That's a slippery slope to a BIG fight.
I personally prefer NO computerized assistance in the cues I buy and play with.
but to each his own.
best,
Justin
Was Balabushka an assembler...?
- Thread starter Tramp Steamer
- Start date
That's a slippery slope to a BIG fight.
I personally prefer NO computerized assistance in the cues I buy and play with.
but to each his own.
best,
Justin
Oh oh, the CnC debate is a huge can of woims, one in which I won't open cause I know Jack about them.
There are still a few makers that hand cut inlay pockets and inlays.
Some use a Pantograph and others have graduated to CnC. Now, many of the makers actually build their own CnC machines as well.
If you can just tweak a CnC and do the G Code for it, thats a major accomplishment.
If you have the talent to not only do that but build the damn thing, I wouldn't want to debate CnC with em.
I think its personal choice, what you're comfortable with and part of the technology evolution that is going on all around us.
Take a look at our first cell (bag phones actually) and our tablet computer phones these days. It was bound to happen.
Altho makers can do superb designs without CnC, this just opens the door to so many unbelievable pieces of art work.
Other than design work, makers are using them for tapering as well. Other than getting pretty much flawless tapers, it would be a considerable time saver over cutting and doing a lot of hand sanding.
There are still a few makers that hand cut inlay pockets and inlays.
Some use a Pantograph and others have graduated to CnC. Now, many of the makers actually build their own CnC machines as well.
If you can just tweak a CnC and do the G Code for it, thats a major accomplishment.
If you have the talent to not only do that but build the damn thing, I wouldn't want to debate CnC with em.
I think its personal choice, what you're comfortable with and part of the technology evolution that is going on all around us.
Take a look at our first cell (bag phones actually) and our tablet computer phones these days. It was bound to happen.
Altho makers can do superb designs without CnC, this just opens the door to so many unbelievable pieces of art work.
Other than design work, makers are using them for tapering as well. Other than getting pretty much flawless tapers, it would be a considerable time saver over cutting and doing a lot of hand sanding.
Last edited:
All good points (no pun intended) that you make...I guess I have some of each, although I prefer "vintage" cues (or Titlist conversions) for collecting....
People put way to much time in worrying about such nonsense. I got this in a PM the other day. I am guessing it was in response to my signature.
"don't worry about being a custome cue maker. im sure within the next 5 years you wont be. thanks for posting."
You would think if they got so upset about the word "custom" they would at least know how to spell it!
Larry
"don't worry about being a custome cue maker. im sure within the next 5 years you wont be. thanks for posting."
You would think if they got so upset about the word "custom" they would at least know how to spell it!
Larry
Last edited:
Nailed it!
I'm with ya 100% on that one Bushka.
Just like some people would prefer not to have Ivory in a cue for personal reasons, I am not overly interested in owning a CnC cue.
I do have the ability to make my own cues but do repairs. Like I mentioned in another thread, I am a huge crastinator and even a Pro at it.
Besides, I do like owning other makers cues as well.
I am interested in getting my feet a bit wet with CnC tho. There is a guy that makes basic ones to do tapering with and I have the perfect lathe for it.
As to whether I make my move in this life time is another story.
Just like some people would prefer not to have Ivory in a cue for personal reasons, I am not overly interested in owning a CnC cue.
I do have the ability to make my own cues but do repairs. Like I mentioned in another thread, I am a huge crastinator and even a Pro at it.
Besides, I do like owning other makers cues as well.
I am interested in getting my feet a bit wet with CnC tho. There is a guy that makes basic ones to do tapering with and I have the perfect lathe for it.
As to whether I make my move in this life time is another story.
Last edited:
I'm interested in hearing from you guys that draw the line at CNC.
What do you feel is the difference between a guy who uses CNC to make an inlay from a guy riding a pantograph stencil (Gus style for example)? Is it the push button rather than pushing a rod that gets you?
Thanks
Kevin
What do you feel is the difference between a guy who uses CNC to make an inlay from a guy riding a pantograph stencil (Gus style for example)? Is it the push button rather than pushing a rod that gets you?
