sOMEThING Anglam CC 2014 Review
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5560/15066111365_b5247a4f4b_o.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3842/14879555077_5d70b1400b_o.jpg
The Anglam CC 2014 version is the fourth evolution of a series starting with the Angle, Anglam, Anglam CC, and finally the new Anglam CC. The CC of course stands for Singapore’s Christopher Chia, one of the top players in the world. Whereas the OG Anglam CC was a slight modification to the Anglam, including some minor spec tweaks and the use of mysterious weight rings (generally thought to be 7075 aluminum) in place of titanium weight rings, the 2014 version of the Anglam CC is a more radical departure. Its predecessors gained fame from Hiroyuki Suzuki using the Anglam to win Worlds in 2012 and Christopher Chia using the OG Anglam CC to win 2nd place in Worlds in 2013.
Unfortunately Christopher Chia did not attend Worlds this year. The most recent video I can find featuring the new Anglam CC is his performance at AP2014, in which he placed 5th.
As can be seen from the performance, Christopher Chia’s style has changed and revolves more around horizontal tricks. The design changes of the new Anglam CC were intended to suit this style, shifting weight to the rims and making this yo-yo a superb choice for horizontal trickiness.
[b][u]Design[/u][/b]
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3865/14879546488_c0c5f27f17_o.jpg
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3905/14879570927_e0c5e9050e_o.jpg
Similar to the Phaser, the 2014 Anglam CC has a “stepped inverse round” profile with 4 steps, but the spacing of the steps and the very small flat rim section makes it feel more like an H-Profile than the Phaser. The 2014 Anglam CC eschews the typical location for ring placement, placing the ring farther into the cup than in the case of most under-the-rim bi-metals such as the Isotope 2 (see comparison pic above). Since making the ring flush with the rim provides the largest diameter and hence the largest gain to rotational inertia, I can only speculate the reason for placing the ring farther into the cup was to be able to use the same size rings as those on the smaller Phaser. From my measurements, the rings appear to be exactly the same size, leading me to assume this decision was made to keep costs lower, at the cost of a small amount of spin time.
As for the cup itself, the design appears very similar to that of the Phaser. The only difference I can verify is that the finger spin hub on the Phaser is flat, wheras the hub is somewhat lifted on the new Anglam CC. As with the Phaser the cup is deep enough for thumb grinds and the hub adequate for finger spins.
Below is a comparison of the New Anglam CC with the original Anglam CC and the Anglam.
[tr][td][center]sOMEThING Anglam CC 2014
[/td][td]sOMEThING Anglam CC 2013
[/td][td]sOMEThING Anglam
[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5564/14904684437_5bdf7c895a_o.jpg
[/td][td]
http://cdn.yoyoexpert.com/888/view/images/02.jpg
[/td][td]
http://cdn.yoyoexpert.com/747/view/images/02.jpg
[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Release year: 2014
Weight: 67.05g
Diameter: 56.25mm
Width: 43.18mm
Trapeze Width: 36mm
Gap Width: ? (~4.3mm)
Profile: Stepped Inverse Round
Body Material: Aluminum 6061
Rim Material: Stainless Steel
Bearing: sOMEThING ADC Concave
Bearing Size: C
Response: YYF CBC Pad Large Slim[/td]Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
[td]Release year: 2013
Weight: 67.5g
Diameter: 56.23mm
Width: 43.14mm
Trapeze Width: 38mm
Gap Width: 4.25mm
Profile: Stepped Inverse Round
Body Material: Aluminum 6061
Rim Material: Aluminum 7075
Bearing: Curved Bearing (ADC?)
Bearing Size: C
Response: YYF CBC Pad Large Slim[/td]
[td]Â Release year: 2012
 Weight: 67.4g
 Diameter: 55.20mm
 Width: 42.10mm
 Trapeze Width: 36mm
 Gap Width: 4.2mm
 Profile: Stepped Inverse Round
 Body Material: Aluminum 6061
 Rim Material: Titanium
 Bearing: Curved Bearing (ADC?)
 Bearing Size: C
 Response: YYF CBC Pad Large Slim[/td][/tr][/center]
The original Anglam has exactly 3 steps and titanium weight rings. The OG Anglam CC has an additional step near the center, is slightly larger, and uses aluminum 7075 weight rings. The shape change from the OG Anglam CC to the new one is subtle. The flat step is slightly wider and the curve on the innermost step inverted. The biggest change of course is the use of stainless steel rings instead of aluminum 7075, allowing for a weight ring density almost three times as dense. The shell has actually been thinned out giving a lower overall weight but better overall weight distribution and more powerful spin. The trapeze width is also slightly lower compared to the original Anglam CC.
[tr][td]
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5590/14879541768_51724c28a5_o.jpg
[/td][td]The ADC bearing is sOMEThING’s “generic” concave bearing, and it easily rivals the KK. The response pads used are standard 19mm OD YYF CBC Large Slim. As such the 2014 Anglam CC is compatible with large slim IRPads, K-pads, etc. I’ve only tried the standard pads so far but eventually will replace them with IRPads.
As you can see on the left, the axle is a short M4, and you can also see minor anodization flaws on the bearing seat.
[/td][td]
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3844/14879570467_af99616cea_o.jpg
[/td][/tr]
Pros
-
Stability: The 2014 Anglam CC has excellent stability as would be expected for a 67g bi-metal yo-yo. It is not quite optimum, however. I believe using larger weight rings placed flush with the rim would enhance stability to a greater degree, but Phaser-sized rings were used likely to lower costs. This also shifts the weight somewhat towards the center and makes the yo-yo feel a bit lighter than it is. The Anglam CC is still an incredibly stable yo-yo, but as far as bi-metals go it’s fairly average.
-
Spin Times: Spin times on the 2014 Anglam CC are even better than with the Phaser. I was able to surpass 10 minutes with the default bearing and a Toxic BG1 string and get 10:48 with a used but still reasonably fresh NSK. It would easily break 11 minutes with a new NSK. This puts this yo-yo around fourth or fifth among my collection for spin times (which is quite good considering my collection). Moreover the gap width is sufficient to allow for excellent combo times.
-
Controllability: There is a very subtle difference in controllability between the Phaser and Anglam CC. It’s so subtle I can barely tell a difference, but I think the Anglam CC is ever so slightly easier to control. It goes where you want it to and is pretty forgiving.
-
Vibration: The 2014 Anglam CC is ridiculously smooth, only surpassed among bi-metals I’ve tried by the Isotope 2. It is notably smoother than the Phaser, which is itself extremely smooth. There is no visible vibration, no string vibration, and barely feelable vibration against one’s fingernail. It’s almost dead smooth but getting this close is quite an accomplishment for a bi-metal, and the smoothness greatly surpasses most non-bi-metals (such as any CLYW I’ve thrown).
-
Responsiveness: Binds feel slightly looser than with the Phaser, but what I had to say about the Phaser applies here as well. Response is customizable due to wide compatibility with YYF CBC Large Slim Pads and various IRPad hardness types.
-
Default Bearing: As I stated in the Phaser review, the CDC bearing is extremely good. I finally deshielded one and confirmed it’s actually an 8-ball, which surprised me given how smooth and quiet it is. Spin times are excellent and the shape is a standard curved bearing.
-
Gap Width: The gap width is a little wider than average. I like this gap width as it causes very low sleep loss due to friction. Combined with the standard YYF CBC Large Slim pads, the somewhat wide gap gives a medium level of responsiveness.
-
Horizontals: The changes made to the 2014 version of the Anglam CC were made largely to improve horizontal play, and they deliver. It is easy to tilt the yo-yo due to the several steps and sleep loss is relatively low during horizontals.
-
Torque: The diameter:width ratio is 1.302, well above average, imperceptibly lower than the Phaser. The high diameter:width ratio combined with the heavy rings gives the Anglam CC a large amount of torque when thrown, contributing to its extraordinary spin times.
-
Comfort: The Anglam CC is very comfortable to throw especially in a 1A grip. I prefer the Phaser’s shape and size for 5A but it’s not hard to get a good throw with either.
-
Noise: The Anglam CC is not the quietest yo-yo I’ve ever thrown but it’s very quiet for a bi-metal, notably quieter than the Phaser. If this is important to you it’s a definite plus.
