Cue construction

[JB Cases]

I can't believe you have stooped to such levels of absurdity. You seriously need trained on what an argument is and how not to be an ass while arguing. There is no amount of information you can provide to sway his opinion, and vice versa. You're completely unaware of reality.

How would you know that? Now you're a mind reader as well?

I bet if Edwin Reyes were resurrected and came on here and said, Joey, Mezz cues now are better built than 80s Adam cues, that Joey Bautista would say, yes master.

The difference....Edwin would explain WHY he thinks that x is better than y.

Anyone can have an opinion. But reality is that the more authority you hold, the more weight your opinion is given by others.

So if a cue maker such as Joey abuses that authority by making a blanket statement that NO CURRENT PRODUCTION CUES are better than 80s Adam and Schon cues, it's likely to be picked up and repeated unless there is someone who stands up against it.

Now....my opinion is that Joey is wrong and I stated why.

Eric Crisp, a cue maker, stepped in to explain his position with reasoning. THAT is how it should be done. Not simply making a blanket general proclamation that ALL modern production cues are inferior to two brands from the 80s.

If you can't understand that then I highly suggest you look into adult remedial learning because you seem to have missed some important lessons along the way. IMO of course.

 

[xplor]

New cues have too much Formaldehyde in them .

 

[JB Cases]

New cues have too much Formaldehyde in them .

Now it's absurd Hits Em Hard.

"Industrial applications[edit]
Formaldehyde is a common precursor to more complex compounds and materials. In approximate order of decreasing consumption, products generated from formaldehyde include urea formaldehyde resin, melamine resin, phenol formaldehyde resin, polyoxymethylene plastics, 1,4-butanediol, and methylene diphenyl diisocyanate.[4] The textile industry uses formaldehyde-based resins as finishers to make fabrics crease-resistant.[22] Formaldehyde-based materials are key to the manufacture of automobiles, and used to make components for the transmission, electrical system, engine block, door panels, axles and brake shoes. The value of sales of formaldehyde and derivative products was over $145 billion in 2003, about 1.2% of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States and Canada. Including indirect employment, over 4 million people work in the formaldehyde industry across approximately 11,900 plants in the U.S. and Canada.[23]

When treated with phenol, urea, or melamine, formaldehyde produces, respectively, hard thermoset phenol formaldehyde resin, urea formaldehyde resin, and melamine resin. These polymers are common permanent adhesives used in plywood and carpeting. It is used as the wet-strength resin added to sanitary paper products such as (listed in increasing concentrations injected into the paper machine headstock chest) facial tissue, table napkins, and roll towels. They are also foamed to make insulation, or cast into moulded products. Production of formaldehyde resins accounts for more than half of formaldehyde consumption.

Formaldehyde is also a precursor to polyfunctional alcohols such as pentaerythritol, which is used to make paints and explosives. Other formaldehyde derivatives include methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, an important component in polyurethane paints and foams, and hexamine, which is used in phenol-formaldehyde resins as well as the explosive RDX. Formaldehyde has been found as a contaminant in several bath products, at levels from 54–610 ppm: it is thought to arise from the breakdown of preservatives in the products,[24] most frequently diazolidinyl urea. Since 2006, formaldehyde (methylene glycol) is also used in hair smoothing treatments in order to straighten wavy/curly hair and make hair less prone to frizz under high humid weather. OSHA Oregon has reported these treatments as unsafe for human health.[25]"

Apparently everything has formaldehyde in it. Including our blood.

 

[Shooter08]

I asked Bob Runde how my Schon R1 from the early 80's compare to my two Runde cues and he said there is no comparison his cues now are much better. I can guarantee he wasn't trying to sell me a cue.

 

[Mr. Bond]

Maybe its a dumb question but its also an obvious one:
If today's cues are indeed "better", then what can be done with today's cues that couldn't be done before ?

Does better mean "perform better" or simply "built better" ? Both?

 

[The Renfro]

Maybe its a dumb question but its also an obvious one:
If today's cues are indeed "better", then what can be done with today's cues that couldn't be done before ?

