Interesting question, as well as thread.
Having been a Tim Scruggs collector since 1978 when he went on his own, I can tell you his craftsmanship has always been very high. I even brought him a cue to refinish from another high regarded maker because Tim's finish was so much better. I've put pictures of one of a kind TS cues made between 1982 and 2000; you can search the archives and be hard pressed to find a flaw.
Does that mean I would say get the TS cue over the Tascarella? Not necessarily. I haven't owned a Tascarella, but having seen many examples, as well as photos, as well as conversed with Tascarella owners, I believe they are of the highest construction standard. I respect the opinions of those members, and I believe what my eyes tell me. Also, though not by relation, Tascarella has taken over the mantle of George Balabushka in maintaining the style and standard of the cue. I don't think anyone could argue this. If exclusivity is a factor, remember, Tim had been making cues since 1978 before retiring within the past few years. There are more Scruggs cues out there than Tascs, although you can't get a new custom built Scruggs. Think about the importance of these, if they matter.
I think the question in the first place is a bit mis-directed, the only qualifier being, if the cost of each is the same, what would the recommendation be. If you're going the play with the cue, there are differences between the two. Here are just a few:
Butt thickness. Unless your Scruggs was made in the late 70s or early 80s, the Scruggs butt will probably be a bit thinner than the Tasc. Tim started out with the old standard of the thicker butts, but gradually thinned the butts according to general customer demand with faster cloth, etc. In fact, I had to ask for thicker butts from him around 2000, as that was my preference. The Tasc owners can correct me, but I think the Petes' still make the slightly thicker butts, similar to the older standard. You have to play with each to tell which you like. With most current examples, I might prefer the Tasc.
Joint fit. I understand the Tascs have a compression fit for the piloted joints. Tim didn't do that, at least in the span that I bought, which is pretty long. Tim's philosophy was to have the joint tighten at the faces of joint and shaft, rather than the insert and tongue of the shaft as well. That's not to say a compression joint isn't the way to go. It's two different ways of doing it, and you might have a preference between the two. That is, unless both of your desired examples of each are flat face joints.
The hit. If you can try examples of both, to be really objective, you have to have identical shaft densities, tapers, and tips, with or without pads. I can take a hard-hitting cue that pings, and soften it greatly by putting on a softer tip with a pad. You might think the whole cue hits a certain way, when it's really dependent on the shaft and mainly, the tip.
Hopefully this gives you some other helpful aspects to think about. There are others, including the way they both constructed points. Way different, another topic on its own. Both Tim Scruggs and Pete Tascarella are great cuemakers. I hope at least that's clear. Otherwise this wouldn't be a topic. There was a comparison between Cadillac and Rolls Royce. I would refine that a bit. A Cadillac is a mass production item compared to a Rolls. I would make the comparison a Rolls to an Aston Martin. Your choice as to which is which.
WW
:thumbup:
