The last issue of the B.Q.R carried the first part of Chris Hudson's authoritative account of the development of the billiard ball. In this concluding piece Chris traces the history of the ball from 1928 to the present day.
The Development of the Billiard Ball Part 2. 1928 to the present day With composition now the official ball for the amateur and professional games, the way was clear for an end to controversy as far as balls were concerned - or so one might have thought.
Die-hards of course continued to use the ivory ball and the trade continued to supply ivories, but the days of the wholesale slaughter of 12,000 elephants a year, to satisfy the billiard trade alone, were gone forever. There were still some uses for the ivory ball in various parts of the world, noticeably in America where certain pool players would use their own ivory cue ball, because of its sensitivity and touch. Players who did this, however, used a synthetic ball for the break, due to the great force of impact necessary in opening up the balls.
The American firm A. E. Schmidt, of St. Louis, was still selling 1500 ivory balls a year as recently as 1977. The popular makes of compositions available were, Bonzoline, Crystalate, Duralite and Vitalite. Bonzoline was initially made in the U.S.A. and was a direct descendant of the original Cellulose ball, made by the Albany Ball Company. Eventually a factory was established in England -The Endolithic Billiard Ball Co. which continued to supply the Bonzoline ball to the British market The Composition Billiard Ball Co. was started by a former Albany employee, who crossed the Atlantic to form his own company. Using much the same techniques and materials as the American ball, the English product was called 'Crystalate.' The Composition Company eventually took over Bonzoline along with Vitalite and Duralite, in the late 20s. Although man made, these balls were not entirely inorganic, because a vital ingredient was the powdered shin bones of cattle. It was to be claimed, years later that shortages of this material led to the introduction of the Super Crystalate ball, but it is the opinion of the writer that more commercial were the motives at work!
Various other balls were available from the thirties onwards, although the only one regularly advertised in the Billiard Player was the Titan which was available between 1950 and 1968.
Before the war, a ball was developed in Germany that used a new process and a new material. The process was casting, (as opposed to compression) and the material was resin. This ball was lighter, had brighter colours and, due to the casting process, had a hard outer shell. The method of manufacture made it easier for the stripes and numbers of pool balls to be produced.
A Jewish refugee, a Dr. Yoebner, came to England in 1937 and was allowed to stay, at the outbreak of war, on condition that he taught his secrets to the composition billiard ball company. This he did and the result was a ball produced for the export market (especially Canada), under the Vitalite trademark. This ball was, of course, entirely different from
the Vitalite ball of the twenties and thirties. This fact is further born out by Riso Levi, who was on record as saying that the Vitalite ball of the twenties performed virtually the same as its contemporaries - Crystalates, Duralite and Bonzoline. Whereas the new Vitalite was lighter and threw wider.
In 1972, the Composition Billiard Ball Co. produced the Super Crystalate ball by the cast resin process and ceased manufacture of the moulded plastic article. The new ball was lighter than the old Crystalates and Bonzolines, which by that time had become virtually the only other balls available, but a bit heavier than the Vitalite ball used in Canada. It was an immediate success with most snooker players, who found that the reds would split easier and that the cue ball would screw back further.
Billiards players were less enthusiastic. The cue ball would throw slightly wider than the old Crystalates and the run through was harder because the ball was lighter. (When compositions were first introduced, they were advertised as having the same angles as ivory. Similarly, Supers claimed, the same angles as Crystalates. Both of these statements were blatantly untrue.) Players of both games were agreed on one point - they kicked more than the old ball. Since a kick usually affected the path of the cue ball more than the object ball, it was more of a trial to billiard players than snooker players. The new ball also appeared susceptible to climatic changes, and variations in grades of cloth appeared to distort the angle of the long loser. In December 1979 Snooker Scene published an article, highly critical of the Super, to coincide with an open letter signed by 24 leading amateur billiard players. In seven years of production, problems that had been apparent from the start, had not been rectified.
Only a month later, at the World Amateur Championship in Sri Lanka, the balls selected were found to be "ludicrously unsuitable." 'Matchplay' sets, were found to throw much narrower than ordinary Supers, even though the only difference was supposed to be in their selection. Michael Ferreira said, "I can't believe that a mix-up like this could happen in a world championship the set we played with made the game a farce".
The 'Compo' people were enjoying a monopoly - all competitions of any note had to be played with 'Super' and there was no real inducement to improve their quality. At about that time though, the Belgian Aramith ball appeared and found favour with many billiard players. It was not only heavier and therefore ran through better, it was thought to produce fewer kicks. Aramiths did gain some foothold in the market, especially in clubs where the lower cost was appreciated.
The Super Crystalate ball has in the opinion of many players improved in quality in recent years. A possibly alarming conclusion to the story is that the Composition Billiard Ball Company was recently taken over by BCE the firm that had been handling Aramith for many years. Once again there is a monopoly.