Balabuska Price???

I've yet to see a Balabushka without a weight bolt.:grin-square: Also, as I understand it, the Titlist Balabushka cues account for the majority of counterfeits. Although off topic, I wonder who the cuemakers were that produced high level copies other than Verl Horn tribute Cues. It would have required incredible knowledge and skill to nail it.

Martin,

IMHO because of the lack of knowledge of buyers, anyone making cues with a short splice could have easily built cues that would be unquestioned at that time.

JV
 
Bottom yes looks like it could be, top nope.

JV

Very good eye. The bottom cue is a real Balabushka and the top one is a Mike Pancerny that I had made for me out of my old Titlist blank. I wanted it to look similar, but with more "modern" specs (taper, butt size, etc.).
 
Very good eye. The bottom cue is a real Balabushka and the top one is a Mike Pancerny that I had made for me out of my old Titlist blank. I wanted it to look similar, but with more "modern" specs (taper, butt size, etc.).

Mr Hawaiian Eye....Exactly what I was trying to say in that post about modern equipment playing....who wants an old player unless you simply collected cues. Weight and Butt size especially. GOOD POST
 
I've yet to see a Balabushka without a weight bolt.:grin-square: Also, as I understand it, the Titlist Balabushka cues account for the majority of counterfeits. Although off topic, I wonder who the cuemakers were that produced high level copies other than Verl Horn tribute Cues. It would have required incredible knowledge and skill to nail it.

Hi Martin,

I agree with you except one word, Verl Horn cues are fakes, not tributes. R cues, Klein and other fine makers may copy the designs however, their logo is on the cue. There can be no mistakes. Horn cues were not identified as such and in many cases were sold as Bushkas. During this time frame, it was known he was producing fakes and Burton Spain supplied blanks despite the suspect of his activity. Burton eventually stopped the supply.

All the best,
Phil
 
Bottom yes looks like it could be, top nope.

JV

Let's see. the points....the top does not look like a Spain or Gus blank,,,,but seem longer and better than a tiltist? The botton the shorter points look like titlist?

All the best Joe.

Pookster, Get a Tascarela, sleep well.
 
Let's see. the points....the top does not look like a Spain or Gus blank,,,,but seem longer and better than a tiltist? The botton the shorter points look like titlist?

All the best Joe.

Pookster, Get a Tascarela, sleep well.

FYI.. the top cue is a titlist, but the wrap is installed at a lower point, than the actual Bushka.

JV
 
me.... All day and night

Thanks Phil and Joe. I can sure understand that 25 or so years ago with less information available people were more easily mislead. I wonder who else made good quality fakes?
 
I regularly play with cues from the 1960's.

I should be corrected, it is just so many Balbuskas were heavy with fat butts...not all, but many. My player until recently was a Frank Paradise circa 70 with a Rubino Shaft and now Tascarella shaft. If you called me out to play for all the $, with all my hot cues, I would have to reach for this cue, after you spotted me huge, :).:smile:
 
Let's see. the points....the top does not look like a Spain or Gus blank,,,,but seem longer and better than a tiltist? The botton the shorter points look like titlist?

Actually, they're both Titlists, but the key is how George did them, as opposed to most modern makers. The bottom one is likely kept to full splice, no maple wrap area. So, he had to keep the points a bit short, to make a decent length cue, probably 57 to 57.5 inches.

The top one likely has a maple wrap area with a pin between the wrap and points, as the points are too long to be a continuous Titlist. Whenever you see a Titlist with very long points up the forearm, that's usually the case.
 
As far as the Balabushka prices go, I have nothing to add on this thread that hasn't already been said.

On the subject of old playing cues, the only thing I have that's come out of a case lately is my Palmer Model D. Had to trim a little fat by making an aluminum bolt for it to replace the steel one, but now it's golden. I'm actually surprised that as someone over 6ft tall who's used to playing with modern cues, I actually really like it's proportions.
 
Actually, they're both Titlists, but the key is how George did them, as opposed to most modern makers. The bottom one is likely kept to full splice, no maple wrap area. So, he had to keep the points a bit short, to make a decent length cue, probably 57 to 57.5 inches.

The top one likely has a maple wrap area with a pin between the wrap and points, as the points are too long to be a continuous Titlist. Whenever you see a Titlist with very long points up the forearm, that's usually the case.

The top cue is a full-splice all the way to the butt cap. There is no handle...it is one piece.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=281865&highlight=mike+pancerny+titlist
 
Last edited:
Actually, they're both Titlists, but the key is how George did them, as opposed to most modern makers. The bottom one is likely kept to full splice, no maple wrap area. So, he had to keep the points a bit short, to make a decent length cue, probably 57 to 57.5 inches.

The top one likely has a maple wrap area with a pin between the wrap and points, as the points are too long to be a continuous Titlist. Whenever you see a Titlist with very long points up the forearm, that's usually the case.

Those points are not long at all
 
The top cue is a full-splice all the way to the butt cap. There is no handle...it is one piece.

My mistake then. Usually when there's that much point showing there's a separate handle. This one could have been wrapped a bit shorter than usual to show that much point as well. Anyhow,, that's a nice Titlist to keep it full splice.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top