Full splice or mot

[deanoc]

As i understand it,a cue where the bottom piece is spliced into the upper end with or without veneers is a full splice cue.
The cue is supposed to be more solid or provide some benefit because it is a stronger or less piecemeal construction


But when the full splice is then cut slightly below the points and then constructed exactly like a typical 3 piece or regular cue butt


Here is the question

Is it still a full splice cue?
stated again ,would it have more in common with a normally constructed cue
than it would with a true full splice?

I have been told by well known cue makers that the simple full splice design
should be better playing,but I really don't know why or if this is true

 

[Chopdoc]

Well-

Without veneers, butt sleeves, etc., considering a four point cue:

A full splice butt is 2 pieces of wood.

If you cut it below the points to put a handle on it, that would be now three pieces of wood.

A short splice butt would have a minimum of six pieces of wood.

Maybe something in this?




As you know, GB put handles in full splice blanks. He actually cue Spain blanks to put an A joint in them. And I hear his cues play pretty well even still today. :wink:



Just my thoughts.


Oh, and is a full splice still full splice if it is cut? It's made from a full splice blank. And it isn't short spliced.

 

[Black-Balled]

Mot. I am sure of it.

 

[one stroke]

Handle cut into forearm is a full splice with or without veneers when the handle gets cut I no longer consider it a full splice but rather a half splice

1

 

[ENGLISH!]

IMO, & generally speaking, a spliced cue plays better &/or has better feel than just a solid piece of wood & usually has better balance.

Naturally that may be subjective.

 

[Shooter08]

I have been on a mission to figure this out! From my research a "full splice" is no longer superior to other types of builds. I can say Eric w/ Sugartree assured me of this, also considering the most iconic cue builders don't use the style lends me to believe they know what they are doing. Eric also told me why would you want to convert a old Hoppe, when a new build is far superior. Makes sense to me.

 

[TATE]

As i understand it,a cue where the bottom piece is spliced into the upper end with or without veneers is a full splice cue.
The cue is supposed to be more solid or provide some benefit because it is a stronger or less piecemeal construction


But when the full splice is then cut slightly below the points and then constructed exactly like a typical 3 piece or regular cue butt


Here is the question

Is it still a full splice cue?
stated again ,would it have more in common with a normally constructed cue
than it would with a true full splice?

I have been told by well known cue makers that the simple full splice design
should be better playing,but I really don't know why or if this is true

Full splice being an early form of cue construction. The history is that this is how all spliced cues were made until milled points were developed. Sometimes they were cut short and shipped for practical purposes. The benefit is the natural strength and rigidity of the joint and that no internal connection parts, which can become loose over time, are required. The other benefit is that, done properly, the joint can be exposed with no need for a wrap or rings to cover the connection.

Once the full splice forearm is cut short, in reality it no longer is much different than milled points. This very issue was debated by Burton Spain in his blank building manual. The blanks he sold were full splice then often cut short for weight manipulation, adding decorative rings, etc. It was no big deal since in traditional cues, the wrap hides the connection.

While these days the playing or strength differences probably don't matter much, my opinion is the main benefit of a full splice cues lies in desired esthetics. The flow of long, tapered points running uninterrupted though the handle to the butt appeals to me. These cues can also be appreciated for their craftsmanship alone. Behold the super clean Ed Prewitt beauty below I liberated from an internet photo site. As an affectionado of full splice cues, I almost get goosebumps looking at this one.

 

[Cornerman]

As i understand it,a cue where the bottom piece is spliced into the upper end with or without veneers is a full splice cue.
The cue is supposed to be more solid or provide some benefit because it is a stronger or less piecemeal construction


But when the full splice is then cut slightly below the points and then constructed exactly like a typical 3 piece or regular cue butt


Here is the question

Is it still a full splice cue?
stated again ,would it have more in common with a normally constructed cue
than it would with a true full splice?

I have been told by well known cue makers that the simple full splice design
should be better playing,but I really don't know why or if this is true

From your description , to me it's still a full splice with what ends up being a short full-splice blank, as long as the point wood is still one piece.

The whole "short blank" idea that Spain talked about was exactly that for Balabushka: a short full splice blank that GB connected with an A joint under the wrap, as you described.

Freddie

 

[9Ballr]

I have been on a mission to figure this out! From my research a "full splice" is no longer superior to other types of builds. I can say Eric w/ Sugartree assured me of this, also considering the most iconic cue builders don't use the style lends me to believe they know what they are doing. Eric also told me why would you want to convert a old Hoppe, when a new build is far superior. Makes sense to me.

Most makers also make more money of the more labor intensive cues.
It keeps them coming back to the shop.
So I understand the "justification".

Personally I much prefer the hit and feel and actually the look
of a full splice but that may be because I played house cues
for years and years before I got my first custom cue.
When I did it was - and pretty much has been - a disappointment.

I have several high quality ques but keep going back to the, full splice sneakies.
Just because I feel more at home with them.

Am getting a new one this coming month, a Keith Josey.
He makes some of the best full splice I've played.
Yes, I'm including Scruggs and Frey cues, in my opinion they
simply don't match what Keith is doing.

All of this is just an opinion. Take it as such. Especially since I have no idea
how much a cue maker makes per cue...

 

[one stroke]

Most makers also make more money of the more labor intensive cues.
It keeps them coming back to the shop.
So I understand the "justification".

Personally I much prefer the hit and feel and actually the look
of a full splice but that may be because I played house cues
for years and years before I got my first custom cue.
When I did it was - and pretty much has been - a disappointment.

I have several high quality ques but keep going back to the, full splice sneakies.
Just because I feel more at home with them.

Am getting a new one this coming month, a Keith Josey.
He makes some of the best full splice I've played.
Yes, I'm including Scruggs and Frey cues, in my opinion they
simply don't match what Keith is doing.

All of this is just an opinion. Take it as such. Especially since I have no idea
how much a cue maker makes per cue...

I would rank Kieths full splice cues as top of the line

1

 

[Jim Baxter]

Here are 2 very old Brunswick 26 1/2 cues I am working on . Several inches below the bottom of splice I cut 3 " off the butt , add what ever maple I need to lengthen the cue , then reatach the Pc I removed from the but . The maple is under the wrap . I consider this still a full splice .


only 3 inches of maple remain under wrap , Original wood is replaced for the butt plate .

 

[maplecap]

Here's how Burton did it.

 

[LAMas]

Brunswick and Valley house cues are full splice.:smile:

 

[Dustry]

photo's shown are from - superiorcues.com, john davis blanks page 2.

Here's how Burton did it.

that's a 1/2 splice.
same as shown below, these are "half splice".

 

[TATE]

Here's how Burton did it.

Later on he developed that idea, I believe in the 1980's. That's what he taught Joel Hercek.

His original blanks in the 1970's were similar to Titlists. Palmer and other cue makers used this type of splice before Spain did.

 

[TATE]

that's a 1/2 splice.
same as shown below, these are "half splice".

These are actually both "technically" considered full splice. That's John Davis' style. Joel Hercek and John Davis splice in many of the handles for cues meant to have a wrap. It's to help prevent warping and to allow a wider variety of woods to be used for points for weight and balance purposes.

 

[Dustry]

photo taken from - cueveneer.com

perfect example of a "short splice".

 

[TATE]

perfect example of a "short splice".

Thanks for showing this. Yes it is. I prefer to call them "milled" points, because a pocket is cut into the forearm to house the veneers and points.

 

[skins]

that's a 1/2 splice.
same as shown below, these are "half splice".

They're still considered full splices....

 

[Dustry]

These are actually both considered full splice. That's John Davis' and Joel Hercek's style. It is done this way for cues meant to have a wrap. It's to help prevent warping and to allow a wider variety of woods to be used for points for weight and balance purposes.

and this cue blank is a "full splice".