Spliced vs. Inlayed vs. Butterfly Points
Alig8orMan
Since no one has taken a shot at a reply I will give you my mechanical
engineering perspective on cue construction.
Best: Shorty splice if done correctly and full splice.
The shorty splice must be done correctly to have ANY mechanical advantage
to the no splice or inlaid pointed cue blank. As in the article in All
About Pool Mr. Barry Szamboti touches on the subject of "laminating" or
the effect thereof. This is absolutely correct. The thing with Szamboti's
splice and to my knowledge Skip Weston is when they cut for the 90 degree
point splice, they take it so that there is .030" of wood or less between
each point. How many other cuemakers cut this deep, I have no idea. I
think Paul Mottey also incorporates this. The advantage is now you have a
certain degree of cross graining the verneers and the added strength of
the epoxy which is used plus the added weight of the ebony or whatever
wood the point actually is. So now you have added strentgh to the wood
core by making it more dense. The disadvantage is without the right
fixture and an improper glueing technique you can have a "buzz" created
through the points, also give you a less than ideal area to drill for the
handle screw. Another advantage is you now have a piece of wood that is
less likely to warp over time. Alot of cuemakers will argue this,
especially the ones doing inlaid points, but they do not do it because of
a few factors. One, it is very time consuming, and two they haven't
figured out how to go as deep as the few in the market place have,
therefore the gained advantage is nullified. The full splice is described
in great detail on Joel Herceks web page and I urge you to read it. Skip
Weston utilizes natural hardwoods for his points and not dyed verneers,
his cues also retain the hit on a very consistant level, by virtue of his
splicing technique. (NOT TRIPLE MILLED) By doing good, solid splices you
get cues that hit virtually identical. Have you ever really played with a
bad Szamboti?
Worst: Now the inlaid point, is the equivalent of painting a forearm like
McDermott so often does. Sorry to the cuemakers who do this and read this
group, but this is life. The difference is with an inlaid pointed cue you
get a certain degree of "desirability" in the material selection and with
a McDermott you get a sticker. There is NO mechanical advantage to a cue
without a good point splice.To make my point, I have recently come to own
an older cue made by someone who had a decent splicing technique, and it
hits incredible, I also own a newer inlaid cue by the same gentleman and
it hits just like a McDermott, in my opinion anyways. With inlaid points,
and I will try and not get into manufacturing techniques, but with a good
CNC setup, you do the program once and you have it forever. And it is easy
to do. This I know because I teach CADCAM and can tell you with the right
setup you can spit out cue foearms like crazy. Inlaid points are just so
easy to do, its a scam. CNC is acceptable for inlays but not points. An
inlaid points are just that INLAYS.
You guys can derive what you want from this, but in a little while I will
try and do some basic illustrations and put them on my web page so you can
see exactly what I refer to.
Now if you really want to get into cue design, we can get into joint
construction and handle to forearm splices. Which are every bit as
important as forearm construction. There are many factors that go into
creating a good hitting cue. This can get real fun, real quick. :)
Joe
John Walkup
alig8...@aol.com (Alig8orMan) writes:
>Since no one has taken a shot at a reply I will give you my mechanical
>engineering perspective on cue construction.
>Worst: Now the inlaid point, is the equivalent of painting a forearm like
>McDermott so often does. Sorry to the cuemakers who do this and read this
How close to literal are you when you say "painting a forearm"? Are the
older McDermott's done like this? What about cue manufacturers such as
Viking, Meucci.
What is the difference between the points on a (say) Jim Buss cue and
a Meucci? Jim?
>group, but this is life. The difference is with an inlaid pointed cue you
>get a certain degree of "desirability" in the material selection and with
>a McDermott you get a sticker. There is NO mechanical advantage to a cue
>without a good point splice.To make my point, I have recently come to own
>an older cue made by someone who had a decent splicing technique, and it
>hits incredible, I also own a newer inlaid cue by the same gentleman and
>it hits just like a McDermott, in my opinion anyways. With inlaid points,
>and I will try and not get into manufacturing techniques, but with a good
>CNC setup, you do the program once and you have it forever. And it is easy
>to do. This I know because I teach CADCAM and can tell you with the right
>setup you can spit out cue foearms like crazy. Inlaid points are just so
>easy to do, its a scam. CNC is acceptable for inlays but not points. An
>inlaid points are just that INLAYS.
