collecting cue makers

[Ballistic Billiards]

While I don't have the experience with cuesmiths to lump them,
I'd like to know how someone with a lot of experience would
categorize them.

I've heard Olney compared to SW and DPK,
edit: I'd also have to add Bender and Young in this group.
I'm interested to see how many categories
we have and the different characteristics.

I have a feeling Crisp and Travis fit in this group but could be wrong.
What do you think?

It's funny how one man's junk shafts are another's treasure.
I think this will be very helpful to those that can't buy or play
with every cue out there.

-cOOp

 

[bruin70]

you're making a generally subjective analysis.
to categorize by hit is sheer folly since one can make a case that every cue hits differently. therefore the categorization would only be good for each individual since each has his own criteria. you could never communicate or compare your list with someone else's.

i think it's better to categorize by construction type, expense, the color of a cuemaker's hair, or something equally tangible. lumping "crisp and travis", whoever the F they are, does a disservice to sw/bender/omega/kershenbrock/young.

 

[Ballistic Billiards]

you're making a generally subjective analysis.
to categorize by hit is sheer folly since one can make a case that every cue hits differently.

i think it's better to categorize by construction type, expense, the color of a cuemaker's hair, or something equally tangible. lumping "crisp and travis", whoever the F they are, does a disservice to sw/bender/omega/kershenbrock/young.

If you don't know who they are, how can you make such a statement.

crisp=sugartree / travis=black creek

Doesn't construction type/ wood preference = hit?

I just have the feeling that there aren't as many preference groups
as we tend to believe there are, ie. every cue hits differently.
There certainly are similarities and I'm just curious if other people have
noticed these styles from different people.

Thanks for the input and you may be right, some makers certainly like
a piloted ss joint as well as a piloted ivory depending on the style of
cue.

Don't cue makers earn their reputation based on the materials and
construction technique? Don't these get repeated by other makers
who use their measurements?

Wouldn't it be cool to see that their are X number of styles preferred
by X number of people?

Wouldn't this help to educate the buyers of custom cues?

Like I said, I'm not an expert but I think this comes down to wood preference and
knowing who uses the kind of wood we prefer helps us find a cue maker with
a similar preference.

 

[bruin70]

because i can make the statement that crisp and travis have not payed the dues that the others have, nor are they in the same class as collectables". are you talking about "collecting", which by my standard requires a certain amount of longevity and status.

if you have your categories, and communicate with others, say by email, and you want to make trades or discuss business, and in general be on the same page as everyone else,,,,and someone else doesn't put sugartree or black creek in the "sw/dpk-type category", then where are you all? how do you come to agree?

construction doesn't = hit. a jw flatface is NOT the same as a sw. nor is his ss joint the same hit as a scruggs.

reputation is earned by percieved quality. two cuemakers could use the same construction, but one might have more integrity and quality control than another. reputation and fame is also a result of superior craftsmanship and design. i would NEVER offer as a buying opportunity "say, if you like dpk's then you might like joe quemaker because he builds the same type cue". in fact, i wouldn't know what i'd say,,,,but i wouldn't say that.

....AS A COLLECTOR.

i understand what you're getting at, but i think you're speaking as a player looking for a playing cue, not a collector. players might decide by hit,,,collectors don't. collectors might like ivory, they might like MOP , scrimshaw, or certain woods, certain cuemakers, certain inlays,,,,but not by hit.

 

[Ballistic Billiards]

bruin,

You're telling me that if you have a cue that plays similar to a SW and a
customer knows they like a SW but can't afford one, you wouldn't try
to steer them to the other?
I guess this is the difference between a collector and a dealer.
Looking for more opinions here.
-cOOp

 

[Ballistic Billiards]

if you have your categories, and communicate with others, say by email, and you want to make trades or discuss business, and in general be on the same page as everyone else,,,,and someone else doesn't put sugartree or black creek in the "sw/dpk-type category", then where are you all? how do you come to agree?

That's the whole purpose of this thread, to get to the same page.
Seems this is taboo for you and maybe I'm out of line posing such
a table be public knowledge.

I don't own a cue that would make it into any of these groups
but the more I learn, the more I want to have a flock of cues
that play the way that I like.

-cOOp

 

[bruin70]

bruin,

You're telling me that if you have a cue that plays similar to a SW and a
customer knows they like a SW but can't afford one, you wouldn't try
to steer them to the other?
I guess this is the difference between a collector and a dealer.
Looking for more opinions here.
-cOOp

i just said,,,you're talking playing cue, not collecting. i think the topic title should be "categorizing playing cues", not "collecting cuemakers".

 

[bruin70]

That's the whole purpose of this thread, to get to the same page.
Seems this is taboo for you and maybe I'm out of line posing such
a table be public knowledge.

I don't own a cue that would make it into any of these groups
but the more I learn, the more I want to have a flock of cues
that play the way that I like.

-cOOp

taboo? i'm saying there are other ways to categorize collectable cues.

 

[Ballistic Billiards]

i just said,,,you're talking playing cue, not collecting. i think the topic title should be "categorizing playing cues", not "collecting cuemakers".

I called it "collecting cue makers" because I want to see how many
camps there based on playability. If you read my first post, it is all
about playability.

That's why I didn't call it collector cues.

Do you have something to kick this off into a good discussion?

-cOOp

 

[skins]

the only "real" way fore anyone to become more in the loop, so to speak, with cues is to get you feet wet and get exposed to as many different makers cues as possible. word of mouth only goes so far because theres just too many out there who think what they have is "the bomb" but really wouldn't know how to tell the difference between a great cue and one not so great. i think the more cues you are exposed to the more these differences can become apparent and more easily recognizable. as far as someone who can't afford a certain cue and wants to "cheapen up" you'll be able to find many cues that can play well but to lump some of those makers in with other well established makers because of some sort of perceived similarity for collecting purposes is not the best way to determine how collectible those cues will be in the future. the phrase "been there, done that" come to mind and saying that, imo the gap for the playability of cues in general is getting more narrow due to many established construction techniques being more widely know as well machinery and many materials used to construct them getting better as well but the more a maker brings something unique, different or better to the table the greater the chance of their cues becoming collectible.
............i'm not sure if this is a big part of what your wanting but i thought i'd add .02 anyway.