Please help explain this?
- Thread starter bryanlee
- Start date
Are these marks under all the points, or just the one?
More than likely, it is an over run on the point pocket. I don't know why or how it happened, but apparently they thought it would cut out before finish, and when it didn't, they thought it wasn't bad enough to warrant throwing the cue away. Doesn't hinder the structural integrity or playability, just a very minor cosmetic flaw.
Aesthetic standards weren't always as on point (pun intended) & extreme as they are today. Some old timers would use markers or pens to paint the tips of their points even, make them sharp, or cover the miter gap. I have heard of guys painting the point grooves black so that when the tip of a point would chip out, it wasn't as noticeable. Before that era of makers, nobody cared about points being even or having minor cosmetic flaws. Nowadays everything has to be perfectly executed & clean or else the builder is seen as sloppy or not caring about detail. Makers today are held to a much higher standard than ever before. Case in point, your cue. In '92 that cue was perfect. Today, we question something like that.
This is a part of cue collecting that I find fascinating, and incredibly educational in terms of documenting the chronology of cue making. Real collectors, not flippers or guys who buy cues as "investments", but those who love all things cues & find them fascinating like I do, understand this stuff and accept it as part of our history. It's not uncommon to find old cues with sloppy, ill fit inlays, uneven and chipped miters, rings aren't lined up, etc. Probably more common than not. It used to be that adding decoration to a cue was just that, decoration. Today it has went to an extreme where said decorations are scrutinized to the highest degree for cleanliness and perfection. We can judge the past like we do the present. It's interesting and informative to contrast them with what we do today, but unfair to compare them. I think that old cue is cool, and I'm glad to see it has been cared for.
Aesthetic standards weren't always as on point (pun intended) & extreme as they are today. Some old timers would use markers or pens to paint the tips of their points even, make them sharp, or cover the miter gap. I have heard of guys painting the point grooves black so that when the tip of a point would chip out, it wasn't as noticeable. Before that era of makers, nobody cared about points being even or having minor cosmetic flaws. Nowadays everything has to be perfectly executed & clean or else the builder is seen as sloppy or not caring about detail. Makers today are held to a much higher standard than ever before. Case in point, your cue. In '92 that cue was perfect. Today, we question something like that.
This is a part of cue collecting that I find fascinating, and incredibly educational in terms of documenting the chronology of cue making. Real collectors, not flippers or guys who buy cues as "investments", but those who love all things cues & find them fascinating like I do, understand this stuff and accept it as part of our history. It's not uncommon to find old cues with sloppy, ill fit inlays, uneven and chipped miters, rings aren't lined up, etc. Probably more common than not. It used to be that adding decoration to a cue was just that, decoration. Today it has went to an extreme where said decorations are scrutinized to the highest degree for cleanliness and perfection. We can judge the past like we do the present. It's interesting and informative to contrast them with what we do today, but unfair to compare them. I think that old cue is cool, and I'm glad to see it has been cared for.
It doesn't affect the playability at all. In fact it's one of the nicest hitting schons I've ever shot with. I do find it interesting people wouldn't have noticed or probably even cared they the inlays were off back then and today it's completely different standards. I am not a cue collector by any means. I only have a couple of cues and they get used every single day! I do appreciate your help on this!
I was only asking because it was hard for me to tell from the photo if it was just a sugar mark in the maple, had it only been on one of the points, but qbilder seems to have a reasonable explanation.
I can remember noticing back in the 80's, but didn't really feel like there was much of a remedy.