Cue Xrays?

[Mr. Bond]

I can think of two main reasons to X Ray a cue.

1) To be able to identify the cue in the future for ownership, modification or authentication issues.

2) To see if the internal construction is consistent with other known examples of the cue without having to disassemle it.

You would not learn much about construction techniques from an x-ray.

And this was really the cruxt of the issue, for me anyway.

I'm in the business of documenting billiard history, so a few years back I decided that I specifically wanted (and needed) to learn more about various methods of cue construction. (so I can definitively discern the shit from the shine-ola) I'll be the first to admit that 10 years ago, I couldnt.

Since then, I have spent a great deal of time and effort learning about the skill and art of cue making, and have subsequently developed a much greater appreciation of "what it takes" to be good at it.

Nonetheless, I still find myself, and many common folk, asking the same question when we hold an 'unknown' makers cue: How can you really tell how much care and precision was employed to build this thing, when you can only see what you can see? (on the outside)

So the question of Xrays being useful for such things is exceptionally compelling to me.

 

[deanoc]

i x rayed several bushkas as have many others
not to see if there is a screw at the a joint,but
to see what kind of joint

i was looking for a furniture screw,fatter than the one kevin showed and with aggresive looking sharp pointed thread on both ends


this does not guarantee anything,perhaps george used several different screws but these that i am describing are what we looked for

absence raises a real question,but full splice titleist would not have these

 

[Chrippa]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=xray+pool+cue

That was cool:smile:

Chrippa

ps got to learn some of this

 

[kvinbrwr]

i x rayed several bushkas as have many others
not to see if there is a screw at the a joint,but
to see what kind of joint

i was looking for a furniture screw,fatter than the one kevin showed and with aggresive looking sharp pointed thread on both ends


this does not guarantee anything,perhaps george used several different screws but these that i am describing are what we looked for

absence raises a real question,but full splice titleist would not have these

There are guys here that know tons more about Balabushkas than I, but its my understanding that George only used one type of screw for the Spains and Guses he constructed.

Interestingly, I had a Titlist with Pete for verification and Pete was tortured over it, sitting on the fence, so many features were right but still he didn't want to commit. He wanted an x-ray of the joint, looking to see parts of the pin that were not available to the eye. Instead I let him take the joint off and he called me in about 1 minute with his decision.

Thanks

Kevin

 

[phil dade]

Kevin nailed it

Please read Kevin Brewer's post. That is the answer. Unfortunately, I found out the hard way with respect to a cue bought in 2004.

 

[TATE]

I can't ever tell in these threads if people are asking a serious question.

Freddie

It was serious. Joey's photo appears to be a simple threaded rod, but one end is finished and one end is flat. Why the finished end? Typically both ends would be unfinished, or if the end was turned, both would be finished. If this is an a-joint, and I assume it is, why finish one end and not the other, since there is only one time it will be put together? So now that brings us to the assumption is this was a long, rounded end finished screw - and it was cut short to fit as Joey pointed out.

Kevins' photo is a double threaded screw that was probably manufactured that way with round ends, since there is no reason to round the ends for an A joint. So this is somewhat of a mystery to me - and it would tell me that these are probably not the same cue maker.

 

[flyvirginiaguy]

this does not guarantee anything,perhaps george used several different screws but these that i am describing are what we looked for

I have only seen maybe 6 different pics of x-rays (so definitely no expert on x-rays) However, I am sure a great deal of them had the same screw, but you could never rule out one by having a different screw design. That would not be to smart. He may have found something better, his supply could have run out (anything). Just like he found better blanks, better acylics, better finishes. Even today, cue makers do it all the time, tinker. It is also why you would have to use a whole lot of different aspects of the cue to come to a firm conclusion. But it is a great tool for narrowing things down.

 

[thepavlos]

This past year I brought a cue to my friend, who works for a major hospital, to x-ray. They had just received a new high resolution video x-ray machine that is to be used in catheterization procedures. We could actually see the differences between the woods and the veneers. Of course this is not a machine that is readily available for such important work as x-raying cues but it really does show a lot of fine detail that I was truly surprised to see. Most traditional x-rays just show you differences between wood, metal and inlays usually.

