Still reading through all of this but the dimples thing. Facial dimples;
is Making me laugh.

It's giving me ideas for the next time I see Steve Ritchie.

( whom I like)

I'm thinking a pinball dimple face trend . I'll get it started somehow.

With the MetLE and WOZ playfields, the fact they're 12ply is likely the difference... 12ply of birch is harder than 7 of maple, or at least that would seem to be the case.

As for those particularly egregious examples (BM66 and GB) that had much deeper than normal dimples - Stern probably just got a bad batch of wood. I haven't seen any games in a year or so that looked really abnormal... just batmans and GBs. Everything else since then has the normal light dimpling that any game gets. Hopefully the problem is behind us.

Keep banging that FAKE NEWS drum . LOL at your continued insistent ignorance with using a sample of two whole JJP pins to draw any conclusion. Again, basic math stats logic laughs at such comparisons; as if samples of one or two pins are representative of a manufacturer overall. And now adding anecdotal BM66 and GB visuals and cherry picking fallacy hilarity. The fact that you then continue with hyperbole and run with a sweeping generalization fallacy that "virtually every Stern, and all the recent ones are softer than JJP" is the trifecta and show us that your posts and opinions should be flushed down the toilet, where they belong. And what's all this about "recent" Sterns? That sample size for Stern is also basic math stat laughable and now we are at FAKE squared. Fake news king alert. Pinside reaps what it sows and logic is long gone. Maybe we need a graph.

LOL, what difference? The question that so many absolutely fail miserably at here is if the difference is actually "significant". Thanks to people with brains throughout human history, there's a discipline that has been developed to logically analyze and interpret data; it's called statistics.

Absolutely hilarious the gross logical fallacies and extremely basic logic fails all over this thread. Since no one has attempted to actually evaluate the results in a meaningful manner (the only meaningful manner is using actual statistical math analysis), all the talk of differences has been nothing more than WAG and BS. The numbers mean nothing, nada, zilch until someone actually actually and "properly" uses statistical analysis to see what the significance of the difference is. Any conclusions posted about any significant difference in this thread are FAKE NEWS.




A start could be to run with basic probability theory, consider the results indicative of a standard normal population and distribution and calculate the mean and standard deviation. Then look at how much variation there is for any one measured sample, based on the population mean, standard deviation and distribution, though it's still a crude estimate with lots of shortcomings as one is lumping all the different manufactures and types of pfs.... and over decades of production (as well as production changes). But it's much better than the FAKE CRAP many here are posting. From that one will be able to determine what the variance means in real terms with regards to the sample population and distribution. This is often reported as +- 1 SD, +- 2 SD, and +- 3 SD which correspond to the values that fall within 68%, 95%, and 99.7% of the distribution, respectively. And the only info you will get from this is an understanding of where and how a hardness result from any one pf relatively compares to the overall distribution and average measured hardness from the 12 pfs of various ages from various manufacturers.

Where some here have been separating out pf types and/or # of plys and/or manufacturers into even smaller sample sizes and then advancing the idea that there are differences (often repeatedly)... is a sad joke. That's statistically ridiculous, ludicrous and hilarious. There simply is not enough data from which to generate any meaningful distribution of the sample population. FAKE NEWS.

For example, an average of three measurements may have a mean of 80. Does that mean a value of 30 is significantly different from those three measurements?..... Well, that depends. If those three measurements have values of 75, 80 and 85 (the mean of those three numbers is 80), many people will consider 30 to be significantly different. However, if the values of three measurements are 10, 70 and 160 (which gives the same mean of 80), then no... many people will not consider 30 to be significantly different. The distribution of the population and thus the standard deviation matters and such info is needed to draw basic conclusions. Ding, ding ding.

If the king says it's so, then it must be true.

burger-king (resized).jpg

I'm not offended at all by "hammered dogshit", it just shows a clear bias. That's all I'm saying.

This thread is fantastic. I love that people can be so concrete and have no ability to see it in perspective. This is why people yell at each other while marching with signs held up.

Fake news is a disease and this site lives and breathes it. If you read my comments a little more closely you'll find that I didn't say there was no value. There's a bit of specific value that I even took the time to specifically describe and show how to determine. Is that a bad thing? And since when did mean and standard deviation calculations become a full blown study; that's just hyperbole and setting the bar as low as possible. It seems some people would rather obliviously embrace fake news and not be bothered at all than make an effort to even read about or attempt to understand logic and truth.

It was great to see some numbers posted and the work done to get the numbers. The numbers give some basic but great information. For example, the numbers show is that there are a range of measurable pf hardnesses out there. But the numbers haven't been worked up statistically by anyone here, we don't know the statistical significance of that range, and the numbers certainly can't be extrapolated to so many of the crazy conclusions on the forum that many gleefully fake post about.

I can tell you from my experience. GBLE has a tiny ghosting issue on the two mini inserts

BM66? Where the F are people getting that from? Zero issues

ASLE? As fine of a PF as I’ve experienced

Again, the difference is negligible BS

My TWDLE is fine and by far the most played of any pin

Look at your shooter lane and check the ply. Zero difference. Other than GB clear issues

After 50 plays mine had more pock marks than James Wood's face.

