Cue Identification Inquiry? Help me if you can, please.

This is a great cue. I have been pondering it since it was posted. I wish I had more expertise with such cues but they tend to be in a price class that I just don't get my hands on enough. That alone says something I think.

Palmer? I have been struggling with that myself.

When I first saw it names like Szam jumped into my mind as well as Tad and others of that ilk.

I really thought one of the gentlemen with experience in the better cues would know those markings and/or veneers/rings and just nail it by now.

I would want those markings identified. Careful cleaning by an expert would reveal them more clearly. The kind of expert I am talking about would be found at a museum, not a pool hall.

Those markings are screaming something out and we just don't hear it. I hope somebody can ID it. This one really should not remain an orphan.

If I come up with anything I will post it, and I will continue to ponder this matter...but at the moment I admit it seems to be out of my league.
 
cue fix said:
Hello Chris. The joint is 5/16X18 and I tried using a magnet to see if it would stick to the ferrule like other Palmers I have had, but it didn't, so I believe they are glued on. I haven't seen Palmers with this style ringwork, but Randyg says he has Palmers with this ringwork so i guess they do exist. I appreciate all the responses I have gotten so far.
Click to expand...

We think it's a custom Palmer, or even a prototype. There are a lot of Palmer consistent parts on this cue. Also, because of the time period and the appearance, it could well be a Szamboti forearm. It's a custom and a very unusual cue. The cue looks like it would have been made sometime in the 1973 - 1975 time period, when Palmer had the thicker stainless joint but before they switched to solid brass pilots for the shafts.

Anyway, that's the my opinion and guess, and Peter Balner thinks so too - but we can't say definite.

Chris
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top