Two Matching Vintage Brunswick Full-Splice Two-Piece Cues — Help Identifying Model/Era

I’m hoping some of the Brunswick collectors here can help identify and date an unusual two-piece Brunswick configuration.

I recently acquired two apparently matching vintage Brunswick cues that surfaced independently from widely separated geographical locations. After getting both of them in hand and comparing them side-by-side, they appear to be two examples of the same basic Brunswick design, with some normal production variation between them.

For simplicity, I’ll refer to the better-preserved cue shown on the left as Example 1, and the cue shown on the right as Example 2.

Both are wrapless four-point full-splice cues with the same general veneer pattern, brass piloted joint construction, black/pearl/black joint rings, the same style bumper, and identical Brunswick treatments on opposing sides of the butt. I’ve intentionally presented them reversed in the photos so both treatments can be seen together.

The veneer colors initially appeared somewhat different, but under the same lighting it is apparent that they use essentially the same veneer combination, with Example 1 simply retaining stronger original coloration.

I’ve attached a side-by-side specification comparison image showing the dimensions and construction details of both examples.

Example 1 retains what appears to be its original shaft and matching joint-ring treatment. The shaft on Example 2 appears to be a later replacement; its ring work is similar in concept, but does not match the butt-side ring stack exactly in material or execution.

The shaft from Example 1 threads fully onto and seats properly against the butt of Example 2, further confirming that the two use the same basic joint specification.

One particularly interesting difference is the axial bore. Example 1 has a .65” ID bore approximately 1 1/2” deep, while Example 2 has a .60” ID bore extending approximately 11 5/8” into the butt. One possibility is that the varying bore depth was associated with weight regulation of individual full-splice blanks, although I have no documentation confirming that.

The longitudinal BRUNSWICK marking reads from the joint toward the butt.

For comparison, I also own Brunswick Personal cues from 1969 and 1970. The similarities are evident, but these are simply an altogether different construction, particularly in the joint architecture and overall build. The veneer stacks also present differently from the Personal cues in my possession, which use a noticeably brighter and different veneer treatment than the more traditional stack seen on these two examples.

I’ve included side-by-side photographs of the complete cues, points and veneers, joint assemblies, pearl ring stacks, butt treatments, bumpers, and bores.

What I’m primarily trying to determine is:

Does anyone recognize this exact Brunswick configuration, and can anyone place it in a catalog or production period?

The construction appears to combine traditional Brunswick full-splice/Titlist-family construction and substantial old-style brass joint hardware with pearlized joint trim and the crowned-B treatment. I’ve wondered whether these could fall somewhere in Brunswick’s late transitional period before the Personal series, but I would much rather see period documentation or hear from anyone who has encountered another example than try to assign a date based solely on appearance.

Any catalog scans, dealer literature, photographs of another example, or information on when Brunswick used this particular combination of joint, pearl rings, branding, and butt treatment would be greatly appreciated.

Attachments

  • IMG_2785.jpeg
    IMG_2785.jpeg
    324.8 KB · Views: 54
  • IMG_2787.jpeg
    IMG_2787.jpeg
    390.3 KB · Views: 56
  • IMG_2788.jpeg
    IMG_2788.jpeg
    290.7 KB · Views: 47
  • IMG_2789.jpeg
    IMG_2789.jpeg
    230.7 KB · Views: 46
  • IMG_2791.jpeg
    IMG_2791.jpeg
    412.6 KB · Views: 44
  • IMG_2792.jpeg
    IMG_2792.jpeg
    199.2 KB · Views: 39
  • IMG_2794.jpeg
    IMG_2794.jpeg
    459.6 KB · Views: 42
  • IMG_2795.jpeg
    IMG_2795.jpeg
    382 KB · Views: 45
  • IMG_2796.jpeg
    IMG_2796.jpeg
    229.4 KB · Views: 42
  • IMG_2801.jpeg
    IMG_2801.jpeg
    182.9 KB · Views: 48

ChalkGate Definitive Answers

The chalk marks are not very visible, but they are there.



It was sent to me directly from Taom.

