Bacote, Rosewood or Goncalo Alves?
- Thread starter CueAndMe
- Start date
Of the cues I have built with these woods, the ones from goncalo were the most lively hitters, with a sharp, pingy, energetic hit.
Bocote is hard hitting, but has some cush to it that mellows out the feel. It's rarely as pingy as goncalo, but gives the same type of energetic & lively hit & playability. I have never hit with a bocote cue I didn't like.
EI rose is a beautiful wood, looking quite a bit better than the other two, but is a crap shoot in finding a great peice in terms of playability. The best stuff is very dense & heavy, with dark color & straight, tight grain. Like this it'll rival any other cue wood in the world, but it's pretty rare. For the most part, EI is lightweight & irregular, wide grained. A typical peice is kinda dull & dead compared to bocote or goncalo. Unless you are experienced in knowing how to choose a good peice or trust your builder to choose it right, you might want to go for a sure thing with goncalo or bocote. EI is popular with builders because it's stable, looks very nice, low cost, abundant, and easy to get. But again, goncalo or bocote hit better in my opinion. They are just so danged ugly.
If you want a lively wood, why not go with cocobolo? It looks nice, is commonly available and almost always pingy & lively.
Bocote is hard hitting, but has some cush to it that mellows out the feel. It's rarely as pingy as goncalo, but gives the same type of energetic & lively hit & playability. I have never hit with a bocote cue I didn't like.
EI rose is a beautiful wood, looking quite a bit better than the other two, but is a crap shoot in finding a great peice in terms of playability. The best stuff is very dense & heavy, with dark color & straight, tight grain. Like this it'll rival any other cue wood in the world, but it's pretty rare. For the most part, EI is lightweight & irregular, wide grained. A typical peice is kinda dull & dead compared to bocote or goncalo. Unless you are experienced in knowing how to choose a good peice or trust your builder to choose it right, you might want to go for a sure thing with goncalo or bocote. EI is popular with builders because it's stable, looks very nice, low cost, abundant, and easy to get. But again, goncalo or bocote hit better in my opinion. They are just so danged ugly.
If you want a lively wood, why not go with cocobolo? It looks nice, is commonly available and almost always pingy & lively.
qbilder said:
Thanks a lot. I want one of these woods as a one-piece butt and don't want a dead hit. I can now eliminate the Rosewood as a choice. I like the look of the Bacote if it has a lot of light and dark contrast in it, so I think I'll probably go with that. The cocobolo is a beautiful wood too, but is more expensive and this cue will in my mind be a temporary inexpensive one until I'm sure about what I need before spending a lot on a true custom. I guess you could say it'll be a pseudo-custom from Schmelke.
Thanks again.
bluepepper said:
Oh, you are getting one from Schmelke? That changes things a little. I go up there a couple times per year to dig through their stash of wood. The rosewood they have is OLD, very, very old. It's great wood for one peice cues. I use it in one peice cues somewhat often, meaning once or twice per year. But my favorite one peice cue wood is purpleheart. If you are going for playability, stability & feel, go with purpleheart. I bought Schmelke out of all their best long curly purpleheart stock, but there's still a few ok ones up there. Purpleheart beats the pants off of any of the woods you mentioned for one peice cues.
Schmelke is a great source for low budget cues. Their one peice butt cues that are made there are the best hitting cues to be had for under $150.
qbilder said:
I am a rosewood lover...but have to agree with Eric in that the days of finding that nice old, DARK rosewood, both EI and of course, Brazilian. There really is nothing quite like a beautiful dark rosewood cue...they look amazing, and play even better!
But, with that said...there is just something really special about the way that Bocote plays....I find it difficult to put my finger on, but boy howdy!, I do love my Bocote cue!!
A lot of people, including cuemakers, find it to be an 'ugly' wood. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder...I actually like the way Bocote looks. I love wood with 'character'...and Bocote certainly fits the bill. Even my ol' man thought, from pics of my cue, that it was ugly...until I brought the cue home, and then, he was quite impressed with it.Actually, Eric touched on something here, with regards to Purpleheart. Lately, the 'new' wood combo...and available from Schmelke...is a cue with a Purpleheart nose, and Bocote butt. I happen to think it is just about the most butt-ugly wood combination going...but the reviews of just how terrifically these cues play is continuing to grow. I may have to consider checking one of these out one of these days.
Lisa
Thanks everyone for your input. I'm learning a lot. It just so happens that I may not be able to use any of those great-hitting woods in my cue now that I talked to Schmelke about balance point. The gentleman I spoke to was knowledgeable and willing to do whatever had to be done, but I realize that I need to rethink things before committing.
These woods all come under the "heavy" category I suppose, and I realized that it's not a long cue that I need but one that's significantly rear-balanced. With my Meucci, I stretch out so that my rear hand is almost at the butt cap. But this means that the balance point is 13" or so forward of my thumb and forefinger. I suffer with this, but I don't want to have to. I want my rear hand to be 6" to 9" behind the balance point for the feel I like, but making the cue longer with these great-hitting woods seems to do very little for this issue.
