billiardshot said:

Bill
Please explain ... What you mean ..He cupped his hand around the bottom of the butt!

Click to expand...

Could be almost anything, right?

That's why billiards is art.

LOL at the editing of his first sentence. Why did it need to be frankenstein'ed together from 5 segments?

mr3cushion said:

With or without the 'Results"

Click to expand...

Lol.

Substandard efforts yield an occasional point!

PM sent

fastone371 said:

I dont think it’s even possible to make the contact points touch in the top photo.

Click to expand...

That’s correct - they may be close enough on some straighter shots to subconsciously adjust for, but it’s not the way “parallel lines” aiming really works.

pj
chgo

Black-Balled said:

I can only do the effortlessly part.

Click to expand...

With or without the 'Results"

Dang that is sweet! Can't afford it right now.

bump

noted rules difference:
They rack the 8 on the spot, choice of stripes solids after break - so no take what you make like APA. Also cannot combo strip into solid and keep shooting solids, I believe that is a foul.

jdsons said:

Thanks for the information all. None of the white is IV, just the finish coming off. the half joint and longer pin have me curious. Both suggestions are solid, Benson and Jerry Oliver. I will continue the search.

Julian

Click to expand...

Did you ever find out what cue this is? Did you have it refinished?

mr3cushion said:

This is how it looks when 'I' do it!

Simple, easy, effortlessly!

Click to expand...

I can only do the effortlessly part.

Need just 25 more votes to reach 100!

Paul_#_ said:

Mensabum’s cue-ball-to-pocket contact-point aiming method was argued over 150 posts here in late June 2024. Some explained how Mensabum's method was inaccurate and inferior to a parallel-shift aiming method. The two methods determined the same object-ball contact point but differed on the cue-ball contact point.

YouTuber and peace maker, @Ringo_6, advocates both aiming methods. He describes Mensabum’s method as the the most practical aiming method, See the Dot, Pot the Ball, and the parallel method as the most reliable aiming method, Master the Parallel Point Aiming.


View attachment 893882__View attachment 893883

Click to expand...

The bottom photo I believe is correct but I dont think its even possible to make the contact points touch in the top photo. When 2 balls collide they will always be on equal parts of each ball. If you were to move the yellow ball further from the pocket in the first photo to where it is almost a 90 degree cut the contact point will be almost in the same spot (it will be the farthest point on the ball from the pocket) but the contact point on the QB would stay the same, see the problem??

DrCue'sProtege said:

I think I will go and measure my pockets on the Diamond and the Gold Crown IV again.

When you use the "Ball Measuring Method" it appears the Diamond is about 1/8" inch larger than the GCIV. That's where you put two balls between the facings.

I'm not really how to interpret all of this pocket measuring stuff. It is what it is, I guess.

Click to expand...

Use this link. What do you get from both tables?

Update: Here is the actual cue. I'm just inquiring if there is a known or at least common material used.

The white phenolic I used was not exactly 1/8" (0.125) it was 0.131-ish so I had to hand sand each strip to fit. I'll clean up the billet soon and make some rings to test out and see if they look ok with finish applied.

rexus31 said:

The Diamond is hardly "slightly" larger; 0.25" difference is quite a difference.

Click to expand...

I think I will go and measure my pockets on the Diamond and the Gold Crown IV again.

When you use the "Ball Measuring Method" it appears the Diamond is about 1/8" inch larger than the GCIV. That's where you put two balls between the facings.

I'm not really sure how to interpret all of this pocket measuring stuff. It is what it is, I guess.

tim913 said:

Didn’t Willie teach a similar system called the track or railroad track? The contact point on the OB was the same but the contact point on the CB was determined by using a parallel line to that of OB not line to pocket

Click to expand...

That’s the correct method - It’s called “parallel lines” aiming for a reason. Mensabum’s inaccurate interpretation of the well known aiming method has been corrected here before.

The different CB contact points defined by the slightly different methods are often close enough together (especially on nearly straight alignments) that a small subconscious adjustment works, but...

...here’s how to know Mensabum’s non-parallel method is at least a little inaccurate: When the CB and OB are touching and aligned correctly toward the pocket, they’re both on the same CB->OB->pocket line - which, of course, is parallel with itself (see @Ringo_6’s bottom pic). How do the lines change from not-parallel when apart to parallel when together? Obviously they don’t unless “adjusted”.

pj
chgo

If you want to improve you need to slow down and think. Pool isn't like riding a skateboard.