Cue butt thickness

Underclocked

Underclocked

.........Whut?.........
Silver Member
Why has the recent trend been toward thinner butts on cues? It's amazing how much difference in feel there is between a cue with a 1.28" diameter butt vs one with a 1.22" butt. Recently stroked a cue that felt like a twig in my right hand and was surprised to find it measured 1.22"

Am I alone in favoring thicker butts? And who decides these things?
 
Underclocked said:
Why has the recent trend been toward thinner butts on cues? It's amazing how much difference in feel there is between a cue with a 1.28" diameter butt vs one with a 1.22" butt. Recently stroked a cue that felt like a twig in my right hand and was surprised to find it measured 1.22"

Am I alone in favoring thicker butts? And who decides these things?
Click to expand...

I guess players have decided this. This has been the trend for some years now. Still, some players and builders still prefer to not go that thin. I am building my cues to 1.27. Thankfully, there are still plenty of options.

Kelly
 
Anything under 1.25 feels to thin to me. I'm not sure why cues keep getting thinner. They feel "weak" to me when they are undersized. I bought a Frank Paradise the other day thats over 1.30 and I really like that feel. I can't wait to get it back from the refinish. Are peoples hands shrinking?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
 
I feel that thinner handles tend to encourage a more natural cradling grip on the cue and discourage twisting the cue.

Honestly though, this may be the least important spec on a cue for me. I like skinny butts, shapely butts, and big round butts too. :thumbup:
 
FAST_N_LOOSE said:
Anything under 1.25 feels to thin to me. I'm not sure why cues keep getting thinner. They feel "weak" to me when they are undersized. I bought a Frank Paradise the other day thats over 1.30 and I really like that feel. I can't wait to get it back from the refinish. Are peoples hands shrinking?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

I would think if anything, peoples hands are getting bigger. The average height in America has went up 3-4" in the past 50 years. Personally, I like the thinner butts and smaller shafts, but I have the hands of a 12 year old girl.

I can play with fat ones. My previous playing cue was a 60's Joss and it was like a log. I was very comfortable with it, but when I had my most recent cue made I requested a thinner handle. It is still a heavy cue like I prefer so maybe that makes a difference in the feel.
 
This might be a shock but a single angle cue with 1.250" bottom might thinner in the handle section than a compound angle cue with a 1.235" bottom.
Don't measure the bottom, measure the end of the wrap.

Skinnier and no wrap is getting to be the new trend though.
 
Underclocked said:
Why has the recent trend been toward thinner butts on cues? It's amazing how much difference in feel there is between a cue with a 1.28" diameter butt vs one with a 1.22" butt. Recently stroked a cue that felt like a twig in my right hand and was surprised to find it measured 1.22"

Am I alone in favoring thicker butts? And who decides these things?
Click to expand...

No, you are not alone.
I like the soft hit that a thicker butt gives you.
A cue maker told me that a thick butt absorbs the vibrations better.
My favorite cues are about 29/30 mm where I hold them....
..but they swell to 33/35 mm behind my hand.

That's why I don't like most snooker cues..they hit hard.
 
I too like a thinner butt cue and have had a number of cues made that measured 1.18 at the butt cap. It is amazing how small of a difference that you can feel with your hands. I will say that I have trended toward the larger diameter tip though as I know prefer a 13mm tip.

Kevin
 
I'm restoring an old Rambow from the '50's right now, and it has a 1.344 butt. I'm also working on an old Brunswick Titleist built around 1920, and its butt measures 1.417. Yes, times, they are a changin'.

Roger
 
JoeyInCali said:
This might be a shock but a single angle cue with 1.250" bottom might thinner in the handle section than a compound angle cue with a 1.235" bottom.
Don't measure the bottom, measure the end of the wrap.

Skinnier and no wrap is getting to be the new trend though.
Click to expand...

Its not a shock that's why I prefer compound angles. I think many cue makers have not caught on, or don't care that players have different hand sizes. Gloves come in small, med & large. Golf grips come in different sizes & they can add an extra layers of tape to custom fit grip diameters.

Perhaps some cue makers will custom taper the handle but I suspect many will not. I measure from the front of the grip to the end of the grip. Most single tapers are way to small at the front and to large at the end.