 

[Cornerman]

Warning: I"m not making any comments about cue technology or techniques. As a career, I'm an assembly engineer, so I'm just commenting with that in mind.

It was serious. Joey's photo appears to be a simple threaded rod, but one end is finished and one end is flat. Why the finished end?

Okay. I don't know who's cue it is, but it looked like a standard long set screw not a threaded rod. I won't make any comments on why anyone would use one, but I certainly wouldn't have thought anything else other than seeing it as a profile on an X-ray. Looks like a long set screw.

Kevins' photo is a double threaded screw that was probably manufactured that way with round ends, since there is no reason to round the ends for an A joint. So this is somewhat of a mystery to me - and it would tell me that these are probably not the same cue maker.

The double-threaded screw has a section in the middle making this possibly another standard off the shelf double-ended stud, IMO. Right out of McMaster Carr.

I would find it ... interesting if someone were to make these themselves I guess...

Freddie <~~~ made that foolish mistake 20 years ago

 

[classiccues]

That one looks good to me. Wonder why the one end is ground flat?

Could just be it was cut from a longer threaded rod section. You can get this stuff in 6 and 8 ft lengths. If there is a benefit to using more or less to balance the cue than this would be the answer IMHO. The rounded section might have been the exposed part of lets say the handle and was "finished" so it would assemble easier into the forearm.

Also you must be careful using this as the sole reason to prove or disprove the maker. Many things could have occured to have to change the handle/screw. This happens more than you think.

JV

 

[TATE]

Could just be it was cut from a longer threaded rod section. You can get this stuff in 6 and 8 ft lengths. If there is a benefit to using more or less to balance the cue than this would be the answer IMHO. The rounded section might have been the exposed part of lets say the handle and was "finished" so it would assemble easier into the forearm.

Also you must be careful using this as the sole reason to prove or disprove the maker. Many things could have occured to have to change the handle/screw. This happens more than you think.

JV

Fred pointed out that "set screws" can be purchased this way (like Joey's).

Besides modifications, the other thing is if a cue maker had a 20 year career, there is going to be a lot of differences in what they used. Palmer had 4 different distinct joints during there years with quite a bit of variation in their various parts used.

 

[kvinbrwr]

Fred pointed out that "set screws" can be purchased this way (like Joey's).

Besides modifications, the other thing is if a cue maker had a 20 year career, there is going to be a lot of differences in what they used. Palmer had 4 different distinct joints during there years with quite a bit of variation in their various parts used.

I don't think George varied in the screw he used for Spains and Szams, but if I was unsure I'd ask Joe Van.

Kevin

 

[TATE]

I don't think George varied in the screw he used for Spains and Szams, but if I was unsure I'd ask Joe Van.

Kevin

A lot of x-rays have been taken but few have been published. They are mostly kept quiet for fear of copycat cues and disputes over authenticity. I've only seen a couple x-rays and have no idea what variations were used.

 

[Chopdoc]

to answer the OP's original question.

yes, you can xray cues and it will give you information. Xrays give you a picture based upon how much of it is absorbed, which is related to density. different woods have different densities, and metal has a different density than wood. that being said, shooting an xray thru a cue will give you subtle changes that can be seen on the film itself.

the way in which xrays are performed is not simply point and shoot, there are different ways in which you can adjust the amount of xray that are given, the exposure field, etc. furthermore, almost all xrays done currently are digital, meaning that there is post-processing adjustments that can be made. the contrast can be played w/, you can see the inverse of the image, etc. This is totally different than what was performed during Balabushka's time.

Therefore, the information that you can obtain nowadays is much more than before.

in regards to CT - this is the same physics as xrays. it shoots numerous xrays at different locations of the person/cue, therefore, from a CT, you could potentially create a 3-D reconstruction of the cue. However, as mentioned previously, it is based upon density of materials.

MRI would most definitely be a bad idea. It is based upon magnetic fields. this works well in humans because we have a lot of water content and this has polarity that can be manipulated by magnetic fields. However, this comes w/ some negatives. Metals and MRI, generally speaking, are VERY VERY BAD. people have suffered terrible injuries and even died from unknowingly having metal inside of an MRI machine. it will attract the metal to the machine like you have never seen. this would probably result in your cue being smashed against the MRI machine.