I am still surprised by these results. The World Snooker Tour has reported a very significant decrease in kicks and I’m pretty almost all of the players are using V10 (not Pyro). Unless the decrease in kicks is instead related to the “anti static cloth” (as the manufacturer and Chris Renfro claim), this makes little sense to me.

ChalkGate Definitive Answers

These V10 results seem off to me. A couple of questions:

1. What did the CB look like after 3 or 4 shots? Was the chalk mark still visible? I ask because the green V10 I’ve used leaves no visible marks after after extended play (unlike say Master) - consistent with your own V10 tests of 2 years ago where you hit three shots and all three chalk marks were barely visible.

The chalk marks are not very visible, but they are there.

2. Where did you get the V10? There is counterfeit V10 out there.

It was sent to me directly from Taom.

ChalkGate Definitive Answers

I did comment to Youtube also. IMHO blue and green V10 are totally different. I don´t like blue one because it is not "clean" like Pyro or green V10. So what i did seen from your results I think you might used blue?

I used the green Taom V10. I guess it is possible there could be slight variation from one batch to the next. The chalk I used is also a couple of years old, so maybe that is a factor too.

Intentional Fouls - Illegal, Good Strategy, or Poor Sportsmanship?

the pocket that either player has "his last ball left on the table" before the 8 goes in, has to make the 8 in that pocket.

so if you could combo his last ball into a side pocket that would be his pocket to make the 8 in and of course most times would end up being loss of game for him.
and when playing ball in hand you could shoot his last ball in one of the sides if the 8 couldnt easily be made in one even with ball in hand.
That is the way I played it.

Thought patterns ...

I was into Snake/Mongoose. The Garlits, Prudhomme rivalry. Socks and Martin slipped my mind. Shame on me. Always like the short stroke for builds. That engine was the bomb.
Should have left that 340 alone, but what kid in the 70s ever left their engine alone?? 😂

The 289 Ford had the shortest stroke to bore ratio in my manual, 2.87 to 4.0 according to decades old memory. The 302 Chevy was next shortest. Two engines of legendary prowess. I couldn't get away from a few more cubic inches and was fond of the 327 Chevy, another short stroke engine, not quite as short stroked as the first two though since all three had four inch bores. I brought things back in line a bit by punching out the 327 .030. Popular opinion was that it wouldn't stand a bigger overbore for sustained use.

About flow and the zone, they aren't the same thing. Flow is nice, the zone is far nicer! You can have flow without having the wild amount of information coming in that you get with the zone or the ability to sort and process that information.

Firing about three shots a second the noise seems near continuous and I had hearing difficulties since at least early childhood. While in a competition run two men I knew were talking about a pistol issue one was having. After the run was over I walked back and told them how to fix it without having them repeat anything. They were amazed how anyone could hear them talking in normal voices during a run.

Their conversation was of no use to me during the run and I discarded it for the moment without it interrupting the information that did help frame my run. However, I heard and remembered. Similar things happened many times, seeming impossible but proven true.

Sounds a bit like some of the hippie terminology but sometimes I could feel my senses expanding as I entered the zone. I didn't need greater hearing or smell but all five of my common senses expanded, just the way the zone worked. All inputs increased many times over, I didn't get to select which ones did.

I would much like to understand what is going on when we are in the zone. I have to admit that I have heard and read so many wrong explanations that I wouldn't trust anything somebody said or wrote even if they were right.

Hu

Intentional Fouls - Illegal, Good Strategy, or Poor Sportsmanship?

We are playing last pocket 8-ball and your last ball is in the jaws of a pocket and the 8-ball is right beside it.

If I make your last ball into that pocket, does that pocket become your last pocket or is your last pocket the pocket that YOU made YOUR last shot into?
the pocket that either player has "his last ball left on the table" before the 8 goes in, has to make the 8 in that pocket.

so if you could combo his last ball into a side pocket that would be his pocket to make the 8 in and of course most times would end up being loss of game for him.
and when playing ball in hand you could shoot his last ball in one of the sides if the 8 couldnt easily be made in one even with ball in hand.

Filter

Back
Top