A grade vs AAA grade maple

Some grade their shafts primarily on ring count. In that case I would think higher grade would make a difference on play.
Others grade off of appearance and others grade on grain run out. Appearance does nothing for the play, but grain run out can.
So as already said, grading is very subjective. But grading definitely can lead to better playing shafts.
 
Weight is important too in grading.Final pass shafts that meet every smell test listed here and weigh in over 4+ oz. play better for me.
 
I have always wondered about the 4 oz deal. Is this with tip - ferrule and insert if needed? A local cue maker here claims if it is under 4 it is no good but he uses brass inserts on pretty much everything. They weigh about .3oz. A lot of my wood thread shafts are coming in around 3.75 and I think an insert would make me good
 
I have always wondered about the 4 oz deal. Is this with tip - ferrule and insert if needed? A local cue maker here claims if it is under 4 it is no good but he uses brass inserts on pretty much everything. They weigh about .3oz. A lot of my wood thread shafts are coming in around 3.75 and I think an insert would make me good


There are more myths & superstitions & misconceptions regarding shafts than there are with alien spacecraft religions. Cue makers can be a superstitious bunch.
 
There are more myths & superstitions & misconceptions regarding shafts than there are with alien spacecraft religions. Cue makers can be a superstitious bunch.

Gotta love the 4 oz rule with inserts and no telling what taper . :grin-square:

Better get an earth magnet and see if it attracts something below the insert. :grin-square:
 
Gotta love the 4 oz rule with inserts and no telling what taper . :grin-square:

Better get an earth magnet and see if it attracts something below the insert. :grin-square:


Let's all use 4.5oz shafts because they're badass, but hollow them out because they're too heavy & deflect too much :shrug:
 
Let's all use 4.5oz shafts because they're badass, but hollow them out because they're too heavy & deflect too much :shrug:

There are occasions when a shaft is simply too good! I've had the experience several times already on shafts made for my cues with extreme select stock. I've had to extend the taper by hand gradually multiple times to get the shafts to move.
 
Something to chew on, a brain teaser if you will, has anybody given thought to factors that cannot be seen? Shaft grading gives nothing but visual indications of quality. It doesn't tell you a thing about how good the wood actually is. Why would we assume that an organic material that's made up of layers, will exhibit a consistent density across each layer? In a shaft with 10 grains, there are 10 individual layers of wood, not unlike flat lam. Let's say they all run perfect straight from end to end. What if the layers on one side are heavier/denser than the other side? What happens when you put centers in the center of the ends? You get an out of balance shaft with inappropriate centers, which will inevitably warp. Without even testing the shaft for balance, you put those centers where you think they should be, or right in the middle because it gives you more meat. That's akin to jumping off a bridge without knowing how deep the water below is. You get lucky at times but other times it's a complete loss.

What if there were a way to test the shaft square or dowel to find it's true center of gravity, and place the center holes accordingly? Would it not only prevent many of the losses due to warp, but also allow otherwise unstable wood to correct itself by equalizing the stress with every cut? Man I bet yields would increase dramatically. Furthermore, not only would it significantly decrease loss, it would place the shaft's spine dead nuts center along its length. Hmmm I wonder how that would affect performance, having a shaft that hit exactly the same regardless of how it's held. So not only will it's stress be confined to the core center, its flex/reflex will be consistent axially. I think I know of a shaft company that attempts this by laminating wood. Too bad they didn't know it could be done much easier with solid wood, which brings up another topic.

When you buy a Ferrari, does the sales rep have to explain to you that it's a very fast, high performance car? Can you not assume that stuff already? Same with cues. If you're spending good money on a cue from a company or maker known for performance, if the cue isn't advertised as LD, why would you assume it deflects too much to play with? Why are makers who use solid wood shafts considered stone age, old school, behind the times? No real concern, just something I seen in passing that made me wonder. Some things to think about.
 
