Wow. I think that might be it!
In addition to the difference in the joint rings, the butt looks shorter than the shaft. It's hard to tell because of the way the seller took the pictures, they are all at angles, but it does look like the butt is short.
The cue is also listed at 57". I believe the Palmer was made at 58".
Maybe it was even done without lengthening the handle? Gain a little length by widening the dashed joint ring, and accept a little loss to call it a 57" cue.
If I have time I'll photoshop an inch out of a Palmer picture for comparison, but right now just eyeballing it, it looks like taking a little over an inch out and then making it an even inch by widening the ring would put the points right where we find them on the mystery cue.
I am really intrigued by this. It looks to be just as subdude1974 said.
Could still be a "good cue", but it makes the value issue awkward. It sure is striking with those long points.
.
In addition to the difference in the joint rings, the butt looks shorter than the shaft. It's hard to tell because of the way the seller took the pictures, they are all at angles, but it does look like the butt is short.
The cue is also listed at 57". I believe the Palmer was made at 58".
Maybe it was even done without lengthening the handle? Gain a little length by widening the dashed joint ring, and accept a little loss to call it a 57" cue.
If I have time I'll photoshop an inch out of a Palmer picture for comparison, but right now just eyeballing it, it looks like taking a little over an inch out and then making it an even inch by widening the ring would put the points right where we find them on the mystery cue.
I am really intrigued by this. It looks to be just as subdude1974 said.
Could still be a "good cue", but it makes the value issue awkward. It sure is striking with those long points.
.