Stainless Joints
- Thread starter ahhbach
- Start date
Most find them too heavy .
And they require more work.
Most makers now probably don't have a metal lathe capable taking small cuts on metal collar to blend with the forearm.
And they require more work.
Most makers now probably don't have a metal lathe capable taking small cuts on metal collar to blend with the forearm.
q f t
I don't like how heavy they are. Makes it hard to keep a neutral balance. My shafts at 13mm generally come out to around 3.8-4.2oz naturally, so adding a brass insert makes them a bit unwieldy. Combine that with a heavy collar and it forces the balance too forward.
I don't think cutting is an issue. It's not terribly difficult to cut a stainless joint. I have done it on a few cues with no heavy lathe, and had no problem. The trick with stainless is getting a nice compression fit. Guys that make a compression fit know what they're doing. Showman is the best I have seen. To get the compression fit, the collar has to be installed dead nuts on center with the cue and pin. If you haven't done one it's hard to explain how difficult it can be to get right. There's a huge difference in precision between a typical stainless joint and a compression fit joint. Imo, it's what separates the big boys from the rest of the pack, in the realm of steel joints.
I don't think cutting is an issue. It's not terribly difficult to cut a stainless joint. I have done it on a few cues with no heavy lathe, and had no problem. The trick with stainless is getting a nice compression fit. Guys that make a compression fit know what they're doing. Showman is the best I have seen. To get the compression fit, the collar has to be installed dead nuts on center with the cue and pin. If you haven't done one it's hard to explain how difficult it can be to get right. There's a huge difference in precision between a typical stainless joint and a compression fit joint. Imo, it's what separates the big boys from the rest of the pack, in the realm of steel joints.
I have a Titlist that Mike Pancerny in Detroit converted for me and it has the best compression joint I've seen on any cue by anybody. He made one shaft for the cue and I sent him a Predator 314-2 FAT blank for the other one during the conversion. Both shafts are machined PERFECTLY to compression fit the joint.
If I ever get another shaft made for the cue, it will be Mike that makes it.
I have 6 shafts for my old block letter Joss.
2 of them are Stroud shafts and are compression fit. Very nice. Perhaps it demonstrates how accurately the original stainless joint collar and pin were installed.
The other shafts are 2 Joss, and 2 Scruggs. Very nice, but not compression fit.
It seems the makers that were commonly using stainless are still doing it. Some have retired like Stroud and Mottey, they commonly used it. And then there are some other big name custom makers who seem to still do it as a standard. Granted it seems to be the older makers. AFAIK it is still pretty much still a standard joint for Barry. Of course his dad did a lot of them. Tasc still offers it as the standard joint. I believe Frey still does it. Dayton too. I think it is still standard for Russ Espiritu.
Among the "production" cues...Joss and Schon still do stainless mainly.
You see a stainless collar on a lot of McDermott's highest end cues even still. Cues that sell for thousands.
Viking still offers the stainless collar.
For imports, Adam does a ton of them, especially in their traditional designs.
Certainly the big pin into wood has gained a lot of popularity, but the traditional 5/16x14 piloted stainless seems to be holding it's own, along with variations using the stainless collar.
It is "old". Many of those custom makers that used it as a standard did the ivory joint as an upgrade.
It seems classic to me, and still strongly represented.
If it was good enough for George and Gus, and Joss and Schon are still doing it, it seems to be holding its own for the time being.
It hasn't gone out of style, it is simply less popular. But IMHO still a major player when I can cite so many custom and production makers still using it, and some still primarily using it as a standard.
I am not a cue maker though, so perhaps the gentlemen that make the cues have better insight.
.
2 of them are Stroud shafts and are compression fit. Very nice. Perhaps it demonstrates how accurately the original stainless joint collar and pin were installed.
The other shafts are 2 Joss, and 2 Scruggs. Very nice, but not compression fit.
It seems the makers that were commonly using stainless are still doing it. Some have retired like Stroud and Mottey, they commonly used it. And then there are some other big name custom makers who seem to still do it as a standard. Granted it seems to be the older makers. AFAIK it is still pretty much still a standard joint for Barry. Of course his dad did a lot of them. Tasc still offers it as the standard joint. I believe Frey still does it. Dayton too. I think it is still standard for Russ Espiritu.
Among the "production" cues...Joss and Schon still do stainless mainly.
You see a stainless collar on a lot of McDermott's highest end cues even still. Cues that sell for thousands.
Viking still offers the stainless collar.
For imports, Adam does a ton of them, especially in their traditional designs.