Does better mean "perform better" or simply "built better" ? Both?

hmmmm... Earl can use his to leap small children in a singe bound???

 

[RoadHustler]

I was gonna say he could compete in a canal jumping contest with it.

Fierljeppen - Canal vaulting in Holland: http://youtu.be/YP32iWoqjnQ

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Kim Bye]

For what it`s worth: My subjective opinion is that production cues today are of better quality compared to when i started playing pool at the end of the 80`s
I remember people having trouble with their Meucci and McDermott cues quite often.
Today I seldom hear about people having trouble with their cues except for the stuff you might expect, like a ferrule breaking or chipping.

 

[JB Cases]

Maybe its a dumb question but its also an obvious one:
If today's cues are indeed "better", then what can be done with today's cues that couldn't be done before ?

Does better mean "perform better" or simply "built better" ? Both?

That is a very good question. The answer might be technically nothing if talking about a cue with a single piece shaft and no low deflection properties.

When you throw LD in the mix then I think the answer is be accurate more often.

On the break cue side the answer would be break better.

In general though if cues had not progressed at all since the 70s we would probably notice no difference in the results and performances aside from minor variations.

Wouldn't it be kind of cool to have a house cue tournament? All the players could use are the brand new stock house cues provided and choose the weight from 18-21oz.

I wonder what would happen.

 

[qbilder]

Maybe its a dumb question but its also an obvious one:
If today's cues are indeed "better", then what can be done with today's cues that couldn't be done before ?

Does better mean "perform better" or simply "built better" ? Both?

Performance is tricky to quantify because as cues have changed, so have table cloth & balls.

In terms of quality, there are many things to point out. One obvious change is in low deflection shafts. That's a thing of the last 20ish years.

Another thing different is coring, which adds several benefits. It significantly adds stability so warping is all but eliminated. It reduces the weight of heavy woods such as rosewoods & ebony, so the build is more consistent regardless of wood choice. It strengthens the host component not unlike the way a full splice strengthens two pieces of wood to be joined. It's completely internal so it never has to be incorporated into an aesthetic design or wrapped over like a finger splice because it's ugly.

One thing I feel is huge is the use of CNC to control dimensions, especially for production outfits. The repeatability and consistency is incomparable to manual machinery. To compound on this a little further, spindles and cutters have also advanced to such a degree that cues really don't even need sanding anymore. The cut is so clean with high speed spindles being controlled without the fault of human touch, that the cues are coming off the machine smoother and finer than what a guy can do with sand paper. Take that nearly perfect structured cue and utilize the CNC to fit the joint pin and weight bolt, then again to machine the shaft(s), face both, and what you end up with is a cue that's structurally more accurate and more perfect than what any man can do with a manual machine. And it's exactly repeatable, indefinitely. Don't get me wrong. It still takes a human to choose the woods, create the design, and build the cue. What's removed is the human error in the machining dept.

To carry that point even farther, we have a genius tool called sanding arbors. It's a set of carbide sleeves that look much like joint protectors. They are ground to a specific size that all cues will be matched to. The carbide is harder than the grit in the sandpaper, so when a cue's finish is sanded flush to the arbor, it cannot be sanded any further. Same with the shafts. The result is perfect consistency. The shaft mates to the butt absolutely perfect, and any one of a million shafts sanded on that arbor will match perfectly to any one of a million butts sanded on the opposite arbor. Combined with the pin-point machining of the CNC, what you end up with is finished cues that are structurally and dimensionally more precise and consistent than in any time of the past.

I'm not taking anything away from cues made in the past. Every cue maker and factory has created the best product they could, given the technology and knowledge available to them. Just like now, there were some who were better than others. That will never change. But to consider the steps cue making has taken through the decades, strides in technological breakthroughs, it's silly not to conclude that cues are getting better. Do they play better? IMO, yes, but that's only opinion. Factually speaking, there's no question cues are built stronger and more accurately, with a much higher degree of consistency than ever before. Then again, it really all depends on how you personally define "better".