All in all, xrays/CT can give a tremendous amt of information on the construction of the cue, and potentially tell you depth of inlays pockets, whether a cue is full splice or short splice, cracks that have been repaired, air pockets, etc.

A cue with ferrous metal in it would be a bad idea in an MRI for sure. In fact, you don't know what is inside the cue it so it would be a bad idea to try it.

Even some old full splice cues have been found to have metal in them when cut for conversion. So putting any cue into an MRI would be a bad idea. But I doubt you would ever get far enough to try it anyway...the powers that be, that run the MRI, wouldn't allow it (or shouldn't anyway).

But beyond that, I don't think it would be nearly as good as a CT anyway considering the cue materials involved.

I would love to see a CT of a cue.




.

 

[kvinbrwr]

A lot of x-rays have been taken but few have been published. They are mostly kept quiet for fear of copycat cues and disputes over authenticity. I've only seen a couple x-rays and have no idea what variations were used.

The x-ray I want to see is of that rabbit guy's cues that are better than George's but he can't show us here at AZ.

I never know what I'm looking at. I just take them and show them to the powers that be and then send the cue to Tasc (if the x-ray results warrant that).

My real feeling on the subject is this:

Regardless of who made any cue in question, if Pete says its a Balabushka, then it is, if he says its not, then its not. Any other interpretation is too painful.

Kevin

 

[Chopdoc]

A lot of x-rays have been taken but few have been published. They are mostly kept quiet for fear of copycat cues and disputes over authenticity.

I have assumed this myself. I figure we won't see Bushka x-rays floating around much for exactly such reasons.




.

 

[classiccues]

Fred pointed out that "set screws" can be purchased this way (like Joey's).

Besides modifications, the other thing is if a cue maker had a 20 year career, there is going to be a lot of differences in what they used. Palmer had 4 different distinct joints during there years with quite a bit of variation in their various parts used.

The problem with the set screw theory IMHO is two fold. Threaded rod, much cheaper, and standard lengths. 1/2" max 5, 7 /16 max 2 3/4, 3/8 4". The screw in the picture is most likely a 1/2 diameter threaded rod. Which has been used by Szamboti, Palmer, and probably 3/4 of every cuemaker.

It is unlikely that Balabushka would have known about a 1/2" 5" lg, set screws. The common Bushka lag, was more prevalent in assembly of large wood pieces therefore being very well known and available to him and probably familiar to him.

BTW there are common Bushka elements from the early cues, all the way to cues he made in 1975. The one thing Bushka was, he was more consistent than any other cuemaker we have x-rayed.

JV

 

[JoeyInCali]

The problem with the set screw theory IMHO is two fold. Threaded rod, much cheaper, and standard lengths. 1/2" max 5, 7 /16 max 2 3/4, 3/8 4". The screw in the picture is most likely a 1/2 diameter threaded rod. Which has been used by Szamboti, Palmer, and probably 3/4 of every cuemaker.

It is unlikely that Balabushka would have known about a 1/2" 5" lg, set screws. The common Bushka lag, was more prevalent in assembly of large wood pieces therefore being very well known and available to him and probably familiar to him.

BTW there are common Bushka elements from the early cues, all the way to cues he made in 1975. The one thing Bushka was, he was more consistent than any other cuemaker we have x-rayed.

JV

I thought Gus used 7/16 20 ?

 

[classiccues]

I thought Gus used 7/16 20 ?

Well coming from the x-ray and a ruler, I seem to remember it being 1/2". I haven't had to cut one apart, I guess its possible, 7/16. I think Gus was more aware of using that screw for weight purposes as well as the mechanical connection.

We have found a few different lengths as we have with weight bolts.

JV

 

[flyvirginiaguy]

A question remains. How many cues have been x-rayed? Maybe 50 of the more than 1000 he is presumed to have made? George was a very very private man about his cues. And unless someone has x-rayed every cue he made or asked him personally, it really only remains one tool in the many to identify them. But having a different bolt at the A-joint could never rule it out, without George. It is a combination of many aspects of the cue. As Tascarella has said, to I am sure many people.