Need Some Input Before I Post Reviews - What Are You Looking For In A Review?

[JAMSGOLF]

The VAST majority of us on AZ are not equipped to give a "scientific" review of the cues that we play. So, we're stuck with giving personal opinions. Thus, we have to rely on subjective terminology with regards to the "playability" or "hit" of a cue.

The aesthetics (the looks of the cue) can be reviewed and commented on with regards to anything we can visually see about the construction of the cue (e.g. points even, inlays square, stitch rings line up, etc.), but obviously not the "interior" construction of the cue.

I'm going to start reviewing the cues that I (currently) have in the next week or so. I would like to get some input before I do to see what information would be most beneficial to those of you who view this section. I was thinking the following information should be included in the reviews to establish some kind of "norm" to my current or future reviews. Any input (either positive or negative) before I begin this would be appreciated...

The first group identifies the cue...the last two are the actual "review".

Cuemakers Name:
Cue Model (Custom or Production #):
Tip Type:
Ferrule Type:
Shaft Type:
Wrap Type:
Weight:
Balance Point:

Aesthetics (Looks):
Performance (Playability - "Subjective"):

THANKS,

Jason

 

[avscue]

interesting venture. "scientific" would seem to be a poor choice for your review(if that's what you intend) . what you do have is a factual(parts) and Aesthetics ,Performance which are really both "subjective". when customers ask me what do i think of the cue they have i tell them i can give a technical review of the their cue but as to the looks and how it hits, they are the ultimate authority. i can only explain construction. what hits good for me will/may be different for them. just my opinion.

 

[SeanC]

Jason, not sure if you read my thread below, but it is my humble review that I posted back in April that includes some of the cues that I have shot/played with. I just edited the last post to include my R-12.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=227641

Good luck with your review, I am looking forward to reading it :thumbup:

 

[JAMSGOLF]

Sorry...maybe I chose the wrong wording...my point was that I could NOT provide a "scientific" review of cues...so the only thing that could be provided would be "opinions" with regards to hit.

In golf, equipment can be tested with an "Iron Byron" which is a robotic contraption that swings golf clubs exactly the same with each "swing". The results are thus non-biased and can provide information with regards to both club performance and golf ball ball performance. I know there are similar "robotic" contraptions designed to swing a pool cue exactly the same every time...problem is, that robotic testing is conducted/owned by certain manuacturers and is utilized to support their product...the simple fact is the owners of that equipment have an agenda (not saying they're lying about the results, but there is a possibility the results of that testing are biased and "skewed").

So with all that being said, again I state I am NOT setup to perform any sort of "scientific" testing (which is what I believe would be required to perform the most beneficial review). Thus leaving me with only opinion based results. I was simply asking what "opinions" would people like to read from a "non-scientific" review...or if it is truly a waste of time...

Jason

interesting venture. "scientific" would seem to be a poor choice for your review(if that's what you intend) . what you do have is a factual(parts) and Aesthetics ,Performance which are really both "subjective". when customers ask me what do i think of the cue they have i tell them i can give a technical review of the their cue but as to the looks and how it hits, they are the ultimate authority. i can only explain construction. what hits good for me will/may be different for them. just my opinion.

 

[JAMSGOLF]

Sean,

I did read that review...and you should know why. I'll give this a few days to see if anyone has any ideas (again, both positive or negative) with regards to reviews....or if it would just be a waste of time...

Jason

Jason, not sure if you read my thread below, but it is my humble review that I posted back in April...

 

[nksmfamjp]

I do think you are correct to include the best explanation of it's construction which you can.

Playablity should be in your own words, but yes, this is so subjective that I'm not sure words like stiff, solid, nice are almost meaningless. To be honest. . .anydecent cue I've used had a good enough hit. most had no distinguishable trait per say, but I always know when I pick my own cue back up. I'm not even sure I really know the hit of my cues other than my main player. If I changed the tip, I'm sure I couldn't pick it out.

Now, the things which can be commented on well are noises made when hit, balance, shaft taper/feel, any build oddities like uven points, glue lines, etc. Also, so comment on the style, what it looks like, where it might be inspired from. . . That is really about it.

 

[SeanC]

Sean,

I did read that review...and you should know why. I'll give this a few days to see if anyone has any ideas (again, both positive or negative) with regards to reviews....or if it would just be a waste of time...

Jason

I'll admit here first that I haven't hit with too many custom cues and my experience is limited, so take below FWIW :thumbup:

As I told you on the phone before, I feel that there are two main "schools" or "approaches" to cue making. One is the big pin, parabolic taper of the Kersenbrock/Southwest school, the other is the small pin, usually stainless steel joint, non-parabolic taper of the Bushka/Szamboti school.

The rest are "interpolations" between these two very different, personal hits. For example, I feel that a Schon or a Jensen with a stainless steel joint are closer in feel to a Szamboti, whereas a Darrin Hill hits similar to a Southwest.

I hope more experienced users will chime in and state their opinions

 

[patrickcues]

The VAST majority of us on AZ are not equipped to give a "scientific" review of the cues that we play. So, we're stuck with giving personal opinions. Thus, we have to rely on subjective terminology with regards to the "playability" or "hit" of a cue.

The aesthetics (the looks of the cue) can be reviewed and commented on with regards to anything we can visually see about the construction of the cue (e.g. points even, inlays square, stitch rings line up, etc.), but obviously not the "interior" construction of the cue.

I'm going to start reviewing the cues that I (currently) have in the next week or so. I would like to get some input before I do to see what information would be most beneficial to those of you who view this section. I was thinking the following information should be included in the reviews to establish some kind of "norm" to my current or future reviews. Any input (either positive or negative) before I begin this would be appreciated...

The first group identifies the cue...the last two are the actual "review".

Cuemakers Name:
Cue Model (Custom or Production #):
Tip Type:
Ferrule Type:
Shaft Type:
Wrap Type:
Weight:
Balance Point:

Aesthetics (Looks):
Performance (Playability - "Subjective"):

THANKS,

Jason

Jason:

Just give your honest opinion on what you think about the cue. Good bad or different! Just be honest. I know thats what I like to hear from the ones that has taken time to write reviews about my cues!!