Certainly the big pin into wood has gained a lot of popularity, but the traditional 5/16x14 piloted stainless seems to be holding it's own, along with variations using the stainless collar.
It is "old". Many of those custom makers that used it as a standard did the ivory joint as an upgrade.
It seems classic to me, and still strongly represented.
If it was good enough for George and Gus, and Joss and Schon are still doing it, it seems to be holding its own for the time being.
It hasn't gone out of style, it is simply less popular. But IMHO still a major player when I can cite so many custom and production makers still using it, and some still primarily using it as a standard.
I am not a cue maker though, so perhaps the gentlemen that make the cues have better insight.
.
It's a fine joint. Nothing at all wrong with it. I prefer a big pin into wood because it's simple, fewer parts, but the job of any joint is to secure the shaft to the butt. So long as it does that, it's good in my book.
Regardless of preference, there are so many ways to achieve a hit or balance today that play fantastic. What a time to be alive
SS jnt collars may have been the rage at the 'time' but times change.
IMO, SS was the best they could come-up with. We've advanced.
The stainless steel joint collar and the pilot go hand in hand; literally.
It was the concept that allowed ill-fitting parts to be used to center a shaft to the handle
with repeat-ability. We've advanced.
Today's thread technology has made the pilot obsolete.
It WAS an 'old school' staple and still is today for those who prefer it. Same with SS collars.
Both are losing favor. It may have been fashionable at the time but we've advanced.
Today's cue-builder, for the sake of this discussion, is in one of two camps;
traditional old-school or contemporary construction.
IMO, old-school has been done to death. I won't build an old-school cue.
Contemporary cue construction is moving more towards play-ability, performance and 'hit'.
I put my emphasis on performance and hit in my builds, looks are secondary.
The stainless collar and accompanying pilot contribute nothing to my goal.
The pilot is obsolete and the SS collar is dead-weight that kills resonance.
Forward weighting is a trait of today's cues and is easily accomplished without a SS collar.
A wood to wood mating at the jnt allows for a better transfer of resonance from shaft to handle.
A SS collar dulls and diminishes the resonance that I want to emphasize.
In the area of resonance and a cue-builder's desire to enhance it, we are moving more towards
similarities in guitar construction. Rosewoods and other 'tone' woods are highly sought after.
Construction materials available to the contemporary builder have catapulted cue-building
away from old-school. One such example: hide-glue vs epoxy. Another: Bakelite, ABS & Delrin vs phenolic.
Don't get me started on machine accuracy.
Hopefully, you get my point. I'm not a fan of old-school but there are many who are. That's fine.
It broadens the market and allows the buyer and the builder greater options.
I suppose there is a level of comfort in the past but the past is history. Tomorrow is the future.
What's your preference ?
IMO, SS was the best they could come-up with. We've advanced.
The stainless steel joint collar and the pilot go hand in hand; literally.
It was the concept that allowed ill-fitting parts to be used to center a shaft to the handle
with repeat-ability. We've advanced.
Today's thread technology has made the pilot obsolete.
It WAS an 'old school' staple and still is today for those who prefer it. Same with SS collars.
Both are losing favor. It may have been fashionable at the time but we've advanced.
Today's cue-builder, for the sake of this discussion, is in one of two camps;
traditional old-school or contemporary construction.
IMO, old-school has been done to death. I won't build an old-school cue.
Contemporary cue construction is moving more towards play-ability, performance and 'hit'.
I put my emphasis on performance and hit in my builds, looks are secondary.
The stainless collar and accompanying pilot contribute nothing to my goal.
The pilot is obsolete and the SS collar is dead-weight that kills resonance.
Forward weighting is a trait of today's cues and is easily accomplished without a SS collar.
A wood to wood mating at the jnt allows for a better transfer of resonance from shaft to handle.
A SS collar dulls and diminishes the resonance that I want to emphasize.
In the area of resonance and a cue-builder's desire to enhance it, we are moving more towards
similarities in guitar construction. Rosewoods and other 'tone' woods are highly sought after.
Construction materials available to the contemporary builder have catapulted cue-building
away from old-school. One such example: hide-glue vs epoxy. Another: Bakelite, ABS & Delrin vs phenolic.
Don't get me started on machine accuracy.
Hopefully, you get my point. I'm not a fan of old-school but there are many who are. That's fine.
It broadens the market and allows the buyer and the builder greater options.
I suppose there is a level of comfort in the past but the past is history. Tomorrow is the future.
What's your preference ?
I understand completely. It is a carburetor in a fuel injected world.
But it is still well represented.
As far as the future...well...it seems wood itself is going the way of the carburetor...
.
