How would you conduct an independant evaluation of the quality of cues

[manwon]

There has been recent talk about having an independent organization evaluate the quality of cues. Now, I think having an organization do an evaluation is a fair way to determine if a cues quality is good or bad, my problem is where should the cues come from, and what independent organization would have the knowledge to evaluate cues? One side of this discussion says that they should come from the factory that produces them directly, and that the factory should be completely aware of which cues are being tested. In my opinion this would also create an unfair testing environment, because the factory where the cues were sent from would ensure that the cues sent would be perfect. In my opinion the cues should be purchased from dealers without their knowledge of what they are going to be used for. Again in my opinion this would be the only way to give an unbiased view of the quality of a cue, because this way the products would be in the same starting condition that a customer would get them.


Please give your opinions and answer the poll, if the poll doesn't fit with you view please explain what you would have done differently

Thanks in advance

 

[JB Cases]

I pick cues at random from the shelves and inspect them. If I see things I don't like then I pick more cues to see if the problems are consistent.

For an INDEPENDENT test I would do the following in some fashion.

A. I would first determine what the criteria should be for what things are to be judged.

B. I would hire an outside industry lab to do the testing.

C. I would arrange for the lab's people to come in and pull the samples at random from either unopened boxes or from the stockroom shelves or both. I would also advise them to pick retailers at random and acquire samples from them, purchased normally of course.

D. I would do everything possible to remove any taint of bias from the testing procedure.

E. I would ask the lab to document the testing procedure and even keep a video log if possible.

F. I would catalog the provenance of the samples as accurately as possible. i.e. this cue was made in 1996, this cue was made in 2010, the cue was made in xxx - etc....

G. When everything is set up to be fair, unbiased, and comprehensive then I would run many many many brands through the testing with samples of at least ten cues per brand to try and be sure to not base the conclusions on sample sizes that are too small.

H. When writing the conclusions I would be very careful to let people know the retail prices of each cue tested and the production numbers of each brand. Thus for example a Barry Szamboti might be expected to be "perfect" in all categories and it would be then coupled with the $5000 price tag. Whereas a production cue might get an 85% over all score but it's only $300. This way the consumer and dealers can easily see the relative VALUE on the product to price ratio. Seen purely as a utility object, not as a collectible.

That's how I would conduct it. If anyone can come up with a fair test that meets this method then they are welcome to come and get our cues to test in this manner.

I am 100% confident that our cues will rank well in this test and look forward to any such testing.

 

[JB Cases]

Further to this I would say that anyone who sells or makes the brands tested or competing brands is disqualified from being a tester.

I like the way Consumer Reports does it.

They don't sell the products they test nor do they accept advertisement of any kind.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/how-we-test/index.htm

For a competitor to do a review of competing products the results will always be met with skepticism. I know this first hand. And rightly so. There is no way to do a fully fair and balanced review of a competitor's product since the reviewer is personally invested in the outcome. Even if the reviewer is consciously trying to be objective their own bias will infect the process and conclusions.

 

[Underclocked]

Wouldn't a double-blind test of new cues picked off dealer shelves at random, then placed in the hands of randomly picked players of various skill levels, giving them each enough time with every cue to form an opinion - be of more worth to the cue buyer?

The players would be given a list of criteria upon which to render a report based upon a simple 1-10 scale... and they would not know what brand cue they had tested until all results were compiled. If someone could devise such a test making sure all participants were ignorant of each cue's origin or brand - you might wind up with something useful. It might also result in some surprising conclusions.

I think lab results might reflect build strength of a cue and perhaps the ability to hold up under usage (by a machine??)... but would be of very little value otherwise. Creative engineers could probably come up with a slew of criteria that might be "interesting" but of no value to the average player. Choosing a cue is mostly a subjective thing, is it not?

 

[JB Cases]

Wouldn't a double-blind test of new cues picked off dealer shelves at random, then placed in the hands of randomly picked players of various skill levels, giving them each enough time with every cue to form an opinion - be of more worth to the cue buyer?

