Cue Joint Size Question

HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Aloha all,

I read a lot on here about the types of joints used, the materials they are made of, and the types of pins, but I can't find much information on why particular cuemakers "prefer" to utilize a certain joint diameter.

I assume a joint utilizing a "big pin" requires the joint be a little bigger than a joint using a lesser size pin, but that is just me using what I would consider logic (to me, who has never did any wood work...short of sharpening a pencil). I'm sure that a cuemaker would make anything that you desired if you ordered custom...but I would hope they cuemaker would tell you the pros and cons of your particular idea or selection.

I've seen cues with joint sizes less than .800 to larger than .860 from a variety of sources (custom and production), but some cuemakers tend to "gravitate" to a particular size and stay with it. I think Schon and Southwest use .835, or so, but they use different types of joints. I think Cuetec (calling them a cuemaker or not is up to you) uses a .790. Meucci tends to make smaller diameter joints as well.

I don't have any calipers, but I'm sure my McDermott, Adam Balabushka Replica, and Dale Perry all fall into separate ranges as well.

Most "old school" cues I've seen tended to have "larger" diameter joints than those being produced now and I realize that players today predominantly prefer thinner cues than those of old.

One thing that brought me to this posting was the post I saw about a cue made by Balabushka, utilizing a forearm made by Burton Spain, and then many years later matched with shafts supplied by Barry, but made by Gus Szamboti. It seems the cue joint and the shafts just "happened" to be the same size and the joint size was .808, which I think may be a bit smaller than "average" for cues made by those makers.

I realize that HIT, PREFERENCE, etc have been and will continue to be discussed on here without there EVER being consensus, but I would like to know "WHY" certain cuemakers would make cues with such "up and down" measurements without them being custom made to a particular buyer.

I know this post is "all over the place", but I like to know why "this" does "that" and how it all works when combined together.

Thank you for any thoughts on the subject you may wish to provide.
 
The joint diameter has little or no affect on the playability of a cue. The joint configuration has only one job....HOLD THE SHAFT & THE BUTT SECTIONS TIGHT...JER
 
I have used .850" well over 20 years and chose it to mainly be different. Now dozens of others use .850" but .840" and .830" were most popular when I started.
 
joint sizes

cueman said:
I have used .850" well over 20 years and chose it to mainly be different. Now dozens of others use .850" but .840" and .830" were most popular when I started.
Click to expand...

Dont you feel that (Meucci) for example is starting to get down to a dangerously thin wall? I like having more meat in that area? I like your .850
Bill
 
HawaiianEye said:
Aloha all,

I read a lot on here about the types of joints used, the materials they are made of, and the types of pins, but I can't find much information on why particular cuemakers "prefer" to utilize a certain joint diameter.

I assume a joint utilizing a "big pin" requires the joint be a little bigger than a joint using a lesser size pin, but that is just me using what I would consider logic (to me, who has never did any wood work...short of sharpening a pencil). I'm sure that a cuemaker would make anything that you desired if you ordered custom...but I would hope they cuemaker would tell you the pros and cons of your particular idea or selection.

I've seen cues with joint sizes less than .800 to larger than .860 from a variety of sources (custom and production), but some cuemakers tend to "gravitate" to a particular size and stay with it. I think Schon and Southwest use .835, or so, but they use different types of joints. I think Cuetec (calling them a cuemaker or not is up to you) uses a .790. Meucci tends to make smaller diameter joints as well.

I don't have any calipers, but I'm sure my McDermott, Adam Balabushka Replica, and Dale Perry all fall into separate ranges as well.

Most "old school" cues I've seen tended to have "larger" diameter joints than those being produced now and I realize that players today predominantly prefer thinner cues than those of old.

One thing that brought me to this posting was the post I saw about a cue made by Balabushka, utilizing a forearm made by Burton Spain, and then many years later matched with shafts supplied by Barry, but made by Gus Szamboti. It seems the cue joint and the shafts just "happened" to be the same size and the joint size was .808, which I think may be a bit smaller than "average" for cues made by those makers.

I realize that HIT, PREFERENCE, etc have been and will continue to be discussed on here without there EVER being consensus, but I would like to know "WHY" certain cuemakers would make cues with such "up and down" measurements without them being custom made to a particular buyer.

I know this post is "all over the place", but I like to know why "this" does "that" and how it all works when combined together.

Thank you for any thoughts on the subject you may wish to provide.
Click to expand...
I can vary the size of the handle but the joint and A-joint diameter are my domain.
I like fat forearms.
Much fatter than the usual .840"-1.025" forearms.
Just my preference.
I believe Harvey Martin started the compound taper ( multiple angles ) butts but am not too sure.
Old cues had one steep angle so they had skinny joints and fat handles.
 
I use an 0.870 joint with a little less taper in the forearm. I don't like butt heavy cues, and the thicker material farther forward makes it easier to achieve the feel I like without having to add weight there. It also adds a tad more material at the joint, which is a small positive.
 
Mitchxout said:
I disagree. The joint diameter has alot to do with the way the cue flexes.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your disagreement. idk if you've played with a southwest, but they have a small joint dia. @ around .830, and yet still have a very solid hit. The "hit" comes mostly from the shaft taper, ferrule, and tip.
 
danutz said:
I disagree with your disagreement. idk if you've played with a southwest, but they have a small joint dia. @ around .830, and yet still have a very solid hit. The "hit" comes mostly from the shaft taper, ferrule, and tip.
Click to expand...

So would a SW shaft on Cuetec hit the same?
 
danutz said:
I disagree with your disagreement. idk if you've played with a southwest, but they have a small joint dia. @ around .830, and yet still have a very solid hit. The "hit" comes mostly from the shaft taper, ferrule, and tip.
Click to expand...

Ultimately the shaft ends at the joint. Does the joint diameter ultimately not affect the taper to a degree? I dunno, I might be splitting hairs.

I do believe you are correct, just saying it does not seem to be absolute, that the two factors are not independent as far as I know.

Then again as I am typing this I realize you did say "mostly" and that may in part have to do with what I am asking about.
 
danutz said:
I disagree with your disagreement. idk if you've played with a southwest, but they have a small joint dia. @ around .830, and yet still have a very solid hit. The "hit" comes mostly from the shaft taper, ferrule, and tip.
Click to expand...

I am not sure the .830 really gets you into the realm of being small. It is certainly less than the .840 standard size Predator has lead the cue making world to. Small would seem to be somewhat less but the point someone made is that the diameter effects the taper on the butt. SW solves the relatively smaller joint size with a compound taper, as do others, to increase the size of the butt at the A joint. If the size of the forearm makes no difference than why to cuemakers generally like v-points instead of flat bottomed points? V-points are thought to increase the stiffness of the forearm and if that was not important to the hit of the cue than why would anyone think it was? Does not size play a part in stiffness??

I do not have a compound taper and generally build my cues either .850 or .840 at the joint. I use flat bottomed points with no A-joint. On a cue with a maple forearm I use the .850 joint size to help stiffen the forearm. As Joey asked, would a SW shaft play the same on a Players cue?... My answer, without having either one to try, would still be NO. I don't see how you can change the overall vibration characteristics of a cue and have it hit, play, perform the same.

While one can argue that joint size makes no difference cuemakers go to great pains to assemble the butt to get a certain hit from their cues. Either they are wasting their time because it makes no difference or all those little things in concert really do define the playability of their product. Even taking the rubber bumper off the end of the cue effects the sound and feel of the cue. Would Meucci play the same if the joint size was .850? Of course not.

Does a house cue that is thin in the area that the joint would be play the same as one that is thicker in that area??

So, anyone here make violins? Does neck size where it connects to the body make any difference or is it only the shape of the neck/body?

Bob Danielson
www.bdcuesandcomix.com
 
Last edited:
Would it simply be more accurate to say that it is a secondary or tertiary factor? :confused:
 
I think not. If SW goes through the trouble to have a compound taper that increases the size of the A-joint relative to the joint/butt sleeve size than for them it is a primary factor. If the only primary factor in any pool cue was shaft taper than it seems there would be more uniformity in design but there are almost as many tapers as there are cue makers. There are also many designs in the assemblage of butts, some simply by the use of different tooling but many from different points of view on what the final results should be.

Bob Danielson
www.bdcuesandcomix.com
 
Well, it sounds to me like the relative importance depends on the cue maker, his design theories, and his construction methods. For some it is more important as a "tuning" method, for others less so.

Forgive me for chiming in so much, I am not a cue maker obviously, I am merely trying to understand the subject at hand.


I guess any physical aspect of a cue (except maybe color and smell, LOL!) could affect how it feels or plays to some degree and the relative importance of those factors is a matter of the craft of the individual cue maker.

