So I suppose to get more confirm, I'd like to see if I can get someone to measure their Rambow that is a typical type of the time, to determine the length of the wrap.
Then the thickness at the end of the wrap...and the thickness at the very end of the butt.
Tim
MBL
I understand what you mean about wanting exact specs to do a reproduction of a historical cue. However, Rambow cues are variable, and exact specs are going to vary. I've seen several very nice Rambows from Dick Abott at tournaments, and some felt somewhat close to comfortable, modern spec, and some were larger in the buttplate area. Also, most were shorter in overall length than today's standard 58 inches. I've also seen a couple Rambows in Tim Scruggs' shop in the late 70s that were so thick in the butt area, they looked more like a Louisville Slugger than a cue. So, whatever information you get, take it as a bit variable. According to most accounts, Herman Rambow worked on a wood lathe, with him doing the cutting, not some pre-programmed cutting process.
What to do, you ask? I'd say take your cue to a competent cuemaker, and discuss the possibilities. To leave it full splice may be very difficult, as the joint area after finishing may be too thin. Modern joints are .840 to 850 thousands or so. You can go a bit thinner, but I wouldn't go too much. Also, to leave full splice may require the cuemaker to put too thick a black buttplate after the white ring, that it doesn't look like a Hoppe Rambow at all, to maintain a decent length. It could be the best thing to do is cut the cue, put in a separate handle, do the Hoppe style ring at the bottom, and use the best portion of the points and forearm for the finished cue.
For an example, although not a Titlist blank, I had Tim Scruggs do a Rambow-type cue in 1993 for me, with my own specs. Thicker buttplate (not the Hoppe type), Zircote wood, 58 inches, modern specs, and brass joint, plain black collars. If you want it to look fairly authentic, a brass joint is still your best look. Enjoy the pictures.