John Schmidt runs 820

It's hard to respect a run like this when the pockets are so atrociously big. The shot on the 6, 5, and 15 ball are not what pool is. Those balls should never go, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This is not pool. There was never any pressure to miss a ball with pockets that size. Any APA 3 would run out a rack of 9 or 8ball on this table.
I would bet a very large sum of money that an APA 3 would not run a rack of 9 ball or 8 ball on this table even given many tries.

John Schmidt runs 820

I personally have Shaw at 714 (before he ran the 830 something). I understand all the hoopla about the touched ball and the BCA changing it to 669. Almost the entire country on every tournament plays cb fouls only. I watched his 714 live (the last hour or so), and I bought the zip drive that was advertised as 714.

Hell, he even got a 714 tattoo!

Same as I have Schmidt at 820. Yes, I saw the nudged OB.

To each his own. All of those runs were amazing.
I with you here.

Before this latest stint of high runs by Schmidt and Shaw, how did we know that Willie Mosconi's run was without a foul? Does the affidavit address whether someone was watching for fouls or what defined a foul (cueball vs. object ball, coaching, breaks, ball cleaning, etc)? Does it say how big the pockets were?

I don't understand nit-picking clear feats of greatness on the table. All the runs from Schmidt and Shaw in recent times are remarkable achievements.

As I understand it, if John Schmidt fouled in his latest run, then his run ended at 672. O.k. even still, he is one of two people who have proof of twice running over 600 balls. The same for Shaw whether run is 669 or 714, Shaw has twice run over 600 balls. Running 600 once is bonkers. Twice is clearly double-bonkers.

kollegedave

Block letter Joss 4 pointer, 18 pin joint. One of their earliest cues!

Super early block letter Joss for sale! This cue was made during the earliest days of Joss. Both Dan Janes and Bill Stroud (and maybe even Tim Scruggs!) likely had a hand in making this cue.

The beautiful and highly figured BEM used in the forearm, points, and buttsleeve is definitely the star of the show here. The 50+ years has turned the color into a deep golden caramel. The points are trimmed with three veneers: brown, natural, and brown. The leather wrap is not original to the cue but is expertly installed. The joint is the classic steel joint, bordered by the iconic early Joss railroad ringwork. Note that it's a 5/16x18 pin joint, which was extremely rare and mostly only used in the very early days. Natural white ferrule.

Pin: 5/16x18 piloted
Shaft weight: 3.76oz
Butt weight: 16.08oz
Both shaft and butt are 29"

Full high definition photos and a video of the shaft rolling here: https://photos.app.goo.gl/HvJe6pxeGrxD3vsa8

Condition notes:
  • Shaft is not straight (see video) and pretty skinny. It can be salvaged for the ferrule material and ringwork if you want to create a new shaft for it, or it can be kept as is for a collection.
  • There are multiple dings in the finish, which I've tried to capture as accurately as possible and have highlighted in the photos.
  • There is a tiny bit of movement in the butt when rolled (see two videos at end). Does not affect play IMO.

Asking for $1000, which is a steal given the most simple 70s Josswests plain janes are going for $1300+.
For an extra $100, I can include a 30" OB Pro+ shaft that I had Stephen Janes tap for me to fit.

Price is firm. Price includes shipping in CONUS. Payment by Paypal or Venmo, buyer adds any associated fees like goods and services.

Attachments

  • IMG_0767 Large.jpeg
    IMG_0767 Large.jpeg
    124.8 KB · Views: 151
  • IMG_0768 Large.jpeg
    IMG_0768 Large.jpeg
    102.8 KB · Views: 151
  • IMG_0769 Large.jpeg
    IMG_0769 Large.jpeg
    125.5 KB · Views: 154
  • IMG_0770 Large.jpeg
    IMG_0770 Large.jpeg
    126.3 KB · Views: 144
  • IMG_0771 Large.jpeg
    IMG_0771 Large.jpeg
    126.9 KB · Views: 138
  • IMG_0772 Large.jpeg
    IMG_0772 Large.jpeg
    115.4 KB · Views: 119
  • IMG_0773 Large.jpeg
    IMG_0773 Large.jpeg
    177.1 KB · Views: 115
  • IMG_0774 Large.jpeg
    IMG_0774 Large.jpeg
    153.8 KB · Views: 110
  • IMG_0776 Large.jpeg
    IMG_0776 Large.jpeg
    238.4 KB · Views: 141

PBS St Louis 2026 (Men’s World 8 Ball Championship, Mixed Doubles, Women’s Open, Bank Pool), 1-8 April, Half Million Prize Fund

They lose over 50% of their matches, winning over 50% is required to be a benefit to the team, it's really that simple
There's a strategic choice that shouldn't be ignored.

Do we choose to put our best against their best? If so, our best has a better chance to win and a lesser chance to lose.

Putting our worst player against their best is a lesser chance to win and a better chance to lose.

Filter

Back
Top