Full splice lost art

DeeDeeCues said:
It's funny how the people who claim that one construction method 'hits' better than another are rarely not cuemakers, and virtually never have any sort of valid theory as to why their claim might be true.

I've never seen a single person offer an sort of evidence to their statement.
Click to expand...

Visit DZ Cues (DZCUES.COM)
 
Bavafongoul said:
The majority of pool players haven’t anything but a sheer guess what their cue weighs.
Click to expand...
I didn't even ask when I got my custom. It's mine, all I gotta do is play with it and it will work itself out eventually. As long as it's not above 20 or below 16 it's all good.

It felt good, what do I care what she weighs? ;)
 
Kim Bye said:
You have got this totally wrong. If you think coring is only done to avoid warping, you are wrong. How do you suggest building a ebony butt without coring? Coring is also done to achieve the right weigh and balance, pluss it lets you use a wider variation of woods, burls are a good example of woods that would be hard to use without coring.
Click to expand...
Nah, I got it right
 
Sheldon said:
You would be wrong on that, as I know of at least 2 prominent custom cue makers that don't tenon the A-joint. One of them actually tried to talk me into adopting it, the other I discovered while repairing a cue.
Click to expand...
What do they do?
 
Ascue said:
Im fairly sure it was built full splice then cut for the jump handle . At any rate, it hits better. Not that hard to understand. Lots of people buy the jump break gilberts and use as a player because they hit well.
Click to expand...
It isn’t that hard to understand. You just happen to not understand. Your whole post was about full splice cues and “full splice lost art,” and then you end up talking about how nice a Gilbert J/B plays (which they do play nice). Then you say you’re “fairly” sure it was built full splice then cut for the jump handle.”

Where do I even begin?

- they’re not full-splice and cut

The End
 
Cornerman said:
It isn’t that hard to understand. You just happen to not understand. Your whole post was about full splice cues and “full splice lost art,” and then you end up talking about how nice a Gilbert J/B plays (which they do play nice). Then you say you’re “fairly” sure it was built full splice then cut for the jump handle.”

Where do I even begin?

- they’re not full-splice and cut

The End
Click to expand...
And how would you know?
 
PURR1965 said:
@Tennesseejoe, why did you not get John to do the whole cue?
Click to expand...
Alex Brick is a personal friend and very good cue maker. I ask him first about a custom cue and he suggested that John Davis is a great blank maker, so I contacted John. Many cue makers have someone else make the blank because that is a specialty. Alex was the house pro at JOB Billiards so I could have daily contact with him re the construction. It worked out for me.
 
Last edited:
Ascue said:
And how would you know?
Click to expand...
lol!!! Because I wrote the Gilbert Cue article for InsidePOOL Magazine in 2005, and because believe it or not I simply asked Andy. Andy and I have been friends for 20 years. I have four Gilbert Cues, two of which are J/Bs.

If you actually have a question on full-splice cues, I can point you the right direction.
 
First off, I'd like to just take a moment to thank all of you for starting my year off with a good old fashioned AZ argument. I haven't seen one like this in a while and it has itched a scratch I didn't even know I had.

But, regarding the Gilbert J/B full splice stuff... I obviously have no way of knowing how that cue started life. It very well could have started as a Schmelk or other blank that was cut and had a jump joint added at the base of the points. But it also could have easily been made as a short splice with the jump joint added instead of a tenon. But for the sake of this discussion, let's say it was a full splice blank. If that's the case, anyone who has ever prayed to the pool gods should know that all the full splice magic oozed out as soon as it was cut in half to add the jump joint. It is not only no longer a full splice cue, I think one could argue very easily that it is no longer even as structurally sound as a typical short splice cue.

If I'm wrong please correct me.
 
Jimmy_Betmore said:
First off, I'd like to just take a moment to thank all of you for starting my year off with a good old fashioned AZ argument. I haven't seen one like this in a while and it has itched a scratch I didn't even know I had.

