Full splice jig

[sac14214]

The originality is what is impressive, especially if you have never seen a full splice setup. Very cool.

I guess you are intending on trying to remove the prong from the existing stick thats in the pictures. I'm not doubting you because obviously your pretty handy. But running that front through a bandsaw and getting it perfect on the opposing side "the bottom unseen side" will probably be more than difficult.

Anyway, hope you will stick with it perfecting this regardless the outcome of this project. please keep us updated.

Thanks. Like I stated this is my first attempt at anything like this. I do not have a decent lathe, or a mill, only simple woodworking tools, and an old butchers bandsaw that I made guides for so I can cut wood. I do not have anything cnc or expensive software/design programs. I used the free version of google sketch up to try to figure out how my pieces need to be cut. I have read Hightower's book and watched his dvd's and had an idea on how the full splice was constructed. I have spent hours on AZ reading through all the great advice you guys have posted over the years. I made two practice pieces and like Dick said the lower half with the fingers is tough to get perfect as well. That practice stick came out with all the points at different lengths, even with moving the center around to try to correct, I ended up with a pencil size stick before they were even close. A waste of time but a great learning experience.

On my repair I did not want to try to bandsaw out the broken maple forearm so I sat with a dremel tool and just nibbled away at it until it was close then followed up with sandpaper down to the outside black veneer.
It is a learning experience and only for me, not for sale - I know it will not be perfect but I like it it.

photos of progress: http://s886.photobucket.com/albums/ac65/sac14214/Viking VIP/

I'll get out of the OP thread now and go back to my corner and quietly watch (and learn).

 

[Canadian cue]

I gotta say I spent a few hours thinking about this concept, and kinda like the idea but I wondered about how it could be accurately jigged up to make the secondary cuts. I then thought it might be easier to cut the original piece of wood in quarters, run them through a good jointer/planer or thickness planer into identical squares. Then make a jig to put the tapered cuts on each piece individually. The forearm cuts could be done on a mill, cnc router or even a lathe with taper attachment. This would be about the same as a short splice with extended points through the handle.
and just a different way of arriving at what you've suggested.

The way in which I was planning on doing this is to work around centers.
I would start by punching a couple of centres in my rough square. Then you could do all the milling in a lathe with indexer or you could set it up in a mill. I would start by milling the blank perfectly square then iether angle it in a fixture in the mill or using a taper attachment in the lathe. In my case I have different tapers set up for my tracing attachment.
I was also thinking that if you were to build blanks which will be wrapped doing it this way would still eliminate the A joint and give you sharp points in both sides of your prong.
Anyway there is a member who is building a blank as we speek so I am anctious to see his results.

 

[Chris Byrne]

you will not have a sharp poing if you are trying to keep a center on the handle end.

 

[pdcue]

The way in which I was planning on doing this is to work around centers.
I would start by punching a couple of centres in my rough square. Then you could do all the milling in a lathe with indexer or you could set it up in a mill. I would start by milling the blank perfectly square then iether angle it in a fixture in the mill or using a taper attachment in the lathe. In my case I have different tapers set up for my tracing attachment.
I was also thinking that if you were to build blanks which will be wrapped doing it this way would still eliminate the A joint and give you sharp points in both sides of your prong.
Anyway there is a member who is building a blank as we speek so I am anctious to see his results.

True enough, but to reiterate - in the end you will have a laminated cue,
not, a spliced cue.

If you are happy with just the LOOK of a fullsplice - IMHO, there are
much easier ways to get there.

Dale

 

[Everglade]

What is a John Davis full spice?

 

[greyghost]

What is a John Davis full spice?

a full splice by John Davis.

He also splices many of his blanks with a maple handle and the blank is a double V splice, so the points full splice into the forarm, and the points full splice into the maple handle.

 

[tableman]

Still not really any full splice jigs

 

[Everglade]

So, what do you call a John Davis full splice? Full splice/handle splice or full splice/laminated splice, or if you are only interested in the look of a full splice, then the John Davis meets this requirement also. So what is wrong with the concept from the Canadian? It meets this requirement and the results will looks better than the conventional methodology used by John.