> You guys can derive what you want from this, but in a little while I will
>try and do some basic illustrations and put them on my web page so you can
What web page?
>see exactly what I refer to.
John
Alig8orMan
>>John writes:
How close to literal are you when you say "painting a forearm"? Are the
older McDermott's done like this? What about cue manufacturers such as
Viking, Meucci. <<
>>What is the difference between the points on a (say) Jim Buss cue and
a Meucci? Jim?<<
John,
Some of the EARLY McD's are real solid cues. From '76-'80 for the most
part. Then after that they started this "floating" inlay/point crap. Then
even later '89 to now, they do a decal over the wood with some stain.
Viking now does alot of the floating stuff because it is so easy. Meucci
is another decal happy cuemaker. If you notice with some of the mass
produced literature, lets say Viking for example
take cues Q5 and Q15. Both have exactly the same floating point inlaid
into each cue, as does Q18 and a few others. The pattern is identical only
the material changes. Why? Because a computer does a great job hodling a
pattern for a CNC machine. Imagine, put a cue in a 4 axis CNC machine. Do
the pocketing routine, rotating the cue 90 degrees each time, you can
actually WALK away from the machine come back and BINGO 4 perfect inlay
pockets. How nice is that? Nice effect, little effort.
Now take a 4 prong splice. A real good one anyways. There is the glueing
of the verneers, the cutting of the point and then the machining of the
splice pocket. The later being the toughest step if done as it should be.
This is a tough job, but if done right it adds strength and dimensional
stability to the forearm, ala Szamboti, Mottey, Skip Weston and a few
others. Ideally if you cut the cue apart equal with the wrap this is what
you want to see. 4 pockets (4 point cue) cut as deep as humanly possible.
With this you should see a cross of the forearm material about .030" thick
+ or -. Then the verneers working up to the point.
But lets get back to painted or sticker cues. Again I will stick with (or
it to) Viking. Look at cues DC-3 and DC-10. They are the SAME basic stick
with a different sticker applied. $50.00 difference in price. For what? A
sticker. These cues are also kin to their basic 130.00 base cue.
I am not knocking these cues, just educating people on manufacturing
methods. These cues are great for beginners and intermediates alike.
But before you spend $1200.00 or more on a fancy inlaid pointed cue by a
so called master craftsman please call me. I can get you a 4 point as good
as they get cue with ringwork and ivory ferrules for that price. And the
guy who made the cue can run 100 balls consistantly and is an "A" nineball
player. (when playing) Oh and by the way he has been a machinist for 20+
years and a well respected tool maker.
Or wait on a Hercek, or Szamboti, Mottey or the other guys who know what
makes a cue hit well, and can appreciate the time and effort that goes
into a great hitting cue.
Joe
PS: My website, as soon as I get my move finished. I will post a few
illustrations. But if you would like to see some cues I have designed here
is the site:
>>http://members.aol.com/Alig8orMan/cues1.html<<
Henry K. Miller
Alig8orMan <alig8...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970617125...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Since no one has taken a shot at a reply I will give you my mechanical
> engineering perspective on cue construction.
>
> Worst: Now the inlaid point, is the equivalent of painting a forearm like
> McDermott so often does. Sorry to the cuemakers who do this and read this
> group, but this is life. The difference is with an inlaid pointed cue you
> get a certain degree of "desirability" in the material selection and with
> a McDermott you get a sticker. There is NO mechanical advantage to a cue
> without a good point splice.To make my point, I have recently come to own
> an older cue made by someone who had a decent splicing technique, and it
> hits incredible, I also own a newer inlaid cue by the same gentleman and
> it hits just like a McDermott, in my opinion anyways. With inlaid points,
> and I will try and not get into manufacturing techniques, but with a good
> CNC setup, you do the program once and you have it forever. And it is
easy
> to do. This I know because I teach CADCAM and can tell you with the right
> setup you can spit out cue foearms like crazy. Inlaid points are just so
> easy to do, its a scam. CNC is acceptable for inlays but not points. An
> inlaid points are just that INLAYS.
> You guys can derive what you want from this, but in a little while I
will
> try and do some basic illustrations and put them on my web page so you
can
> see exactly what I refer to.
