Best Playing Cue Builder

smiling_Hans said:
Some of these cue makers don’t even play with their own cues.

A friend of mine called a famous cue maker and they were chatting it up. Pretty long conversation about cue making and other things about a possible build. Finally he asks “what do you play with and your specs.” The cue maker said Manzino. Well my buddy went with the manzino. His reasoning is if a cue maker plays with another then it’s a damn good cue.

Another maker I know of plays with Davis blanks even though his own is highly regarded. Even post it on their socials.

I guess it’s hard to make what yourself something. Like cooking a steak we can all do it but The chef wants to eat out too.
Click to expand...
I was playing scotch doubles on the Western BCA stream earlier this year and Ra Hannah was commentating. Ra is big into youth pool as am I so I like to support him by donating a cue every so often to raffle off. This was the first time I was on his stream and he was giving my cues their due when he had the chance. I was shooting an 8 ball when Ra commented:


Watching the playback I was kind of embarrassed as I was using a Denali cue Bob Flynn made as I had in my possession zero of my own cues that were complete.
 
Coos Cues said:
I was playing scotch doubles on the Western BCA stream earlier this year and Ra Hannah was commentating. Ra is big into youth pool as am I so I like to support him by donating a cue every so often to raffle off. This was the first time I was on his stream and he was giving my cues their due when he had the chance. I was shooting an 8 ball when Ra commented:


Watching the playback I was kind of embarrassed as I was using a Denali cue Bob Flynn made as I had in my possession zero of my own cues that were complete.
Click to expand...
Also you’re a contribution in growing the game.

Good story and I met Ra awhile back. Awesome guy. I was wondering what he is up to.
 
jasonlaus said:
I'll try it
Click to expand...
Here is Guido Orlandi's joint... as the energy from the hit, gets to the joint.... a flat faced joint rebounds some of the energy back to the tip. On the Conical joint, the energy is diverted out to the outside, from the angle of the machined surface.
The cone joint has been used in Industry for the last two hundred years, since the industrial revolution. The cone joint gives the two piece structure two things not offered in other joining concepts. The 1st feature is this, the concentricity is perfect, the second is this; the centerline of both components are aligned perfectly.
 

Attachments

  • Cone Joint Apart.jpg
    Cone Joint Apart.jpg
    51.9 KB · Views: 211
  • Guido Conical Joint.JPG
    Guido Conical Joint.JPG
    281.1 KB · Views: 200
Last edited:
jasonlaus said:
John Showman IMHO makes the best playing cue and the best old school inlay cue - there is NO second place, then there is Dennis and Tascarella(never played a tasc, I'd like to) then there is Barry- new godfather to old school but needs to tighten up inlays(great guy though)

1 Showman
2 Searing
3/4Tascarella & Barry(tie...maybe)
Click to expand...
Barry built cues like Gus, they aren’t perfect in terms of tolerance’s of modern cnc guys, but those Szams sure are the nuts on nap cloth. They were at their time the best or among the best cues ever built in the 70’s-80’s.

Best
Fatboy😃
 
Shooter08 said:
Yes it is subjective. Who builds the best playing cue with no cnc inlay work? Examples would be Eric of Sugar Tree, Joey of Bautista and Tony of Guerra. Cues with 1000 inlays really are not meant to play with. Shooter08
Click to expand...

So what is "best playing"? It has been a very old and very personal topic. Best hit feel? Best shaft "action"? How the shaft plays is wildly opinionated. "how does it play?" is a very frustrating and almost meaningless question for me. It's like asking "what is the best car color?" or "what is the best food?". For me, I like the most solid joint feel, yet not a stiff hit. Scheuler is actually about the only one that fits into that category for me, although I have only played with a few and never owned on. The cue feels very much solid, but not stiff like a Schon or a Mezz which also have a very solid joint design.

Also, as another post said, I read the title as who is the best cue maker pool player LOL I know several have played on the pro tour.
 
I have tried calling Guido Orlandi, but Verizon says the phone number is out of service. Does anyone know how to get in touch with him??????
 
ceebee said:
I'll say it again... Guido Orlandi in Michigan, makes some of the Best Playing cues on Planet Earth. His Conical Joint makes a 2-piece Cue, feel like a 1-piece Cue & his finish is flawless. I sold all of my fancy cues, to play with the MAGIC WAND he made me.,..
Click to expand...
I have tried calling Guido Orlandi, but Verizon says the phone number is out of service. Does anyone know how to get in touch with him??????
 
ceebee said:
Here is Guido Orlandi's joint... as the energy from the hit, gets to the joint.... a flat faced joint rebounds some of the energy back to the tip. On the Conical joint, the energy is diverted out to the outside, from the angle of the machined surface.
The cone joint has been used in Industry for the last two hundred years, since the industrial revolution. The cone joint gives the two piece structure two things not offered in other joining concepts. The 1st feature is this, the concentricity is perfect, the second is this; the centerline of both components are aligned perfectly.
Click to expand...

I keep asking this question...