I just started a thread in the "ask the cuemaker" forum about my theory on how to accomplish what I want entitled "tall players, short sticks." My assumption is that rather than use a very long stick, I should just get used to the position of my rear hand way back on a 58" cue, but have one made of a very light wood, if there's a decent-hitting light wood, and heavily weight the very rear of the cue to bring the balance point way way back. If I could get the balance point to 12" or 13" I'd be quite happy.
I don't know if this is possible or desirable, which is why I'd like some advice.
Thanks
These woods all come under the "heavy" category I suppose, and I realized that it's not a long cue that I need but one that's significantly rear-balanced. With my Meucci, I stretch out so that my rear hand is almost at the butt cap. But this means that the balance point is 13" or so forward of my thumb and forefinger. I suffer with this, but I don't want to have to. I want my rear hand to be 6" to 9" behind the balance point for the feel I like, but making the cue longer with these great-hitting woods seems to do very little for this issue.
I just started a thread in the "ask the cuemaker" forum about my theory on how to accomplish what I want entitled "tall players, short sticks." My assumption is that rather than use a very long stick, I should just get used to the position of my rear hand way back on a 58" cue, but have one made of a very light wood, if there's a decent-hitting light wood, and heavily weight the very rear of the cue to bring the balance point way way back. If I could get the balance point to 12" or 13" I'd be quite happy.
I don't know if this is possible or desirable, which is why I'd like some advice.
Thanks
I think an idea that would be good for you is to go to a cue show or trade show or tourney where there's cuemakers set up with booths. Walk around & pick their brains. Get opinions from each one & eventually you'll see a pattern, a key that might be exactly what you need. Try all their cues & let them size you up. You only have to pick one, but you'll have at least shopped around & will be making an educated decision rather than just guessing. If nothing else, find a builder local to you & give him a visit. Ask him to help you decide on what you need. He'll want to get you a comfortable cue that you can have confidence in. It'll cost more than a Schmelke but it'll be worth the money. Be honest & up front with the builder, and be open for suggestion. It shouldn't take long to figure out exactly what you need.
Bocote gets my vote.bluepepper said:
My Bacote / BEM Starkey hits great and I happen to love the look of Bacote!!
Russ....
Russ....
Thanks again everyone. Birdy, I guess it's a matter of feel. You probably like a slightly more forward balance than I do. Qbilder, that's a good idea, but I'm impatient. I do plan on going to the world straight pool tournament when it's held later this year. I wonder if cuemakers go to that.
The following is a cross post, but since I'm talking about the same things here and in the "ask the cuemaker" section I figured I would repost it to let you know how I'm thinking.
There's a home video of Willie Mosconi I saw last night where he gives a quick instruction he'd probably given 1000 times over his lifetime on how to hold the cue, etc. He actually says to hold the cue 3"-6" behind the balance point. Here it is if any of you are interested:http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...05728842782548
I'm wondering if it's possible to do what I'd like in a cue. One thing that is certainly possible is to change the way I bridge and look over the cue. If I bend the bridging arm at about 45 degrees rather than stretching it out like I'm used to, I can bring everything forward to where the balance point is near the vertical stroking forearm. It puts my eyes about 6" or so closer to the cueball, but it may be worth getting used to if I can't find a cue with a backward enough balance. Or maybe a combination of the two--a forward arm bend and a more backwards balanced cue would work better.
The following is a cross post, but since I'm talking about the same things here and in the "ask the cuemaker" section I figured I would repost it to let you know how I'm thinking.
There's a home video of Willie Mosconi I saw last night where he gives a quick instruction he'd probably given 1000 times over his lifetime on how to hold the cue, etc. He actually says to hold the cue 3"-6" behind the balance point. Here it is if any of you are interested:http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...05728842782548
I'm wondering if it's possible to do what I'd like in a cue. One thing that is certainly possible is to change the way I bridge and look over the cue. If I bend the bridging arm at about 45 degrees rather than stretching it out like I'm used to, I can bring everything forward to where the balance point is near the vertical stroking forearm. It puts my eyes about 6" or so closer to the cueball, but it may be worth getting used to if I can't find a cue with a backward enough balance. Or maybe a combination of the two--a forward arm bend and a more backwards balanced cue would work better.
Why Mosconi said that, I have no clue.
Jim Rempe ( in his and Lori Jon's pool video ) used was just a little short of saying Mosconi was full of hot air when he said that.
Jim Rempe ( in his and Lori Jon's pool video ) used was just a little short of saying Mosconi was full of hot air when he said that.
birdy said:The biggest mistake it would be to bend your bridge hand 45 degrees to achieve this .
In this way is harder to get in line and focus the shot .
I know it. But i'm willing to compromise. If I could get the balance point back to 15" it wouldn't take as much forward arm bend.