> Now if you really want to get into cue design, we can get into joint
> construction and handle to forearm splices. Which are every bit as
> important as forearm construction. There are many factors that go into
> creating a good hitting cue. This can get real fun, real quick. :)
>
> Joe
Joe makes several statements in his posting which Thomas Wayne (one of the
world's finest cuemakers) strongly takes issue with. Since Thomas' news
server is down, he emailed me, asking me to post this for him. I'm not sure
how to post .gif or .jpg files to this group, and I'm sure there are those
who would rather I not post them. If you want to see the ones Thomas
references in his posting, you can e-mail me and I'll send them to you as
attachments. What follows is from Thomas Wayne.
==============================================================
As with almost everything else in cuemaking, point construction is
burdened with little information, no information and misinformation.
You can throw in a little myth / legend and a lot of sales hype as
well. Warning: what follows may be far more information than the reader
ever wanted to know…
Attached to this article is a simple drawing I created to illustrate
several different types of points and their construction. While I
realize that the posting of graphics is generally not appropriate for
this type of newsgroup, a picture -as they say- IS worth a thousand
words. Of course, I am just as likely to provide both. :-] In the
reduced resolution of this graphic the text may not be legible;
clockwise from the upper right-hand image, descriptions are as follows:
4PT VEE -- By far the most common point style available, this method is
often referred to as "structural points". That pathetic misnomer would
almost be funny, if it weren’t so widely believed. The claim seems to
be that since this is one of the oldest techniques ever used, it must be
the best. Any new or more advanced methods can only be for the purpose
of pounding out a quick and dirty profit at the expense of the poor
unsuspecting public. This ridiculous mind-set is analogous to thinking
that the Model T was the best automobile ever made and all these
new-fangled cars are just the result of nefarious and profit minded
industrialists. Okay, okay… so maybe that comparison is a LITTLE over
the top; the fact remains that most of the point-making evolution has
been toward the goal of making the cue BETTER and more durable, not
faster and cheaper. In fact, the reason the old-style point is so
commonly used is because it is one of the EASIEST types to build! I
have seen the vee cuts made with a table-saw, radial-arm saw, table
router, vertical mill, horizontal mill, and every other kind of modified
and home-made contraption you can imagine, as well as several you
can’t. This is usually the first type of point most cuemakers learn,
simply because it IS so easy to make. And anyone who tries to impress
you with the "difficulty" of keeping the point tips ‘even’ has a little
(perhaps even a lot) to learn about cuemaking. For me, as illustrated
in the drawing, this type of point construction is unacceptably weak.
This is because the deep intrusion of the point "sandwiches" leaves
little (or none) of the main forearm wood intact as it tenons into the
handle section. Additionally, the splice bolt must be threaded into the
center of this questionable lamination. Plus, the joint tenon itself is
really a multi-piece lamination with virtually NO homogenous ‘spine’
strength. I can’t imagine any educated observer seeing this technique
as being structurally sound.
In defense of [some of] the cuemakers who may use a traditional vee
point, there are a few ways around these structural integrity problems.
Some highly regarded makers (Balabushka, Szamboti…) used to socket the
forearm tenon into a linen-phenolic sleeve immediately below the base of
the points, and then socket a tenon from the handle into the other end
of this tube. Some contemporary cuemakers have suggested that this was
meant to prevent any possible end-grain to end-grain ‘buzz’ in the later
life of the cue. I believe, however, that the purpose of this sleeve
was to bind the many parts of the forearm tenon together at its base,
thereby increasing the strength and solidity at that joint. Other
cuemakers have taken to socketing a tenon from the handle piece up into
the forearm far enough that the splice bolt is threaded into solid
wood. Of course, if no splice bolt is used in this area, the problem of
drilling and threading into a weak section is eliminated, but the
secondary problem of a multi-piece tenon and no forearm spine still
exists. Many early vee spliced cues avoided this issue by forming all
four points on the end of a solid piece of wood, rather than being
separate parts. Virtually all house cues are still made this way. The
term "true splice" is fast becoming a phrase as misused as "custom cue",
but this one-piece point section is really the only type that can be
honestly referred to as a true splice. The problem with this method is
that if the point wood is very dense at all, such as ebony, the cue
quickly becomes both butt heavy and just plain heavy. The late Burton
Spain, shortly before passing his business on to Joel Hercek, devised a
solution for this drawback. The design, which Joel still offers today,
involves first splicing a maple handle section to a denser point-wood
section using a simple ‘butterfly’ splice (the maple has a centered vee
notch into which the vee shaped point-wood is glued). This two-piece
handle / point-wood block is then sawn to receive the veneers and maple
of the forearm. Burton believed this to be the perfect compromise
between strength and weight in a traditional four-point design, and Joel
still promotes it as such.