Thanks
Kevin
Larry, thats Russian.
Now say this with your best Russian accent.
Please for you to make me custome cue Comrade.
I will wait in da corner eating my Beeg Mec while you build for me, ok.
You will put also Hemmer and Sickle on it.
Now say this with your best Russian accent.
Please for you to make me custome cue Comrade.
I will wait in da corner eating my Beeg Mec while you build for me, ok.
You will put also Hemmer and Sickle on it.
Last edited:
Topic for a new thread. Not sure where anything CNC related would belong in a Balbushka thread. Being new to CNC. I would be interested to see what people think!
Larry
Larry
George didn't use it, it wasn't available to him. But I can show you examples where he should have had it and should of used it. George built great cues for the day, using what was available to him. He wasn't the most skilled woodworker at all, but he has a super eyes for art and screwed them together so that they could play (which is what it is all about, especially then, very few cues were made as collectibles right from the gate).
I think people lose touch with what is really important when judging vintage quality vs new. Please, George and Ernie were using Elmer's glue. That was what they could get.Its amazing when you look at the quality of the stuff they made, using the equipment that was available to them. Comparing that craft to that of today is like comparing a 56 T-Bird and discovering it doesn't have air bags..
Kevin
Myself Kevin, I don't have anything against it. Me also a good fence sitter, specially with this debate.
Like I mentioned earlier, it opens the door to so much artistic design that was maybe
not possible previously.
Or at least, cutting down on the time factor as well.
For myself, I want to know that I am very proficient at manual tapering and hand sanding before I consider making that jump. Ya know, baby steps and learn all the processes first.
As far as owning an expensive piece of art work collectable cue, I just don't desire to own or play with one and prefer a simpler traditional designs with notched diamonds and such.
Some people like chocolate cake and others prefer white cake.
See how good I am at sitting on da fence?
If you get to see a UTube video of Bebot Bautista's son cutting inlay pockets with different hand made and shaped hack saw blades and using a broken piece of a jaw from a vice as a hammer, well, how strong is that.
And some of his designs go beyond simple for what he is using and quite beautiful. Now that is true craftsmanship and art.
Will also play the Devil's Advocate for one statement.
How would it be for an artist to design a painting with G Code. Slide a piece of canvas in the printer and out pops a painting.
He didn't pick up a paint brush. The ideas were his but he didn't pick up a brush or mix any paint.
Have you seen the wild things they can already do with 3 D printing and its only going to get wilder.
Do you think in time that a cue will designed using one of those puppies? I think so.
It would be a plastic cue but then they could call them Meuccis. Oops, did I just say that?
Like I mentioned earlier, it opens the door to so much artistic design that was maybe
not possible previously.
Or at least, cutting down on the time factor as well.
For myself, I want to know that I am very proficient at manual tapering and hand sanding before I consider making that jump. Ya know, baby steps and learn all the processes first.
As far as owning an expensive piece of art work collectable cue, I just don't desire to own or play with one and prefer a simpler traditional designs with notched diamonds and such.
Some people like chocolate cake and others prefer white cake.
See how good I am at sitting on da fence?
If you get to see a UTube video of Bebot Bautista's son cutting inlay pockets with different hand made and shaped hack saw blades and using a broken piece of a jaw from a vice as a hammer, well, how strong is that.
And some of his designs go beyond simple for what he is using and quite beautiful. Now that is true craftsmanship and art.
Will also play the Devil's Advocate for one statement.
How would it be for an artist to design a painting with G Code. Slide a piece of canvas in the printer and out pops a painting.
He didn't pick up a paint brush. The ideas were his but he didn't pick up a brush or mix any paint.
Have you seen the wild things they can already do with 3 D printing and its only going to get wilder.
Do you think in time that a cue will designed using one of those puppies? I think so.
It would be a plastic cue but then they could call them Meuccis. Oops, did I just say that?