The players would be given a list of criteria upon which to render a report based upon a simple 1-10 scale... and they would not know what brand cue they had tested until all results were compiled. If someone could devise such a test making sure all participants were ignorant of each cue's origin or brand - you might wind up with something useful. It might also result in some surprising conclusions.

I think lab results might reflect build strength of a cue and perhaps the ability to hold up under usage (by a machine??)... but would be of very little value otherwise. Creative engineers could probably come up with a slew of criteria that might be "interesting" but of no value to the average player. Choosing a cue is mostly a subjective thing, is it not?

I agree with this as well. In fact Consumer Reports does this type of testing also.

When I was first asked to sell "import" cues for Sterling I wasn't sure how best to go about it.

My way of selling cues has always been the subjective method of putting the cues in people's hands. I don't try to sell the "specifications" - I just let people play with them and see how they like them.

I had spent 15 years selling cues prior to working with Sterling. I had the luxury of having about 100 cues on the wall from el cheapo to moderately expensive - from import brands to exclusive customs like Scruggs. So I had plenty of experience selling cues.

BUT I didn't know how to get behind ONE brand - or a small family of brands that are imported.

So what I did is I traded people T-shirts for their opinions. For a month out in Vegas at the two major league events with the best players, the BCA Nationals and the VNEA International event I let anyone pick any Fury cue off the wall and shoot with it - I had no prices on the cues - and a list of questions to ask them about it when they were done. That way I could see how the players reacted to the cues and get a better feeling for how "good" they were in the eyes of the players.

It worked well and the reaction was great. OF COURSE people were going to be nice since they were getting a free T-Shirt but the better players did give honest feedback which is what I was looking for.

So I totally agree that a double blind SUBJECTIVE test would also be very appropriate and am fully hopeful that our cues would be used in such a test among other brands.

The objective test using the lab has to do with a cue's general fitness in the areas of how well the final product is done. The idea being here that a "good" cue should have a baseline of construction and appearance.

Any good cue maker will tell you that it's inside that counts. And this is the part you cannot see. You can only feel it.

However on that score even the BEST players can't always feel what the cue is made of.

Here is a test John McChesney did with 70 cues and great players:

http://jbcases.com/caseblog/2009/02/22/what-is-the-hit-of-a-pool-cue/

 

[JoeyInCali]

By asking their dealers?

 

[manwon]

Wouldn't a double-blind test of new cues picked off dealer shelves at random, then placed in the hands of randomly picked players of various skill levels, giving them each enough time with every cue to form an opinion - be of more worth to the cue buyer?

The players would be given a list of criteria upon which to render a report based upon a simple 1-10 scale... and they would not know what brand cue they had tested until all results were compiled. If someone could devise such a test making sure all participants were ignorant of each cue's origin or brand - you might wind up with something useful. It might also result in some surprising conclusions.

I think lab results might reflect build strength of a cue and perhaps the ability to hold up under usage (by a machine??)... but would be of very little value otherwise. Creative engineers could probably come up with a slew of criteria that might be "interesting" but of no value to the average player. Choosing a cue is mostly a subjective thing, is it not?

Wouldn't a double-blind test of new cues picked off dealer shelves at random, then placed in the hands of randomly picked players of various skill levels, giving them each enough time with every cue to form an opinion - be of more worth to the cue buyer?

I agree that picking the cues off dealers shelves is basically the only method that removes all bias, so long as the dealers do not know why the cues are being purchased.

However, I do not think picking players would give us the answers we are trying find. First most players can only tell you if they like the way cue plays, but most can not accurately describe how well a cue is assembled fit and finish wise. This is important because it will also give you a clear picture how the will hold up through time, to do this accurately you would need some one who is familiar with how a cue is constructed and finished.