What has always puzzled me about piloted stainless joint cues that fit tight with four veneered points and a little simple inlay work, is the price people are willing to pay for something so unoriginal.
I can do that kind of work easily, but I feel I would not be putting out my best playing cue so I rarely build stainless joints. But if cuemaking was all about the money for me that is what I would build. Simple, easy and expensive. Sounds nice.
I can do that kind of work easily, but I feel I would not be putting out my best playing cue so I rarely build stainless joints. But if cuemaking was all about the money for me that is what I would build. Simple, easy and expensive. Sounds nice.
The 4 point, 4 veneer, ebony into maple, linen wrap, delrin cap, stainless joint cue will never be out of style. It'll always be in demand. Coincidentally, it's also not an easy cue to produce in a factory with high level quality & affordable cost, so this cue has always & always will represent hand made class. Done by a maker who knows what they're doing, this cue hits & plays & feels as good as anything. Bar-none.
With technology reaching new limits, wood will be challenged. However, KJ makes a good point in that cue makers are moving into stringed instrument territory with tonal woods. For many years I have depended on choice of woods to manipulate & tune a cue build so it'll have a particular hit. That would be impossible with synthetics. In the music industry, I'm unaware that anybody is producing acoustic instruments using synthetics. It would defeat the purpose. While cues are not instruments, there are enough parallels that I cannot imagine a scenario where cues are all made of synthetics. Not only does wood trump synthetics in the feel dept., it obliterates synthetics in the aesthetic dept. There simply is no substitute, IMO.
To be fair, most cues in that style are terribly executed. It also takes a very skilled hand to produce them correctly. If you make one with the looks and feels of a Balabushka-style cue, cash in.
If you use .015" premade rings anywhere on it, it won't command any dollar value worthwhile for the work in using a steel joint.
If the point gaps are super wide, it won't command the dollars.
I can go on and on, but the reality is that only certain combinations of attributes command "expensive" prices. As Eric said above, it represents a certain class of execution and the market values these cues accordingly.
Lots of guys try it & lots of guys fail. They're chasing the money rather than actually being interested in exemplifying the style because of true appreciation. The common scapegoat is name. A guy complains about not having the name so nobody is interested in his cues. The truth is the cues are wrong. If they were right, the name would happen organically, and soon behind it would be the success. Cue makers of any style would do themselves service to familiarize themselves with and adhere to the golden ratio. It's obvious most do not, and likely never will, but it is one of the critical reasons that explain why some guys can't give a cue away while others seem like the goose who lays golden eggs.
Proportion is critical in any style, but on the simple classic style it is huge. But even it isn't enough. Not only does your proportioning have to be spot on, you also have to execute the work cleanly. Gaps in miters and black filler around ill fit inlays will kill a cue. Broadly rounded inlay corners will kill a cue. The delrin cap not smooth to the finish hurts. A joint that isn't a comfortable compression fit will kill a cue. With so many guys working with this style, you have to do a great job AND have everything proportioned correctly in order to have a chance at succeeding.
Buying . 050" thick Sterling discs and drilling a hole to make old school joint rings, matching delrin to finish,, making the pilot a little oversized, so you work it in to super snug fit, putting four points in two at a time so they can even touch at the base, and knifing in a few diamond pockets to give sharp inlays all take a little extra time and attention, but for a quality cuenaker that is certainly achievable.
Maybe for the same sort of reasons that a lot of people still like the classic Porsche 911?
.
How much extra time and work do you reckon it takes to do all the above? How much of this requires precision above & beyond a build that none this happens on?
For contrast, buy pre-made .015" or .030" metal rings & sadndwich them between a .090" black fiber ring & a piece of phenolic. Use any white plastic butt cap that can be finished over with the rest of the cue. Cut the shaft pilot so it doesn't actually contact the steel. Put 4 points in with a 1/4" gap at base. Cut the diamonds on a panto or CNC with a .035" end mill so they just pop in place. This cue is easy & fast and will net you a couple hundred bucks IF you sell it at all. The cue you describe requires significantly more time, much more precision, a lot more hand labor & attention to detail. People will pay for it because you cared and the work shows it. The other cue looks like you were trying to cash in without putting in the effort. These are two totally different cues made in the same exact style. One will be a success and one will be a failure, all because of attention to detail.
I agree. Like anything "classic".
Last edited:
Execution. Good word.
Cue makers will present their "interpretation" of a classic design sometimes. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.
Sometimes they try to emulate the classic design closely but miss on something like the thickness of the rings and it can be real obvious to those who appreciate such things.
There is art, design, execution, etc., all mixed in various proportions. Few hit a 10 on all points consistently.
.