Pool Cue Shaft Grading Specs.

Dean,

I do not think that heavier shafts alone play better. If that were the case, then years ago
there likely would have been a heavy shaft phase akin to what’s happened with LD shafts.
If that was true, every cue-maker would have been producing their cues with heavy shafts.

It is the matching the top half (shaft) with bottom half (butt) that this takes on significance. It
affects the way the way the cue feels in your grip and your delivery of the cue ball as intended.

There are cues made with shafts weighing mid-3 ounces matched with butts weighing mid to
high 15 oz. cue butts , and even heavier. Mr. Balabushka would not have made a cue like that,
nor would Bob nor Jerry, Ernie, Joel, Stroud, TS,? Examine the cue shaft and butt weight ratios
of cues they produced and also all the other famous cue-makers. Heavy shafts alone are
not a panacea but the shaft weight and the butt weight are important to be matched properly to
produce the most satisfying feel. Carbon fiber shafts are changing the game for shafts but orig.
maple shafts are still the norm when buying most cues so it’s prudent to look at the shaft weights.
 
Ssonerai said:
For one thing, as a contra-indicator, going by growth ring count alone, a lot of the highest count comes in compression wood, which is almost bound to not be stable.



smt
Click to expand...

Compression wood? Does not belong in a discussion of Pool Cues, here's the simple definition.

"Definition of compression wood. : reaction wood formed on the lower sides of branches and leaning trunks and characterized by darker color, glassy appearance, relatively wide and eccentric annual rings, shorter vascular elements, and excessive and uneven shrinkage — compare tension wood."


Hi ring shafts do not come from compression wood, no Sawyer worth a crap would allow it out the door.


Next up?
 
JoeyInCali said:
Rolaine charges more for shaft stock with more rings because it's tougher to find trees with tighter grains than wide grain.
But, somehow they don't mention weight.
Click to expand...

True point. What weight should they mention, the current weight of each and every 1 inch dowel or what is expected in a finished shaft?

If you finish your shaft with a 12.75, 12" Pro Taper, it will weight this much. If you finish with a 12.70 it will weigh this much and so on, only kidding here.

How would Joey like it to be expressed?

Thanks
 
CuesDirectly said:
True point. What weight should they mention, the current weight of each and every 1 inch dowel or what is expected in a finished shaft?

If you finish your shaft with a 12.75, 12" Pro Taper, it will weight this much. If you finish with a 12.70 it will weigh this much and so on, only kidding here.

How would Joey like it to be expressed?

Thanks
Click to expand...
1" by 31" dowels.
 
Compression wood? Does not belong in a discussion of Pool Cues, here's the simple definition.

"Definition of compression wood. : reaction wood formed on the lower sides of branches and leaning trunks and characterized by darker color, glassy appearance, relatively wide and eccentric annual rings, shorter vascular elements, and excessive and uneven shrinkage — compare tension wood."


Hi ring shafts do not come from compression wood, no Sawyer worth a crap would allow it out the door.


Next up?
Click to expand...

You are choosing to sidestep my point.
I will help you with yours, then return to mine.
Compression wood, per se, is primarily a feature of conifers (softwoods).

Hardwoods build tension wood, which is why wide growth rings gets a bad rap.
Tension wood is wide growth rings with a lot of cellulose, so less dense.
Per your point "No cue maker would ever use it" you can feel it, and it moves as soon as it is cut, and about every time it is cut.

Back to "compression wood". Even in hardwoods, if you look at most trunks, one side of the tree with have tighter grain than the other. Most of the time not significant, but sometimes it is. This wood is denser, has more lignin, tends to be a little darker, etc. See where this is going? If tight grain is the primary qualifier, in trees with that characteristic, grain from a section of the trunk somewhere between the extremes is probably going to be better. A sawmill, sawing baseball bats and looking for an outlet for their scrap (lumber that won't make a bat) has an interest in the notion that tightest grain is best.

Tight grain lumber from a small diameter tree is vastly different from tight grain from a uniformly tight grain log from a large diameter tree.

My only point is that you can't use grain count as the only qualifier. I think we agree that you still have to depend on the wisdom, judgement, and integrity of the sorter & vendor. I imagine that the vendor you linked has that experience and integrity, but it is still not an iron-clad rule.

I have some tight grain in the shop right now, that is considerably less dense than most wider grained stuff. It varies. It's not an iron-clad proposition.

Moving right along, do you have objective ("scientific") tests and evidence, that 25 -30 lines/inch is better than 8-12 in all cases? I'm not convinced it is. The ray flec tends to make it prettier. But i sort of wonder if the sweet spot isn't closer to 12 - 15 growth rings. I do like "old growth" but that tends to be a little subjective, too.

smt
 
Ssonerai said:
My only point is that you can't use grain count as the only qualifier.

smt
Click to expand...

Who did? If you view the page mentioned, you will note many factors in judging a shaft or a shaft blank, tightness of the grain is only one aspect.

I am in agreement with you on many things, Thanks for posting.
 
My question is how does one state that particular qualities make a shaft wood better than others? The shaft is only part of the whole equation. I think more importantly a quality shaft is dependent on how well it pairs with the butt. Let’s assume that the pilot, ferrule and tip are all done correctly to take that out of the equation, and then look at taper. I’ve had 4.4 oz shafts and 3.2oz shafts for the same cue. What is better for me is not always better for others.

I have one shaft that plays quite well on one cue but plays ten fold better on another cue.

What if you have a butt made of dense hardwoods that is forward balanced and 16oz. Do you want a shaft that is 4oz and super tight grained, or something a lighter and possibly not as stiff to offset the properties the butt?

I do believe Joey once made a comment on complimenting the tone of the shaft to the tone of the butt.

I do tap test new shafts and butts the same way a luthier tap tests tone wood for guitars. It’s kinda cool to hear a shaft then play with it. A dull sounding shaft more than likely does not move the ball the way I want it too.

Lastly, I personally feel even grain is more important than tight grain. Ultimately I look for a darker than average shaft with no major twists in the spine and I’m usually happy with the results.
 
Last edited:
I respectfully submit that all the famous and great cue-makers followed what I mentioned in post # 19.
And post # 21 mentions that it always comes down to personal preference. Anyway, I think you’d be
challenged to locate a cue built by any of the elite names using a 16 oz butt & low to mid-3 oz. shafts.
The relationship between the top & bottom halves of a pool cues involves the material and the weights.

TAD is a famous name in cues and he is surely ranked high among his peers. Ron3 has a 2013 cue F/S
and the butt weighs 14.65 ozs and the shafts weigh 4.5 ozs (13mm). That falls exactly at the top of the
ratio range (23.6%). Examine cues by your favorite cue-makers and generally the lowest weights on the
shafts are in the high 3 ounce range. Sure the taper and size are obviously important since that relates to
sheer mass of the shaft. That’s why you see some shafts in the upper 3 oz. range due to the size & taper.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top