Has anyone determined if Predator suffers from any dimpling? And if not, who made the playfields along with the type of wood and clearcoat did they use?

Brad

predator_knowledge.jpg

I also tend to go with the Ops that route these things and have 10’s of thousands of plays on them

Vegas guy says his Stern PF’s hold up great and JJP is trashed after 10k

I have both. While my Woz PF is the worst ever, it didn’t stop me from buying a POTCCE

Speaking of hammered dogshit ...

Naw not really.

EDIT: I mean um I have no idea.

Again, the POINT is the limited actual TESTS of playfields REINFORCE a LARGE number of OBSERVATIONS. It wasn't done in a vacuum, and the sample size of people complaining about bigger and more dimples/craters on many recent Stern machine playfields was plenty. The calibrated test with RELATIVE values and the observed issues hold substantially more weight than the known cost-cutting manufacturer telling people it's all in their heads with NO PROOF. So until Stern releases tests of the caliber you're demanding proving otherwise, I'll take the tests and observations we DO have over NO PROOF and a lot of hot air from Stern (and you).

My old AFM and routed STTNG has no visible dimpling and those are fast games. The AFM LE here has extremely noticable dimpling:

and a new Star Wars LE which is on location with relatively low play has a very dimpled playfield. So I am very confident it is really caused by a difference in materials.

Those german overlays work to protect the playfield, but the location that uses them has many stuck balls because of those overlays.

My Doctor Who is just perfect, why don't they make diamond plate playfields anymore?

I'm surprised Stern doesn't treat this as an opportunity to make a few more bucks with a factory installed hard top option.

You are just use to those EMs Odiner

Can it be any worse than RD running through your screen door? No way

I have a Dr. Dude that was fully dimpled (i.e. playfield back to being flat from even dimpling over 20 years). I clear coated it. Now it dimples like a brand new playfield. So my take is it's the clear coat that's creating much of the dimpled look more so than the wood.

You know what, they really should. JJP does.

Then all the anal Bobs would calm down.

However, I’m sure the whining would then start about the quality of the “hard top”

WMS owns the trademark on the word "Diamondplate" in reference to pinball.

I still have almost 5 gallons of the stuff. It's cloudy and brittle compared to today's more durable clears, but great for touchups when you need it to be authentic.

??? I thought it was not a coating but some kind of Mylar completely covering the playfield.

You thought wrong. No offense.

LTG : )

Wow this is officially the most tired and worn out thread in the history of Pinside. Amazing.

Nope, it was just Dupont Imron clear that was used to paint trucks.

TR_Can_Imron_8840S_gal_210x300.png;jsessionid=CD8190D5068678E2A333CFEFB0610C87.tomcat2 (resized).png

Yep, there are some hard headed mofo's in here, including myself.

Btw, did i say how my ASLE pf is the best pf i've ever seen! Even better than the LotrLE.

I am also used to Getaway HSII where the previous owner must have used square balls to even out those dimples every last millimeter to the targets, posts and rubbers, and then pounded those inserts down so it would now be smooth and level with the rest of that dimpled and compressed play field.

It's taken 25 years of hard use and abuse and pounding by those balls to get this way, but now according to formula, it is almost smooth as glass and near perfect.

DSCN5771 (resized).JPG

And that screen door is now bulletproof although it does show a few dimples.

Obviously there are soft pfs out there, and obviously they measure as soft. Regardless, the way you wildly extrapolate continues to ignore basic logic. Large numbers of observations? There are thousands of Stern pins sold every year and tens of pf's reported with abnormal wear / softness issues. If you're going to latch onto the number of reported pfs with these issues, at least make a basic attempt to be honest and acknowledge the number of pfs/pins Stern sells every year. And the recent harping on and on about this in the forum obviously results more confirmation bias from additional reporting compared to earlier times. Extrapolation is fake news without more data. And another strange comment about stern communications; this whole discussion is separate from what Stern has said and I haven't seen anyone in this thread using Stern communications to justify or debate pf integrity/hard/soft issue. Another red herring misdirection.

One can just as easily hypothesize that there have been PF hardness problems from time to time throughout pf and pin production over decades. The data supports that extrapolation at this time as much as it does your extrapolation. Because the data doesn't really support any extrapolation.

Details matter, sorry that short attention spans suffer. Your statements are posted, quoted and fairly obvious, though you waffle back and forth at times irrationally and it makes it hard to follow you. I don't care about pfs, though it would be nice to have a semblance of logic on the forum without mocking those who try to use logic. It's a red herring misdirection fallacy to bring up abnormal wear from what I posted. And if, as you say, you went out of your way to find and add abnormal wear pfs to the tests then that's obvious selection bias which introduced bias into the whole sampling population and distribution curve. Shocker, you showed that abnormal wear pfs are softer. Maybe one day you can learn more of what your results mean along with the rest of us.