The conical joint used in industry only locates on the cone. If you add the flat flange on the joint, you are over-constraining the joint. This means that the two pieces either seat on the cone and leave a gap at the flat outer flange, or the two pieces seat on the flat flange and leave a gap in the conical section. This is true unless there is a compliant material in the assembly.

A conical connection is also going to rebound some of the energy, maybe even more than a flat face. This is easily proven through ultrasonic imaging of materials and fetuses. I.e. you don't only get an image of the flat parts of your unborn daughter.

None of this is to say that the joint is bad, just that I don't believe that what you and mr. orlandi think is happening is actually happening.
 
DeeDeeCues said:
I keep asking this question...

The conical joint used in industry only locates on the cone. If you add the flat flange on the joint, you are over-constraining the joint. This means that the two pieces either seat on the cone and leave a gap at the flat outer flange, or the two pieces seat on the flat flange and leave a gap in the conical section. This is true unless there is a compliant material in the assembly.

A conical connection is also going to rebound some of the energy, maybe even more than a flat face. This is easily proven through ultrasonic imaging of materials and fetuses. I.e. you don't only get an image of the flat parts of your unborn daughter.

None of this is to say that the joint is bad, just that I don't believe that what you and mr. orlandi think is happening is actually happening.
Click to expand...
The Proper use of Guido's Joint is to locate on the Cone, just as you say. There should be a space between the end of the shaft & the surface of the Butt... As far as rebound, lets just say that we will agree to disagree... The feel is different & most folks agree to that statement. It's a great Cue.

You are more than welcome to think what you will...
 
ceebee said:
The Proper use of Guido's Joint is to locate on the Cone, just as you say. There should be a space between the end of the shaft & the surface of the Butt... As far as rebound, lets just say that we will agree to disagree... The feel is different & most folks agree to that statement. It's a great Cue.

You are more than welcome to think what you will...
Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the wave transmission, it is easily proven with science, I already told you an example. If you want to agree to disagree, it isn't with me that you are disagreeing.

I toyed with a conical joint long before ever hearing of one, somewhere around 1996. I didn't want any gap at the joint.
 
DeeDeeCues said:
Thank you for the reply.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the wave transmission, it is easily proven with science, I already told you an example. If you want to agree to disagree, it isn't with me that you are disagreeing.

I toyed with a conical joint long before ever hearing of one, somewhere around 1996. I didn't want any gap at the joint.
Click to expand...
I was a Tool Engineer for BOEING AIRPLANE COMPNAY for 30 plus years. One of the axioms we always adhered to was this, "you cant locate on two points or surfaces, at the same time, especial criss-crossing points. While we can define that point on a Cad Cam Computer, getting it to be there in metal, every time, is difficult, so we just didn't do that. Neither did Layani Cue, they too had a space... OVER & OUT
 
ceebee said:
I was a Tool Engineer for BOEING AIRPLANE COMPNAY for 30 plus years. One of the axioms we always adhered to was this, "you cant locate on two points or surfaces, at the same time, especial criss-crossing points. While we can define that point on a Cad Cam Computer, getting it to be there in metal, every time, is difficult, so we just didn't do that. Neither did Layani Cue, they too had a space... OVER & OUT
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's called, 'over constraining'... Just like I said in my first post on this.
 
ceebee said:
I was a Tool Engineer for BOEING AIRPLANE COMPNAY for 30 plus years. One of the axioms we always adhered to was this, "you cant locate on two points or surfaces, at the same time, especial criss-crossing points. While we can define that point on a Cad Cam Computer, getting it to be there in metal, every time, is difficult, so we just didn't do that. Neither did Layani Cue, they too had a space... OVER & OUT
Click to expand...
TBF working for Boeing isn't really a shining endorsement of engineering prowess these days 🤐
 
cnc can or will make something almost perfect every time. same with making a cue to specs. it can do it perfectly.

however it takes a well polished and experienced cue maker to select the best wood for the job, and to make the cue as it should be based on the customer and the parts.
cnc cannot think. you get what someone gave it to work with.

bill stroud was maybe the first top cue make to use it for part of the job. but he knew what to do and look for.
 
Cornerman said:
So many answers. I’m confused at your question, or you’re sort of asking something else. CNC doesn’t mean 1000 inlays. Inlays doesn’t mean anything to playability.

But here’s some answers that might be confusing:

Tascarella
Dennis Searing
John Showman

come to mind. They all do inlays. No CNCs. All meant to be played.
Click to expand...
That three piece cue you brought to the derby is among the best hitting cues I've tried. I know it's subjective and yours certainly isn't #1, but it's top 5 for me.

A Scruggs I had is #1. The rest is yours, a Gilbert I had, a Neighbors I had and another cue that escapes me that I owned.

I really regret selling the Scruggs, the Dickie Neighbors and the one that escapes me because I'm beering it up right now
 
Scruggs, Tascarella and anything out of the McDaniels shop.

Really miss the hit of the big pin / ivory joint Scruggs I had, that was a phenomenal cue.
Currently playing with an Omen cue and that hits pretty nice too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top