Points Too Far Forward

HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but, to me, the points on a cue don't look right when they are pushed up right next to the joint collar.

I know the reasons why this is done sometimes (blank too thin, weight distribution, etc.), but it is not visually appealing to me. I know some people who think it actually looks better because more of the points can be seen when wraps are used.

I guess you can call me old-school, because I like the way cues looked when the points weren't so far up.

Which do you prefer? Or does it matter to you?
 
HawaiianEye said:
I know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but, to me, the points on a cue don't look right when they are pushed up right next to the joint collar.

I know the reasons why this is done sometimes (blank too thin, weight distribution, etc.), but it is not visually appealing to me. I know some people who think it actually looks better because more of the points can be seen when wraps are used.

I guess you can call me old-school, because I like the way cues looked when the points weren't so far up.

Which do you prefer? Or does it matter to you?
Click to expand...

I'm witcha...

Dale(not old school... but preschool)
 
Count me in.
When I was putting them together I went (if memory serves) 8 and 1/2 inches up from the handle. About 3/4 of the forearm. :)
 
I prefer long points, not right up to the joint, but close. It more visually appealing to me. I don't know why.
 
I agree!!! Its like nails on a chalk board for me.

As an example, a titlist should never show the base splice. It should always be covered by the wrap.

Pete Tascarella also agrees with you. He refuses to convert a titlist if its not fat enough and he would have to push the points forward.

John Davis blanks are another example. For whatever reason, he won't put enough forearm wood so that you can keep the points low enough to cover the splice with the wrap. As always, IMO. :)

just right...



just right...
DSC03826.jpg
 
xianmacx said:
I agree!!! Its like nails on a chalk board for me.

As an example, a titlist should never show the base splice. It should always be covered by the wrap.

Pete Tascarella also agrees with you. He refuses to convert a titlist if its not fat enough and he would have to push the points forward.

John Davis blanks are another example. For whatever reason, he won't put enough forearm wood so that you can keep the points low enough to cover the splice with the wrap. As always, IMO. :)

just right...





just right...
DSC03826.jpg
Click to expand...


You are right about the Titlists. I have two of them and one is my main playing cue. Both are full-spliced and are one piece butts. The wraps are like the ones you have in your pictures.

You must have read my mind, because I was thinking of a John Davis blank when I wrote it. The cue was a Davis version Titlist blank (not a real one) and the points were about two inches from the joint collar.

Nothing against John, but I would never buy one without a longer forearm. It may play great, but I don't like the looks.
 
Last edited:
jalapus logan said:
I thought I was all alone in my dislike for long points. Nice support group here lol.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, they ruin a cue.

I was talking to John Davis a few years ago about making a blank with more forearm wood so it could be converted and have lower points. I don't remember his reason, and I didn't really push hard. As you can see all of his blanks are made in a way that force the point to be very close to joint with splice exposed.
 
I can't stand the backwards facing points people that put on the butts of cues! For me they need to always point towards the tip.
 
Agree. Points should occupy about 75% of the forearm, or close. Those incredibly long points tend to indicate the cuemaker didn't cut deep enough into the forearm, didn't set the angle right, or for some reason, had to cover up a bunch of the forearm. Extra long points just don't look right.

All the best,
WW
 
HawaiianEye said:
I know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but, to me, the points on a cue don't look right when they are pushed up right next to the joint collar.

I know the reasons why this is done sometimes (blank too thin, weight distribution, etc.), but it is not visually appealing to me. I know some people who think it actually looks better because more of the points can be seen when wraps are used.

I guess you can call me old-school, because I like the way cues looked when the points weren't so far up.

Which do you prefer? Or does it matter to you?
Click to expand...


Completely disagree and like long sharp points that almost touch the joint
 
mvp said:
Yep, that style is really catching on, but it's not for me! Lol
Click to expand...

Up and down points is a style that's catching on!?
LOLZ
If it's not for you I get that, but really they've been making cues like this as long as I know of

I wasn't aware it was a cue phad
 
mvp said:
I can't stand the backwards facing points people that put on the butts of cues! For me they need to always point towards the tip.
Click to expand...

This^^^^^^

I love old school but also like long points.....on the right cue
Jason

Some cuemakers make their points long(Ted Harris) its not by accident
 
Last edited:
HawaiianEye said:
I know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but, to me, the points on a cue don't look right when they are pushed up right next to the joint collar.

I know the reasons why this is done sometimes (blank too thin, weight distribution, etc.), but it is not visually appealing to me. I know some people who think it actually looks better because more of the points can be seen when wraps are used.

I guess you can call me old-school, because I like the way cues looked when the points weren't so far up.

Which do you prefer? Or does it matter to you?
Click to expand...

I know you've been a good player for a long time...good enough to trust your instincts.

Gus Szamboti felt that the maple in the fore-arm was as important as the maple in the shaft.
I feel a cue has to tremble to be a good hitting cue...and that tremble has to come down
into the fore arm.....put too much dense wood up there and the cue hits dead.
...got rid of an all ebony butt Cog for that reason....and I avoid South South West cues.

My first test for buying a cue is to hold where I would hold the butt normally to shoot.....
...and I tap it against my bridge hand about eight inches below the joint.....
...if I don't feel the cue tremble all the way to my hand holding the butt...don't want it.
 
pt109 said:
I know you've been a good player for a long time...good enough to trust your instincts.

Gus Szamboti felt that the maple in the fore-arm was as important as the maple in the shaft.
I feel a cue has to tremble to be a good hitting cue...and that tremble has to come down
into the fore arm.....put too much dense wood up there and the cue hits dead.
...got rid of an all ebony butt Cog for that reason....and I avoid South South West cues.

My first test for buying a cue is to hold where I would hold the butt normally to shoot.....
...and I tap it against my bridge hand about eight inches below the joint.....
...if I don't feel the cue tremble all the way to my hand holding the butt...don't want it.
Click to expand...

Iv'e never met anybody that didn't like the hit of a Ted Harris
Jason
 
i like the points about the length of the old gus and george

i don't dislike the long points

i don't have much to add
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top