Neutrals
-
Price: The Anglam CC ranges from expensive to extremely expensive. Two international sites sell it at $210. I recommend you buy it elsewhere, as it can be found for 19800 yen at most sites, or around $200 with free shipping at one of them. The 2014 Anglam CC is definitely on the expensive end, but it’s cheaper than its competitors such as Yoyorecreation and Turning Point bi-metals. It is more expensive than Sturm Panzer bi-metals, however, so I put its price in the “neutral” category.
-
Speed: The Anglam CC plays at a moderate pace. This may be a pro or a con depending on your tastes. Really you can push it to play fast but it doesn’t scream to play that way like a Leo Sniper MK II. I tried to determine whether the Phaser or Anglam CC feels faster but there isn’t much difference. The Phaser actually feels a bit faster to me but I could be completely imagining it.
-
Weight: At 67.05g the 2014 Anglam CC has a moderate weight, putting it in the same class as Turning Point’s recent flagship, the Palpitation. Whether this is a pro or a con is completely subjective.
-
Grindability: There is no IGR on the 2014 Anglam CC, as is the case with most Japanese yo-yos. The cup is deep enough to do thumb grinds, but they are relatively difficult. In addition, the finish is not a blast, so the 2014 Anglam CC grinds much better if you wear gloves.
-
Finger spins: The hub is not designed specifically for finger spins (as in yo-yos like the Movitation, P-Wave, or Prominence) but it is perfectly adequate for them. There is no protruding “nipple” like on Turning Point or most CLYW yo-yos. The hub is slightly raised, similar to the hub of a Draupnir.
-
Appearance: In my opinion sOMETHING does not make very pretty yo-yos. There were a few color patterns on the Anglam I really liked, but most of them were pretty ugly. The 2014 Anglam CC is not ugly, but at present there are only two color choices: a “meh” emerald green and a “meh” blue/red splash. I decided to go with the “meh” emerald green and it looks decent in person but is nothing special. Still, this yo-yo is built to play, not to look pretty, so this is a minor complaint.
-
Fun factor: This is super subjective. The 2014 Anglam CC is definitely a “competition yo-yo.” I have fun playing it, but less so than with many other yo-yos. I see it as a yo-yo for long practice sessions and intense competitive training more than a casual, “chill” type yo-yo. Compared with the Phaser, I actually find the Phaser more fun for reasons I can’t fully explain. I think I prefer the size and feel of the Phaser.
-
Trapeze Width: The 2014 Anglam CC has a slightly reduced trapeze width (36 mm) compared to its predecessor, making it imperceptibly harder to land trapezes and tricks in general without hitting the flat rim portion and tilting the yo-yo. The Trapeze width is better than the Phaser so I don’t consider this a con exactly, but I’d rather have seen the full width of the yo-yo used and a larger weight ring to get the same (possibly better) rim weight.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5555/15043102976_40271f7efd_o.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5565/15043097226_61c82ce757_o.jpg
Conclusion
The new Anglam CC was rather difficult for me to review, given its similarities to the Phaser and the fact I haven’t played its predecessor. Honestly I can’t tell a big difference between the Phaser and the Anglam CC in how they play. I feel like for 1A the 2014 Anglam CC is slightly better and for 3A and 5A the Phaser is slightly better due to the more extreme outer rim weight distribution of the Phaser. The Anglam CC feels a bit floatier to me but given the vast differences in opinion in what that word even means, you shouldn’t give it too much thought.
So, should you purchase a 2014 Anglam CC? I don’t know. If you like the color choices and have the money it would make an excellent competition yo-yo. It’s easily in the same class as the Draupnir, Isotope 2, Palpitation, and Agonist. There aren’t any real cons. That said, it feels a little bland to me. And if you already have similar yo-yos like the Anglam or Phaser, there may not be much point to owning an Anglam CC as well, aside from collection purposes.
Finally, between the Phaser and the Anglam CC, I definitely liked the Phaser better. In some senses it’s an inferior yo-yo—it looks worse, has lower trapeze width, and has more vibe. But I do more 5A than 1A and for 5A the super stability of the Phaser makes more of a difference, and it just feels better in the hand. Also, I dinged the yo-yo almost immediately when doing 5A so I suspect the Anglam CC is cursed. Plus, “Phaser” just sounds way cooler than “2014 Anglam CC”.
btw awesome review.