 

[JoeyInCali]

We'll, if we go back 2 decades ago or so, I'd buy all hi-run Dufferin house cues, micarta ferrules,
Aegis ferrules, phenolics of all colors.
I'd buy tons of maple where Tad got them.
All ebony full splice Adam and Schon during Clarke-Runde-Szamboti colab, would be mine.

 

[ShootingArts]

poll

And I have a fair bit of experience to base my opinions on.

Let's have a little poll between you and me.

In the past 25 years which of us has been inside more cuemaking operations?

That would be me.

Of the two of us which has bought and sold more cues?

Pretty sure that's me again.

Which of us has been inside a cue factory working on orders from design to construction for several years?

Me again.

Which of us has access to over one million shafts all hanging in various stages of cutting and seasoning?

That's me too.

So of all of who have answered, Joey, Dale, JVB, and Eric Crisp, me ...you have the least amount of actual experience in the business from both the maker and dealer side of it.

You wrote a lot of stuff none of which is backed up by actual experience that is meaningful to the discussion.

Which one of us owned a cue making operation?

That would be me.


Which one of us was over QA working with tolerances down to a ten-thousandths of an inch?

That would be me.


Which one of us was VP of a R&D corporation where we actually designed and built things instead of cutting other people's stuff apart to steal design ideas?

That would be me.


Which one of us has machine training and has owned lathes and mills since the 1990's including NC equipment?

That would be me.


Which one of us understands there is a hell of a lot more to making a quality cue than sticking together NC cut or premade parts?

That would be me.


Which one has done cue repair for years and seen inside many of the production and custom cues, some with good reputations, that were crap?

That would be me.


Which one of us actually understands the strengths and weaknesses of NC equipment and knows how to set up and care for equipment so it performs properly?

That would be me.


The listing of things I have done could go on a lot further, I have worked with tiny tolerances and designed from scratch for over forty years. Held a few more positions to have skills actually designing things and thinking for myself instead of stealing from others as you are so proud of doing. However I think the point is made. I understand more about design and construction than you ever will. Stealing ideas from other people lets you see how something is done but it doesn't tell you why. Without understanding why you don't understand the importance of each detail and change or omit critical ones without getting the same benefits.

You would be worthy of pity if it wasn't for your "charming" personality. Your lack of understanding of anything of any significance remains stunning!


Which one may be the biggest jackass on AZB?

That wouldn't be me.

Hu

 

[TATE]

Are today's methods producing better quality than cues made 25 years ago? Are today's cues better built, more consistent,and more stable over the long term?

The quality cues are better today than ever. Cue makers have learned a lot over the years about what works and what doesn't. Materials, such as paints and glues, are light years better. Construction techniques are more durable and precise than ever. Parts availability is unprecendented. Synthetics have improved in strength and durability.

What has become more challenging is the wood. The selection has declined and the expense has soared.

 

[Mr. Bond]

Performance is tricky to quantify because as cues have changed, so have table cloth & balls.

In terms of quality, there are many things to point out. One obvious change is in low deflection shafts. That's a thing of the last 20ish years.
........
........

I'm not taking anything away from cues made in the past. Every cue maker and factory has created the best product they could, given the technology and knowledge available to them. Just like now, there were some who were better than others. That will never change. But to consider the steps cue making has taken through the decades, strides in technological breakthroughs, it's silly not to conclude that cues are getting better. Do they play better? IMO, yes, but that's only opinion. Factually speaking, there's no question cues are built stronger and more accurately, with a much higher degree of consistency than ever before. Then again, it really all depends on how you personally define "better".

I agree with what you've said. Because I don't think its unreasonable to expect technology to build a stronger, more accurately built cue over time. But to swing that back the other way, machines, as you surely understand, will never have the human touch.

But either way, things like deflection in cues have been understood and dealt with for quite some time, and jumping balls, and impossible masse and trick shots, and astonishing players have always existed as much in the past as they do now. Do we really see any particular cue changes that have made a difference in the ultimate performance realm?