But, the above improved techniques notwithstanding, I suspect that most
cuemakers who build ONLY deep-vee four-point type cues -and loudly call
them "structural"- really just don’t know any better.
SHELL POINT -- This drawing illustrates what insiders call a ‘shell’
point. Sophisticated machinery is required to build this type of point,
but I do not believe it is anything more than simply cosmetic. In fact,
because the thin ‘point’ inlays don’t really have any strength (on their
own), this type of point may actually be slightly WEAKER than just a
plain maple forearm, with no point cut-outs. The advantages to this
design, from a players point of view, are the spine integrity of the
splice tenon and the ability to accurately control balance with the size
and placement of the splice bolt. The chief advantage to the
manufacturer is the opportunity to build the cue (or have it built by
someone else) in its entirety before selecting and inlaying the
"points". If the cue has warped it can be scrapped with no additional
investment. If the bird’s-eye is too pretty (no kidding) to cover with
inlays, it can be finished as a plain cue. [I have always found it
amusing that large manufacturers are more likely to save the ‘hottest’
figured maple for the least expensive cues :-].
4PT. FLAT POCKET -- This drawing illustrates a little known method of
four-point construction that (IMO) achieves the best of many aspects of
point construction. In the finished cue, the points appear to be the
old-fashioned vee points described above. In reality, the pockets for
the points are flat-bottomed and the veneer sandwiches run parallel to
the point sides. The advantages to this method are significant: a
solid homogenous tenon joins the forearm to the handle, the splice bolt
is threaded deep into the heart of solid wood, the handle faces up
against relatively large forearm shoulders. Furthermore, because the
inlays are quite thick and have large glue-bonding surfaces, they act as
stiffeners to create a more stable component in the cue. Because of the
balanced ‘torsion box’ effect of these points, this construction yields
some of the most stable and reliable results I have ever seen. To my
knowledge, there are only four cuemakers currently using this technique:
Tad Kohara (he taught it to me), Ernie Gutierrez, Bill Stroud and Thomas
Wayne. I suspect this list will probably grow, now that I’ve spilled
the beans. I don’t build very many four-point cues anymore - I find
them somewhat boring - but when I do, this is the ONLY method I will
use.
6PT. VEE -- This drawing illustrates one type of multiple point design
(that is, more than four points). This one has six points, but five,
eight, ten and even twelve are commonly done. While it still uses the
old-style vee point technique [because of the many points being
necessarily narrower] the heart of the forearm remains mostly solid.
This method of construction is quite reliable, and is still the way I
build a majority of my basic style cues.
As far as the use of CNC equipment goes, it is not unusual for less than
knowledgeable pool enthusiasts (and envious cuemakers who DON’T have or
understand the technology) to attack the use of computer-aided machining
as being somehow "impure" or disingenuous. This, of course, is total
crap. The CNC equipment I use on a daily basis was designed and built
by myself. I am self-taught in this field, and have worked very hard to
create tools and equipment that would allow me to realize the designs
and creations that fill my dreams. There is no manual "by hand"
technique that I haven’t learned and used, and even now I still follow
highly labor-intensive paths to achieve my goals. Furthermore, there is
nothing about building the so-called "structural" points that I, or any
other top cuemaker couldn’t knock out in his sleep. Certainly there
are manufacturers who use CNC equipment to build a fast, cheap product.
But that is the maker, NOT the technology, who is at fault. And, as far
as the purity of old-fashioned technology goes, why aren’t any of these
self-proclaimed purists pushing THAT envelope forward? The notable
exception in the field of traditional, manual cuemaking techniques is
the partnership of SAMSARA Cues. Jim Stadum and Dave Doucette are two
of the most creative guys in the industry , and it shows in their work.