The players would be given a list of criteria upon which to render a report based upon a simple 1-10 scale... and they would not know what brand cue they had tested until all results were compiled. If someone could devise such a test making sure all participants were ignorant of each cue's origin or brand - you might wind up with something useful. It might also result in some surprising conclusions.


Not long ago AZ Billiards had a cue build off for members who were cue makers. While there were many clear opinions on how the cues played, the quality of fit and finish was glossed over in many cases, and in some cases conclusions were made that did not accurately depict problems that were encountered. Now they were given a list of criteria to use for their evaluations, and even so peoples interpretations of the criteria were different. Now this was not because some people thought they had all the answers, it was however, a lack of experience and understanding of what would cause the problems encountered in the first place.

To accurately describe problems encountered the person doing the evaluation would have to understand how a cue is built, and how construction methods can be influenced by shifts in temperature and humidity. They have to understand how expansion and contraction on a limited or long term basis will effect construction defects in fit and finish over time on a new unused cue. They would also have to understand how minor flaws in fit and finish can be effected where certain materials are used in the cues construction.

In my opinion the best people to do an evaluation of how a cues play should be accomplished by the ultimate user (Players), but when evaluating a cue for construction, and fit and finish you need an experienced cue maker or cue repairman who deals with these problems on a regular basis. Another good source of information on the quality of products would be retailers. These people certainly should be able to identify cues that have a bad reputation for certain problems, because people will return items for replacement or repair for defects.


Thanks very much for your post to this thread, you certainly brought up some very good points to this conversation, and have a great night.

 

[manwon]

By asking their dealers?

I agree Joey, this should be a valid method for identifing problems with cues from certain companies. However, there are those who would not agree, and would even go as for as to say that the retailer is not accurately depicting their experience with the product.

Thanks for the post Joey, and have a great night!

 

[JB Cases]

I am interested in learning how to determine how a cue is made internally just by a surface inspection.

So if a person has a brand new cue in their hands how can they tell what glue was used and how all parts fit together? Can you tell a cue is cored by looking at the surface?

Can you tell what it's cored with?

How is the average person supposed to be able to tell what the various wood expansion rates are for all the woods used in the cue? How can they tell what moisture level the cue was built under? How do they know how the wood was turned? How many cuts, how was the wood stored?

How is the consumer supposed to be able to tell how well a cue will hold up over time based on a surface inspection? I mean normally it seems to me that the only real way to know this is to find people who have had that brand and get their experiences OR to devise some sort of test which "uses" the cue and subjects it to variables in humidity and temperature.

I can't wait to see the answers to these questions. When the comprehensive guide to cue evaluation comes out which answers all this then it will be a great day for everyone. I am positive that many people would like to be able to tell the lemons from the peaches just by looking at the cue.

I propose that a huge poster be printed and given away to every pool room and billiard shop in the country that will help consumers and sales people alike to be able to accurately evaluate their cues. I know I will put several up in our business and give them away to all of retailers.

 

[JB Cases]

By asking their dealers?

Retailers are not going to give any third party accurate information unless it's about a product that they no longer carry or don't really care about. No retailer wants to risk a falling out with a good supplier.

Meucci skated on this for a long time until retailers finally gave up and stopped caring about selling Meucci cues.

 

[mdavis228]

I'd have to applaud your efforts one way or the other, but...
Exactly what is the end purpose for this analysis? Likely that the cues you'd look at would be of little interest to me. Do you propose to evaluate every brand & major model iteration of cue in the "current" under $350 production market? Does this market support that level of scrutiny? How do you fund the kind of program you describe? What tangible insight would you expect to be able to provide in the end that would markedly benefit a buyer, toward a purchase, based on their preference criteria, that isn't already rather widely available to those who seek it out. This market niche - large though it may be - is primarily populated by those who don't know what makes for a cue package they like, or aren't particularly discerning in precisely finding it on a cost per point of preference basis.
Just seems like you're heading down a long & endless road that doesn't lead to enough learning to support the expense.
Just sayin'...

