They then have to centerless grind the thing to get in round. The first two castings are specific to the ball set. THat is, Aramith Super Pros are completely separate tooling from Centennials. There is another step at least to make the Centennials, due to the cat's eye ring on the numbers, for one.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

All that for under $200.
Cost of materials, quality control, inspections, packaging. I wonder what the shipping costs are? /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

av84fun
12-02-2007, 01:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize this thread was still alive. It's apparent that what was asked was answered, and you've interpreted what Saluc has on there sight to match whatever you want.

What I wrote is not contradictory. The balls are different. If they were the same, they'd look the same. That's an easy truth, yes?[/QUOTE]

Right. Yes, I was agreeing with you on that point. If they look different they ARE different.


[ QUOTE ]
Your comment on private labeling doesn't have anything to do with this discussion, since in private labeling, you're talking about products that are indeed identical. You do know that the Centennials do not look like the Super Pros, right?<hr /></blockquote>

No, private label products, in their entirety are NOT always "identical"

I am sure you know that manufacturers provide functionally identical products to retailers who sell them as house brands but there ARE differences such as ummm...the brand name appearing on the product...special colors...different knobs on electronic devices...etc.

So, no, private label manufacturers DO NOT necessarily provide "identical" products to their customers...especially using your own rule that if they look different, they are different.

With respect to "paint" and my use of the phrase "white blank" I do not know and didn't intend to suggest that I have first hand knowledge of Saluc's manufacturing process and think I said that, in fact, I did not...nor did I think anyone else here has that knowledge.

So I was just using the phrase "white blank" for sake of example.

As for the word "paint" that was descriptive as in the common phrase "paint scheme to suggest that the balls look different from a color, stripe width and the shape of the numbers.

But you referred to the word "pigment" and as you must know, "pigment" is what gives paint its color!

pig·ment (pgmnt)
n.
1. A substance used as coloring.
2. Dry coloring matter, usually an insoluble powder, to be mixed with water, oil, or another base to produce paint and similar products.

I do see that the PIGMENT used to COLOR the balls is impregnated into the balls themselves and not rolled on but that is a distinction without a difference.

The essence of this thread is whether the two brands of balls are FUNCTIONALLY DIFFERENT so that they PLAY differently as some here have said is a matter of fact. That is what is being discussed.

There are only two things about the brands that we know, bgy observation are different...that being the colors and the shape of the things that are colored.

Unless you can substantiate that the different pigment used in the two brands causes BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES between the two balls OR that the method of impregnating the pigment is different and creates behavioral differences, then nothing you have posted so far is at all enlightening on the issue of the existence or absence of FUNCTIONAL differences between the two brands.

Yes, my interpretation of the comments on the Saluc site lead me to agree with another poster that the comments suggest that the brands are functionally the same.

Others will arrive at their own conclusions about what the Saluc comments mean.

but possibly, we can conclude this dialog by agreeing that no poster to this thread has any first hand evidence (not opinion but evidence) to show that the two brands are EITHER functionally the same or functionally different.

Does that work for you? If not, I would still be interested in whatever FACTS you might have to demonstrate any functional differences...

And I think this is an obviously reasonable line of inquiry given that the balls normally retail at significantly different prices. I think that the typical person in the market for a set of premium balls would surely want to KNOW and not rely on urban legend.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
12-02-2007, 01:32 AM
Fred wrote "Can you see that it's not a white blank? The proces has to have the blue of that ball cast first. Then that casting goes into another casting tool to fill the white. They take that casting, engrave the 10, and add black resin to fill it. They then have to centerless grind the thing to get in round. The first two castings are specific to the ball set. THat is, Aramith Super Pros are completely separate tooling from Centennials. There is another step at least to make the Centennials, due to the cat's eye ring on the numbers, for one.

Fred "

Fred, I read the above after my former post. EXCELLENT description of the manufacturing process. Thanks for that! Among other things, your mentioning the extra step (at least) in the Centennial process vs. the Super Pro and that may well explain the difference in price...BUT...

Even though the tools are different (size/shape etc) doesn't mean...does it...that the use of one tool causes a FUNCTIONAL difference between the two brands.

I already asked if the PIGMENT creates any behavioral difference and I assume your are going to reply that it does not.

So, bottom line, ASSUMING that the resin formula is the same (do you know one way or the other?) and that the rounding process is the same would you agree with the follow assessment...