No other cuemaker, using only manual technology, has even come close to
challenging the incredible results they routinely achieve. They have
proven that traditional methods don’t have to be boring. And, if you
ask them, I bet they will tell you about the CNC users that THEY have
great respect for. So, to all you cuemakers out there who turn your
noses up at "computer" cues, I offer this challenge: Show me the
magic! If you want to claim (and maybe even believe) that the "old way"
is still the best way, well fine. But let’s see some imagination.
Let’s see some creativity, some vision. I’m BORED with the same-old,
same-old look and the ‘bible-thumping’ BS about "structural points".
And based on my success, and the success of my peers, I don’t think I’m
alone…
Thomas Wayne
John Walkup
"Henry K. Miller" <cu...@erols.com> writes:
snip
>(perhaps even a lot) to learn about cuemaking. For me, as illustrated
>in the drawing, this type of point construction is unacceptably weak.
>This is because the deep intrusion of the point "sandwiches" leaves
>little (or none) of the main forearm wood intact as it tenons into the
>handle section. Additionally, the splice bolt must be threaded into the
A question I ask: If a shallow inlaid point weakens the cue, what does
digging deeper do?
John
Alig8orMan
Thomas Wayne through Hank Miller writes:
4PT VEE -- By far the most common point style available, this method is
often referred to as "structural points". That pathetic misnomer would
almost be funny, if it weren’t so widely believed. The claim seems to
be that since this is one of the oldest techniques ever used, it must be
the best. <<
the full splice (house cues and such) came before the 4 point vee. Not
believed to be the best, it is. From a mechanical and structual
standpoint. As an engineer I can tell you with great certainty and
confidence this is the truth. This is coming from someone with NO vested
intrest in promoting their product, but trying to give you construction
through an engineering set of eyes.
>> This ridiculous mind-set is analogous to thinking that the Model T was
the best automobile ever made and all these new-fangled cars are just the
result of nefarious and profit minded industrialists. <<
of Americas greatest achievements. Just some history.
>>I have seen the vee cuts made with a table-saw, radial-arm saw, table
router, vertical mill, horizontal mill, and every other kind of modified
and home-made contraption you can imagine, as well as several you can’t.
This is usually the first type of point most cuemakers learn, simply
because it IS so easy to make.<<
point learned by cuemakers, but not because of its ease. But because a
start up operator really cant afford the CNC equipment to do the half
assed inlay points done on most cues today.
>>And anyone who tries to impress you with the "difficulty" of keeping the
point tips ‘even’ has a little (perhaps even a lot) to learn about
cuemaking.<<
this should be no problem, granted your points are evenly set into the
forearm.
>>This is because the deep intrusion of the point "sandwiches" leaves
little (or none) of the main forearm wood intact as it tenons into the
handle section. Additionally, the splice bolt must be threaded into the
center of this questionable lamination. Plus, the joint tenon itself is
really a multi-piece lamination with virtually NO homogenous ‘spine’
strength. I can’t imagine any educated observer seeing this techniqueas
being structurally sound.<<
idea on how to do it. Take bullet proof glass as an example, its strength
comes from the multiple laminations and the adhesive used. Same with
safety glass, which has a higher standard to live up to than cue points.
It is better to fasten a bolt into a connection that has a higher density
than the instability of a more porous base. Now the joint to fasten the
handle, is a good topic. This is strictly up to the cuemaker on which one
he prefers. There are ways of making this very strong and ways to make it
very cheap and easy. The problem is when you have an educated observer who
knows better.
>>Major snip<< As far as the handle/forearm joint as I said before there
are many ways and many reasons, so no use to carry this any further.
>>But, the above improved techniques notwithstanding, I suspect that most
cuemakers who build ONLY deep-vee four-point type cues -and loudly call
them "structural"- really just don’t know any better.<<
is not an easy thing to do right, but an easy thing to do incorrectly.
>>Shell point: Again snip<<
I agree almost entirely except with the tenon statement. Because as I
said before, the tenon design is the cuemakers choice. Easy and cheap or
good and timely. But this is strictly a cosmetic "point".