But, regarding the Gilbert J/B full splice stuff... I obviously have no way of knowing how that cue started life. It very well could have started as a Schmelk or other blank that was cut and had a jump joint added at the base of the points. But it also could have easily been made as a short splice with the jump joint added instead of a tenon. But for the sake of this discussion, let's say it was a full splice blank. If that's the case, anyone who has ever prayed to the pool gods should know that all the full splice magic oozed out as soon as it was cut in half to add the jump joint. It is not only no longer a full splice cue, I think one could argue very easily that it is no longer even as structurally sound as a typical short splice cue.

If I'm wrong please correct me.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with most of that, but the 'structurally sound' part of it depends on too many factors.
 
I really should stay away from these conglomerations of half truths and people thinking they are in the know.
On the other hand, some very intelligent comments made that some feel should be poo pooed.
Full splice
Half splice
No splice
Cored
These are all 4 totally different construction subjects that may or may not intertwine with each other.

This thread belongs in the same category as people being able to tell the difference of which joint pin (size-style-material used-TPI) hits better, more solid, and makes the balls go straighter. :unsure:
 
Jimmy_Betmore said:
First off, I'd like to just take a moment to thank all of you for starting my year off with a good old fashioned AZ argument. I haven't seen one like this in a while and it has itched a scratch I didn't even know I had.

But, regarding the Gilbert J/B full splice stuff... I obviously have no way of knowing how that cue started life. It very well could have started as a Schmelk or other blank that was cut and had a jump joint added at the base of the points. But it also could have easily been made as a short splice with the jump joint added instead of a tenon. But for the sake of this discussion, let's say it was a full splice blank. If that's the case, anyone who has ever prayed to the pool gods should know that all the full splice magic oozed out as soon as it was cut in half to add the jump joint. It is not only no longer a full splice cue, I think one could argue very easily that it is no longer even as structurally sound as a typical short splice cue.

If I'm wrong please correct me.
Click to expand...
After it’s cut, it would be indistinguishable from a short splice (half splice). Structurally, other factors are involved (bonding method and whether the cutting somehow disrupted the entire assembly, etc). Although Spain is the pioneer of the short splice (what he wrote as “half splice in his Making Blanks pamphlet), he also suggested that short/half splice could never be as good as full splice as they had inherent weak points. I think today’s cuemakers do the short splice just fine.
 
BarenbruggeCues said:
I really should stay away from these conglomerations of half truths and people thinking they are in the know.
On the other hand, some very intelligent comments made that some feel should be poo pooed.
Full splice
Half splice
No splice
Cored
These are all 4 totally different construction subjects that may or may not intertwine with each other.

This thread belongs in the same category as people being able to tell the difference of which joint pin (size-style-material used-TPI) hits better, more solid, and makes the balls go straighter. :unsure:
Click to expand...

Get outta here with that nonsense. :cool:

All joking aside, I'm not a cue maker. And I'm not going to pretend to be one or that I know anywhere near what you guys do. But... I do know that I've taken a cue that I felt hit really nicely and put a shaft on it from a different maker, and all of a sudden it hit not so great (in my opinion, of course.) Oddly enough, if I put the cursed shaft on its butt, it hit just fine. It's almost like there's more than one variable that goes into how a cue hits. Odd.
 
Last edited:
Cornerman said:
After it’s cut, it would be indistinguishable from a short splice (half splice). Structurally, other factors are involved (bonding method and whether the cutting somehow disrupted the entire assembly, etc). Although Spain is the pioneer of the short splice (what he wrote as “half splice in his Making Blanks pamphlet), he also suggested that short/half splice could never be as good as full splice as they had inherent weak points. I think today’s cuemakers do the short splice just fine.
Click to expand...

This is exactly was what I was getting at.

And I always (and still do) wonder why Andy's J/B cues were so much cheaper than his non J/B cues. I remember a time that doesn't seem all that long ago where you could pretty easily buy his four point J/B cues for around $400-$450. But if you ordered a non J/B cue from him with the same woods it was closer to $1k. I know the J/B only came with one shaft and I have my theories as to where the rest of the price difference came from. But beyond my own weird curiosity, it doesn't really matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top