 

[manwon]

I am interested in learning how to determine how a cue is made internally just by a surface inspection.

So if a person has a brand new cue in their hands how can they tell what glue was used and how all parts fit together? Can you tell a cue is cored by looking at the surface?

Can you tell what it's cored with?

How is the average person supposed to be able to tell what the various wood expansion rates are for all the woods used in the cue? How can they tell what moisture level the cue was built under? How do they know how the wood was turned? How many cuts, how was the wood stored?

How is the consumer supposed to be able to tell how well a cue will hold up over time based on a surface inspection? I mean normally it seems to me that the only real way to know this is to find people who have had that brand and get their experiences OR to devise some sort of test which "uses" the cue and subjects it to variables in humidity and temperature.

I can't wait to see the answers to these questions. When the comprehensive guide to cue evaluation comes out which answers all this then it will be a great day for everyone. I am positive that many people would like to be able to tell the lemons from the peaches just by looking at the cue.

I propose that a huge poster be printed and given away to every pool room and billiard shop in the country that will help consumers and sales people alike to be able to accurately evaluate their cues. I know I will put several up in our business and give them away to all of retailers.

So if a person has a brand new cue in their hands how can they tell what glue was used and how all parts fit together? Can you tell a cue is cored by looking at the surface?

Can you tell what it's cored with?


In most cases you can look where the pin is seated in the forearm and see a difference in wood or you can remove the cues bumper and have a look up inside, but this really has nothing to do with fit and finish. When I used the words Fit and finish I was referring the obvious fit and finish ( Exterior ) of the cue.

By simply running your hand over a cue you can feel imperfections in the fit and finish. You can also take a cue and sight down it from the butt to the joint looking toward a light source and see how well the finish has been applied and finished. If you find uneven areas or raised areas where inlays or rings are you already know that the problems are only going to get worst with time. Another common problem is raised areas at the cues joint especially where metal joint are concerned, either the forearm did not have enough finish on it in the first place or the wood has shrunk. These problems are all do to expansion and contraction and anyone can look for these problems if they know that these are problems and not normal construction.

The average person can also check to see that the cues wrap is flush with the cues forearm and butt. If it is not then this is poor craftsmanship, and in many imports this can also cause the wrap to come loose since many of the companies build these cues use the tuck method to secure their wraps in place of using the pin and hole method.

I know this doesn't completely answer your questions however, everything I said is a good indicator of quality construction and if these problem exist on new cue they will only get worst with use.

Thanks for your post John.

 

[manwon]

I'd have to applaud your efforts one way or the other, but...
Exactly what is the end purpose for this analysis? Likely that the cues you'd look at would be of little interest to me. Do you propose to evaluate every brand & major model iteration of cue in the "current" under $350 production market? Does this market support that level of scrutiny? How do you fund the kind of program you describe? What tangible insight would you expect to be able to provide in the end that would markedly benefit a buyer toward a purchse, based on their preference criteria, that isn't already rather widely available to those who seek it out. This market niche - large though it may be - is primarily populated by those who don't know what makes for a cue package they like, or aren't particularly discerning in precisely finding it on a cost per point of preference basis.
Just seems like you're heading down a long & endless road that doesn't lead to enough learning to support the expense.
Just sayin'...

Just seems like you're heading down a long & endless road that doesn't lead to enough learning to support the expense.
Just sayin'...[/QUOTE]


I think your right and I also think in the end it would not serve the end user who is most important after all.

Thanks for your post

 

[powerlineman80]

After voting I picked a test done after the cue gets to the dealer and them not knowing what its for. Just a random pick out of the litter that gets to the dealers.

