Comparison/differences between making pool and snooker cues?

[sfleinen]

Folks:

This very-interesting video was posted in the Main forum:

Building Ronnie O'Sullivan's Parris Cue:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=v-9LRNnflLs

I was amazed at how much planing and sanding was done *by hand* (i.e. with the cue clamped still, on a bench, vs spinning it in a lathe). John Parris explains that most of the shaping -- most of the material is removed -- by hand.

I realize that snooker cues are "directional" (i.e. they have a "top" and "bottom" surface, and are held the same way / same orientation every time -- usually with the ash "chevrons" on top). This is as opposed to pool cues, which are supposed to be radially consistent -- one is supposed to be able to orient the pool cue any way with the same results.

Questions, though:

1. How does John Parris' method (which I'm assuming is standard for the making of snooker cues, or perhaps John is a breed apart?) compare to the making of a pool cue?

2. Do we have any U.S. cue makers that utilize many of the same "every step by hand" techniques that John Parris uses? Or is it because the construction of pool and snooker cues are very different, precisely because of the cue's orientation aspect?

-Sean

P.S.: The purpose of this post is purely for interest -- I find this topic fascinating! Just to prevent any misunderstandings, it is not intended for any cuemakers to "read into things" and somehow take this as "pool cue makers are inferior to snooker cue makers because pool cue makers take shortcuts with machines," or any silly notion like that. (I know these forums like a book in this regard -- reading into things that are not there / not intended.)

 

[Agent17]

They are very different construction techniques, but it has nothing to do with 'directional' reasons.

American pool cues are made up of short sections which are easy to turn/shape on small (or large) lathes. They are then 'decorated' using simple or very intricate patterns.

English snooker cues are traditionally 1pc, although these days many are butt jointed, i.e. roughly 3/4 length shaft, 1/4 length butt configuration, and these shaft lengths are much more awkward to handle on a lathe. Not impossible, many are produced using large copy lathes, just more awkward.

The best snooker cues are hand spliced with rounded points (butterfly style), not sharp machine spliced points. Whilst it is possible to achieve 'hand splicing' on a lathe, it is not as simple a set up as pool cue machine spliced style, so invariably is done by hand.

Also, whilst this can be a relatively quick process, the difficult part is to keep the splices even and this is when the 'hand' work becomes important because adjustments can be made 'on the fly' to make allowances for wood movement etc..

A 1pc cue with full length splices (around 16"-20") would almost certainly end up with uneven points if done on a lathe because the moment the first splice is cut away, the wood will move and essentially change the centre line of the cue. This will happen each time a splice is added so during final turning, the points will be all over the place.

Once constructed, the butt section could be turned (and some makers do this) but can also be planed down quite quickly, which makes it is easier to 'keep an eye' or make tiny adjustments if necessary.

Having said that, very few can achieve even points using ANY method, so it does not really matter whether they used lathe or hand.

The video gives a reasonable idea of how most good snooker cue makers would go about things. Although I expect more machines were used than were shown.

Finally, there's a good reason why snooker players hold their cue one way and it's because cueball control is vital for positional play. They need to be hitting the cueball with the same part of the tip for certain shots to get just the right reaction.

After the tip is initially bedded in, they quickly get used to the tip reaction. Spin the cue round and they will lose that positional accuracy. American pool players should try it and forget that radial consistency stuff. And low deflection shafts for that matter. But that's a different subject