Please help me ID these cues, Part 1

merylane said:
he never used birdseye? what shape should the bumper be?


i though the greeleaf's were black, red, mohogany, holly ??:confused:
Click to expand...

Bushka hated figured maple & wouldn't let his blank makers use it. He especially hated birdseye. Back in the day, birdseye was considered trash & was often burned or used as flooring in factories. Light curly is the most figure I have ever seen in a bushka, besides one very, very lightly birdseyed Titleist blank. He was building cues in time when birdseye maple was changing status from junk to beautiful treasure. But he never liked it, even though Szamboti & a few others in the time loved it. Supposedly he felt straight grain gave the best hit. I think he was right. But straight maple is boring so it's tough to use nowadays.

Cuemaking was different then, and ideas that we cuemakers hold as "standard gospel" were being forged back then. As such, we are doing things now like burl woods & G10 that will be standard stuff in years to come.

The bumper was always the chocolate brown, as pictured, but was ground down with a very slight bevel, nothing rounded like this bumper shows. The only radius would be on the edge of the bumper, and the bumper was countersunk to a depth that it barely extruded from the buttcap. Some research & looking through good pics of authentic Balibushkas will give away all the telling clues. I have also never seen a Bushka with a buttcap less than 1" long.

As for veneer color, could be right. I wouldn't argue that one. These cues could theorectically be authentic Bushka's, but they would be a group of "unique characteristic" Bushka's all owned by one person. That would be harder to believe than any of these being Bushka in the first place. Besides, the owner states that he was informed at time of purchase that they are not Bushka. They are good cues, very high quality for their time, but not enough characteristics add up to sum a Bushka. Just my thoughts. Been wrong before
 
qbilder said:
Bushka hated figured maple & wouldn't let his blank makers use it. He especially hated birdseye. Back in the day, birdseye was considered trash & was often burned or used as flooring in factories. Light curly is the most figure I have ever seen in a bushka, besides one very, very lightly birdseyed Titleist blank. He was building cues in time when birdseye maple was changing status from junk to beautiful treasure. But he never liked it, even though Szamboti & a few others in the time loved it. Supposedly he felt straight grain gave the best hit. I think he was right. But straight maple is boring so it's tough to use nowadays.

Cuemaking was different then, and ideas that we cuemakers hold as "standard gospel" were being forged back then. As such, we are doing things now like burl woods & G10 that will be standard stuff in years to come.

The bumper was always the chocolate brown, as pictured, but was ground down with a very slight bevel, nothing rounded like this bumper shows. The only radius would be on the edge of the bumper, and the bumper was countersunk to a depth that it barely extruded from the buttcap. Some research & looking through good pics of authentic Balibushkas will give away all the telling clues. I have also never seen a Bushka with a buttcap less than 1" long.

As for veneer color, could be right. I wouldn't argue that one. These cues could theorectically be authentic Bushka's, but they would be a group of "unique characteristic" Bushka's all owned by one person. That would be harder to believe than any of these being Bushka in the first place. Besides, the owner states that he was informed at time of purchase that they are not Bushka. They are good cues, very high quality for their time, but not enough characteristics add up to sum a Bushka. Just my thoughts. Been wrong before
Click to expand...

Just my thoughts. Been wrong before[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with you assessment, and I also think you are right!!!

Good information, and a valuable post!!!
 
"Never say never"....that's one thing I've learned over the past several years in seeing quite a number of the old cues by the masters. If you say somebody never did one thing or another, in the end sometimes you get proven wrong. I've seen it before.

Guys like Bushka experiemented with various things, especially early on. Also, at times when certain standard materials weren't available, they probably relied on alternate sources, just like the guys today. And after all they were custom cuemakers, part of that is accomodating special requests to a degree (some makers' moreso than others...you see that today as well).

While certain things are obviously considered "standard" for his body of work, there are obviously mavericks/outliers floating around that the masses (and sometimes perhaps the experts) won't associate with his work. The world of cues (as well as other hand crafted collectibles and art) is littered with examples of this.
 
cueaddicts said:
"Never say never"....that's one thing I've learned over the past several years in seeing quite a number of the old cues by the masters. If you say somebody never did one thing or another, in the end sometimes you get proven wrong. I've seen it before.

Guys like Bushka experiemented with various things, especially early on. Also, at times when certain standard materials weren't available, they probably relied on alternate sources, just like the guys today. And after all they were custom cuemakers, part of that is accomodating special requests to a degree (some makers' moreso than others...you see that today as well).

While certain things are obviously considered "standard" for his body of work, there are obviously mavericks/outliers floating around that the masses (and sometimes perhaps the experts) won't associate with his work. The world of cues (as well as other hand crafted collectibles and art) is littered with examples of this.
Click to expand...

A truthful post indeed. But as rare as it is for him to change from his normal techniques, it's hardest to believe that one person has so many examples of it without having a single example of the standard.
 
qbilder said:
A truthful post indeed. But as rare as it is for him to change from his normal techniques, it's hardest to believe that one person has so many examples of it without having a single example of the standard.
Click to expand...

Well this gentleman does have a few "standard" Bushkas. Two of the cues he posted are "standard" Bushkas.

JV
 
DrJ said:
Thanks a bunch for your expert opinions JV....

DrJ

PS Thank you also to all of you who PMed me with helpful hints....
Click to expand...

You can e-mail me... Mark and I have been talking about your cues. :D

JV
 
qbilder said:
Bushka hated figured maple & wouldn't let his blank makers use it. He especially hated birdseye. Back in the day, birdseye was considered trash & was often burned or used as flooring in factories. Light curly is the most figure I have ever seen in a bushka, besides one very, very lightly birdseyed Titleist blank. He was building cues in time when birdseye maple was changing status from junk to beautiful treasure. But he never liked it, even though Szamboti & a few others in the time loved it. Supposedly he felt straight grain gave the best hit. I think he was right. But straight maple is boring so it's tough to use nowadays.