Further I would do a survey with pool players as to what they've played with, etc. so you can send a cue they possibly dont know about and could give a fair survey on them. I would have an 'bias free' person take it to a pool room and test them as well. No names on the cues, but the survey taker knows. That way the person doesnt know what he/she is shooting with, and can be told afterwards what the cue was, etc. It doesnt take a player that knows all about cues to know how one hits, but getting input from each side is important to me. The top tier people who can afford to play with a Prewitt thinks a Meucci to be junk will think that way no matter if it shoots as well or not. This test would be very complicated IMHO.

But I think the test should be done after the cues hit the dealers because its the finished product. I think that matters the most because thats what will hit the hands of the consumer.

 

[powerlineman80]

How is the average person supposed to be able to tell what the various wood expansion rates are for all the woods used in the cue? How can they tell what moisture level the cue was built under? How do they know how the wood was turned? How many cuts, how was the wood stored?

How is the consumer supposed to be able to tell how well a cue will hold up over time based on a surface inspection? I mean normally it seems to me that the only real way to know this is to find people who have had that brand and get their experiences OR to devise some sort of test which "uses" the cue and subjects it to variables in humidity and temperature.

You might be getting too in-depth with the test. I understand doing a test over time, but you have to decide which test to do first. You cant do both at the same time IMO. I would want the shooting test first, then after that you can decide how the cue would hold up over time. Whats more important to the majority I think, is playability RIGHT NOW. Most that buy the Meucci's, etc. want playability now and not really buying to save over time like one would with a SouthWest or another cue, etc.

 

[mdavis228]

Just seems like you're heading down a long & endless road that doesn't lead to enough learning to support the expense.
Just sayin'...

I think your right and I also think in the end it would not serve the end user who is most important after all.

Thanks for your post[/QUOTE]

Well, Craig, like I said... One way or the other, I applaud your desire to effort this kind of customer service; particularly given that it's unlikely that it would be of direct monetary benefit to you. I have every trust that your intent was in the right place. Wasn't my intent to rain on the parade. Some things are just more than can be taken on for the end good.
Up side is that custom makers like yourself, JB, and so many others on AZ, can continue to lead the commitment to quality by example and reputation.
Thanks for that.

 

[berlowmj2]

right on

There has been recent talk about having an independent organization evaluate the quality of cues. Now, I think having an organization do an evaluation is a fair way to determine if a cues quality is good or bad, my problem is where should the cues come from, and what independent organization would have the knowledge to evaluate cues? One side of this discussion says that they should come from the factory that produces them directly, and that the factory should be completely aware of which cues are being tested. In my opinion this would also create an unfair testing environment, because the factory where the cues were sent from would ensure that the cues sent would be perfect. In my opinion the cues should be purchased from dealers without their knowledge of what they are going to be used for. Again in my opinion this would be the only way to give an unbiased view of the quality of a cue, because this way the products would be in the same starting condition that a customer would get them.


Please give your opinions and answer the poll, if the poll doesn't fit with you view please explain what you would have done differently

Thanks in advance

This is a great idea. It would be even better if it was a "blind" study in which the cues had numbers replacing the markings indicating their manufacturer.

 

[JB Cases]

You might be getting too in-depth with the test. I understand doing a test over time, but you have to decide which test to do first. You cant do both at the same time IMO. I would want the shooting test first, then after that you can decide how the cue would hold up over time. Whats more important to the majority I think, is playability RIGHT NOW. Most that buy the Meucci's, etc. want playability now and not really buying to save over time like one would with a SouthWest or another cue, etc.

Exactly. Which is why there is only so much that can be determined with a topical inspection.

When I buy a cue I do this - I take it to the table and hit balls with it. That's the first thing I want to do with any cue. I will give a cursory inspection visually first but mainly I want to get to the table. BECAUSE to me if the cue is a great player then I can live with a few cosmetic flaws.

Then I inspect the cue as to it's fit and finish. Is the joint flush, is the wrap smooth and well installed? Is the ferrule flush? Tip in good condition and installed right? Is the cue straight? Does it sight straight and roll straight? How well done is the decoration, decals aligned right, color is ok? Inlays decent?

