An honest quetion about "classic" aesthetics

[mosconiac]

I noticed that the cues termed "classic" follow a certain pattern of veneer combinations, generally propeller or peacock inlays, and ebony/maple.

As far as rings, you'll see consistent "inconsistency". I see silver-lined "checkerboard" (AKA railroad) rings under the points and something else (usually veneer rings) at the joint and butt sleeve.

Why not use the same ring type at all positions??? No disrespect, but it looks odd to me. Is there a practical answer?

 

[jazznpool]

IMO, it's very acceptable and even desireable for the ring above the wrap to be different as long as it relates to the cue in some way. Then again, the same deco ring style in all positions can look great too. Classic designs generally refer to cues with elements taken from George Balabushka, Gus Szamboti, Stroud, Gutierrez, Mottey, Scruggs, and others. There are many variations on the theme yet to be made and some of the most talented newer generation cuemakers specialize in cues of this style (like Showman, White, Prewitt, etc). I love classic style cues!

Martin

I noticed that the cues termed "classic" follow a certain pattern of veneer combinations, generally propeller or peacock inlays, and ebony/maple.

As far as rings, you'll see consistent "inconsistency". I see silver-lined "checkerboard" (AKA railroad) rings under the points and something else (usually veneer rings) at the joint and butt sleeve.

Why not use the same ring type at all positions??? No disrespect, but it looks odd to me. Is there a practical answer?

 

[Ballistic Billiards]

joint

5/16x14 piloted steel is mandatory.
the classic cues are my favorite.
Gus' mostly.

IMO, no ring at the base of the points, no matter what kind.

 

[bogey54311]

I noticed that the cues termed "classic" follow a certain pattern of veneer combinations, generally propeller or peacock inlays, and ebony/maple.

As far as rings, you'll see consistent "inconsistency". I see silver-lined "checkerboard" (AKA railroad) rings under the points and something else (usually veneer rings) at the joint and butt sleeve.

Why not use the same ring type at all positions??? No disrespect, but it looks odd to me. Is there a practical answer?

the reason is this: bushka sometimes needed to push up the points, and needed something there to fill the void.
I've heard this from many reputible collectors/makers.


chris G

 

[FAST_N_LOOSE]

I noticed that the cues termed "classic" follow a certain pattern of veneer combinations, generally propeller or peacock inlays, and ebony/maple.

As far as rings, you'll see consistent "inconsistency". I see silver-lined "checkerboard" (AKA railroad) rings under the points and something else (usually veneer rings) at the joint and butt sleeve.

Why not use the same ring type at all positions??? No disrespect, but it looks odd to me. Is there a practical answer?

DIFFERENT RINGS, AT DIFFERENT POSITIONS WERE DONE BY MANY CUEMAKERS. EACH SECTION OF THE CUE IS DIFFERENT, AND IS TRATED/DESIGNED DIFFERENTLY.......... THE JOINT, THE FOREARM, AND THE BUTT, SO WHY SHOULD THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME RINGS?

THIS KLEIN IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF "TRADITIONAL"

P.S. RAILROAD RINGWORK IS NOT TRADITIONAL,

BUSHKA RINGS ARE.....

 

[FAST_N_LOOSE]

ALL OF THIS IS IMO.....

CLASSIC IS A VERY VERY BROAD TERM.........

THIS CUE, IS VERY "CLASSIC" AND ALL THE RINGS ARE THE SAME......

THANKS TIM, I STOLE YOUR PIC.....


TO ME, "CLASSIC" REALLY JUST MEANS........ SHARP POINTS, TRADITIONAL INLAYS, A WRAP, AND A JOINT OF IVORY OR STEEL. RINGS, AS LONG AS THEY ARE A BUSHKA , DASH, OR S STYLE ALSO QUALIFY.

TRADITIONAL INLAYS: NOTCHED DIAMONDS, DIAMONDS, PROPELLORS, SPLIT DIAMONDS, VENEERED RECTANGLES.

 

[cuejunky]

I think the term "classic" like "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder, of course there are certain elements like F_N_L pointed out that may have been typical on older cues that are considered as being classic.

 

[Ken_4fun]

I like all of the rings to be the same.

Secondly, I like the "old school" rings. Richard Black rings were cool and now the current ones IMO they are boring.

Ken

 

[poohkiller]

I think what Marcus said about the different parts of the cue needing different rings is Dead On.

This is something Gus has noticed as well. If you take a look at their later works you will see most of his cues are designed this way - especially the fancier ones. Example1 (my favourite), 2, 3, 4.

I think noticing this possibility, that the different parts can and many times should have different rings to adorn these particular sections is a great step towards magnificent, flowing designs - and one of the world's best and most acknowledged cue makers provides a perfect proof for this.

IMO.