Can anyone explain...

Mr. Wilson

Mr. Wilson

El Kabong
Gold Member
Silver Member
Over in the main forum, there is an ongoing war over a cue that some claim has been machined down, removing inlays.

I work wood and own a lathe, but have never done any such thing to a cue, so I can't say that "I know"......but IMO, it is insane for someone to argue that this is the case with this cue.


Link to pics

and ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7170224836&category=95100&rd=1

I feel like I am the one not getting it here. Is there more to the argument that I am not understanding?

I would think that for the cue to have had done to it what has been claimed.....it would be incredibly apparent and completely ruined.

Help me understand guys.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Wilson said:
Over in the main forum, there is an ongoing war over a cue that some claim has been maching down, removing inlays.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means. Maybe a link to the thread would help.
 
If that cue was turned down to straighten it out, not only the inlays will be amiss if it wasn't cut deep enuf... the points would be uneven too (assuming they are spliced points...)
 
Remachining a warped cue will definitely change the point length noticeably. Further, remachining enough to completely remove inlays would make the cue at least .060 smaller in diameter in the "B" location...more likely about .090 smaller. It will also make the width of the base of the un-inlaid points smaller than the base of the point still having the inlay. The question about whether the cue was remachined is very easily determined by checking the sizes below.

What is the diameter of the cue:

A. at the joint
B. just above the wrap
C. largest part of the buttcap

The older Schons were typically:

A. .837 +/-.001
B. 1.045 +/-.005
C. 1.270 +/-.005
 
Mr. Wilson said:
I would think that for the cue to have had done to it what has been claimed.....it would be incredibly apparent and completely ruined.

Help me understand guys.
Click to expand...
I think you are right, Mr. Wilson. Below is a quote from Dick Abbot,

I believe I did own this cue a few years ago, photo is attached, the cue had only one inlay in one prong.
I do not often buy or take Schon cues in trade but I purchased this cue because I felt it was a nice example of an older Schon that was very eye appealing and unique in the fact that had only one inlay.
Just my opinion but I think that the cue was made as it is, the assumption that is was turned to straighten it and thereby eliminating the the 'other' inlays is absurd.
If you turned a cue enough to remove inlays from three of the four prongs two things would occur - 1. The cue would be obviously very thin. 2. The prongs would now stagger about an inch or so from the longest to the shortest.
Anyone wanting to speak to me about this cue and my reasoning please feel free to do so.

Dick Abbott
billiardcue.com
540 772 7827
dick@billiardcue.com

I think Dick, would have been able to tell if it had been butchered. I would guess from what I can see, the cue only ever had the two inlays. To completely remove one inlay would make the cue very egg shaped. To also remove two opposing inlays, is just unbelievable. I would have to hold the cue before I'd be willing to bet the farm. But I am pretty sure it is in original condition. I also think it would be very collectable as it is.

Tracy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top