Pool Cue Shaft Grading Specs.

CuesDirectly · Feb 9, 2020

Often times here on the fantastic AZBilliards, the grade of the shaft is determined in different ways. If it was from a legendry builder, it’s a great shaft, if it plays great, it’s a great shaft (true), so and so said it’s a great, it’s old growth and therefore a nice shaft.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we all had a uniform way of looking at the grade of shaft wood you have?

I believe a Sticky would be very nice for people who are not familiar with the qualities in wood. They could take time to educate themselves before buying a cue and then when they ask the cuemaker if he has a nice shaft, you will have a great idea of what IS a good shaft.

There is a website that I have always enjoyed, as much as I would like to post a link, I am not sure if it’s right for me to do so, it’s not my webpage. I can tell you how to find it, do your own google search under the simple thought of “Pool Cue Shaft Grading.” If you can find anything better than a company called ROLAINE ENTERPRISES, please let me know. I believe their quantitative grading system they post on that one page would make the best sticky we could all enjoy.

The second you click on ROLAINE, it will change the rest of your days when it comes to shaft wood, many already know what you will find but for those who don’t know what to ask when ordering? You will really enjoy it.

AZBilliards is all about educating the public, does anyone think it would make a great sticky? Would it be wrong for me to post their information?

Thanks for reading, good day.

bbb · Feb 9, 2020

i went to the site but i couldnt find a picture of the different grades
do you have a link to any pics
pm me if you dont want to post it
thanks

CuesDirectly · Feb 9, 2020

bbb said:
i went to the site but i couldnt find a picture of the different grades
do you have a link to any pics
pm me if you dont want to post it
thanks

No pics, just diagrams, a chart and information. Scroll down on their page if you have not, there is more.

Pangit · Feb 9, 2020

I'm thinking the Wizard is far, far more important than the Wand. "Shipmate" :wink:

bbb · Feb 9, 2020

CuesDirectly said:
No pics, just diagrams, a chart and information. Scroll down on their page if you have not, there is more.

i looked at the whole page
saw the definitions and various facts
thanks for info to get to the link
great way to define classification and more importantly much more precise than "hits a ton" ...LOL
however
i didnt see diagrams of growth rings or whatnthe annual center ring is
i would like to look at my shafts and give them a "report card"
again thanks for the info

JC · Feb 9, 2020

Links are appropriate

http://www.rolaine.com/

They explain how they grade maple for pool cue shafts but what is not explained is what makes more rings better. Grain run off is a given but beyond that what makes 20 rings better than 10? Or 7?

No mention of wood density at all. Why do some blanks weight 10-15% more than others with the same moisture content?

It looks to me like they are pandering to the notion out there that more is better because that's what sells.

I see their page as more marketing than science.

In short I have not seen evidence that more rings makes for a better pool cue shaft other than someone said it, others believed it and so it was.

CuesDirectly · Feb 9, 2020

JC said:
Links are appropriate

http://www.rolaine.com/

They explain how they grade maple for pool cue shafts but what is not explained is what makes more rings better. Grain run off is a given but beyond that what makes 20 rings better than 10? Or 7?

No mention of wood density at all. Why do some blanks weight 10-15% more than others with the same moisture content?

It looks to me like they are pandering to the notion out there that more is better because that's what sells.

I see their page as more marketing than science.

In short I have not seen evidence that more rings makes for a better pool cue shaft other than someone said it, others believed it and so it was.

More marketing than science? Simply wrong.

JC · Feb 9, 2020

CuesDirectly said:
More marketing than science? Simply wrong.

Point me to the science that supports the theory that 20 rings makes a better pool shaft than 8.

The things that matter in a shaft can be found in both in equal quantities unless of course what you're looking for is more rings. Which isn't a tangible quality in a good playing, long lasting shaft.

I understand that from a supply standpoint more rings are scarcer but that doesn't also explain why it's better. I believe they command a higher price because the supply is much smaller and people want them. But that still doesn't explain why they're better shafts.

The funny thing about the Rolaine site is the guy says he's a wood scientist and nowhere does he cite any science.

CuesDirectly · Feb 9, 2020

JC said:
Point me to the science that supports the theory that 20 rings makes a better pool shaft than 8.

The things that matter in a shaft can be found in both in equal quantities unless of course what you're looking for is more rings. Which isn't a tangible quality in a good playing, long lasting shaft.

I understand that from a supply standpoint more rings are scarcer but that doesn't also explain why it's better. I believe they command a higher price because the supply is much smaller and people want them. But that still doesn't explain why they're better shafts.

The funny thing about the Rolaine site is the guy says he's a wood scientist and nowhere does he cite any science.

As Jay said yesterday, OLD GROWTH. Old growth has very tight rings, I have many 100 year old cues and the grain is so tight that you can't count them.

Around 30 growth rings is where it's too tight to count.

6-8 rings per Rolaine = trash pile.

Rolaine is not the only one to post standards, I pointed you to one such place a few years ago, what happened, too costly? The standards I helped you to a few years ago are my minimum standards.

Yesterday I tried to help you JC, in due time you will admit I am right and we can smile about it.

deanoc · Feb 9, 2020

JC I am glad to see your post I have often thought that there was no evidence to support
these theories that are of late presented to us as facts

I have had some shafts that i really like and some i didn't of both types.The more famous cue makers known for their shafts like Szamboti,Balabushka, south west and even schon cues that won so many championships were never known to have super high number of growth rings

I have always found heavy and dark wood shats to play very good as well.i suspect we will never see any scientific studies showing any direct correlation with growth rings and playability.

For all we know low growth rings may make better shafts.

Has Dr Dave done any scientific studies on this?