I respect what all of you are saying and don't necessarily see your opinions so much at odds with each other really.
 
bdcues said:
I am not sure the .830 really gets you into the realm of being small. It is certainly less than the .840 standard size Predator has lead the cue making world to. Bob Danielson
www.bdcuesandcomix.com
Click to expand...
Let's not give Predator credit for something Joss and Schon were doing for decades while Predators were still lions, bears, tigers, eagles, snakes and such instead of pool cues.
 
My point was they only make shafts one joint size and for the most part cuemakers would make cue butts to match the size.

So, since Schon and Joss and probably others were using .840 as a standard joint size, were they doing this because they thought it was essential to the hit of the cue based on their butt taper or did they just make them that sized because they thought that the only thing that mattered was the tip, ferrule and taper of the shaft and .840 just sounded like a nice number?

Bob Danielson
www.bdcuesandcomix.com
 
Chopdoc said:
Ultimately the shaft ends at the joint. Does the joint diameter ultimately not affect the taper to a degree? I dunno, I might be splitting hairs.

I do believe you are correct, just saying it does not seem to be absolute, that the two factors are not independent as far as I know.

Then again as I am typing this I realize you did say "mostly" and that may in part have to do with what I am asking about.
Click to expand...

Ray Schuler's cues, which were known to be quite stiff, have a joint diameter of 0.870". I don't think it's coincidental. I think he started with a thick piece of wood so he had more to make his wedge out of, because that's what some of his billiard shafts resemble. His pool oriented shafts were also quite stiff. Starting with a thick joint would make it easier to achieve a very stiff shaft.
 
Lexicologist71 said:
Ray Schuler's cues, which were known to be quite stiff, have a joint diameter of 0.870". I don't think it's coincidental. I think he started with a thick piece of wood so he had more to make his wedge out of, because that's what some of his billiard shafts resemble. His pool oriented shafts were also quite stiff. Starting with a thick joint would make it easier to achieve a very stiff shaft.
Click to expand...

This is along the line of thinking I was using. I figured that if the joint was thicker then the shaft would be "meatier" at the base and unless there was a VERY long pro taper the shaft would have to be stiffer. I may be totally wrong, but that was my line of reasoning.

I enjoy reading everyone's responses because it gives me a better understanding of "how things work", even though there seems to be opposing views sometimes.

Thank your for sharing your views and thoughts on the subject. Would like to hear some more from everybody.

Aloha.
 
Last edited:
Of course the joint diameter affects the way a cue plays. Schuler made stiff hitting cues for 3-C hence the .870. Predator made .840 because that is what most cues were.

Cuemakers settle on the diameter that they like best and if they are worth their salt they make the same diameter joints all the time so that their cues play the same.

While I have never used them a lot of cuemakers today use what are known as sanding mandrels. These are lathe driven carbide pieces to which they mount the shafts and butts and sand the wood down to the point whare they are at the level of the carbide which, being harder than the sand paper, becomes the final diameter of the joint. The standard size for these mandrels is .840".

As you vary the joint size, the feel you get from the cue will vary as well and too fat is like a 2X4 while too thin is whippy. There are always going to be people who like different things but if you are planning to appeal to the most people you need to build what the like best and about .840" is it. If you built only .950" joints, you would soon have a nice collection of really stiff cues that were almost impossible to sell at a decent price.
 
To what Chris was saying, Predator didn't establish the .840" joint diameter,
they accommodate it.
They are an aftermarket LD shaft manufacturer and as such they cater to the MAJORITY
of the cue manufacturer's given/known jnt. diams.
I can't begin to speak for Royce but I happen to know that OB does the same thing.
18 thd.-.835", 14 thd.-.840", Uni QR-.840", Radial-.840/.842".
These diameters fit the vast majority of cues made today (for their given pin thd.).
The 10 thd. is the one that gets funny. It can be anywhere btwn. .835" & .850".

For the reader that sees a new shaft in their future, a little tip.
If you want your new shaft to fit properly, please put calipers to the joint of your
cue before placing your order.
I can build these shafts to any diameter you tell me. If you don't, I have no choice
but to go by the numbers I gave above.
I really want you to be happy with your purchase, that's what I get paid for.
Aside from the money, nothing trips my trigger more than to have someone at Seyberts
tell me, so & so called in to say you did their shaft perfectly.
That's real reward.

Then there's the customs..........
I strongly believe that in the custom arena there should be no standards.
I feel that the builder should have the freedom to build as he wishes.
And they do.........Viva Le Difference.
That difference is what makes us special. We build what we feel is the best.
At the end of the day, joint diameter is just the beginning.

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