I am sure you can identify these cues (original Balabushka)
- Thread starter L'epine
- Start date
L'epine
Member
Thank you, I have seen that picture but hard to tell what I am looking at either so much dirt in there.
It is a bit hard to see, but there is a groove that is below the portion in which the insert and bolt would go. That's where the residue would built up. I don't think generally dirt, but rather residue from the KU bumper.
L'epine
Member
The Lisciotti is perfect.
The fancy didn't hold up as well. Looks like the bumper came apart, but someone tried to save it.
The butt caps on both look pretty much the same to me from what I can see of the insides. The fancy has too much going on that I didn't want to go further.
I got it completely off. Bumper has seen some better days.
The fancy didn't hold up as well. Looks like the bumper came apart, but someone tried to save it.
The butt caps on both look pretty much the same to me from what I can see of the insides. The fancy has too much going on that I didn't want to go further.
I got it completely off. Bumper has seen some better days.
Last edited:
I see what you mean about the bumper on the fancy one. Could use a replacement. If you can't find a KU bumper, I believe most cuemakers and cue repairmen have access to new brown bumpers, which are not a bad replacement.
On the fancy one, I do see the groove on the outer edge of the interior surface. This looks like the more typical Balabushka construction. The Lisciotti one does look different, more like a modern cuemaker would do it, with a standard 3/8X16 weight bolt. At least that's what I see. It would be interesting to know if that was a modification later on, or something else. Both great looking cues.
On the fancy one, I do see the groove on the outer edge of the interior surface. This looks like the more typical Balabushka construction. The Lisciotti one does look different, more like a modern cuemaker would do it, with a standard 3/8X16 weight bolt. At least that's what I see. It would be interesting to know if that was a modification later on, or something else. Both great looking cues.
L'epine
Member
It looks like the same exact toolmarks, it is probably more of a difference in how I photographed it. I didn't think about how am I going to do a side by side photo. Anyway, these are delicate bumpers so I guess better to not keep taking them apart. I understand why there is masking tape on them. I can imagine when brand new, it was harder to install them.
As for the replacement bumper, looks like the closest I can track down is a 1970s Tascarella that looks like the same thing except the color is a different shade. At least by replacing the bumper, I can be assured that no chemical reaction will take place as the bumper is clearly degrading fast.
There are NOS originals around.
I have some.
I traded a full box and a tooled Engles case a few years back for a nice original first catalog Palmer.
Colored bumpers for early McDermott cues are a lot harder to find.
I have spools of #9 too. No, not for sale.
Materials are still around. Some that have them will even deny having them, yes even cue makers.
IMHO such cues should have a KU, not a modern replacement.
Yes, I agree, better to have an original KU bumper for an original Balabushka, if it needs it. I've heard stories of some with some KU bumpers wanting outrageous money for them, but yeah, there are still some out there. Same goes for an early Joss. They used mostly KU bumpers from the beginning until about mid 1976 or so.
With respect to your spools of #9, make sure they're in a nice climate-controlled place. I know of at least one sad sap who went through the horns of hell to get some very rare black spec number 9. When the cuemaker tried to use it, it shredded apart, I would guess dry rot, or not stored correctly.