Is there any truth to the claim that the old Maple is Superior to the current Maple?

[Bavafongoul]

The shafts made decades ago were just heavier than what you see nowadays in general.
You see orig. maple shafts listed on Az & elsewhere weighing in the low to mid 13 ounces.

Shafts used to commonly weigh at least 4 ounces & low 4 ounce shafts was more in line.
Personally, I believe a cue’s shaft should ideally represent 20 to 23% of the cue’s weight.

Nowadays that is more atypical with so many cue brands & cue-makers but if you look at
the top names, their cue shafts’ weight coincides with this ration (19% being the lowest)..

 

[Dan White]

I seem to remember Eddie Kelly had a beautiful box cue and his wife

threw it in the swimming pool

Should Eddie be mad or thankful?

LOL. Good one, Dean.

 

[CuesDirectly]

They are typically old growth logs, unlike today's harvest, so they are usually denser (comparing the same species), stronger and more resistant to disease and termites, etc.

Whether or not that makes a better cue shaft is subjective. It definitely would build a stonger, more durable house. Compare old growth verses new growth in a fir 2 X 4 below.

Cue maker techniques for selecting and acclimating wood, including storing, cutting and handling wood shafts definitely make a difference in whether or not the shaft will warp over time. For example, I remember at Tad's shop, they refused to cut shafts during the wet winter months. None of my Tad shafts ever warped.

The picture does a great job of showing the difference but at the same time, the information is wrong.

The one on top is White Fir, it's a real crappy wood that grows fast, often found at Home Despot and Lowes.

The second photo can be debated but it's most likely Hemlock. Some may say it's Red Fir. Red Fir is what you will find at a real Lumber yard.

The grain illustration is very spot on with relation to growth rings being tighter.

I have many 100+ year old Brunswick cues and the tightness of the grain is so tight that it's hard to count the grains per inch.

 

[TATE]

The picture does a great job of showing the difference but at the same time, the information is wrong.

The one on top is White Fir, it's a real crappy wood that grows fast, often found at Home Despot and Lowes.

The second photo can be debated but it's most likely Hemlock. Some may say it's Red Fir. Red Fir is what you will find at a real Lumber yard.

The grain illustration is very spot on with relation to growth rings being tighter.

I have many 100+ year old Brunswick cues and the tightness of the grain is so tight that it's hard to count the grains per inch.

Here's another I believe is correctly stating both are douglas fir, old growth verses new. Trying to get a fair comparison example of current forest harvesting versus old growth.

http://gretschpages.com/forum/rumbles/old-growth-vs-new-growth-wood/55331/page1/