It's also a matter of the balance and taper of the cue, the full splice cues tend to widen more, and many I played with are weighed towards the rear, the others are more of an even balance in the butt and don't taper as much.
Why a Full Splice?
- Thread starter Biloxi Boy
- Start date
It's also a matter of the balance and taper of the cue, the full splice cues tend to widen more, and many I played with are weighed towards the rear, the others are more of an even balance in the butt and don't taper as much.
To Mark 187-
i have not been rigorous in tabulating where partially remembered tidbits of cue related knowledge of occurred to me; howevever my sense is as follows. Splices were a means (as has been mentioned) to use different types of wood in an engineered structure to get performance properties. Heavy butt, strong, lithe shaft e.g. without a weak spot at the join.
My impression is that the simple fishmouth splice that was common in all forms of traditional/ancient wood work was the natural first progression. Any relatively accomplished woodworker in trades as diverse as barn building through wooden utensil making (noggins e.g.) through some forms of furniture or cabinet making could generate one by hand. Make a fishmouth splice & then turn or plane it round and the result is what poolplayers call butterflies.
i have never read who made the first 4-way splice but it is genius for the purpose from a 19th or early 20th c. wood technology perspective given the available glues. It is my impression from pix in old BBC catalogs that the joints were hand cut in their factories, at least initially. It seems pretty clear that well into the 20’s at least that BBC cues were hand planed to taper & shape. I’ve posted some of the photos in the past but don’t seem to have the facility while learning current ipad.
I would like to imagine that i could cut a decent 4 point splice by hand but have not found inspiration to take the time to try it. Infact, however, i have cut multiple acceptable fishmouth joints and “finger joints” by hand in early days for me; mostly splicing new wood seamlessly onto older millwork & structural posts where orginal parts had rotted off. Point being that a fishmouth, while no longer common, is not really a difficult nor completely unusual form of splicing wood. At one time it was a common part of repertoire for most woodworking technicians who assumed themselves accomplished.
A 4-prongsplice as used in cues is obvious, probably technically superior at least in theory, fiendishly difficult or at least time consuming for handwork, & not necessarily trivial even manufactured by machine. In practice, a fishmouth is manifestly more than adequate. Sticking with that confIguration for hand work no doubt saves a lot of wood, time, & aggravation.
Modern built up cue butts with A joints that include ”short splice” (no splice, actually)construction are technically less complex & perhaps easy to dismiss as trivial regarding point work. As you state Europeans prefere. It is difficult to imagine them ever being made other than by machine, though hand working one is possible. OTOH that form arguably allows the cuemaker to focus on other attributes & performance concerning theories of stability, balance, & gradated densities that affect “hit”.
It would be interesting to learn when the 4 point type splice was first used & if there are any examples that pre-date use in cues.
smt
i have not been rigorous in tabulating where partially remembered tidbits of cue related knowledge of occurred to me; howevever my sense is as follows. Splices were a means (as has been mentioned) to use different types of wood in an engineered structure to get performance properties. Heavy butt, strong, lithe shaft e.g. without a weak spot at the join.
My impression is that the simple fishmouth splice that was common in all forms of traditional/ancient wood work was the natural first progression. Any relatively accomplished woodworker in trades as diverse as barn building through wooden utensil making (noggins e.g.) through some forms of furniture or cabinet making could generate one by hand. Make a fishmouth splice & then turn or plane it round and the result is what poolplayers call butterflies.
i have never read who made the first 4-way splice but it is genius for the purpose from a 19th or early 20th c. wood technology perspective given the available glues. It is my impression from pix in old BBC catalogs that the joints were hand cut in their factories, at least initially. It seems pretty clear that well into the 20’s at least that BBC cues were hand planed to taper & shape. I’ve posted some of the photos in the past but don’t seem to have the facility while learning current ipad.