 

[ShootingArts]

cues are a lot like players

OK, now that I have got messing with "the john" out the way, I'll make a post that might be of some value. The best cues of today and the best of yesteryear are equal, or were when both were made. Some glue failures with the old cues that have nothing to do with the quality of the build.

Contrary to some opinion, production items invariably face the demands of cost and productivity and with very rare exceptions come to reflect these things. To be blunt, corners are cut to meet the demands of speed and cost. If something is cut on NC in thirty seconds some bean counter somewhere is calculating the savings of making it in twenty-eight seconds. The car manufacturer screams over the cost of a two dollar bracket that quality control finds out is needed that wasn't in the original design. Ignoring the fact that the two dollars will be passed on to the customer plus a profit added to it the manufacturer only sees that they are projecting to sell a million of that unit so that is two million more dollars spent in production!

A typical jointed pool cue is a pretty complex assembly. There are a lot of places to cut corners or make mistakes. A thicker glue or adhesive fills gaps, it also creates gaps where none would have been without it. Do you want a wood to wood hit or a wood to glue to wood hit? Too much glue or adhesive is almost as bad as too little and sometimes can create pressures that exist for the lifetime of the cue. I suspect these pressures may be why some cues almost explode unexpectedly but that is indeed a guess and one possible cause. A knowing custom maker always provides for the excess glues and adhesives to escape.

Production jointed cues can be had for $3.99 up! The cheapest ones use high speed production equipment just like many of the more expensive production cues. It is the raw materials used, how the machinery is set up, quality checks along the way, whether the components are assembled by skilled craftspeople, cheapest labor available, or machine, a focus on price or quality, that determines what leaves the production facility.

"Custom" cues are much the same. Some are no better than a lot of the production cues in the fifty dollar range, some are worth every dime of the thousands paid for them. It depends on the knowledge, skills, and work ethic of the builder.

The best cues made are the same quality as always. There is a much larger group of second tier quality cues that play well that aren't built by a master. These come out of both custom and production shops. Then there is the crap. It is still as bad, some even worse than ever before! Most cues are excellent buys however. Some of the "second tier" cue makers have 98% of the same things the masters have going for them, lacking mainly the name.

Hu

 

[qbilder]

We'll, if we go back 2 decades ago or so, I'd buy all Dufferin house cues, micarta ferrules,
Aegis ferrules, phenolics of all colors.
I'd buy a tons of maple where Tad got them.
All ebony full splice Adam and Schon during Clarke-Runde-Szamboti colab, would be mine.

Joey, there's no doubt that we have lost some things. More than that, the bigger issue is that the cost of those things outweighs the value of the end product. Nobody wants to pay $500 for a shaft, so it's not feasible for a cue maker to pay $50/blank. Therefore, it's not feasible for a supplier to buy the best logs, mill them for quality, and provide top grade wood. A good log, not great log, will cost a mill $1000. There are 2-3 of those logs per tree. Last time I cut, I took 6 trees & ended up with about 1000 really nice shafts, and a ton of waste. If I were buying those logs, it would have cost me $10G's, on the conservative side. By the time you factor in operation costs of turning those logs into graded shaft squares or dowels, nobody would want to pay what I'd have to get per blank. It's literally cheaper for the cue maker to buy a bulk of wood and cull the junk. That reality is exactly why the suppliers provide the wood that they do, because it's what the market demands. It's a painful truth.

Same for quality melamine. It's still available but has more than doubled in price and is special order with a heavy minimum. That makes it too expensive and unattainable. Custom builders can't afford to even talk to the manufacturer, and production outfits can't afford $5/1"ferrule. Again, the cue market cannot support the cost of production.

If anything at all, it costs more to build cues today. Woods and materials are crazy expensive. Electricity is outrageous. Even the cheapest glues I use run more than $100/gal. The idea that cues could be made of higher quality materials and more economically in the past is certainly true. In fact, it would be a dream to see today's ability with yesterday's economy. That's just not the world we live in. The past is gone.