Last edited:
I don't really think its about CNC, but I know plenty of guys do. I figure I'm about a week away from being able to cut an inlay with a pantograph, then maybe another week and I could make my own stencil. I've seen them used and figure as lame as I am, I could do it pretty quick.
Now CNC is another thing entirely, there's no amount of time sufficient that I figure I could learn a CAD program just to make the design, then translate that and set up and run the CNC ? Forget it, way past me.
So its not ease of operation. So then what is it that makes the pantograph more "genuine"? And to me it doesn't seem at all more "hand made" with the pantograph you trace a stencil with a CNC you push some buttons, both with your hand.
And the CNC is way more precise. So if precision is your goal you know?
For me its like claiming you have to use Elmers to be authentic. It doesn't make sense.
Now, the way Barry does it, honoring his dad's machines and methods makes sense, but every cue Barry makes is in that way a tribute to Gus. That's Barry's intention. But you if you are not Barry, and freed to make cues that are not Gus tributes, why not be able to use all the modern tools and techniques and methods available ? The goal is a thing that hits balls on modern tables with eye-pleasing design and precision, right? Is the goal all these things but only with methods that were available up to a certain time period ? And, if so, why?
Kevin
PS Its not speed either. Ernie made 100 cues a year before CNC and 100 cues a year after. He could hand carve a French diamond inlay channel (not pantograph) in less than a minute.
Last edited:
Wow is all I can say. But then we are talking about Ernie for one. A guy that decides he needs a specific machine to do one task and he builds the darn thing.
So, as amazing it is to learn that Ernie can do that type of inlay work by hand, it shouldn't surprise anyone.
I watched the brief vid of Ernie's shop and was in awe. I couldn't imagine being able to get a guided tour.
Myself Kev, I am not even close to be considering a panto yet so you are miles ahead in that respect. Let alone even a CnC tapering machine.
Maybe me is just dreaming a bit.
So, as amazing it is to learn that Ernie can do that type of inlay work by hand, it shouldn't surprise anyone.
I watched the brief vid of Ernie's shop and was in awe. I couldn't imagine being able to get a guided tour.
Myself Kev, I am not even close to be considering a panto yet so you are miles ahead in that respect. Let alone even a CnC tapering machine.
Maybe me is just dreaming a bit.
Last edited:
To me, the means aren't as important as the end result. For the sake of argument, let concede that Balabushka was a "parts assembler". Does that mean anyone can make an equal cue using the same parts? He was apparently a genius, in that he perfected the dimensions, balance point, shaft taper, and wood selection, that gave the hit and feel that we're wanted and needed at that time, to be successful as a player. Given the same circumstances, equipment, and "parts", could anyone else have done what he did? Apparently, at that point in history, few could. The fact that he made some of those cues beautiful, is a tribute to his artistic side. The fact of the matter, is that a lot of the successful builders that followed, blatantly copied his principles of building. Is there any doubt that people like Black, Stroud, Janes, copied his cues as closely as they could, when they got their start?
So, the bottom line, is that if Balabushka was an "assembler", there was so much more involved, that even his best copiers never knew all the secrets he imployed in the construction of his cues, and to this day, only a Balabushka, is a Balabushka.
Call him what you want, but considering all the facts, cue maker and innovator, seem far more appropriate.
So, the bottom line, is that if Balabushka was an "assembler", there was so much more involved, that even his best copiers never knew all the secrets he imployed in the construction of his cues, and to this day, only a Balabushka, is a Balabushka.
Call him what you want, but considering all the facts, cue maker and innovator, seem far more appropriate.
When I hear people say Bushka was an assembler, I usually get the feeling there is immense jealousy involved. He was a master of his time, and had a great design eye. His cues were coveted by everyone, most importantly players. They paid for them, world champions HAD to have them. There is no cue since, IMHO that has had that kind of profound acceptance by the world champion players.
Calling him just an assembler is an injustice and a slap at all cuemakers. Because all cuemakers, assemble parts. Some their own, some not. Where do you draw the line?
JV
Calling him just an assembler is an injustice and a slap at all cuemakers. Because all cuemakers, assemble parts. Some their own, some not. Where do you draw the line?