 

[pdcue]

So, what do you call a John Davis full splice? Full splice/handle splice or full splice/laminated splice, or if you are only interested in the look of a full splice, then the John Davis meets this requirement also. So what is wrong with the concept from the Canadian? It meets this requirement and the results will looks better than the conventional methodology used by John.

John's cue butts are spliced - the proposed Canadian's are not spliced.
John's cue butts don't merely look like a full splice - they are a full splice,
actually - they are spliced twice

You seem to be confused about the difference between a spliced
butt that is 'full length' and a 'full spliced' butt. No great suprise
considering how people use the terms.

Dale<non-spliced>

 

[Everglade]

I think most people in this forum would consider a Brunswick Titlist a full splice cue. I think most would think a four point house cue such as a Duffrin to be a full splice cue also. The definition of splice is to join two pieces together by thining them to overlap and fastening the overlaps together. These cues are constructed from two pieces joined by this overlap process, some with colored veneers in between the overlaps. So why do we call the John Davis double splice a full splice cue? It has the appearance of one, but is not constructed in this manner. Its a three piece butt with out counting the veneers. (see pics from above post)The Canadian concept is not a full splice either and was never ment to be one. It has the appearance of one just like the Davis. Instead of being constructed from two pieces or three like the Davis, it can be constructed with five or six, depending on which option is taken.

Why does everyone have to bash a new concept without giving it a chance to develope. Just because it does not meet the old time requirement of two pieces joined together via a splice, does not mean that it's not a worthy process for cue construction. Aesthetically and structurally, the Canadian concept is far supperior.

 

[rhncue]

I think most people in this forum would consider a Brunswick Titlist a full splice cue. I think most would think a four point house cue such as a Duffrin to be a full splice cue also. The definition of splice is to join two pieces together by thining them to overlap and fastening the overlaps together. These cues are constructed from two pieces joined by this overlap process, some with colored veneers in between the overlaps. So why do we call the John Davis double splice a full splice cue? It has the appearance of one, but is not constructed in this manner. Its a three piece butt with out counting the veneers. (see pics from above post)The Canadian concept is not a full splice either and was never ment to be one. It has the appearance of one just like the Davis. Instead of being constructed from two pieces or three like the Davis, it can be constructed with five or six, depending on which option is taken.

Why does everyone have to bash a new concept without giving it a chance to develope. Just because it does not meet the old time requirement of two pieces joined together via a splice, does not mean that it's not a worthy process for cue construction. Aesthetically and structurally, the Canadian concept is far supperior.

You do seem to be having a problem with the concept of what a full splice consists of. Even your description of the full splice is exactly what the Davis blank uses. A full splice is considered a technique where two piece of wood are joined in such a way that the maximum area of wood can make contact for gluing. The Canadian version that you are referring to may in your estimation be aesthetically and structurally superior but that is just your opinion and it is by no means a full splice but actually five pieces of wood laminated together. There is no splice at all. The Davis blank is a true full splice and not just one but two full splices making up the blank. The glued area determines what type of splice has been used. Just because the area behind the full splice is shorter than the full length of the cue does not change the physical aspects of the joinery.

I don't believe anyone has been bashing this idea for building a cue. They are merrily bashing the name given to the joint technique. Ford may build a Mustang and awhile later General Motors may come along and build a auto that looks identical but the drivetrain is different. Now some people may like the GM even better than the Ford but the fact is, it still ain't no Mustang.

Dick

Dick

 

[Dave38]

Aesthetically and structurally, the Canadian concept is far supperior.

No offence meant to anyone, but I have to differ on this statement. When you cut a solid piece of wood, and re-glue the pieces together, not stacked like a laminate under high pressure, but side by side, like Canadian's design, then you are relying solely on the glue to hold it together. A full splice is a mechanically interlocking joint, that is glued. The force that is applied in billiards, tranfers to that joint headon, more or less forcing it together, if you will. With Canadian's design, this force will be applied to that same area, but as that has a glueline as it's centerline, and the forearm section is shaped like a wedge, I can see it possible, under the right conditions, splitting due to the force being transfered to the glueline, forcing it apart. Now it may be a strong enough style, but I wouldn't stake my reputation on such a risky design. Even with today's glues, and epoxies, I wouldn't trust it to hold over time. There simply isn't any structural/mechanical joinery to hold it under normal and not so normal pressures of playing pool.
John Davis blanks are fullspliced, they actually have 2 full splices. A full splice doesn't mean that it goes a certain distance lengthwise, in means, IMO, that the cue pieces are interlocked with each other and glued to build a very strong joint, as opposed to a short splice that is actually inlayed points that offer no real structual advantage, they just look good
Just offering my take on this, and I mean no offence to any one's ideas, just don't agree with the above statement I quoted.
Dave

 

[Dave38]

Well said Dick, sorry if I copied some words, wasn't intentional, just on the same wavelength. I write alot slower than you I guess
Dave

 

[pdcue]

I think most people in this forum would consider a Brunswick Titlist a full splice cue. I think most would think a four point house cue such as a Duffrin to be a full splice cue also. The definition of splice is to join two pieces together by thining them to overlap and fastening the overlaps together. These cues are constructed from two pieces joined by this overlap process, some with colored veneers in between the overlaps. So why do we call the John Davis double splice a full splice cue? It has the appearance of one, but is not constructed in this manner. Its a three piece butt with out counting the veneers. (see pics from above post)The Canadian concept is not a full splice either and was never ment to be one. It has the appearance of one just like the Davis. Instead of being constructed from two pieces or three like the Davis, it can be constructed with five or six, depending on which option is taken.

Why does everyone have to bash a new concept without giving it a chance to develope. Just because it does not meet the old time requirement of two pieces joined together via a splice, does not mean that it's not a worthy process for cue construction. Aesthetically and structurally, the Canadian concept is far supperior.

OK - obviously you ARE confused about the 'meaning' of "full spliced"
as used on this forum.

If you had used the search function - you would have seen much
discussion of the term and you might even have come upon my
humble suggestion that the term "true splice" be used to distinguish
cues/butts that are actually spliced from those that are not, like say,
the well known "half splice" which isn't spliced at all.

As far as bashing new ideas goes - who bashed?
No one said "don't you dare build this design".

I pointed out that - IMHO - those who are so enthusiastic about
their much beloved, BY THEM, full splices, are not likely to embrace
Canadian's design.

Understanding someone elses opinion does not mean you agree with it.

Once again, full splice doesn't mean only full length.

Dale

 

[Canadian cue]

Why are we arguing over semantics?

This was not the point of my idea. Who cares what it is defined as. I called it a full splice because it was the closest process to it. That been said I would like to explain my logic here. The biggest disadvantage to a conventional full splice is the difficulty in achieveing an accurate and smooth finish on the inside of the fingers of the male end of the splice. The method I was sugesting is a solution to this problem because you can mill the faces of the joint. Now if you compare a full splice to a jointed cue the advantage the full splice has is that where the wood is being joined it is all long grain. With a cue built with joints you are relying on the pin and a tenon for its strength. One of the more basic rules of wood working is to never relly on end grain for strength and to incorporate as much long grain to your joinery. So as I see it my method is all long grain and if you use good adhesive where it is joined it will actualy be stronger than the material itself. Has anyone seen a laminated shaft break apart because the glue gave way? So I believe the strength issue is a non issue.
To conclude, I am not saying that this method is the be all end all or better than the others, I was just sugesting another way of getting somewhere. Hell I have not even tested it yet so it may prove to have some fatal error to it, I will have to wait and see. There is a member here who is building a blank and his results thus far seem very positive.
Just an observation and not trying to offend by this coment but it is my impression that most people are very skeptical of new ideas and most prefer to try and perfect what has already been proven. Especialy if the idea is from an unknown.

