taper numbers question

PDX

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was curious what a cuemaker can tell me about these taper numbers. I was going to have this shaft copied and was wondering if this is considered stiff? It is a great old shaft from the 60's and plays amazing.


12.60 at the tip
12.75 at the ferrule
12.97 3"
13.23 6"
13.60 9"
14.40 12"
15.29 15"
16.68 18"
17.53 21"
19.35 24"
 
if those numbers are too stiff, what would be appropriate numbers for a stiff 12.75 shaft
 
I was curious what a cuemaker can tell me about these taper numbers. I was going to have this shaft copied and was wondering if this is considered stiff? It is a great old shaft from the 60's and plays amazing.


12.60 at the tip
12.75 at the ferrule
12.97 3"
13.23 6"
13.60 9"
14.40 12"
15.29 15"
16.68 18"
17.53 21"
19.35 24"


Is that a billiards shaft?
 
No, it's my late 60's unknown titlist conversion. It's my favorite playing cue. Lots of stank with pretty low deflection. My other unknown that I picked up at a pawn shop a month or so back has these numbers.
Both of these sets of nimbers are from 28 1/2" shafts.

It breaks and plays amazingly wonderful.

13.06 at ferrule
13.63
14.28 @ 6"
14.84
15.56 @ 12"
16.44
17.52 @ 18"
19.04
20.30 @ 24"

.870 at the joint. This cue is stiff and surprisingly good on the snooker table.
 
I was curious what a cuemaker can tell me about these taper numbers. I was going to have this shaft copied and was wondering if this is considered stiff? It is a great old shaft from the 60's and plays amazing.


12.60 at the tip
12.75 at the ferrule
12.97 3"
13.23 6"
13.60 9"
14.40 12"
15.29 15"
16.68 18"
17.53 21"
19.35 24"
If it is an older cue I doubt there is any intentional formula there. The shaft just is what it is, same as a house cue.
 
No, it's my late 60's unknown titlist conversion. It's my favorite playing cue. Lots of stank with pretty low deflection. My other unknown that I picked up at a pawn shop a month or so back has these numbers.
Both of these sets of nimbers are from 28 1/2" shafts.

It breaks and plays amazingly wonderful.

13.06 at ferrule
13.63
14.28 @ 6"
14.84
15.56 @ 12"
16.44
17.52 @ 18"
19.04
20.30 @ 24"

.870 at the joint. This cue is stiff and surprisingly good on the snooker table.

I have some shafts of that era that are probably similar though I haven't measured their tapers. They are stiff for sure...but I can't imagine calling them low deflection. I mean, they have a lot of mass at the ferrule and the taper is so stiff....are you stating low deflection in the usual sense? As in low cue ball deflection?


.
 
I have some shafts of that era that are probably similar though I haven't measured their tapers. They are stiff for sure...but I can't imagine calling them low deflection. I mean, they have a lot of mass at the ferrule and the taper is so stiff....are you stating low deflection in the usual sense? As in low cue ball deflection?

Deflection, i've learned is a weird thing. Seems alot of us like some deflection. who would think that a nice, stiff hitting ivory ferruled shaft, has more deflection than a moochie? Is that weird, or what? I always thought moochies were the most deflective shafts in the whole wide world.
LD, ain't all it's cracked up to be. If you don't have a straight grain, non LD shaft, that plays better than any LD shaft on the market, you don't have a good shaft. There is an over abundance of hype in all things pool these days from shafts, to chalks, tips, etc., etc., etc. Too many people trying to reinvent the wheel, and fix things that ain't broke. Manufacturers know that most with $ have to have the latest "greatest" thing, and will pay stupid $ for it, wether it's B.S., or not. These people also have too much pride to admit their overpriced crap is worthless, so instead, they add to the hype by giving rave reviews about their newly aquired, overpriced piece of dog doo, to make them feel better about themselves, and less like the suckers they are.
 
I don't disagree. I wasn't commenting on the relative value of low deflection. I was merely curious about the deflection qualities of these old shafts as commented by the OP. Personally, I own some old shafts with similar taper. I never thought they were low deflection.

I myself view the matter a overly hyped. It's not that I argue about whether or not it exists at all, clearly deflection is a component of the game/shots, but rather I question the relative value of pursuing it to the end of the Earth in engineering a shaft. I learned a long time ago to compensate for deflection.

I'm simply curious. The OP commented that the shaft(s) in question impressed him as particularly low deflection. I have some shafts like that and they never impressed me as particularly low deflection and in fact seemed the opposite to me. Of course, it seems people apply the term differently sometimes and that's why I asked.

.
 
Each Qmaker has his or hers own taper. I've converted your figures to decimals. I have compared this to my standard 13 mm shaft. Hope it helps...JER

YOURS BLACK HEART
.496 .512
.502 .512
.510 .515
.520 .525
.567 .528
.602 .565
.656 .625
.690 .685
.761 .755

As I said, everyone has their own & this is mine. This has served me well, for the past 26 years. I measure each inch of every shaft...
 
If you love it no need to change it, except for one possibility. A new shaft with that taper may play a little stiffer than that shaft, as shafts tend to limber up a little with age.
 
Back
Top