Most of my "old school" cues have noticeably larger dimensions than my newer cues and I'm not sure all the changes they have made in today's cues make them play any better than old school cues.
I have an old A. E. Schmidt Titlist conversion (full-splice) with a butt that is humongous compared to today's cues and I think the joint isn't quite as big as most old school (I think it is around .835-.840). The butt has to be around 1.30 or larger, since it won't even fit into my normal cases. The wrap area is larger than the butt of today's slim cues.
I read the following on a cue maker's website and was wondering how many cue makers on here share the same ideas about pool cue dimensions. _______________________________________
Yes, the size of the joint matters, at least on a cue. Smaller joints permit the cue to flex much more than larger joints. Depending upon the hit and the mass of the cueball, that flex can become uncontrolled buckling. In any event, the more the cue flexes, the more energy from the stroke is absorbed by the cue rather than being transferred to the cueball. A larger joint means less flex where it is unwanted and more control of the stroke by the player. The most common joint diameter for piloted joints is .840 inches, for flat-faced joints .850 inches. Some production houses and a few custom builders go so small as .830 and .810 inches. Butt diameters are dramatically smaller than 50 years ago when they were commonly 1.30 inches. As cuemakers began to adopt phenolic tube materials for joints and butt caps in the 1960’s and 70’s, they found that most phenolic tube stock was in standardized diameters, e.g. 1.25 and 1.50 inches, because those were sizes that the principal market for phenolics, structural and electronics manufacturing, desired. Cuemakers initially didn’t command a large enough share of the market to support producing tubing to their particular needs. Using 1.50 stock was wasteful, so cuemakers, production houses in particular, marketed the concept that a smaller butt diameter, 1.25 inches, somehow made the cue play better and was certainly more stylish. Even when phenolic manufacturers began to produce tube sizes specifically for cuemakers, the smaller butt diameter remained because manufacturing processes were already standardized. Thus, most cues reflect an “as built” compromise heavily weighted to manufacturing technology rather than player ergonomics or cue performance.
I have an old A. E. Schmidt Titlist conversion (full-splice) with a butt that is humongous compared to today's cues and I think the joint isn't quite as big as most old school (I think it is around .835-.840). The butt has to be around 1.30 or larger, since it won't even fit into my normal cases. The wrap area is larger than the butt of today's slim cues.
I read the following on a cue maker's website and was wondering how many cue makers on here share the same ideas about pool cue dimensions. _______________________________________
Yes, the size of the joint matters, at least on a cue. Smaller joints permit the cue to flex much more than larger joints. Depending upon the hit and the mass of the cueball, that flex can become uncontrolled buckling. In any event, the more the cue flexes, the more energy from the stroke is absorbed by the cue rather than being transferred to the cueball. A larger joint means less flex where it is unwanted and more control of the stroke by the player. The most common joint diameter for piloted joints is .840 inches, for flat-faced joints .850 inches. Some production houses and a few custom builders go so small as .830 and .810 inches. Butt diameters are dramatically smaller than 50 years ago when they were commonly 1.30 inches. As cuemakers began to adopt phenolic tube materials for joints and butt caps in the 1960’s and 70’s, they found that most phenolic tube stock was in standardized diameters, e.g. 1.25 and 1.50 inches, because those were sizes that the principal market for phenolics, structural and electronics manufacturing, desired. Cuemakers initially didn’t command a large enough share of the market to support producing tubing to their particular needs. Using 1.50 stock was wasteful, so cuemakers, production houses in particular, marketed the concept that a smaller butt diameter, 1.25 inches, somehow made the cue play better and was certainly more stylish. Even when phenolic manufacturers began to produce tube sizes specifically for cuemakers, the smaller butt diameter remained because manufacturing processes were already standardized. Thus, most cues reflect an “as built” compromise heavily weighted to manufacturing technology rather than player ergonomics or cue performance.
Last edited:
