Full-, Half-, Shorsplice - PLEASE HELP !

Hi all. Here's my two cents. A splice refers to how a cue is joined together: Short splice or Fullsplice.

Short splice uses a tenon and screw or some variation of that. The end result is that a certain portion of each piece of wood is touching the other with a flat face (depending on how large or small the tenon is). The issue? The buzz. Caused by either the bolt or the end grain of the wood butted up against the other OR both. We can argue that forever along with the solutions.

Fullsplice is one answer to the problem. No screw and no flat face end grain issue.

Burton developed the double splice as an answer for weight and balance issues. Adding a butt sleeve to a fullsplice (IN MY OPINION) does not make it a short splice cue. It is for asthetics and is sleeved or threaded on a tenon and is no more than a long butt cap. It does not add or detract (if done properly) to the structural integrity of the cue.

I've heard of guys that move the A joint a little farther down the handle because of all kinds of theories BUT it is still a short spliced cue. Why? Because structurally that is what joins the cue together.

Which one is better? FULLSPLICE OF COURSE!

Mark Bear
 
Which one is better? FULLSPLICE OF COURSE!

Mark Bear

:barf::yeah: :bash: :slap: :dance:
 
Last edited:
First of all thanks to Mike and Mark for your description, too.
And all the others for their help.

After reading all the posts again, and after Mike sent me some pics and descriptions, too,
i think my confusion starts out of the words SHORT SPLICE. :rolleyes:
Like i said before, maybe it´s my english that causes my confusion, and it looks like it is. :D

I thought most of the cuemakers today have a piece of wood (round) which will be the forearm.
Then they make 4 cuts in it (V - Cuts) and put 4 suares of wood in these wholes (with or without veneers on it).
Then sand it down that all is round together, and then put a handle on it.
Is that correct ?
And if yes, would that be a SHORT SPLICE or a V-CUT method, or is that the same thing !?

best regards,
Erich
 
Here is my opinion of what makes a full splice cue, and why it is important to me.

Full splice cue construction is such that the four 'prongs' you see above the wrap of a cue are made from the same piece of wood. A single, solid block is cut to provide four angled prongs of wood which finger into the four v-grooves cut in the forearm wood to accept them. Further, this piece of 'prong wood' should continue uninterrupted to the end of the wrap (the handle section). Beyond the wrap is fair game in my opinion; however I believe that the tenon for the butt sleeve should be as substantial as possible (as large diameter as possible) and pass fully through the butt sleeve to the butt cap. This provides (what I believe to be) the best 'acoustic coupling' of the shaft/butt joint to the players hand. The 'feel' is there in the form of harmonic vibration transferred from the leather tip to your hand. Now, since we all want beautiful, deep black ebony points, but also want a cue weighing less than 25 ounces, we have to remove some ebony somehow. The ebony blank could be cored for it's full length before it is cut for making the points and turned. The danger is that the core will not end up on dead center once the cue is completed, which could affect balance somewhat, and I don't think anyone does this anyway (but I could be wrong). So, a second splice is needed, typically hidden under the wrap (since it is pure function and not pleasing to the eye). This is also a splice, not a face-to-face tenoned glue up, so I believe it to be a sound construction practice. No metal is used in this joint. Having a tenoned and screwed joint under the wrap all but kills the work that went into the full splice to begin with. (again, in my opinion)

Short splice (or half-splice) is a confusing term, even for native speakers. The forearm is made essentially the same way as with a full splice; however instead of a single block of wood being cut to finger into the four grooves of the forearm, four separate pieces are machined and installed into the v-grooves. MUCH more cost effective wood and time wise, and an entire blank does not need to be scrapped if there is any mis-alignment or movement of the wood after it is glued up. Joe at Cue Components sells a video on making v-cut points that will show it clearly for you. Center is retained on both ends of the forearm, so the points are always perfectly aligned. In a full-splice, any movement necessitates additional cutting to 're-true' the blank, which can only go so far before the blank is under size, and therefore scrap. Of course proper curing of the wood is essential in all cases; however a 26" piece of wood has more chance for movement than an eight inch piece does.

The short splice is often bored at the bottom end, and a 5/8 tenon is inserted with a threaded rod at it's tip. The bottom of the tenon hole is similarly threaded for the rod. It is all slathered up with epoxy and twisted together as tightly as possible. The threaded rod pulls the joint together and the epoxy cures up. With today's epoxies, this is a sound construction method, used by many of the best cue makers out there. 99.9% of the time they last forever. 0.1% of the time, they develop a 'buzz' as the glue lets go in some area. Not often, but it does happen. Plus, you are gluing/screwing into laminated wood, rather than a solid piece, which presents the possibility of weakness, and adding the weight of a piece of metal to your forearm. Again, not often, but the possibility is there for a buzz to develop. I think Burton said it well "If I have a well trained pet alligator and dog, I would feel a lot better as the family dog if the alligator was gone." In other words, eliminate the possibility of a failure before it has a chance to happen.

Don't know if that helps you, but it clarifies what I consider to be the difference between these two construction methods.

I prefer a full-splice, with a second splice below the wrap as needed for proper balance. I like the idea of no second splice, but understand it is needed with heavier woods.

I hope that helped rather than confuse you more!
 
[. The ebony blank could be cored for it's full length before it is cut for making the points and turned. The danger is that the core will not end up on dead center once the cue is completed, which could affect balance somewhat, and I don't think anyone does this anyway (but I could be wrong).

Now you know somebody that does it that way. Hence the name "Modern Day Fullsplice". I don't buy into the core being off center but then again my splices are not that much out of line. 9 times out of 10 I adjust from the joint end which has very little effect on the core being centered. And if it's that far out of whack I'll junk it and start over.

I tried explaining that technique and the reasons behind the slogan to two very well known authors in the industry and got a loooooong silence in return. One I had to convince that I even did fullsplices in the first place...so all information after that was a wash. Makes me laugh.

Mark
 
WOW!:eek:

That is some serious coring!

But, thinking about it, you don't necessarily have to core completely through the blank, just far enough to get into the prong area. Don't know if that is what you do, but that seems reasonable.

I admit, until I read Burton's book, I could not wrap my head around how the cuts were made. Once I had that, it all clicked!:thumbup: But if you tried to explain to to be before then, I'd probably look at you with that blank stare...:confused:
 
Thanks again to Mark and Cue Guru !

Like i said in my last email, i totaly catched it now. :thumbup:
I knowed much of these things well before, but like i said my confusion was in case of my english or in case of a bad terminology of that whole thing.

I know how a V-Cut (Short Splice) cue is done !
I know how a Full Splice cue is done !

I didn´t know before, that V-Cut with four pieces of wood for the points is a SHORT SPLICE !! :eek:
That was the whole confusion, you got me ? :D

I thought if we are speaking about SPLICE, then that only means the FULL SPLICE Method,
with the points being on piece of wood which fits in the forearm perfectly.
In case of that, i thought Short Splice means a "SHORTER" Piece of wood ! :rolleyes:

So like i said before, if SHORT SPLICE means the Method 90 percent of todays cuemaker are making their points,
then for sure it was a problem of terminology, defination and my bad english !
Because with my english SPLICING has nothing to do with 4 V Cuts and 4 pieces who fit in that (Short Splice).

But it seams like that´s the way it´s named and done !
Thanks again to all of you for your help, best regards and god bless you

Erich
 
Like I said before, if there's one thing you're better at than pool, it's understatement :D
Your English is nothing short of very good, it was a mere matter of terminology.
But it was a very interesting discussion and I've learned a lot, too. :thumbup:
 
no splice?

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I am seriously looking at getting another custom cue made and this discussion has been a real eye opener.

So far the conclusion I've come to is that the full splice is better due to the improved structural integrity of the cue. This gives us a more solid hit. The screw in a half splice can cause vibrations, reduce feel, etc.

Which brings me to my question - why splice at all then? For the most solid hit, why not just craft the entire cue butt out of 1 solid piece of wood? Truly a "1 piece" cue?
 
JazzMatt said:
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I am seriously looking at getting another custom cue made and this discussion has been a real eye opener.

So far the conclusion I've come to is that the full splice is better due to the improved structural integrity of the cue. This gives us a more solid hit. The screw in a half splice can cause vibrations, reduce feel, etc.

Which brings me to my question - why splice at all then? For the most solid hit, why not just craft the entire cue butt out of 1 solid piece of wood? Truly a "1 piece" cue?
Click to expand...

I think straightness in a piece of wood that long is a major factor. It needs to sit for a long time before you can be sure it won't move. This is one of several that sat 30+ years waiting on the few final passes before it made it into a cue.

020-2.jpg
 
I'm going to answer this in reverse...

JazzMatt said:
Which brings me to my question - why splice at all then? For the most solid hit, why not just craft the entire cue butt out of 1 solid piece of wood? Truly a "1 piece" cue?
Click to expand...

The spiced forearm is stronger than a solid piece of wood. It's the same as plywood. You laminate a bunch of sheets together and though it's still just a chunk of wood, now it stronger because the lamination.

In Spain's book, he talks about putting blanks across and old car rim and standing on them. Try that with a straight piece of wood. *POP*

JazzMatt said:
So far the conclusion I've come to is that the full splice is better due to the improved structural integrity of the cue. This gives us a more solid hit. The screw in a half splice can cause vibrations, reduce feel, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm about to stir the stuff, sorry. As a note, I like full splices. I have much respect for those guys building them today. My current playing cue is a full splice. With that said....