Most are not as sensitive to grip size as I am. However if given the chance to compare different handle tapers I'll bet many of you would really like a different taper. So much so that you would like the option when you order a cue.

One thing I have yet to see is a cue maker, custom or production offer different butt tapers. Nor have I seen any maker show butt dimensions including the size from the front to the rear of the wrap area. I guess makers think we will accept it as is. That may be true for 90 +% of the market but it won't fly with me if I have one custom made.

The handle diameter/taper is more important than most players & cue makes think. It can effect how well you deliver the cue IE your stroke. To small might promote to much wrist, while to large may cause a push. To small or a slick grip can promote to tight of a grip. Whether it does or not, the handle size & taper to me ranks second, the first is shaft taper. A cue should feel good in both of your hands.

The diameters might be getting smaller due to heavier woods & cue length. Either that or some builder thought smaller is better and was copied buy many others -- who knows? Your right, the no wrap trend has caught on. I kind of like wrap-less but I prefer leather.

OH, the last couple of times I was in the sellers forum I asked for front & rear wrap diameters. All I got was Huh or I cant measure that or some dumb ass answer. So as far as I could tell its not a concern or it was to much trouble -- oh well, I rarely visit there anymore. Many are just flippers, no specs but it hits a ton!! LOL

Rod
 
butt thickness

I order in cues with thinner butts and certain colors of wood for female customers. After reading what i just wrote I am not going to say another word.
MMike
 
Rod said:
Its not a shock that's why I prefer compound angles. I think many cue makers have not caught on, or don't care that players have different hand sizes. Gloves come in small, med & large. Golf grips come in different sizes & they can add an extra layers of tape to custom fit grip diameters.

Perhaps some cue makers will custom taper the handle but I suspect many will not. I measure from the front of the grip to the end of the grip. Most single tapers are way to small at the front and to large at the end.

Most are not as sensitive to grip size as I am. However if given the chance to compare different handle tapers I'll bet many of you would really like a different taper. So much so that you would like the option when you order a cue.

One thing I have yet to see is a cue maker, custom or production offer different butt tapers. Nor have I seen any maker show butt dimensions including the size from the front to the rear of the wrap area. I guess makers think we will accept it as is. That may be true for 90 +% of the market but it won't fly with me if I have one custom made.

The handle diameter/taper is more important than most players & cue makes think. It can effect how well you deliver the cue IE your stroke. To small might promote to much wrist, while to large may cause a push. To small or a slick grip can promote to tight of a grip. Whether it does or not, the handle size & taper to me ranks second, the first is shaft taper. A cue should feel good in both of your hands.

The diameters might be getting smaller due to heavier woods & cue length. Either that or some builder thought smaller is better and was copied buy many others -- who knows? Your right, the no wrap trend has caught on. I kind of like wrap-less but I prefer leather.

OH, the last couple of times I was in the sellers forum I asked for front & rear wrap diameters. All I got was Huh or I cant measure that or some dumb ass answer. So as far as I could tell its not a concern or it was to much trouble -- oh well, I rarely visit there anymore. Many are just flippers, no specs but it hits a ton!! LOL

Rod
Click to expand...

Rod,

I think I might be able to answer why cue makers don't want to accomodate you, but it's just a theory that I have based on my perspective of what I do in my own shop. I'll explain next time I see you in the pool room.

Roger
 
I thought the subject would be inspiring, but I asked it as a serious question. Perhaps rather than the hand shrinking, the smaller butts are made to resemble other shrinkage?
 
It seems exacerbated by the new finish kick on linen as well. I prefer a larger butt and more course linen.
 
Underclocked said:
I thought the subject would be inspiring, but I asked it as a serious question. Perhaps rather than the hand shrinking, the smaller butts are made to resemble other shrinkage?
Click to expand...

We were all having a civil gentlemanly conversation about big round butts. How did your mind go to shrinkage? :confused::grin-square:

I wonder what to think of the trend towards longer cues.
 
I would like to have a list of cue makers that still offer butts that are greater than 1.25" diameter.

I am large so I also prefer longer cues with my ideal choice at a modest 59".
 
FWIW, measurements just taken on my Josey.

Start of wrap (forward to back measurements) 1.04"
wrap is 12 3/4" of wound linen
rearmost end of wrap: 1.22"
1.28" at ring before Butt Cap...

Trying hard to play it straight here...;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top