Was Balabushka an assembler...?

Tramp Steamer

Tramp Steamer

One Pocket enthusiast.
Silver Member
Gus Samboti, said that George Balabushka excelled as a cue maker.
Question: Was Balabushka a cue maker, or was he a cue assembler, since he did not make any of the parts himself (the prong for instance)? :smile:
 
he knew lots about shaft wood, he was a toy maker before cues. so in a way yes he assembled cues, but he built his shafts and i have some are they are amazing. most champions back in the day played with one, i wish mine could talk, as most have many many years of play on them.
 
Tramp Steamer said:
Question: Was Balabushka a cue maker, or was he a cue assembler, since he did not make any of the parts himself (the prong for instance)? :smile:
Click to expand...

Where is a "can of worms" emoticon? :)

Go to the cue makers section of AZB and really other sections as well, but many chastise the "assembler" as not being a cuemaker...Yet Balabushka is a cue maker when he is known for using others pieces to "make" cues. Why does he get a free pass?

Personally, it makes little difference to me what you call him, he was an amazing craftsmen of cues and NOTHING can take that away from him. No matter what the definition of a cue maker is or deemed by the masses, he made cues.
 
From what I've seen reading these boards the past several months,the only people who reall carewhat he's called are prideful cue makers, and in general anal retentive people. Whatever you choose to call him,it doesn't change the fact that he made awesome playing cues that are highly sought after today and go for thousands of dollars.
 
Szamboti made most of these comment in an interview with Joe Kerr when asked about what cue makers influenced him. Szamboti also went on to say, when speaking of George, "There can be no words to express or state his remarkable knowledge of cues. He pioneered a lot of innovations into cues that people are oriented into today".

Another tidbit from Szamboti concerning George was - "As hard as I tried to pick George Balabushka's brain. However, George was very elusive about his work and didn't share his knowledge with others". To be an assembler, he sure was asked a lot of questions from people you think of as cue makers. Szamboti was not the only one, Spain, Tascarella, and I am sure many more.

Obviously the first "cuemaker" Szamboti thought of when asked the question was George. And if he was a cue maker to him, how would any of us judge otherwise?

But I think many lose touch with what is important about a cue (regardless how it got there), and that is the end result. And there is a bank roll of World Champions who would have told you all about the end result of George's cues.

If that don't help answering the question, good luck...
 
He was an artist and an innovator...(and like Gus, I've never heard anyone really say anything bad about George...so I presume he was a heck of a nice guy also)....
 
tank69 said:
...Yet Balabushka is a cue maker when he is known for using others pieces to "make" cues. Why does he get a free pass?
Click to expand...

I suspect it has to do with what a "cue assembler" was at the time. When George was making his masterpieces I doubt there were a brazillion newbie-wannabe-cueassemblers lined up on the Internet asking basic questions and showing off bits of wood.

Dave
 
DaveK said:
I suspect it has to do with what a "cue assembler" was at the time. When George was making his masterpieces I doubt there were a brazillion newbie-wannabe-cueassemblers lined up on the Internet asking basic questions and showing off bits of wood.

Dave
Click to expand...

So we change the definition because of technology, ease of information and change? I don't think so.
 
I would say it doesn't really matter which way you think of him.

I'm not sure why we view being called an assembler vs. a builder/maker as a bad thing. His cues, by today's standards, probably don't even play that good. They are desirably because you can't get them anymore, and because he was the best at one point or another. No matter which way you think of him, he made a good product, that people wanted, and still want BADLY.

Does anyone know if he had the ability to build his own blanks? I would chalk it up this way if he did. Keith can BUILD an amazing cue, with a gazillion points that he cut, fit and designed himself. He also ASSEMBLES sneaky petes, plain jains, with small custom touches. He is in my eyes a definite BUILDER of cues, because he can do both. I would say the same of George if this is the case. (I would assume it is.)

Either way at the end of the day, his basic cues still sell for over $5k, and whether he was an "assembler" or "builder/maker" seems VERY irrelevant...