All this information is then compared to the price on the cue. The lower the price the more cosmetic defects I can accept if I really want the cue. The higher the price the less I can accept. I think that this is fairly normal for most people.

Where it gets tricky - and this is the same for cues, cue cases, toasters, computers, cars etc.... - is that you don't know how ANY particular item will "hold up" over time. The only clue that you have is how that brand has done for others before you. And NO ONE can tell you how any particular item will hold up. All they can tell you is what their own experience is and point you to experiences of others if they know where those are.

I don't care if a cue repairman has had ten "broken" Fury cues in his shop in the past year because he can't tell you how the NEW Fury cue you are looking at is going to be. We sell thousands of cues per year. So it's inevitable that SOME of them will have some issues. The cues we make are constantly improving, meaning that the newest one off the line is generally the best one ever made looking at just HOW it was built compared to previous generations.

Brands can ONLY exist through their reputations. Individual cues are each unique and one may be the greatest player and nearly perfect and the next may have issues.

If you look around on the web you will find plenty of people who HATE Apple Ipods/Iphones. However compare those bad experiences with the the 30 million phones sold where the majority of Iphone/Ipod owners love their devices and it's clear to see that the adage "one bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch" applies.

This is why these "tests" are only a snapshot in time.

Someone can go out and buy cues from dealers and test them and all that says is that "these people feel this way about these cues at this time". Take the same cues to another group of people and you may end up with much different answers. Buy all the same brands a year later and give them to the same people and you may end up with different answers.

I look at it this way - in the MOST COMPETITIVE arena people still buy our cues in decent numbers.

We do the Super Billiards Expo, we do the BCA Nationals and the VNEA Naionals, and the APA Nationals. In those four events we are competing with hundreds of other brands of cues from import to domestically made.

People have the opportunity to shoot with our cues, to inspect them at length, to choose from several hundred cues in our booth. Then they can take that information and compare it to thousands of cues on display in our competitor's booths. When those people then come back and buy our cue then I know that the cues are good. At that point all I can do is present the cues and let the chips fall where they may. I can give my best pitch, I can wheel and deal on price, but I am up against 50 other vendors doing the same thing.

Anyway, as I said though, I am confident that our cues would do well in any sort of quality comparison testing, be it subjective or objective or a mixture of both. So whoever wants to do it - bring it on.

Our cues are waiting.

 

[manwon]

Exactly. Which is why there is only so much that can be determined with a topical inspection.

When I buy a cue I do this - I take it to the table and hit balls with it. That's the first thing I want to do with any cue. I will give a cursory inspection visually first but mainly I want to get to the table. BECAUSE to me if the cue is a great player then I can live with a few cosmetic flaws.

Then I inspect the cue as to it's fit and finish. Is the joint flush, is the wrap smooth and well installed? Is the ferrule flush? Tip in good condition and installed right? Is the cue straight? Does it sight straight and roll straight? How well done is the decoration, decals aligned right, color is ok? Inlays decent?

All this information is then compared to the price on the cue. The lower the price the more cosmetic defects I can accept if I really want the cue. The higher the price the less I can accept. I think that this is fairly normal for most people.

Where it gets tricky - and this is the same for cues, cue cases, toasters, computers, cars etc.... - is that you don't know how ANY particular item will "hold up" over time. The only clue that you have is how that brand has done for others before you. And NO ONE can tell you how any particular item will hold up. All they can tell you is what their own experience is and point you to experiences of others if they know where those are.

I don't care if a cue repairman has had ten "broken" Fury cues in his shop in the past year because he can't tell you how the NEW Fury cue you are looking at is going to be. We sell thousands of cues per year. So it's inevitable that SOME of them will have some issues. The cues we make are constantly improving, meaning that the newest one off the line is generally the best one ever made looking at just HOW it was built compared to previous generations.



Brands can ONLY exist through their reputations. Individual cues are each unique and one may be the greatest player and nearly perfect and the next may have issues.

If you look around on the web you will find plenty of people who HATE Apple Ipods/Iphones. However compare those bad experiences with the the 30 million phones sold where the majority of Iphone/Ipod owners love their devices and it's clear to see that the adage "one bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch" applies.

This is why these "tests" are only a snapshot in time.

Someone can go out and buy cues from dealers and test them and all that says is that "these people feel this way about these cues at this time". Take the same cues to another group of people and you may end up with much different answers. Buy all the same brands a year later and give them to the same people and you may end up with different answers.

I look at it this way - in the MOST COMPETITIVE arena people still buy our cues in decent numbers.

We do the Super Billiards Expo, we do the BCA Nationals and the VNEA Naionals, and the APA Nationals. In those four events we are competing with hundreds of other brands of cues from import to domestically made.

People have the opportunity to shoot with our cues, to inspect them at length, to choose from several hundred cues in our booth. Then they can take that information and compare it to thousands of cues on display in our competitor's booths. When those people then come back and buy our cue then I know that the cues are good. At that point all I can do is present the cues and let the chips fall where they may. I can give my best pitch, I can wheel and deal on price, but I am up against 50 other vendors doing the same thing.

Anyway, as I said though, I am confident that our cues would do well in any sort of quality comparison testing, be it subjective or objective or a mixture of both. So whoever wants to do it - bring it on.

Our cues are waiting.

Someone can go out and buy cues from dealers and test them and all that says is that "these people feel this way about these cues at this time". Take the same cues to another group of people and you may end up with much different answers. Buy all the same brands a year later and give them to the same people and you may end up with different answers.

This is true and false, however, it is mainly based upon the knowledge of the group of people you are talking about. I disagree that knowledgeable people would change their opinion on the fit and finish of a cue, it is either Substandard, Standard, or Excellent there is little in between.

Now I do agree that the same brands and cues examined again by experienced people would tell a better story concerning the over all quality of the product. Major factors of expansion and and contraction would be even more visible over that period of time. Along with shrinkage and warping of wood that had a higher than normal moisture content for cue construction. Lets face it wood stabilizers are not a permanent fix, over time they will not control sub-standardly dried wood, time will tell the true story like nothing else can.

Where it gets tricky - and this is the same for cues, cue cases, toasters, computers, cars etc.... - is that you don't know how ANY particular item will "hold up" over time. The only clue that you have is how that brand has done for others before you. And NO ONE can tell you how any particular item will hold up. All they can tell you is what their own experience is and point you to experiences of others if they know where those are.

This is also true and false, there are common trends that occur frequently with certain brands of cues. Wraps, ferrules, joints / joint collars, butt caps and parts coming loose, major problems with expansion and shrinkage of woods, and substandard finish that is to thin and doesn't even properly fill the pores of the wood. Again people who do large amounts of repair work over periods of time can tell you that some brands do have common defects because they have taken repair work in and had to fix other problems that were not apparent until they started on the work at hand.


I don't care if a cue repairman has had ten "broken" Fury cues in his shop in the past year because he can't tell you how the NEW Fury cue you are looking at is going to be. We sell thousands of cues per year. So it's inevitable that SOME of them will have some issues. The cues we make are constantly improving, meaning that the newest one off the line is generally the best one ever made looking at just HOW it was built compared to previous generations.

Improvement is a good thing John, that is what companies are suppose to do if they want a bigger market share!!! Good luck to you and the company you work for.

JIMO

 

[JB Cases]

This is true and false, however, it is mainly based upon the knowledge of the group of people you are talking about. I disagree that knowledgeable people would change their opinion on the fit and finish of a cue, it is either Substandard, Standard, or Excellent there is little in between.

There is always "in between" - "quality" is an expansive term. What is "standard" and who determines it?

