Off the wall cue building attempts!!
- Thread starter Shooter08
- Start date
Define "Master".
Lots of people build cues. Many of those cues are not to my liking, I bet even some of the ones made by the masters. The so called "masters" may have an ideal of a cue that is way different than my own. They may very well have tried my ideas out, and then rejecting them for various reasons. Some modern methods are there for convenience/freedom of design choices (3 piece butt construction), others for stability (coring), and yet others for balance etc...I don't care about a lot of this stuff. If the cue warps, I'll straighten it or get a new one, anyway the cue will be built in the climate where it will be used, and I'll use time and good materials. I want the ultimate in playability, not a wallhanger and I don't care if it will "sell" as I'm the only customer. It will be a racing car, not an suv, all luxuries stripped off.
My idea is to build a cue for pool that plays exactly like a snooker cue, and has been built by the same methods. That is the kind of feel and control I favor. One piece of ash, running the full length of the cue, with hardwood spliced butt (and maybe veneers), obviously scaled up to withstand the increased size of the balls. It may not be very practical to transport around and is not so much new as it is extremely old. I plan to build such a cue myself, by hand planing, like the masters of old (and current, like Parris). I will use a somewhat different taper than what is favored today. It will be a long project, and I'm currently trying to source the materials. I have some ideas for ferrule materials that I don't think have been tried before, that I don't want to reveal, as well as an idea for a tenon, that I also think may be unique (but I don't care if it isn't).
What is your point anyway? Nothing new under the sun? Everyone knows that in this kind of woodworking, pretty much everything has been tried and many things rejected. The rejection reasons may not be good resons to you personally, but may be for instance about marketability and convenience, rather than playability. If a master tried and rejected my (or others') designs that may be significant, but it may also be completely insignificant to our sensibilities.
Lots of people build cues. Many of those cues are not to my liking, I bet even some of the ones made by the masters. The so called "masters" may have an ideal of a cue that is way different than my own. They may very well have tried my ideas out, and then rejecting them for various reasons. Some modern methods are there for convenience/freedom of design choices (3 piece butt construction), others for stability (coring), and yet others for balance etc...I don't care about a lot of this stuff. If the cue warps, I'll straighten it or get a new one, anyway the cue will be built in the climate where it will be used, and I'll use time and good materials. I want the ultimate in playability, not a wallhanger and I don't care if it will "sell" as I'm the only customer. It will be a racing car, not an suv, all luxuries stripped off.
My idea is to build a cue for pool that plays exactly like a snooker cue, and has been built by the same methods. That is the kind of feel and control I favor. One piece of ash, running the full length of the cue, with hardwood spliced butt (and maybe veneers), obviously scaled up to withstand the increased size of the balls. It may not be very practical to transport around and is not so much new as it is extremely old. I plan to build such a cue myself, by hand planing, like the masters of old (and current, like Parris). I will use a somewhat different taper than what is favored today. It will be a long project, and I'm currently trying to source the materials. I have some ideas for ferrule materials that I don't think have been tried before, that I don't want to reveal, as well as an idea for a tenon, that I also think may be unique (but I don't care if it isn't).
What is your point anyway? Nothing new under the sun? Everyone knows that in this kind of woodworking, pretty much everything has been tried and many things rejected. The rejection reasons may not be good resons to you personally, but may be for instance about marketability and convenience, rather than playability. If a master tried and rejected my (or others') designs that may be significant, but it may also be completely insignificant to our sensibilities.
Last edited:
Stpool.....I used to think everything under the sun has been attempted but over the past year,
I've seen some designs that have made me swoon over the originality......take the Gatsby cue
as an example. Traditional is the most popular and that's a finite field but there are guys out
there producing some amazing original designs.....I am not a big fan of Thomas Wayne but
IMO, one of the most creative cue-makers around......Manzino & Tonkin are doing some amazing
work too.......I can't remember the last time I saw a BB cue that seemed original to me......pretty
much every cue looks alike......ebony and ivory. I didn't even care for that when it was a song.
Anyway, I prefer traditional designs and while I might not ever want to own one of these other
creative design cues, like the Gatsby Cue by BM or Pilsung by TW, I can nonetheless appreciate
the complexity and majesty of the workmanship more so than any traditional design by "any"
other modern day cue-maker......so I think there is still room for coming up with a new design.
JMO.
Matt B.
I've seen some designs that have made me swoon over the originality......take the Gatsby cue
as an example. Traditional is the most popular and that's a finite field but there are guys out
there producing some amazing original designs.....I am not a big fan of Thomas Wayne but
IMO, one of the most creative cue-makers around......Manzino & Tonkin are doing some amazing
work too.......I can't remember the last time I saw a BB cue that seemed original to me......pretty
much every cue looks alike......ebony and ivory. I didn't even care for that when it was a song.
Anyway, I prefer traditional designs and while I might not ever want to own one of these other
creative design cues, like the Gatsby Cue by BM or Pilsung by TW, I can nonetheless appreciate
the complexity and majesty of the workmanship more so than any traditional design by "any"
other modern day cue-maker......so I think there is still room for coming up with a new design.
JMO.
Matt B.
Last edited:
You changed your typing design. I like the old style better because it was much easier to read. Jake Hulsey has come up with some off the wall stuff too. Larry Vigus' seashell cue was amazing and a few others of his were very sporty.
I have figured out why the masters don't do a lot of things I have tried. The sea shell cues is one example. Most were not, monetarily, worth the time I spent on them. The experience was worth it.
If you are building cues for a living. There is little room for experimenting.
Larry