Best,

Justin
 
flyvirginiaguy said:
Gotta add this one for kicks.

"George Balabushka, the greatest cue maker of his time". Willie Mosconi
Click to expand...


all ya gotta do(aint easy nowadays is find a REAL SLOW table) grab a 19 oz manufactured cue and a Bushka and go play a hour with each cue, then you'll appreciate Bushkas. these pity pat cues we have now are suited for different equipment so there is really no way to compare them.
 
What Gus told me

Talking to Gus one evening at the Ball Room in Tom's River, he said,"If you want to know a lot about Balabushka Cues, go see Pete "The Cop" Tascarella. He was close friends with George."

cajunfats
 
Balabuska is a cue maker and make some very impressive playing cues!!! Some of them are quite fancy as well. Using a blank or titlist full splice to make a cue doesn't make one an assembler. When you use a full splice blank...you have to understand which blank to use and understand how this blank with re-act with the various components in the cue to make it plays they way it plays. The quality of wood selected, weight distribution, taper and construction is what makes a cue.

Heck, you can take some local Joe off the street to show them how to make a short points blank (easy when you have the equipment). Does it make them a cue builder? To be a cue builder, I think you have to have a much better understand of what a cue is built/designed to do and how it should feel to pool player. How you make the cue whether from pre-made components or not is really up to the builder. The key is the end product and how well it perform....balabushka's cues already proved through history how well they can perform.

Duc.
 
Last edited:
tank69 said:
So we change the definition because of technology, ease of information and change? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I do. The concept of a "cue assembler" was unkown at the time. The concept applies to todays wannabees imo. So yes, things change.

Dave
 
jhanso18 said:
I would say it doesn't really matter which way you think of him.

I'm not sure why we view being called an assembler vs. a builder/maker as a bad thing. His cues, by today's standards, probably don't even play that good. They are desirably because you can't get them anymore, and because he was the best at one point or another. No matter which way you think of him, he made a good product, that people wanted, and still want BADLY.

Does anyone know if he had the ability to build his own blanks? I would chalk it up this way if he did. Keith can BUILD an amazing cue, with a gazillion points that he cut, fit and designed himself. He also ASSEMBLES sneaky petes, plain jains, with small custom touches. He is in my eyes a definite BUILDER of cues, because he can do both. I would say the same of George if this is the case. (I would assume it is.)

Either way at the end of the day, his basic cues still sell for over $5k, and whether he was an "assembler" or "builder/maker" seems VERY irrelevant...

Best,

Justin
Click to expand...

Well a PJ should be able to play as well as a fancy cue with points...so, most everything beyond the basic design, is just for show...(e.g. I doubt if inlays really make a cue play better)....
 
Duc has it in a nut shell. He could have typed a few pages if he wanted to.

I have heard this argument a few times. When a person decides to buy a cue building lathe, one of the first things they do, if they haven't been before is to start their River of Wood.

So what are going to do while waiting for the moisture content in their supply to reach a level to where they can make the first cuts.

Do some conversions and buy a few blanks from one of the few cue suppliers.

Just because you have a full or half splice cue blank doesn't mean its an easy task to
put the pieces together and build a cue. A cue that both is aesthetically pleasing and plays half decent. And doesn't fall apart at a later date.

If you read Gus's and others words re George, he built and tested his innovations into
his cues, innovations that were emulated and still used today by many.

You can tag George and new builders today as assemblers if you wish.

I consider it to be, myself included, as part of the long learning process. Me gots a long ways to go yet.

Do you suppose that George made a few mistakes in the beginning? I bet he made a considerable many. But, he was one of the pioneers and didn't have the luxury of falling back on teaching dvds and books.

If we could purchase cue kits, snap and screw them together and be playing with them in a few days, just about everyone would be doing it.

Georges cues sell for $$$$ to this day.
The one or two that I have made thus far, not worth very much.
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to take anything away from Bushka. Whether you assemble, CNC or make all the components of a cue, you're a cue maker. Now whether anyone puts a value on your work, that separates the men from the boys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top