Something to chew on, a brain teaser if you will, has anybody given thought to factors that cannot be seen? Shaft grading gives nothing but visual indications of quality. It doesn't tell you a thing about how good the wood actually is. Why would we assume that an organic material that's made up of layers, will exhibit a consistent density across each layer? In a shaft with 10 grains, there are 10 individual layers of wood, not unlike flat lam. Let's say they all run perfect straight from end to end. What if the layers on one side are heavier/denser than the other side? What happens when you put centers in the center of the ends? You get an out of balance shaft with inappropriate centers, which will inevitably warp. Without even testing the shaft for balance, you put those centers where you think they should be, or right in the middle because it gives you more meat. That's akin to jumping off a bridge without knowing how deep the water below is. You get lucky at times but other times it's a complete loss.

What if there were a way to test the shaft square or dowel to find it's true center of gravity, and place the center holes accordingly? Would it not only prevent many of the losses due to warp, but also allow otherwise unstable wood to correct itself by equalizing the stress with every cut? Man I bet yields would increase dramatically. Furthermore, not only would it significantly decrease loss, it would place the shaft's spine dead nuts center along its length. Hmmm I wonder how that would affect performance, having a shaft that hit exactly the same regardless of how it's held. So not only will it's stress be confined to the core center, its flex/reflex will be consistent axially. I think I know of a shaft company that attempts this by laminating wood. Too bad they didn't know it could be done much easier with solid wood, which brings up another topic.

When you buy a Ferrari, does the sales rep have to explain to you that it's a very fast, high performance car? Can you not assume that stuff already? Same with cues. If you're spending good money on a cue from a company or maker known for performance, if the cue isn't advertised as LD, why would you assume it deflects too much to play with? Why are makers who use solid wood shafts considered stone age, old school, behind the times? No real concern, just something I seen in passing that made me wonder. Some things to think about.

There was some posts here quite a while ago about an article that came out on CT scans of some Stradivari violins and a theory that they were better because he lived in a mini ice age and thus trees had less temperature variation between seasons so more even growth rate (more consistent density between layers). This could be approximated by the consistency of spacing between grain.

How many people who laminate wood dowels take care to make sure that each piece has the same density? And, as you say besides, one side of a piece may have different density than another and different center of balance.

Picking centers is an art I don't know yet, apart from visually trying to trace the grain and ensure no/least runout on all sides. But even still, runout is just one variable.

Why not turn every shaft dowel you get? Let em sit for a while after final size then play with the ones that stay straight and throw out the duds? Or save them to see if they play differently on a different cue. I suppose you need to have the same joint type, taper, ferrule, tip, and length for all your cues to make it work.
 
Picking centers is an art I don't know yet, apart from visually trying to trace the grain and ensure no/least runout on all sides. But even still, runout is just one variable.

Every piece of shaft wood will show face grain on two sides, and edge grain on two sides. We look at the edge grain to see if there's any run out, but who checks for run out the other direction? Who even knows how? When you're cutting a shaft & it warps, it's almost always in the direction to correct curved grain, whether it be face or edge. We can only see the straightness of the edge, not the face, so we are only catching 50% of the faulted shafts. And one must note the difference between curved grain(sweep) and grain run off. Huge difference. One is the way the tree grew and one is the fault of the sawyer. One will be full of stress and the other not. The shaft will always have stress pulling against the curved grain, trying to correct itself. Grain run off due to diagonal cut will not have that stress. This is why some run off shafts stay straight while others are never straight, and why some shafts appear to have perfectly straight grain but keep warping. Once in square form, it's extremely difficult to see run off on the face grain. In dowel form it's almost impossible to see.
 
Every piece of shaft wood will show face grain on two sides, and edge grain on two sides. We look at the edge grain to see if there's any run out, but who checks for run out the other direction? Who even knows how? When you're cutting a shaft & it warps, it's almost always in the direction to correct curved grain, whether it be face or edge. We can only see the straightness of the edge, not the face, so we are only catching 50% of the faulted shafts. And one must note the difference between curved grain(sweep) and grain run off. Huge difference. One is the way the tree grew and one is the fault of the sawyer. One will be full of stress and the other not. The shaft will always have stress pulling against the curved grain, trying to correct itself. Grain run off due to diagonal cut will not have that stress. This is why some run off shafts stay straight while others are never straight, and why some shafts appear to have perfectly straight grain but keep warping. Once in square form, it's extremely difficult to see run off on the face grain. In dowel form it's almost impossible to see.
Looking at the grain from the sides can be deceiving .
It is best to have dowels with clean faces. I mean really clean.
You can see and mark one particular grain if one desires. Well, you really should.
You can also see tight concentrated rings often. And in a lot of the cases, those are the bad guys you actually need to get rid of. They do't go end to end often.
That's why I don't believe in .750 end cones anymore.
I believe in doing .650" first taper the right way.
Since I've been doing it this way, my percentage has gone way higher.

I suggest every maker learn how to drill center holes with their router on the lathe ( parallel to the ways ).
 
Looking at the grain from the sides can be deceiving .
It is best to have dowels with clean faces. I mean really clean.
You can see and mark one particular grain if one desires. Well, you really should.
You can also see tight concentrated rings often. And in a lot of the cases, those are the bad guys you actually need to get rid of. They do't go end to end often.
That's why I don't believe in .750 end cones anymore.
I believe in doing .650" first taper the right way.
Since I've been doing it this way, my percentage has gone way higher.

I suggest every maker learn how to drill center holes with their router on the lathe ( parallel to the ways ).

You mean squares?

Also having a little trouble understanding why this makes cones different than tapering from the first cut.
 
You mean squares?

Also having a little trouble understanding why this makes cones different than tapering from the first cut.

No, rods.

Cones have one angle. The usual practice is .950 to .750 ends. Or the usual .010" taper per inch.

My first taper already has the final taper's profile.
But, at .650" end. That way I only need .325" from one side if I have to offset the center. If I had to maintain .750 end, I'd have to have .375". Often, you need to get rid of the .050" from the other side to get the best possible grain orientation from end to end. Not all will have center grain running end to end.
This is where reading the grain run-off is also learned. Sometimes, you can't fight it . Often times, you can fix it by choosing what end becomes what . Joint or ferrule.
And often, you find jewel coring dowels from rejected shaft dowel. A shaft dowel is 30-31" long. If it runs-out in the middle, you still have a good 13-17" long piece in there you can offset to have a jewel straight grain and tight cores. You find a nice 17" piece there, you have a handle soldier. I like 14.75" to 15" forearm dowels too.
Sorry, this really can't be fully explained on paper.
One full day of centering a few dozens of dowels is best to learn it.
 
No, rods.

Cones have one angle. The usual practice is .950 to .750 ends. Or the usual .010" taper per inch.

My first taper already has the final taper's profile.
But, at .650" end. That way I only need .325" from one side if I have to offset the center. If I had to maintain .750 end, I'd have to have .375". Often, you need to get rid of the .050" from the other side to get the best possible grain orientation from end to end. Not all will have center grain running end to end.
This is where reading the grain run-off is also learned. Sometimes, you can't fight it . Often times, you can fix it by choosing what end becomes what . Joint or ferrule.
And often, you find jewel coring dowels from rejected shaft dowel. A shaft dowel is 30-31" long. If it runs-out in the middle, you still have a good 13-17" long piece in there you can offset to have a jewel straight grain and tight cores. You find a nice 17" piece there, you have a handle soldier. I like 14.75" to 15" forearm dowels too.
Sorry, this really can't be fully explained on paper.
One full day of centering a few dozens of dowels is best to learn it.

No it makes sense. The word "faces" had me confused as applied to a dowel. The first cut from dowel to .650 taper gives you a bigger area to pick the center from as opposed to 0.750 cone, correct?
 
No it makes sense. The word "faces" had me confused as applied to a dowel. The first cut from dowel to .650 taper gives you a bigger area to pick the center from as opposed to 0.750 cone, correct?

Yes. It gives me more room for offset.
My dowels are actually a little over an inch when I turn the squares.
It's a lot of work doing the first taper but the results are well worth the effort.
Takes a lot of router bits to go through 200+ shaft squares ( the last time i did a lot ).
 
Back
Top