JV
Cue Assemblers
Cue Assemblers
Many have criticized the most famous cuemaker of all time George Balabushka, because he did not make his own point blanks. They call him a “Cue Assembler” instead of a cuemaker. In reality he was both. And every cuemaker I know is both. People who have little clue of what all is involved in cuemaking have now started trying to label cuemakers with the term “Cue Assembler” as an insult to those who do not make everything from scratch. I know of no single cuemaker who makes ever single part of the cue from scratch. Saying George did not make "any of the parts himself" is wrong. He did not make the prongs in his pointed cues. That is only one part of a cue. What about butt sleeves? Handles? Tapering shafts? Making the butt plate? His unique weight bolt system? Installing linen? Inlays? Ferrules?
Now to address cuemakers making everything from scratch, where do we draw the line?
I know of no cuemaker who weaves his own Irish linen.
A few make their own screws. Most buy their screws and weight bolts.
Very few skin their own animals or reptiles to produce their own leather wraps.
Very few make the materials from scratch that ferrules and rings are made out of. Most buy round stock and cut it up.
Very few make their own tips. Some do.
Very few cut their own wood from the forest. Most buy their shafts already doweled and their exotic woods in squares or boards.
Very few cut their own veneers and dye them.
So in the very thing George gets criticized for, even the people who made his blanks did not make their own veneers to go into the point blanks. So in that aspect they were assemblers also.
Everyone uses some materials or parts that they did not produce from raw materials. Just because some use less than others does not mean they are not cuemakers. People who throw the “Cue Assembler” insult around so freely must think that all the parts come in ready to screw together and glue up like a model airplane with no machining to be done. But that is not the case. For even those who buy point and shaft blanks, still have holes to drill, threads to be tapped, tenons to cut, rings to be made, and many other machining processes including tapering.
In conclusion Gus Szamboti was right when he said, “George excelled as a cuemaker.”
Cue Assemblers
Many have criticized the most famous cuemaker of all time George Balabushka, because he did not make his own point blanks. They call him a “Cue Assembler” instead of a cuemaker. In reality he was both. And every cuemaker I know is both. People who have little clue of what all is involved in cuemaking have now started trying to label cuemakers with the term “Cue Assembler” as an insult to those who do not make everything from scratch. I know of no single cuemaker who makes ever single part of the cue from scratch. Saying George did not make "any of the parts himself" is wrong. He did not make the prongs in his pointed cues. That is only one part of a cue. What about butt sleeves? Handles? Tapering shafts? Making the butt plate? His unique weight bolt system? Installing linen? Inlays? Ferrules?
Now to address cuemakers making everything from scratch, where do we draw the line?
I know of no cuemaker who weaves his own Irish linen.
A few make their own screws. Most buy their screws and weight bolts.
Very few skin their own animals or reptiles to produce their own leather wraps.
Very few make the materials from scratch that ferrules and rings are made out of. Most buy round stock and cut it up.
Very few make their own tips. Some do.
Very few cut their own wood from the forest. Most buy their shafts already doweled and their exotic woods in squares or boards.
Very few cut their own veneers and dye them.
So in the very thing George gets criticized for, even the people who made his blanks did not make their own veneers to go into the point blanks. So in that aspect they were assemblers also.
Everyone uses some materials or parts that they did not produce from raw materials. Just because some use less than others does not mean they are not cuemakers. People who throw the “Cue Assembler” insult around so freely must think that all the parts come in ready to screw together and glue up like a model airplane with no machining to be done. But that is not the case. For even those who buy point and shaft blanks, still have holes to drill, threads to be tapped, tenons to cut, rings to be made, and many other machining processes including tapering.
In conclusion Gus Szamboti was right when he said, “George excelled as a cuemaker.”
Last edited:
Remember folks, I only posed the question.
I think Chris, has pretty much hit the nail on the head here.
Even if he made cues from others parts, he still turned the blanks and seales them. He still added the inlays and ringwork. He made his own shafts.