I stood up in an ACA meeting one year and asked them to put out a poster with their minimum criteria as to what a "good" cue should be. This was around 1997ish I guess - long before I went to work for a company selling Chinese cues. Nancy Hart was proposing that everyone join an organization she formed called the ABM - American Billiards Manufacturers and that every member put an ABM sticker on their cues. I said you don't need that, you need an ACA seal of approval. Who better than the ACA to determine the standard?

But they never did it and likely never will.

Now I do agree that the same brands and cues examined again by experienced people would tell a better story concerning the over all quality of the product. Major factors of expansion and and contraction would be even more visible over that period of time. Along with shrinkage and warping of wood that had a higher than normal moisture content for cue construction. Lets face it wood stabilizers are not a permanent fix, over time they will not control sub-standardly dried wood, time will tell the true story like nothing else can.

This is something that you can only tell over time. I don't know about how wood stabilizers work over time. I do know that Falcon LOVES to use it and their cues feel quite dead to me. But the hold up over time. The use of Nelsonite and other brands of stabilizers was however pioneered by American cuemakers. I bet most cue makers have a "dipping" tube in their shop somewhere.

If you were to come to the Kao Kao factory today, this very moment, you would see a giant warehouse full to the top with wood that is cut and graded and dated. That wood will be recut and regraded several times before it goes into the construction phase. The wood is not treated with wood stabilizer. Nor are the shaft bleached.

So while I agree with you that time tells the story of a particular cue it doesn't tell the story of a brand unless you are tracking cues year on year of that brand to determine whether the quality is improving or not.

This is also true and false, there are common trends that occur frequently with certain brands of cues. Wraps, ferrules, joints / joint collars, butt caps and parts coming loose, major problems with expansion and shrinkage of woods, and substandard finish that is to thin and doesn't even properly fill the pores of the wood. Again people who do large amounts of repair work over periods of time can tell you that some brands do have common defects because they have taken repair work in and had to fix other problems that were not apparent until they started on the work at hand.

Noted. What brands are those? I have never owned a McDermott that I didn't have to trim the ferrule and get it flush after using it for a week. I don't think I have ever owned a Schon that didn't develop a bubble under the finish. I once had 12 Pechauer cues where the joints collars all came off.

What kinds of problems are you talking about? I understand where you are coming from because I once did a lot of case repairs and I often had to fix the interiors of people's off-brand cases when I was just supposed to be replacing a latch or put on new feet. Once I showed them how crappy their case was made INSIDE they often elected to sell it cheap and buy an Instroke. A few people even threw their old case in the trash can AFTER paying me to fix it.

But give us an example of something where someone brings you a cue to repair and you discover something else and have to repair that? A real life example of something that you had to do would be great rather than a hypothetical.

I have seen cues where the handle had a big hole in it under the wrap that was filled with glue and wood chips.

I have seen cues where you take the tip off and there is a hole in the center because the wood doesn't come up to the top of the ferrule.

Other than things like this what sorts of major undertakings are you talking about where other repairs are needed? I am asking from the perspective of the consumer who takes you a cue for a new wrap and you then tell me I need a new forearm? Is that the sort of thing we are talking about.

And I am speaking from the perspective of the person who formerly did some cue repair as well as spent a lot of time in the shops of cuemaker/repairmen Hans Jorg Bertram and Franz Hauber in Germany.

I mean I have seen some of Ryan Theween's surgeries on cues and they have been remarkable. Once John Guffey had to perform emergency surgery on a famous US maker's brand new cue that I had broken the day I bought it. (name withheld so as not to cause animosity)

When he got it apart he found that the forearm and the handle were put together with a wood tenon that wasn't even threaded. John did the repair on the lathe at Shooter's billiards in Kansas City. He bored out the holes, plugged them, retapped the holes and installed a pin, glued it all up and when he was done the cue was FLAWLESS (and we all agreed that it hit great too).

But overall I haven't really seen what you are describing about there being trends of cues which come in with major problems which aren't apparent on the surface but then HAVE to be be fixed. So some enlightenment on this subject would help us all.