Cuemaking was different then, and ideas that we cuemakers hold as "standard gospel" were being forged back then. As such, we are doing things now like burl woods & G10 that will be standard stuff in years to come.

The bumper was always the chocolate brown, as pictured, but was ground down with a very slight bevel, nothing rounded like this bumper shows. The only radius would be on the edge of the bumper, and the bumper was countersunk to a depth that it barely extruded from the buttcap. Some research & looking through good pics of authentic Balibushkas will give away all the telling clues. I have also never seen a Bushka with a buttcap less than 1" long.

As for veneer color, could be right. I wouldn't argue that one. These cues could theorectically be authentic Bushka's, but they would be a group of "unique characteristic" Bushka's all owned by one person. That would be harder to believe than any of these being Bushka in the first place. Besides, the owner states that he was informed at time of purchase that they are not Bushka. They are good cues, very high quality for their time, but not enough characteristics add up to sum a Bushka. Just my thoughts. Been wrong before
Click to expand...

I don't know much about Balabushka's, but one of the sales I was closely involved with - and it was authenticated with no question and had some provenance - was a birdseye - it was a Szamboti blank made at the end of his run. I think George must have softened on Birdseye after 1971. None of the blanks that John Davis made had it according to John.

Truthfully, I think all three of these cues should be x-rayed and sent to Tascarella for a look - what the heck, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for this particular cue either.

Chris
 
TATE said:
I don't know much about Balabushka's, but one of the sales I was closely involved with - and it was authenticated with no question and had some provenance - was a birdseye - it was a Szamboti blank made at the end of his run. I think George must have softened on Birdseye after 1971. None of the blanks that John Davis made had it according to John.

Truthfully, I think all three of these cues should be x-rayed and sent to Tascarella for a look - what the heck, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for this particular cue either.

Chris
Click to expand...

You are probably right. Like I said, I could be wrong. I'm no Bushka expert but have always taken a very close look at his work & noted certain characteristics that nearly every cue possessed. These cues, though having certain characteristics that screamed Bushka, just didn't really jingle any bells for me as compared to others I have seen. Bushka's cues were popular & every Tom, Dick & Harry made their own spin off. Now every old cue with certain characteristics are seemingly labeled Bushka. I personally believe there are far more false than true. With every cue I have seen that is claimed to be a Bushka, the guy had to be building cues for a very, very long time or else was punching cues out daily. I'd love to have one, but it almost take George's ghost coming back to authenticate it for me before i'd believe it.

In my earlier days of building, I put together a "Bushka-ish" cue with an old Adams forearm. Oil finish & all. It was stupid easy to do and make look authentic, even for a somewhat beginner. I can only guess how many builders through the years have built them. Even with no intent of them being mistaken as a Bushka, through years & several owners they could very well be mistaken as such & become believed. Look how many SW knock-offs there are now, even by reputable custom builders. In 50 years, how many are going to be sold as authentic Southwests? How will anybody honestly know the difference? If somebody built a replica of a cue I built & used the same materials, tapers, dimensions, etc., I would have a very tough time knowing the difference if at all. So when i'm dead & gone how would anybody else know? They wouldn't. I just don't see it. How could anybody honestly know 100% sure any cue is a Bushka without accurate historical documents?
 
qbilder said:
You are probably right. Like I said, I could be wrong. I'm no Bushka expert but have always taken a very close look at his work & noted certain characteristics that nearly every cue possessed. These cues, though having certain characteristics that screamed Bushka, just didn't really jingle any bells for me as compared to others I have seen. Bushka's cues were popular & every Tom, Dick & Harry made their own spin off. Now every old cue with certain characteristics are seemingly labeled Bushka. I personally believe there are far more false than true. With every cue I have seen that is claimed to be a Bushka, the guy had to be building cues for a very, very long time or else was punching cues out daily. I'd love to have one, but it almost take George's ghost coming back to authenticate it for me before i'd believe it.

In my earlier days of building, I put together a "Bushka-ish" cue with an old Adams forearm. Oil finish & all. It was stupid easy to do and make look authentic, even for a somewhat beginner. I can only guess how many builders through the years have built them. Even with no intent of them being mistaken as a Bushka, through years & several owners they could very well be mistaken as such & become believed. Look how many SW knock-offs there are now, even by reputable custom builders. In 50 years, how many are going to be sold as authentic Southwests? How will anybody honestly know the difference? If somebody built a replica of a cue I built & used the same materials, tapers, dimensions, etc., I would have a very tough time knowing the difference if at all. So when i'm dead & gone how would anybody else know? They wouldn't. I just don't see it. How could anybody honestly know 100% sure any cue is a Bushka without accurate historical documents?
Click to expand...
What style of cue are you making??
any pics or website to look at?
thanks
 
Duane remick said:
What style of cue are you making??
any pics or website to look at?
thanks
Click to expand...

My own style. Basically figured woods & rare materials, focusing on playability. I'm little more than a student of the craft :) I'm your common cue nut. Sorry, no website or any form of advertising. You might do a search & find something, though. On special occasion I build some higher end cues, but mostly players.

Eric Crisp
Sugartree Customs

DrJ, good luck with your search. I'm sure you'll not be dissapointed no matter the results. They are well built cues.
 
For cases, I would try to get any of the following, as they are all nice and structurally sound. There may be others, but here are my top pics:

Murnak
Jack Justis
Ron Thomas
Instroke
Whitten
Older It's George if you are looking second hand
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top