Atlas shaft squares.

[Joe Barringer]

I always read Rick's words thoroughly because, IMO, he's always freely given great information to this forum - information I felt most cue makers would keep secret. And, it has several times bothered me when his input has been meanly targeted by some of his colleagues. Granted, some of his cue building methods differ from the norm, but they've always appeared well thought out and, according to him, proven by track record. And his cues look great to me, with incredibly sharp points - way beyond the norm. Also, his credibility is enhanced by the fact he is not a merchant trying to sell something. So, when he's talking here about shaftwood quality, I'm listening.
Rick's post in this thread may be a good example of his divulging information others would keep secret and, as usual, it has elicited mean rebuttals.
He doesn't claim to understand the many forest variables that contribute to shaftwood quality, as implied by a respondant. Rick just listed some of the variables and stated his belief there are forest regions with higher yields of quality shaftwood.
What catches my attention most, however, is his input regarding ring count. He believes 8 to 12 ring count, in high density wood, is preferable to higher ring count. That is interesting since I always assumed ring count was directly related to density; in other words, higher ring count equals higher wood density. If density and ring count are independent, that opens a whole new way of looking at shaftwood.
I've always assumed that high growth ring count was the ultimate measure of shaftwood quality (given straight grain etc.) But when you consider things in this new context, it makes you question what really makes higher ring count desireable. A reason given in this thread is that it is comparatively rarer, and thus deserves a higher price. Really? That's a spurious conclusion if Rick is correct. If 8-12 ringcount is superior to higher ringcount shaftwood with comparable density, the high price attributed to high ringcount is unwarranted and is simply enabled by the propagation of misinformation that higher ring count makes better shaftwood.
Based on the above, it is understandable that high volume shaftwood merchants would benefit enormously from such a public misunderstanding, if it is such, because if they sort according to ringcount, they can significantly inflate the resale price of many squares/rounds/cones. No wonder Rick's post attracts controversy.
OK, men, get more popcorn and let's figure this out. I'm thinking Rick might not have his head up his butt, and his beliefs are shared with other high end cuemakers.

Yes, 8-12 ring count is best and the finest you can buy <sarcastic> - do you know why? Because it's readily available, more available and less costly whereby allowing for higher profit margins. No one will dispute the fact that 8-12 ring count is perfectly acceptable and widely used. Cue Makers want to use what is readily available and least costly in the equation of making a cue. This not only goes for cue makers but for most businessmen as a whole.

Higher ring count are less accessible to the average cue maker who doesn't want to pay for nor try to obtain what is not readily available and therefore more costly. Tighter grain was always the norm in years past because that was available. Not true any longer. Tight grain equates to a denser shaft. However, there are tight grained less dense shafts that are in fact available. I am not discussing those. When we say tight grained it's synonymous with density.

You can also have less dense 12 ring shaft as opposed to a more dense 12 ring shaft. There is nothing better than a tight grained shaft and most tight grained shafts are more dense. At least that the conclusion we've come to with the quality of shaft wood we stock and sell.

Remember, when you don't agree with, don't want to supply or can't supply a product the reason is because you've determined it's better this way or that way. Bottom-line - most every knowledgeable veteran cue maker will not dispute the fact that a tight grained shaft is and has always been best.

 

[JoeyInCali]

I always read Rick's words thoroughly because, IMO, he's always freely given great information to this forum - information I felt most cue makers would keep secret. And, it has several times bothered me when his input has been meanly targeted by some of his colleagues. Granted, some of his cue building methods differ from the norm, but they've always appeared well thought out and, according to him, proven by track record. And his cues look great to me, with incredibly sharp points - way beyond the norm. Also, his credibility is enhanced by the fact he is not a merchant trying to sell something. So, when he's talking here about shaftwood quality, I'm listening.
Rick's post in this thread may be a good example of his divulging information others would keep secret and, as usual, it has elicited mean rebuttals.
He doesn't claim to understand the many forest variables that contribute to shaftwood quality, as implied by a respondant. Rick just listed some of the variables and stated his belief there are forest regions with higher yields of quality shaftwood.
What catches my attention most, however, is his input regarding ring count. He believes 8 to 12 ring count, in high density wood, is preferable to higher ring count. That is interesting since I always assumed ring count was directly related to density; in other words, higher ring count equals higher wood density. If density and ring count are independent, that opens a whole new way of looking at shaftwood.
I've always assumed that high growth ring count was the ultimate measure of shaftwood quality (given straight grain etc.) But when you consider things in this new context, it makes you question what really makes higher ring count desireable. A reason given in this thread is that it is comparatively rarer, and thus deserves a higher price. Really? That's a spurious conclusion if Rick is correct. If 8-12 ringcount is superior to higher ringcount shaftwood with comparable density, the high price attributed to high ringcount is unwarranted and is simply enabled by the propagation of misinformation that higher ring count makes better shaftwood.
Based on the above, it is understandable that high volume shaftwood merchants would benefit enormously from such a public misunderstanding, if it is such, because if they sort according to ringcount, they can significantly inflate the resale price of many squares/rounds/cones. No wonder Rick's post attracts controversy.
OK, men, get more popcorn and let's figure this out. I'm thinking Rick might not have his head up his butt, and his beliefs are shared with other high end cuemakers.

I'll take ALL of his 13 RPI's or more if they are relatively straight .
The merchants would benefit MORE if they marketed their low ring counts as the best. After all they have thousand and thousands and thousands of them.
Ring count is NOT EVERYTHING about shafts. But, everything else being equal, I'd take 13-20 RPI"S over 8-12 ANY DAY.
Don't kid yourself.
If there are two shafts on the table and both are straight and weigh the same, you'd take the 16 RPI over the 8 RPI. It looks better for one thing.
The rest, I don't want to argue about.