I would like to imagine that i could cut a decent 4 point splice by hand but have not found inspiration to take the time to try it. Infact, however, i have cut multiple acceptable fishmouth joints and “finger joints” by hand in early days for me; mostly splicing new wood seamlessly onto older millwork & structural posts where orginal parts had rotted off. Point being that a fishmouth, while no longer common, is not really a difficult nor completely unusual form of splicing wood. At one time it was a common part of repertoire for most woodworking technicians who assumed themselves accomplished.
A 4-prongsplice as used in cues is obvious, probably technically superior at least in theory, fiendishly difficult or at least time consuming for handwork, & not necessarily trivial even manufactured by machine. In practice, a fishmouth is manifestly more than adequate. Sticking with that confIguration for hand work no doubt saves a lot of wood, time, & aggravation.
Modern built up cue butts with A joints that include ”short splice” (no splice, actually)construction are technically less complex & perhaps easy to dismiss as trivial regarding point work. As you state Europeans prefere. It is difficult to imagine them ever being made other than by machine, though hand working one is possible. OTOH that form arguably allows the cuemaker to focus on other attributes & performance concerning theories of stability, balance, & gradated densities that affect “hit”.
It would be interesting to learn when the 4 point type splice was first used & if there are any examples that pre-date use in cues.
smt
Last edited:
Snooker or pool? Snooker cues tend to have rounded 'points' because they are planed to a round shape by hand. Most production pool cues are made by CNC and the points are almost always rounded off.
The butterfly splice is simple....I was told you can do it with a handsaw.
I’ve seen a full splice four pointer before it was joined at Dufferin Cue...it’s complicated.
My feeling is the four pointer gives us a more balanced cue....if the butterflies are up or sideways, I would think
there’s a subtle difference in the hit, especially if you’re spinning....kinda why I don’t like ash cues, because spin
squirts differently if the grain is up or sideways.
The first two piece full splice cue to win a world snooker title was used by John Spencer in ‘77...he beat Cliff Thorburn in the final, who was using the same model. It was a Dufferin Title.
Vollmer Cues - Michael Vollmer
Vollmer Cues - Michael Vollmer. 2,049 likes. Ever thought about a Professional Custom Cue from one of the Top 10 Cue-Makers in the World? Vollmer Designs & Creates Custom-Billiard-Cues since 1993....
www.facebook.com
Top notch cuemaker from Germany. Not China. You never heard of Michael Vollmer?
Regarding snooker I'm guessing the brits all use the same style of cue for the same reason they all have the same stance. They go to a school to get on the tour and the school pushes them in a certain direction. They also don't put the chalk on the rail even if they are paying pool in the USA because the school tells them not to put the chalk on the rail. Deviation from the norm is not encouraged.
Wow, so many different tangents going on in this thread.
To answer OPs question, here are my thoughts:
Why full splice? This is a method of joining two pieces of different wood that is very strong. It provides a large surface area for glue to contact. You cannot glue end grain, hence different splicing methods. IMO snooker and carom "butterfly splicing" isn't really splicing. It's lamination on angled cuts. Machine splice cues are very tough to do well and you can tell quality by evenness and sharpness of the points.
The other reasons for combining a dense wood to a lighter wood is reducing warpage and balance. If you just had a full length house cue made of solid maple there is higher chance it would not stay straight. Full splices negate the need for an A joint, which is inherently weaker.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
To answer OPs question, here are my thoughts:
Why full splice? This is a method of joining two pieces of different wood that is very strong. It provides a large surface area for glue to contact. You cannot glue end grain, hence different splicing methods. IMO snooker and carom "butterfly splicing" isn't really splicing. It's lamination on angled cuts. Machine splice cues are very tough to do well and you can tell quality by evenness and sharpness of the points.
The other reasons for combining a dense wood to a lighter wood is reducing warpage and balance. If you just had a full length house cue made of solid maple there is higher chance it would not stay straight. Full splices negate the need for an A joint, which is inherently weaker.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
In general, snooker cuemaking in the UK/Europe are so stuck in "tradition" that it has failed to progress and improve over time. Many don't even use a lathe.