I hear a few people talk very highly of full splices. Honestly, to the point they are almost saying half splices are worthless. Which is complete nonsense. I have yet to see one single scientific test showing that full splices do in fact play better. I'm not saying there is no difference. The buzz issue is one case where the full splice is better. You still don't see the pro's beating down custom cuemaker doors demanding their full splices. Plenty of people are playing top level pool without a full splice.

Here is the test I propose. You build two butts EXACTLY the same. Same veneer colors, same woods, same joint style. The only difference is one is half spliced and one is full spliced. You then put wraps on the cues covering the base of splice so now both cues look EXACTLY alike. Finally build ONE shaft that can be swapped between the two butts.

Now you have isolated EVERYTHING in the cue except for the splice construction.

Finally, pass them out to good players. Tons of good players. Also, pass it out to these full splice gurus. Let them use the cues and guess as to which is which.

Tabulate the numbers and see if in fact that the full splice is better.

I've got $100 that says no one will be able to tell the difference.

matta
 
Last edited:
matta said:
Here is the test I propose. You build two butts EXACTLY the same. Same veneer colors, same woods, same joint style. The only difference is one is half spliced and one is full spliced. You then put wraps on the cues covering the base of splice so now both cues are look EXACTLY alike. Finally build ONE shaft that can be swapped between the two butts.

Now you have isolated EVERYTHING in the cue except for the splice construction.

Finally, pass them out to good players. Tons of good players. Also, pass it out to these full splice gurus. Let them use the cues and guess as to which is which.

Tabulate the numbers and see if in fact that full splice are better.

I've got $100 that says no one will be able to tell the difference.

matta
Click to expand...

Great Post Matta,

I don't think anyone would take your bet. I think ALOT of things about cues are hype...and I also play with a full splice.

Ian
 
THAT is an awesome idea!

Although it is impossible, it is a great idea.

You and I both know, even from the same log, wood density varies board to board, and sometimes quite a bit. Using un-figured wood is a good way to help reduce this variance, but it is still a factor to keep in mind.

Also, adding a pin (even aluminum) to the forearm to snug it up will add weight forward, but more importantly, weight overall, that will 'un-level' the playing field... One cue will be slightly heavier, and slightly more forward balanced. A wooden pin (or this G5 stuff) might solve that. I don't know the density of the G5 stuff...

BUT, I love the idea!

And to add credence to your argument, Barry Szamboti uses a 'short splice' and they play pretty damn good in my opinion. (with the exceptions of the Titlist conversions etc. that remain full spliced).

So, if we can figure out a way to accomplish this, I would love to be a part of it!

And also, yes- keeping a 30" long chunk of wood dead straight is no easy task. You might think it to be easier than a shaft, because of the mass, but in fact it has more wood to hold the moisture, and that moisture has a longer path to the surface, so you see why it is difficult to keep it straight. L O N G drying times are needed- YEARS as mentioned above...
 
Can of worms.
You can also argue one-piece core going thru the butt section has no joinery.

Would a fullsplice titlist hit better than if I chopped it and used bocote or purpleheart or bloodwood handle?

I think for the most parts it's not what but how.
How about butterfly splice?

can of worms.
 
Cue Guru said:
THAT is an awesome idea!

Although it is impossible, it is a great idea.

You and I both know, even from the same log, wood density varies board to board, and sometimes quite a bit. Using un-figured wood is a good way to help reduce this variance, but it is still a factor to keep in mind.
Click to expand...

I do agree that from wood to wood there will be slight variances. But...

How can a cuemaker make various cues and they all play very similar? You should be able to pick up to two different cues with similar woods from a cuemaker and they should, at the very least, play similar. And plenty of cuemakers are capable of this.

What is going to affect the play more, variances in the wood or splice techniques? If these full splices are SO MUCH BETTER, as described, the minor variances in the wood should make little difference to our test.

Cue Guru said:
Also, adding a pin (even aluminum) to the forearm to snug it up will add weight forward, but more importantly, weight overall, that will 'un-level' the playing field... One cue will be slightly heavier, and slightly more forward balanced. A wooden pin (or this G5 stuff) might solve that. I don't know the density of the G5 stuff...
Click to expand...

We use a wooden pin in the A joint. Not many other cuemakers do this.

I think we could also find a pin with a similar density to the woods.

Edit:
Density of G10: 0.065
Density of Maple: 0.62–0.75

Isn't that correct, using a G10 pin would be like not using one at all as far as weight is concerned?

matta
 
Last edited:
Here's how I see it...
In the old days, splicing was done for stability.
With the tools and methods we have now, it is done mostly for looks.
With the possible exception of full one piece cues (housecue).
Butts can be made that are balanced, stable, and starting out with one piece of wood quite easily via coring and other methods.
There will always be those that claim a splice makes for a better hit, but that will always be a matter of opinion, and very hard to quantify.
That said, I have always though that full spliced cues seem to become favorite cues at a higher percentage than others....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top