Holy bloviated post (pot kettle black). I never posted anything about you bashing Stern; it's just more red herring misdirection hyperbole. I've simply literally quoted and went with what you posted. Sorry for "embarrassingly" mistaking your language and having you explain yourself better; it was poorly written, open to interpretation and misinterpreted. The clarification is always appreciated. Your broken record attacks and piling on an impressive number of insults like pathetic, conspiracy, well being concerns, being unhinged, embarrassing, etc are not appreciated; though you da man and must be so proud of your ad hominem hammering! Seriously go look again at my first response quoting you and let us know what deserves such prolonged, repetitive, low ball, escalating, personal attacks. Your true colors are shining through.

I still believe the general quality of timber today is different than it was 30 years ago. Fast growth timber plantations, less time curing, different chemicals? I don’t know the science. But Playfields are softer now than they were, like every other timber product available today.

And not just timber - metal parts on today’s games are a lot thinner and softer than the original stuff.

Just my layman’s observation after working on both new and older games.

SW needs no pops IMO...He had the right idea then

I'm not a member of the "all playfields are created equal" church. You are the only one around here who has provided some evidence regarding material variety. Thank you for your efforts. Some people are offended when their beliefs are being challenged, so don't take their reactions personally. Besides, although some fellow pinsiders might think otherwise, I believe we may never truely *know* all the details and variables when it comes to playfield manufacturing and wear.

I noticed to, brand new Starwars on the dpo expo 2017 after 2 days of play it looks like a moon landscape.
Never seen a so soon dimpled playfield even for a Stern.
First,But its simple, softer wood. The wood for the playfield isnt made for 15 years.
So pinball manufacturers have to look to something else.
Second, water based clear is used. it won't hold on inserts.
So it ghost sometime's and chips the playfield.
All modern pinballmachines from Stern, JJP, Highway chips/ghost the playfield.

Maybe like in the earley 90's when we get a extra mylar in the cabinet.
Give a cut out 1mm microlon protector for free and put it in the box, so if you don't like dimple's and chipping you can put it on.

Just a reminder to the secretary - please send all Ample Dimpling Gang script changes resulting from this discussion to Mr. Steve Ritchie in care of Gary Stern Productions, Elk Grove Village, IL.

Just to add one more piece of anecdotal evidence to this thread, I have a Dialed In SE that was manufactured in Jan 2018. I have about 500 plays on it, and I notice dimpling in when in very low light and inspecting at a shallow angle. I was worried at first, until I read this thread. Now I think I feel a lot better about it.

My opinion is that I would rather see dimpling than chipping or cracking from an overly hard clearcoat. I'll try to see if I can get some good pictures of it.

As long as the dimples aren't severe enough to cause issues with play-ability, I think it's fine. I do get a lot of airballs on my machine, I might bring the angle down and lower the flipper strength if I can't get a handle on the airballs.

Edit: BTW, what is ghosting?

Ghosting is where the clearcoat lifts and separates from the playfield, usually over inserts. Unlike dimpling this is a real problem because not only is it ugly but it can also crack and flake off potentially causing premature playfield failure if severe enough.

IMG_2561 (resized).JPG

Dialed In cannot have dimples. It is simply the best-built, highest quality pin there is!

If you feel the need to look hard for blemishes that cant be seen at a glance find a new hobby

You Sir are going to burn in hell

The build quality is eXtremely high on it that's for sure. If you don't believe me, I have a bunch of "sample chips" of the clear coat that the playfield gave my after a few plays to prove it.

Let me get this strait, i need to understand.
This thread hurts the brain.

Pinball machine's use steel balls!

Done, mic drop, fin, finished, fineto. OMG

Pro, I’m sure our LotrLe’s were very similar. While mine looked great after 1500 plays it wasn’t “unused” condition by any stretch.

It was my first intro to Nibs and “dimples”. Are you saying your LotrLe is dimple free and really unused looking. No chance of that.

I’m sure it’s not hammered dogshit though

Your entire post reads as pure nubie or pure bullshlt

Of course it did.

That's exactly how a brand new playfield looks after being deployed.

This is 2018 baby, playfields are fully lit (it only took them 60 years, lol) and buffed to a gloss finish straight from the factory. Put a slab of invisiglass over it, and you will have a moonscape under glass for the first million balls.

This is pure bullshlt.

Hard Maple is one of the cheapest and most abundant hardwoods in North America.

Maple syrup production was up in 2017 - it would be hard to make syrup without Hard Maple....

Wait, stop the presses! This is big news!

Which of the 5 current playfield manufacturers are using Water Based Clear now ?????

Water Based Clear does stick to inserts.

What brands have you tried that don't adhere to inserts?

Hell, the auto companies use water based clears on plastic car bumpers, and those are subjected to much worse environmental conditions than pinball.

You should have been around when we had Williams and Bally making games; millions of ghosted inserts and chipped playfields.

But like they taught us at the Bally school, "We only build them to last 3 years...."

IMG_0938 (resized).jpg

if anyone wants to get rid of their dimples, I know a guy that can flatten them right out