Differences between Mezz EC7 and EC9?
- Thread starter chenjy9
- Start date
I could be wrong but I believe the EC9 replaced the EC7. When I got my EC7 also got an ExPro shaft, probably an upgrade.
The EC9 has fancy rings, too much bling for me so I bought the EC7 at the end of line discount. A very nice cue.
Two rings is too much bling? Ok.
yes
What do you mean??! You get that beautiful EC9 stamped on the white ring so that everyone knows you are 2 better!
Not sure what functionality you mean in the cues, they all will poke the ball the same way when using the same shaft. The butt is just a handle for the shaft, which is the business end that actually has measurable performance characteristics and is a major part of the hit feel. The butt is for balance, grip feel, hit feel, weight and decoration, all of those are fairly personal and don't affect the cueball action.
Think of it like a watch, you can get all the "functionality" with a $30 digital watch that you can with a $5,000 Omega or something. If you stick a shaft you like on a cheap butt that suits your weight and balance, you have all the functionality you need.
Gar, I'm a very low key guy. No rings would have been even better. But I didn't want people to think it was a Crackpot cue.
That is mostly my fault for being improper with my terminology. Functionality for me is an umbrella term. Sometimes depending on butt construction, things like overall cue balance, warp resistance, fit, etc can be affected. Appreciate the answer and clarification!
I just placed my order for the EC7-ES with a Sigma shaft. <(^^<) (>^^)>
I didn't realize Omegas were so crappy...
You realize you made every watch guy on the planet roll their eyes in unison.
The taper and construction of the butt CAN have a big effect on how a cue hits/plays. Jerry Franklin and Kersenbrock could talk for hrs. on how the butt affected overall performance.
Crappy and useful for their job are different things. A watch was built to tell time. Any of them can do that. Fancy stuff is fancy stuff. A watch costing 10, 100, 1,000 times more than another does not use that cost for better timekeeping. It's just jewelry or art to show how much one can spend on something fairly useless, like shoes or purses for women. Any watch over a couple of hundred is same as a $1,000 coach purse that is barely large enough to hold a couple of quarters and is made for fashion and name. Cue performance is rarely related to the price, those are for secondary or tertiary things like hit feel, look and name recognition/status. No one buys a Rolls because they need to get to work, and no-one buys anything fancy in cues or watches because they need to make a ball or tell time.
Last edited:
Just to refresh your memory. You said: "you can get all the "functionality" with a $30 digital watch that you can with a $5,000 Omega or something".
I can't speak for an Omega branded watch, but I have a couple from different makers that are a few thousand cheaper, and no $30 digital watch has the same level of functionality.
As far as time keeping... Digital watches are by no means better at keeping time than expensive options. ...and yes depending on what you're buying some of that added expense is directly linked to the tech behind keeping time better.
Clearly your out of your element on defending this analogy...lol. Maybe we can just assume that you realize it's a bad one moving forward.
Not quite sure about that. The spring drive technology behind my Grand Seiko Snowflake is both a piece off history and an engineering marvel.
Yes but has nothing to do with the purpose of a watch.
Just to refresh your memory. You said: "you can get all the "functionality" with a $30 digital watch that you can with a $5,000 Omega or something".
I can't speak for an Omega branded watch, but I have a couple from different makers that are a few thousand cheaper, and no $30 digital watch has the same level of functionality.
As far as time keeping... Digital watches are by no means better at keeping time than expensive options. ...and yes depending on what you're buying some of that added expense is directly linked to the tech behind keeping time better.
Clearly your out of your element on defending this analogy...lol. Maybe we can just assume that you realize it's a bad one moving forward.
Of course it's a valid analogy, the extra cost is for the intangibles not the core function of an item in any case involving a basic need or quality. A $5 burger will fill you as well as a $50 one, a $1,000 watch won't tell you when noon is any better than a $10 one, a $50,000 car won't get you to work any faster than a $10,000 one, and a $1,000 cue won't help you make balls any better if used with the same shaft as a $100 one.
If people want to buy fancier stuff all fine by me, but don't pretend it due to some "need" or "function", it's all to show that one can afford to buy it and for the prestige and art factor of the item. I have a few nice cues, and a Movado watch, but I don't pretend any of my cues or watch is owned because they perform better. I just always liked the Movado design and bought one to have, I am just not silly enough to say that this $600 watch is any better as a watch than any $100 one you can buy at JC Penny. People just fake themselves into trying to justify things, like the pool hustlers that cheat some poor guy because he thought he could win and use the excuse or "well he wanted to take money from me so was greedy and now it's OK to lie about how good I play to take his". Someone dumps 10k on a watch and of course they need to say it's for something useful vs just the ability to spend the money on it when others can't or they are just a rich dope LOL Now they are a "collector" or a "connoisseur" instead of a sucker.
Last edited:
It actually can... That's what you're failing to grasp. That's cool though. I wouldn't expect you to educate yourself on the subject matter for sake of this thread and to realize your poor analogy.
Need vs want vs reality are all different animals. I haven't claimed that I needed a $1000 watch, or wanted one. In fact I don't think I've mentioned any watch that I do own. However what none of it does is determine reality. The reality is, there are watches that are more expensive than a $10 or even a $1000 that actually do contain tech that make them better at determining the time. I don't know if your Movado is such a watch. They are nice to look at though.
Last edited:
I’ve been trying to avoid the watch debate but I do need to respond to this. The tech in my watch absolutely has to do with its purpose of keeping accurate time. It has quartz tech to allow the mechanical movement to maintain accurate time and uses kinetic energy to stay precise and working for 72 hours even without movement.
Never mind... You have a Movado watch, so of course you feel that way. Movado watches are like the epitome of fluff timepieces (they basically have one design that they essentially stole from the original designer and now whore it out in basically every single model released since) and would in fact make your analogy correct if they and other similar Gucci-type watch brands were the only ones around.
Edit: That might have came off as excessive. Movado is not a bad watch by any means. It's quartz tech is solid and without a second hand, movement is largely moot. They are typically really light and slim due to being quartz tech and well designed aesthetically. The Museum design has withstood the test of fashion time for a reason; it's eye catching yet minimalistic. It's an utter shame how Movado went about acquiring the design, but they also had the great sense to realize what a charismatic design the face was.
Last edited:
The EC9 costs more.
You get two white bands which detract from the original beauty the EC7 had.
Upgraded rings, which don't look good next to the white bands.
Last edited: