Matching shaft to butt

It is possible to build up the clear coat on the shaft to match the butt............. done right you can never tell........


Kim

Did an original shaft come with the cue ?
When you trim the jnt. of the cue to fit the aftermarket shaft, what will become of that orig. shaft ?
You know it will no longer fit correctly so what have you gained ?
You've traded one for the other and bastardized the cue in the process.
Would it not make more sense to match the 2nd shaft to the cue ?
Do what Kim said. Adding a collar to the shaft would strengthen it. It would require less finish also.

whammo57 said:

It is possible to build up the clear coat on the shaft to match the butt............. done right you can never tell........


Kim

Click to expand...

That was my first thought.

Seems reasonable. In fact I have a shaft I am planning on having that done with at some point.

And I suppose it could always be taken back down again if needed for any reason. But turn the butt down and I guess that's it. I mean, you would be turning it at least back to the handle area, no?

That's why I posted...I have a question on this matter. A little finish build up on the shaft would really not alter the cue so much. But turning the butt down is a much larger endeavor and essentially alters the overall dimensions. More likely to affect balance, weight, and feel of the cue. Am I right in that?




.

Deleted. My post was done before your last post was up.
Questions answered. Thanks.

mnsneakypete said:

Nope - no bastardization is going to happen. Butt only. I requested a specific size at the joint and its larger than requested. I originally offered to send in the shaft to match it but they must not have gotten the message and went ahead and made the butt without requesting the shaft.

Click to expand...

Then you should be able to call them and say, I requested this size and it isn't this size, please make it right. I am sure, from what I have heard about Jacoby Cues, if they messed up, they will make it right. Calling them is the first thing to do.....if the story is as you have now laid out.
Dave

mnsneakypete

OK, let's approach this from a slightly different angle.
If you reduce the jnt. dia. only, you will bastardize the cue unless your intent is a compound taper for the handle.
If you were to lay the handle flat on a table now, you should see no light under it. That's a straight taper.
Will you just be reducing the area below the jnt. only ? You will certainly see light. You'll also see bare wood.
The only way you'll avoid a compound taper, thereby avoiding bastardizing the cue, is to re-taper the entire handle.
Are you going to be doing the finish-work as well ? The word 'bastardized' got to you didn't it ?

There's something not quite right with this statement : "I originally offered to send in the shaft to match it but
they must not have gotten the message and went ahead and made the butt without requesting the shaft."
Who'd you speak to, the answering machine ? I'll let you think about this for a minute before we pursue it further.

I have no idea why you came here with this problem. Why aren't you talking to Jacoby ?
None of us here will touch that handle for under $200. Maybe Jacoby will do it for free if you can convince them that
THEY were the one that made the mistake.
On a more practical/civil note, match the shaft to the handle, call it a day and move on.

KJ Cues said:

The only way you'll avoid a compound taper, thereby avoiding bastardizing the cue, is to re-taper the entire handle.

Click to expand...

Thanks. That answered my question on the issue.


As for the OP, it looks like he should be talking to Jacoby, as you guys are saying.



.

I have never seen a Jacoby with .850" joint collar, I guess it can happen...
Jacoby seems to make their cues to the standard .842" such a shame your Jacoby is larger than their standard. Almost mekes me think someone, somewhere in the process mistook at 4 for a 5...

Kim Bye said:

I have never seen a Jacoby with .850" joint collar, I guess it can happen...
Jacoby seems to make their cues to the standard .842" such a shame your Jacoby is larger than their standard. Almost mekes me think someone, somewhere in the process mistook at 4 for a 5...

Click to expand...

I think they might vary. The last shaft I made for a Jacoby was .850.
To the O. P.. The shortest path with the least amount of aggravation might be to have the shaft sprayed. While Predator standards are around .842. I have seen them vary from .838 to .844.

I'm going to be totally honest with you.
At this point, having Jacoby re-do the cue is going to be more hassle than it's worth, for both of you.
Building the finish on the shaft is 'cake'. One or two trips to the spray-booth and it's done.
The cost should be very reasonable, the turn-around is a couple of days and the step no longer exists.
That's your goal, right, to have no step ? This is the easiest, cheapest and quickest way to accomplish it.
The ONLY downside is the future purchase of another shaft. Make sure that they understand it needs to be .850".
End of story.

KJ Cues said:

OK, let's approach this from a slightly different angle.
If you reduce the jnt. dia. only, you will bastardize the cue unless your intent is a compound taper for the handle.
If you were to lay the handle flat on a table now, you should see no light under it. That's a straight taper.
Will you just be reducing the area below the jnt. only ? You will certainly see light. You'll also see bare wood.
The only way you'll avoid a compound taper, thereby avoiding bastardizing the cue, is to re-taper the entire handle.
Are you going to be doing the finish-work as well ? The word 'bastardized' got to you didn't it ?

There's something not quite right with this statement : "I originally offered to send in the shaft to match it but
they must not have gotten the message and went ahead and made the butt without requesting the shaft."
Who'd you speak to, the answering machine ? I'll let you think about this for a minute before we pursue it further.

I have no idea why you came here with this problem. Why aren't you talking to Jacoby ?
None of us here will touch that handle for under $200. Maybe Jacoby will do it for free if you can convince them that
THEY were the one that made the mistake.
On a more practical/civil note, match the shaft to the handle, call it a day and move on.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily imo.
One steeper angle for the forearm. Not a whole lot of re-angle.
The handle won't need to be touched.
The problem I see is the UV finish of the cue.
Once taken down, it will be some work for refinish.

Who's doing the measuring and how many and what quality calipers are used on this trajedy ???

JoeyInCali said:

Not necessarily imo.
One steeper angle for the forearm. Not a whole lot of re-angle.
The handle won't need to be touched.
The problem I see is the UV finish of the cue.
Once taken down, it will be some work for refinish.

Click to expand...

What most refer to as a butt, the bottom half of the cue, (what's left after the shaft is removed),
I call the handle. Read my post again with that in mind and it should make better sense to you.
In my world, the butt starts where the wrap ends; butt-sleeve, butt-cap and bumper.
Above that is the wrap (or wrap area if the cue is wrap-less) and above that is the forearm then jnt.
For whatever reason, I've heard the forearm referred to as the 'nose' of the cue. I chuckle when I hear/read that.
The nose then is the upper part of the butt. Let's think about that for a sec. The nose is part of the butt.
What Frankenstein anatomy class have these people taken ? Billiards has no defined glossary of official terms.
For every term that people use to define an area of the cue, I can find a different term. There is no standard.
This leads to confusion at every turn. I'm not real concerned with what others think, never have, never will.
Until you have a standard, no one is right and no one is wrong. I've heard the handle referred to as the bottom shaft.
That took a minute but I knew what he meant. I don't care if you call it a McDonalds Royal with cheese.
In my world it's the handle. Until a standard is established confusion will reign supreme.
Would you like fries with that ? In England they're called 'chips'. OK, I digress. I'm old, I can do that.