 

[tableman]

Does anyone sell a jig for cutting full splice cues?

Original Post
Does anyone sell a jig for cutting full splice cues?

 

[cuesmith]

This was not the point of my idea. Who cares what it is defined as. I called it a full splice because it was the closest process to it. That been said I would like to explain my logic here. The biggest disadvantage to a conventional full splice is the difficulty in achieveing an accurate and smooth finish on the inside of the fingers of the male end of the splice. The method I was sugesting is a solution to this problem because you can mill the faces of the joint. Now if you compare a full splice to a jointed cue the advantage the full splice has is that where the wood is being joined it is all long grain. With a cue built with joints you are relying on the pin and a tenon for its strength. One of the more basic rules of wood working is to never relly on end grain for strength and to incorporate as much long grain to your joinery. So as I see it my method is all long grain and if you use good adhesive where it is joined it will actualy be stronger than the material itself. Has anyone seen a laminated shaft break apart because the glue gave way? So I believe the strength issue is a non issue.
To conclude, I am not saying that this method is the be all end all or better than the others, I was just sugesting another way of getting somewhere. Hell I have not even tested it yet so it may prove to have some fatal error to it, I will have to wait and see. There is a member here who is building a blank and his results thus far seem very positive.
Just an observation and not trying to offend by this coment but it is my impression that most people are very skeptical of new ideas and most prefer to try and perfect what has already been proven. Especialy if the idea is from an unknown.

I don't think Dale is knocking your inginuity, he's just a stickler on the terms regarding splices. He's right that there's a lot of confusion over what constitutes a "splice" and what they are best refered to as, but your idea IMHO while not a true "full splice" certainly seems to me to be a method that could be made to work with some advantages that you pointed out.

 

[cuesmith]

Original Post
Does anyone sell a jig for cutting full splice cues?

There was a guy who was working on a jig for himself, who took some names from perspective buyers of such a jig. He had a buddy with a job shop he thought might be interested in making some to sell once he got the bugs out, but I haven't heard any more from him. Could be he's still tweeking it!

 

[Everglade]

So Dave,
Structural integrity is the only point that you don't agree with. As the Canadian said about wood joinery, have you seen a high perfomance shaft come apart because of the glue line? Do you mean that the X, 314, OB1 have an expiration date? They are staking their reputation as well as millions of dollars on flat wood joinery with todays great adhesives. The shaft has most of the force vectors aligned axially with the glue lines. In your opinion, this is not structurally sound. I am sure that a few of the high performance shafts have failed at a glue line but not because of the design or adhesive. More of a process failure escape. These shafts have anywhere from 6 to 54 glue lines each. The Canadian design can have approx. 4.5 square inches of surface contact to bond the 4 pieces together. That is more than adequate to displace the axial forces it will ever see.

 

[rhncue]

So Dave,
Structural integrity is the only point that you don't agree with. As the Canadian said about wood joinery, have you seen a high perfomance shaft come apart because of the glue line? Do you mean that the X, 314, OB1 have an expiration date? They are staking their reputation as well as millions of dollars on flat wood joinery with todays great adhesives. The shaft has most of the force vectors aligned axially with the glue lines. In your opinion, this is not structurally sound. I am sure that a few of the high performance shafts have failed at a glue line but not because of the design or adhesive. More of a process failure escape. These shafts have anywhere from 6 to 54 glue lines each. The Canadian design can have approx. 4.5 square inches of surface contact to bond the 4 pieces together. That is more than adequate to displace the axial forces it will ever see.

I have had at least 10 Predator shafts come into my shop where they had split along a glue line. At one time the full splice joinery was used as the glues were not as we used today and would dry out and fail. This is no longer the case with todays adhesives. The reason most who desire a full/splice cue is for a traditional type of joint and some feel that a full/splice will give more of a hit the same as a one piece house cue. They seem to believe that that is what cue makers strive for, to make their two piece cues play like a one piece cue. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. If I thought my custom cues played like a house cue I would give up building cues.

Dick