>> 4PT. FLAT POCKET -- This drawing illustrates a little known method of
four-point construction that (IMO) achieves the best of many aspects of
point construction. In the finished cue, the points appear to be the
old-fashioned vee points described above. In reality, the pockets for
the points are flat-bottomed and the veneer sandwiches run parallel to
the point sides. The advantages to this method are significant: a
solid homogenous tenon joins the forearm to the handle, the splice bolt
is threaded deep into the heart of solid wood, the handle faces up
against relatively large forearm shoulders. Furthermore, because the
inlays are quite thick and have large glue-bonding surfaces, they act as
stiffeners to create a more stable component in the cue. Because of the
balanced ‘torsion box’ effect of these points, this construction yields
some of the most stable and reliable results I have ever seen. To my
knowledge, there are only four cuemakers currently using this technique:
Tad Kohara (he taught it to me), Ernie Gutierrez, Bill Stroud and Thomas
Wayne. I suspect this list will probably grow, now that I’ve spilled
the beans. I don’t build very many four-point cues anymore - I find
them somewhat boring - but when I do, this is the ONLY method I will
use.<<
stated before. The only way it becomes more solid is through the
lamination process of the 4 point vee. What has a larger glueing surface
than 4 point vees? Nothing, so if this statement about the structural
improvement due to the glueing method is true, I note a contadiction in
terminology here. You are not the only one who doesn't build 4 point cues
anymore, the guys you mentioned hardly do either. Why? Boring yes, but
more the reason is your investment in CNC technology as well as theirs.
Why buy CNC equipment and not use it to its full potential. Mr. Wayne,
your cues are stunning in appearance ONLY. As are the new cues by all the
above mentioned.
>>6 point vee Snip<<
The best here is the eight point done traditionally. For all the reasons
that I mention above.
>>As far as the use of CNC equipment goes, it is not unusual for less than
knowledgeable pool enthusiasts (and envious cuemakers who DON’T have or
understand the technology) to attack the use of computer-aided machining
as being somehow "impure" or disingenuous. This, of course, is total
crap. The CNC equipment I use on a daily basis was designed and built
by myself. I am self-taught in this field, and have worked very hard to
create tools and equipment that would allow me to realize the designs
and creations that fill my dreams.<<
you like pointed inlays, you cut the inlay pocket with the machine and
finish it by hand. Get the best of both worlds. It would only be natural.
But CNC points are a crock. You do get to be more creative with the CNC,
as evident in some of your stunning effects.
>>There is no manual "by hand" technique that I haven’t learned and used,
goals. Furthermore, there is nothing about building the so-called
"structural" points that I, or any other top cuemaker couldn’t knock out
in his sleep.<<
traditional 4 pointer, but hardly do it right.
>>Certainly there are manufacturers who use CNC equipment to build a fast,
cheap product. But that is the maker, NOT the technology, who is at
fault. And, as far as the purity of old-fashioned technology goes, why
aren’t any of these self-proclaimed purists pushing THAT envelope
forward?<<
not the equipment. I know alot of purists and cue dealers who will NOT
touch art cues, not because of the price, but the playability. And we are
pushing the envelope forward.
>>The notable exception in the field of traditional, manual cuemaking
techniques is the partnership of SAMSARA Cues. Jim Stadum and Dave
Doucette are two of the most creative guys in the industry , and it shows
in their work. No other cuemaker, using only manual technology, has even
come close to challenging the incredible results they routinely achieve.
They have proven that traditional methods don’t have to be boring. And,
if you ask them, I bet they will tell you about the CNC users that THEY
have great respect for. So, to all you cuemakers out there who turn your
noses up at "computer" cues, I offer this challenge: Show me the magic!
If you want to claim (and maybe even believe) that the "old way" is still
the best way, well fine. But let’s see some imagination. Let’s see some
creativity, some vision. I’m BORED with the same-old, same-old look and
the ‘bible-thumping’ BS about "structural points".
And based on my success, and the success of my peers, I don’t think I’m
alone…
Thomas Wayne<<
looks. Your right your cues are not as boring as a basic 4 pointer, but as
far as the hit goes, better get a phone to heaven and get a conference
call betweem Mr.Szamboti, Mr. Balabushka and yourself because I think you
may actually learn something. At least abouth the hit.
Believe me, I love your cues and the way they look, there is no one who
builds a more artsy cue than Mr. Wayne. But as a player, and an engineer,
I am honest. I am not promoting, nor do I have to promote. I just have to
be honest.