That the balls are made of the same resin (or you don't know one way or the other...but if they are) then the process of achieving the different color scheme and design elements DO NOT contribute to any FUNCTIONAL or PLAYABILITY differences.

If you don't agree with that, I would be very interested in hearing why?

Trust me, I do not mean to be snippy. I'm just interested in FACTS to the extent they are available.

Regards,
Jim

Cornerman
12-02-2007, 07:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr>So, bottom line, ASSUMING that the resin formula is the same (do you know one way or the other?) and that the rounding process is the same would you agree with the follow assessment...

That the balls are made of the same resin (or you don't know one way or the other...but if they are) then the process of achieving the different color scheme and design elements DO NOT contribute to any FUNCTIONAL or PLAYABILITY differences.<hr /></blockquote>They say they make them from the same resin and to the same specifications for weight and size, so Iīd expect them to play the same. That being said, I agree with Fran. I feel/hear a difference. I canīt say one is better than the other, but thereīs a difference.

Fred

Rich R.
12-02-2007, 08:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cornerman:</font><hr> That being said, I agree with Fran. I feel/hear a difference. I canīt say one is better than the other, but thereīs a difference. <hr /></blockquote>
I think this statement cuts through all of the other BS and gets to the prime issue in this thread.
Are there some minor differences in the two sets of balls?
Yes.
Is one set better or worse than the other?
Probably not.

av84fun
12-03-2007, 02:40 AM
Rich, If i may reply to you both in this same post, I don't agree that the portion of cornerman's post concludes the purpose of the thread. You mentioned his "slight differences" views but didn't include the part where he agreed with Fran that there are notable functional differences...which was Fran's whole point.

Cornerman agrees that the two brands are made from the same resin and are of the same size and weight which leaves little to suggest the existence of notable functional differences.

I don't doubt for a moment that both he and Fran FEEL that there are such differences. But I own both brands. One came with the table when I bought it and were less than a year old and hardly used and the other, the Centennials, I bought because I like the way they look.

I have detected ZERO differences in playability. In addition, I have asked a LOT of top players and NONE of them cared one way or the other so long as they were new and/or properly cleaned and polished.

Finally, one major issue in the attempt to compare the two brands is that if you don't conduct the comparision with brand new balls...on the same table...on the same day then the comparision is fundamentally flawed.

Even then, as one poster pointed out, he found weight differences between balls IN THE SAME SET so you have to add to my above variables, the need to conduct the comparison only after weighing the test balls from the two sets so you test two that weigh the same (plus weigh both cue balls).

All I am saying is that there is a LOT of "urban legend" about virtually every component of the game of pool and I am just old fashioned enough to be more interested if facts to the extent they are available, than conjecture or personal opinions that might well have been developed by such flawed comparisons as I have cited above.

Finally, I don't know what BS" you are referring to. As I have noted, given the significant price difference, this is a valid line of inquiry. Quite a few pool players really do care a lot about a sum of money equal to the difference in the price of the brands.

There have been opinions expressed and some important FACTS presented...mostly by cornerman...none of which I consider to be BS.

Regards,
Jim

Rich R.
12-03-2007, 08:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote av84fun:</font><hr> Rich, If i may reply to you both in this same post, I don't agree that the portion of cornerman's post concludes the purpose of the thread. You mentioned his "slight differences" views but didn't include the part where he agreed with Fran that there are notable functional differences...which was Fran's whole point.
<font color="red">I will certainly defer to Fran, a pro player/instructor, concerning any "notable functional differences". As for a rank amateur, such as myself, the differences are minor. They do exist, but, to me, it wouldn't be a determining factor in deciding which set to buy. </font color>
Cornerman agrees that the two brands are made from the same resin and are of the same size and weight which leaves little to suggest the existence of notable functional differences.
<font color="red">He also noted the extra processing steps involved in producing the Centennial balls, which could account for some differences in playability. Whether they are "notable" or not, is subject to personal opinion. </font color>
I don't doubt for a moment that both he and Fran FEEL that there are such differences. But I own both brands. One came with the table when I bought it and were less than a year old and hardly used and the other, the Centennials, I bought because I like the way they look.

I have detected ZERO differences in playability. In addition, I have asked a LOT of top players and NONE of them cared one way or the other so long as they were new and/or properly cleaned and polished.
<font color="red">I have used both brands, many times. As I indicated above, I believe there are some differences, but I wouldn't consider them better or worse and I certainly wouldn't say they affected the playability. Actually, I would agree with the pro players and either set is fine with me, as long as they are clean and polished. </font color>
Finally, one major issue in the attempt to compare the two brands is that if you don't conduct the comparision with brand new balls...on the same table...on the same day then the comparision is fundamentally flawed.

Even then, as one poster pointed out, he found weight differences between balls IN THE SAME SET so you have to add to my above variables, the need to conduct the comparison only after weighing the test balls from the two sets so you test two that weigh the same (plus weigh both cue balls).
<font color="red">As in any manufacturing process, I'm sure the balls are made to a certain standard, with + and - margins for error. It would be virtually impossible to hit the exact weight target for every ball. As long as all of the balls, in a set, are within the margins, that is all you can ask for. </font color>
All I am saying is that there is a LOT of "urban legend" about virtually every component of the game of pool and I am just old fashioned enough to be more interested if facts to the extent they are available, than conjecture or personal opinions that might well have been developed by such flawed comparisons as I have cited above.

Finally, I don't know what BS" you are referring to. As I have noted, given the significant price difference, this is a valid line of inquiry. Quite a few pool players really do care a lot about a sum of money equal to the difference in the price of the brands.

There have been opinions expressed and some important FACTS presented...mostly by cornerman...none of which I consider to be BS.
<font color="red">The BS is making such a huge issue about the differences between the two best sets of balls you can buy. It is obvious, that any differences in playability are minor and any player can easily adapt to whichever set is being used. Many players probably wouldn't even notice a difference and the more sensitive pro players may detect more of a difference.
It is also obvious that any price difference is due to the different look of the two sets of balls. All you have to do is put the two sets next to each other and you should be able to tell that the Centennials will cost more to produce and, therefore, will cost more to purchase.
For those who are concerned about the price difference, the choice is easy. They should choose the, plainer looking, Aramith balls. For those who like the look of the Centennials better, they will have to pay the premium price. In either case, I don't believe the differences in playability are significant enough to come into that decision making process. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> JMHO /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif </font color>

av84fun
12-04-2007, 02:36 PM
<font color="red">The BS is making such a huge issue about the differences between the two best sets of balls you can buy. It is obvious, that any differences in playability are minor and any player can easily adapt to whichever set is being used. Many players probably wouldn't even notice a difference and the more sensitive pro players may detect more of a difference.
It is also obvious that any price difference is due to the different look of the two sets of balls. All you have to do is put the two sets next to each other and you should be able to tell that the Centennials will cost more to produce and, therefore, will cost more to purchase.
For those who are concerned about the price difference, the choice is easy. They should choose the, plainer looking, Aramith balls. For those who like the look of the Centennials better, they will have to pay the premium price. In either case, I don't believe the differences in playability are significant enough to come into that decision making process. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="red"> JMHO /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Rich whatever anyone wants to think is BS is fine with me.

But, the thread was started by Warbler who had a specific intention to buy a set of balls and wanted some input.

At first, the thread was pretty neutral but Fran introduced the playability issue when she wrote:
"I have been playing with both sets professionally for years, and there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that they respond differently. I am not crazy or stupid. I know what I see and feel. I know other pros who say the same as I do."

Granted, she also suggested that one set was not better or worse...just different but never got specific about what the differences were in her experience.

But the nature of her comments made it quite clear that she preferred Aramith over Centennial. So, while being very respectful of you view that delving into the issue of the DEGREE and NATURE of the playability differences was BS...my view is that subject was CENTRAL to a buying decision inquiry which, as I noted, was the purpose of the thread from the beginning.

With great and genuine respect for Fran's opinions on the subject, I have heard from other pros who are very widely known and respected that they are neutral on the two sets.

Fran commented that some such opinions might not be truthful and that is certainly possible in some cases...but not in the case of my sources who are personal friends and who wouldn't mislead me.

Therefore, in final response to Warbler, my "vote" in your poll is to choose the Super Aramith Pro...not because it is cheaper but because the weight of my inquiries into the subject leads me to believe that there are no meaningful functional differences between the two and that absent color/design preferences you should buy the less expensive of the two.

Regards,
Jim