JC · Feb 9, 2020

CuesDirectly said:
As Jay said yesterday, OLD GROWTH. Old growth has very tight rings, I have many 100 year old cues and the grain is so tight that you can't count them.

Around 30 growth rings is where it's too tight to count.

6-8 rings per Rolaine = trash pile.

Rolaine is not the only one to post standards, I pointed you to one such place a few years ago, what happened, too costly? The standards I helped you to a few years ago are my minimum standards.

Yesterday I tried to help you JC, in due time you will admit I am right and we can smile about it.

You gave me a good shaft vendor and I still have it but I'm a low volume builder and had 500 shaft squares sitting here already. Half of them I haven't even turned round yet.

90% of them are decent shaft wood IMO.

When they run out or if I start getting complaints or shafts returned for defects I will for sure rethink my beliefs.

On a serious note if there is science that makes more sense than climate change science about why more rings makes a better shaft I would love to see it.

In the mean time there's no reason not to smile it's a great day to be alive.

Ssonerai · Feb 9, 2020

Agree with JC.

All shafts: straightness of grain and grain run-out (minimal) count.
# growth rings not a reliable indicator of density, stability, stiffness or "hit".

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.

Even gradient of ring spacing across aprox 7/8" shaft joint or 1/2" tip matters more than total count.

smt

CuesDirectly · Feb 9, 2020

Ssonerai said:
Agree with JC.

All shafts: straightness of grain and grain run-out (minimal) count.
# growth rings not a reliable indicator of density, stability, stiffness or "hit".

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.

Even gradient of ring spacing across aprox 7/8" shaft joint or 1/2" tip matters more than total count.

smt

So then, what Rolaine says is way below their standards to even be sold, you agree with JC?

Does anyone have a better way to explain good shaft wood? Outside of our own opinions?

I am not sure who entered into the discussion that I am only talking about density of the growth rings, we agree, that is only one aspect.

If someone can post a better grading system please do.

Bob Jewett · Feb 9, 2020

CuesDirectly said:
... Does anyone have a better way to explain good shaft wood? Outside of our own opinions?
..

Well, if I thought that it was still a good idea to make cues from wood :grin-devilish: ...

They could measure some actual material parameters of the wood. As one example, I've heard that some cue makers bounce the blanks off a hard floor or steel block. The blanks that bounce higher are better. That test could be quantified. I think the bounce characteristic of the wood is far more important than the rings/inch. Density, flex, speed of sound in the wood, ... could be measured and may actually be important in selecting shaft wood.

My feeling is that the site is more interested in shafts that look good than shafts that play well.

rhinobywilhite · Feb 9, 2020

When "players" in the 90's decided that "the whiter the shaft the better", the quality of playing shafts declined.

I would like for anyone to explain how a white shaft is a quality "playing" shaft.

Most of the better shafts for playability, in my opinion, are heavier and darker in color.

Change my mind.

All that being said, I still use whiter shafts most of the time because the customers demand them.

JoeyInCali · Feb 9, 2020

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.

mikemosconi · Feb 9, 2020

I watched the Gina cue builder video last week- he likes his shafts to all weigh over 4 ounces- more like 4.4- he feels they will play better.

JC · Feb 9, 2020

mikemosconi said:
I watched the Gina cue builder video last week- he likes his shafts to all weigh over 4 ounces- more like 4.4- he feels they will play better.

It becomes harder to achieve when people want thin pro taper shafts. All those grams of wood removed add up.

Bavafongoul · Feb 9, 2020

The Top Half Weight Of a Cue Is Really Important.

I’ve been posting since joining the Forum about the importance of matching a shaft to a cue butt weight wise.
Years ago it was common for shafts to weigh low 4 ounces and a piloted shaft should weigh more than a flat.
A cue-maker’s goal should be to get a shaft weighing 20 to 23% of the cue’s weight & 18-19% is the minimum.

I realize that the shaft size and taper length affect the weight so a 13mm shaft will be heavier than a 12.5mm shaft.
Regardless, the principle still applies and all the great cue-makers utilized this, ex, Ginacue, Balabushka, etc.

Now some players might find shafts in the 4 oz. range a bit too stiff or firm. That’s really a matter of personal preference.
Nonetheless, look at the specs of the glamour cues of yesteryear and today. The cue’s shaft weight is a key consideration.

deanoc · Feb 9, 2020

what testproved any of this made a better playing shaft

what does better even mean

weight can be measures
density
perhaps a way to define stiffmness
but what has actually been done to define these much less test them

lets say for arguments ske that the more rings the better,what is the cost difference in the shaft blank

and how expensive can it be if a fella puts 2 of them on a $250 cue stick

Doesn''t it make sense that the better cue makers could or would do the same thing on $4000 cues

I would be glad to test one if someone sent me one and if i liked it I would send the high growth ring shafts to my cue makers for my personal shafts even if the blank cost $100 which is probably $90 too much

Why don't Efren and those guys send high growth ring wood to their cue maker

which was South West cues for years because Denny Glenn got Efren special shafts fom south west and they never requested or supplied high growth ring wood

I don't claim to be an expert ,but I do have questions

If there is any proof they play better, where is it,what was the nature of the testing that provided the proof

Again if anyone wants to make and sell me one,I will test hit it and be glad to report my findings or send it to a better player for testing

Pool Cue Shaft Grading Specs.

AzB Silver Member

AzB Gold Member

AzB Silver Member

Banned

AzB Gold Member

Coos Cues

AzB Silver Member

Coos Cues

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Coos Cues

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AZB Osmium Member

AzB Silver Member

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues

AzB Silver Member

Coos Cues

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member