 

[qbilder]

I agree with what you've said. Because I don't think its unreasonable to expect technology to build a stronger, more accurately built cue over time. But to swing that back the other way, machines, as you surely understand, will never have the human touch.

But either way, things like deflection in cues have been understood and dealt with for quite some time, and jumping balls, and impossible masse and trick shots, and astonishing players have always existed as much in the past as they do now. Do we really see any particular cue changes that have made a difference in the ultimate performance realm?

Nobody can argue that great players with great ability have existed as long as the game has. A few special individuals through history have always made the white ball do things that amaze us mortals. That said, it's all limited to the game itself. There's a table and some balls & a cue to move the balls around on said table. There's only so much possible within that boundary. Even the boundary itself is dynamic and ever changing. How many different types of cloth exist for pool tables? How about the balls & the material they're made from? It's not only cues that moving the white ball can be attributed. I do believe that a good production cue from today, taken back & given to a 25yr old Mosconi, would seem like a magic wand. The changes don't seem so dramatic over time because they happen gradually. Doesn't mean it isn't happening, though. Measure your kid's height today, then measure again tomorrow. Not much noticeable difference? Well give him a year & measure again. More difference? You bet. Same with cues. But that's a diversion from the OP question IF cues are better than in the past. Yes, they're better. The farther into the past you go, the more dramatic the difference. The more recent the comparison, the less noticeable it is. But unquestionably, cues are getting better.

 

[ShootingArts]

we seem to be moving towards a synthetic shaft of some type

Joey, there's no doubt that we have lost some things. More than that, the bigger issue is that the cost of those things outweighs the value of the end product. Nobody wants to pay $500 for a shaft, so it's not feasible for a cue maker to pay $50/blank. Therefore, it's not feasible for a supplier to buy the best logs, mill them for quality, and provide top grade wood. A good log, not great log, will cost a mill $1000. There are 2-3 of those logs per tree. Last time I cut, I took 6 trees & ended up with about 1000 really nice shafts, and a ton of waste. If I were buying those logs, it would have cost me $10G's, on the conservative side. By the time you factor in operation costs of turning those logs into graded shaft squares or dowels, nobody would want to pay what I'd have to get per blank. It's literally cheaper for the cue maker to buy a bulk of wood and cull the junk. That reality is exactly why the suppliers provide the wood that they do, because it's what the market demands. It's a painful truth.

Same for quality melamine. It's still available but has more than doubled in price and is special order with a heavy minimum. That makes it too expensive and unattainable. Custom builders can't afford to even talk to the manufacturer, and production outfits can't afford $5/1"ferrule. Again, the cue market cannot support the cost of production.

If anything at all, it costs more to build cues today. Woods and materials are crazy expensive. Electricity is outrageous. Even the cheapest glues I use run more than $100/gal. The idea that cues could be made of higher quality materials and more economically in the past is certainly true. In fact, it would be a dream to see today's ability with yesterday's economy. That's just not the world we live in. The past is gone.

We seem to be moving towards a synthetic shaft of some type. I'd say we are playing as much or more with the glue than the grain with some of the spliced shafts now. Those without their own trees may have to consider jointing two pieces of wood together permanently to make shafts too. I have a few gross of shaft wood and notice twenty inches of nice maple is a lot easier to find than thirty!

Hu

 

[luke]

I wish to thank qbilder in particular and others for shedding some interesting light and knowledge on my questions. Perhaps one day I will own a Sugartree or some other cue of my dreams. This forum can be a great source of valuable information and discussion.

 

[fastone371]

I wish to thank qbilder in particular and others for shedding some interesting light and knowledge on my questions. Perhaps one day I will own a Sugartree or some other cue of my dreams. This forum can be a great source of valuable information and discussion.

My dream cues are Titlist conversions made by anyone who builds a decent cue. I have not found a reason to insist on one cue makers cue over another yet. Maybe I just did not test hit the right cue yet. If I am lucky the Titlist conversions will now get cheaper because according to some they are not as good as current production cues.:grin: