It has come to my attention from someone that apparently is still stung by a post of mine (geez, I have much power apparently), that I was wrong on my post and that you have set me straight. Thanks!
I believe he wants me to acknowledge that I was wrong!
Acknowledged! I was wrong and someone (WW and jrc) corrected me. I appreciate it!
Until the next time that I’m wrong again, I won’t be editing my wrong post, because I deserve to be ridiculed and/or corrected for being wrong. I wouldn’t have it any other way!
Freddie <~~~ never an issue being wrong
No big deal, I didn't know there was such a controversy.
Shaft size is hard to tell by sight. If it's a bright white shaft, it'll look larger than it is. Remember that white panty hose women used to wear? It made their legs look fat. Lighter color looks big, darker color slenderizes. A darker shaft will look smaller.
The taper makes a big difference to the eye as well. A quickly expanding, or conical shaft looks big, but if you measure at the ferrule, it could be smaller than you think.
By the same principle, a long taper makes a shaft look thinner. I have a couple Mike Gulassey shafts (some of the best, in my opinion), that have the long taper, modeled after his shafts for Earl Strickland. They look like they can't be larger than 12.5 mm, but actually they are 12.75. The eyes do some funny things to you.
Not sure why there was so much consternation, but knowledge is key. And, the micrometer is your best friend when talking shaft diameter. The micrometer doesn't lie.
All the best,
WW