Well old Titlists are great IMHO. Most date back to 1950's & before.
Old Wood has unique feel. JMHO
Old Wood has unique feel. JMHO
B'wick full-splice cues go all the way back to around 1900. Titleist name dates to the 40's.
Vollmer is a cuemaker. Not a snooker player. He is from Germany. He makes cues with sharp points. The $1,000 you owe me wouldn't buy a Vollmer cue but I knew you weren't going to pay when you said you would.
Greg M
Active member
Ken Doherty uses a 4/5 jointed warped machine-spliced cue. Won the 1997 world championships with the thing.
You were vague in your original post. You said “player” and did not specify a “snooker player”.
Fantasy bet.
I'm just joking with you partner. I do have a question about snooker though. Why do snooker players drag their cue around the table with the butt of the cue on the floor? American players tend not to do that because the floor of a pool hall is not particularly sanitary.
Greg M
Active member
I do that, too. Just a typical technique of chalking for snooker and English pool. Holding the cue at the tip end with your bridge hand and chalk with your cueing hand.
SSDiver2112
Escott Cues
From 1908 Brunswick catalog. Check out paragraph 3. It was about what weight cue you wanted.
Biloxi Boy
Man With A Golden Arm
Very interesting SS Diver. However, we are left to fill in a few blanks to reach a conlusion, plus many more questions. (I did look at some other old Brunswick catalogs, but language is basically the same.) The catalog doesn't mention splices but recognizes the problems: balance and making a light weight cue incorporating heavy woods. (Other catalogs mention "prongs".)
I find myself frustrated because I realize more every day that my pool knowledge is terribly deficient. I found myself asking, "How did the history of this sport I love so much disappear?" only to realize I don't know that it disappeared because I've never looked. * I can see that I am going to have to pursue my education through books in addition to poolore. For all I know, there are many good books awaiting me.
Does anyone know if there is one particular library which serves as THE billiards/pool repository?
Dr. Dave?
* I did resort to the library years ago for technique, strategy, mental aspects, but never got down to the subject of how cues, games, tables, etc., developped -- the basic history of pool.
I find myself frustrated because I realize more every day that my pool knowledge is terribly deficient. I found myself asking, "How did the history of this sport I love so much disappear?" only to realize I don't know that it disappeared because I've never looked. * I can see that I am going to have to pursue my education through books in addition to poolore. For all I know, there are many good books awaiting me.
Does anyone know if there is one particular library which serves as THE billiards/pool repository?
Dr. Dave?
* I did resort to the library years ago for technique, strategy, mental aspects, but never got down to the subject of how cues, games, tables, etc., developped -- the basic history of pool.
Last edited:
That's interesting. New flooring.
I don't know about England but in American pool halls they have men's rooms with urinals and the people using the urinal don't always hit their target. Then they walk out of the men's room with a petri dish of stuff on the soles of their shoes and track it around the pool hall. That's not something I'd want to be dragging my cue through.
We have a pool hall locally that has been in continuous operation since 1884. I guarantee they haven't changed the floor in decades if ever. They a snooker table and a 3 cushion table along with some old Balke Collander 9 foot tables. It has a cool ambiance but not a place where you want to be dragging you cue across the floor.
Biloxi Boy
Man With A Golden Arm
So, when cues were "one piece" the full splice was employed to prevent warpage and to join a heavy butt to a lighter shaft.
Once joints were used, however, they could accomplish both of these goals without the full splice.
Is it fair to say that in a jointed cue, a full splice is simply aesthetic?
If not, what does it accomplish?
Once joints were used, however, they could accomplish both of these goals without the full splice.
Is it fair to say that in a jointed cue, a full splice is simply aesthetic?
If not, what does it accomplish?