Update if anyone is interested
Cues were mailed off to Paul Drexler.
Still haven't decided exactly what to do.
Can't even decide on shafts other than the originals need new ivory ferrules.
The Ivory butt cap on the darker cue is an issue because where do I draw the line on originality.
New butt cap or keep original that looks like an old ivory cue ball?
If new it probably won't be Ivory, but the old one isn't that bad, at least it's in tact.
Anyway after all these years I'm finally doing something with these cues.
It is a conundrum and I actually share your frustration with the decision.
Earlier I had broken with my norm and suggested going for an "updated" version.
This really flies in the face of what I usually think.
I generally follow the "preserve where possible, repair when necessary" kind of thinking with such cues.
Following that, the butt cap need not be repaired. The cue functions without such a repair.
Drexler has the cues. That's a great opportunity.
We love these cues. I share your appreciation for them. We do enjoy hitting balls with them as well. But their dimensions etc are from a different time. They are simply less practical for regular use and playing with them is usually more of a novelty. The opportunity to re-work and update one is something to be considered if you really want to play with it. If it were a particularly fine or unique example, or if it had some special provenance I wouldn't consider it. But there are enough of them around for me to not be offended at the notion of updating one.
I look at it sort of like a classic muscle car that came with drum brakes, inferior tires, and maybe a non-matching numbers engine that requires leaded gas. It may be a prime candidate for a "resto-rod" kind of update. Not a particularly rare model, but a cool example. You can update it with modern mechanicals to make it a more reasonable vehicle for real world regular use, maybe even a daily driver.
I am not trying to convince you but rather explain how and why I actually violated my own typical thoughts on what to do with such cues.
There is one other thing. You have two. If I had one I would not consider modifying or updating it. With two, one of them might be a candidate to be a "resto-rod".
Lastly, as I said in the beginning, Drexler has the cues. Why is that an opportunity? When considering the "resto-rod" route there are only certain cue makers I would want to do the work. No disrespect to other makers at all, but Drexler is one of those that I would have do such work. First, he is of course a master and will truly make a good player out of it. Second, the cue has value before even being touched. The name on the work should be commensurate with that value. I am not just talking about monetary value but the kind of value we link to art, artists, antiques, etc.
It wouldn't just be a re-worked Rambow. It would be a Rambow re-worked by Drexler.
Kind of like having Carroll Shelby update your antique Mustang or Lingenfelter update your antique Corvette.
I might consider just asking Drexler to "make that one a real player" and allow his expertise, experience, artistry dictate the materials and methods. Then it is truly a Drexler, and truly a Rambow.
Again, I am not trying to convince you. More or less I am trying to publicly let it be known that I do respect the old cues for what they are and that I do not take the notion of putting work into them lightly. I did put some thought into it.
I have to think that Rambow might smile knowing one of his cues wasn't just a show piece but was still hitting balls and doing it with the best of them for many years to come. After all, he made them to play.
.