Also one other note about Mr. Wayne's coments, all the cuemakers he
mentions, to the best of my knowledge are his brothers from the ACA. Ask
someone who makes cues and has decided that he doen't need to belong to a
club to prove he is a cuemaker.
Let everyone stand on their own merit. Gus Szamboti....
peace
Joe Van
John Walkup
alig8...@aol.com (Alig8orMan) writes:
> I agree almost entirely except with the tenon statement. Because as I
>said before, the tenon design is the cuemakers choice. Easy and cheap or
>good and timely. But this is strictly a cosmetic "point".
>>> 4PT. FLAT POCKET -- This drawing illustrates a little known method of
>four-point construction that (IMO) achieves the best of many aspects of
>point construction. In the finished cue, the points appear to be the
>old-fashioned vee points described above. In reality, the pockets for
>the points are flat-bottomed and the veneer sandwiches run parallel to
>the point sides. The advantages to this method are significant: a
>solid homogenous tenon joins the forearm to the handle, the splice bolt
>is threaded deep into the heart of solid wood, the handle faces up
>against relatively large forearm shoulders. Furthermore, because the
>inlays are quite thick and have large glue-bonding surfaces, they act as
>stiffeners to create a more stable component in the cue. Because of the
>balanced ‘torsion box’ effect of these points, this construction yields
>some of the most stable and reliable results I have ever seen. To my
>knowledge, there are only four cuemakers currently using this technique:
>Tad Kohara (he taught it to me), Ernie Gutierrez, Bill Stroud and Thomas
>Wayne. I suspect this list will probably grow, now that I’ve spilled
According to the Blue Book of Pool Cues JossWest cues
feature inlaid points, not short-spliced. (?)
John
John Walkup
alig8...@aol.com (Alig8orMan) writes:
>have great respect for. So, to all you cuemakers out there who turn your
>noses up at "computer" cues, I offer this challenge: Show me the magic!
>If you want to claim (and maybe even believe) that the "old way" is still
>the best way, well fine. But let’s see some imagination. Let’s see some
>creativity, some vision. I’m BORED with the same-old, same-old look and
>the ‘bible-thumping’ BS about "structural points".
>And based on my success, and the success of my peers, I don’t think I’m
>alone…
>Thomas Wayne<<
> Why dont you show us the magic and make a cue that plays as good as it
>looks. Your right your cues are not as boring as a basic 4 pointer, but as
>far as the hit goes, better get a phone to heaven and get a conference
>call betweem Mr.Szamboti, Mr. Balabushka and yourself because I think you
>may actually learn something. At least abouth the hit.
> Believe me, I love your cues and the way they look, there is no one who
>builds a more artsy cue than Mr. Wayne. But as a player, and an engineer,
>I am honest. I am not promoting, nor do I have to promote. I just have to
>be honest.
>Also one other note about Mr. Wayne's coments, all the cuemakers he
>mentions, to the best of my knowledge are his brothers from the ACA. Ask
>someone who makes cues and has decided that he doen't need to belong to a
>club to prove he is a cuemaker.
Well, I am going to settle down to the computer and grab a bag of popcorn.
THIS is going to get good. :)
John
Alig8orMan
>>According to the Blue Book of Pool Cues JossWest cues
feature inlaid points, not short-spliced. (?)
John<<
Yes, his newer work as Mr. Wayne mentioned is inlaid or whatever
terminology you would like to call it. But his early cues are very
traditional.
Joe
Alig8orMan
I wrote:
>>Why dont you show us the magic and make a cue that plays as good as it
looks. Your right your cues are not as boring as a basic 4 pointer, but as
far as the hit goes, better get a phone to heaven and get a conference
call betweem Mr.Szamboti, Mr. Balabushka and yourself because I think you
may actually learn something. At least abouth the hit.<<
I want to clarify a few things here. Hits are very personal and I have
stated that in many threads. What hits good to one person may hit like
crap to another. My advise to anyone spending money on custom cues and
actually any cue you buy; try a bunch out before you make a purchase.
Unless you deal with a custom cuemaker and decide to have one built, then
give the cuemaker every bit of information you can, so he can put it into
the construction of your cue. Some people like the hit of the new
"technology" cues and that is fine. But again this is a very personal
thing, so as a consumer you must make your own decision. The above is just
MY opinion, the hit part anyways.
Joe