Probably a dumb post about sanding mandrels

[Brickcues]

So then would you buy several sets of mandrels at different sizes for different woods so you can service them? Then keep a standard that all of your cues of that wood use that specific joint size?

All you need is one set that is undersized. No 2 pieces of maple tone out at the same size. There could be a .001 or .002 or even .003 difference. Ever wonder why one cue plays like a monster and another made with the same woods and the same size only plays so-so.

Most people looking to buy a cue do not have a clue. They come in and look at your cues and see one that they like and buy. The players come in and want to hit with every cue until they find the one that has that feel. They could care less on what they look like. I strive to make all my cues hit like a monster.

 

[qbilder]

Not really.
Ebony at .855" joint ?
I don't think so.

Why not? All my cues are .855" with finish on, .848" before finish. I use arbors. It's the same no matter what wood is used where. Why should it matter if it's ebony or maple?

 

[qbilder]

I strive to make all my cues hit like a monster.

As does anybody who builds cues, even those of us who use arbors.

I find it hard to believe anybody who has a good set of arbors & knows how to use them, would ever dismiss them because they somehow affect consistency in playability. Personally speaking, it's the best tool I have bought since I bought a lathe. The very purpose of having them is to ensure a level of consistency that is humanly impossible. With dimensional consistency, all you have to worry about is balance, tone, & matching shafts to achieve the final desired result. In order to consistently create "monster hitters", you have to focus on those factors regardless. So why not eliminate as much of everything else as you can so it's the only things you have to focus on?

I control & tune the tonal characteristics with coring & wood matching, not dimensions. The size of the cue stays the same cue after cue, year after year. It doesn't take long to pattern things & get a solid idea of what works where. That dimensional constant is a base to build from. Through years & numerous cues I have learned to have a very close idea of what the cue will resonate like at finish size, while the cue is still just an idea. Any final tuning is done by tone matching shafts to the butt and what I end up with is every single cue falling into a tonal window that I personally feel creates that "monster hitter".

So not to be any bit disrespectful, I disagree with your idea of arbors on a fundamental level. The reason you tell the OP to not use them is the exact reason I do use them. The added bonus is having it easy to finish cues with near perfection. Why do it the hard way if you don't have to?

 

[JoeyInCali]

I control & tune the tonal characteristics with coring & wood matching, not dimensions. The size of the cue stays the same cue after cue, year after year.

To each his own.
I taper the handle section differently.
If I'm using a real stiff handle, I'll make it as thin as possible.
IF it's going to have a wrap and it's a maple handle, I'll make it fatter.
I can change where the forearm's angle pivots on the fly.
Not everyone likes .840-1.250 straight angle. I don't like it but I love how Scruggs hit. Most I don't.
I like .850 to .855 joint before finish but would stay around .840 for un-cored real rigid hard woods. Bottom can be 1.225 to 1.250. Taper can be .010 to .014 per inch.
SW and DPK of course preferred them at around .835 with a huge curve on the forearm section. Mr. Brick here I believe also has a curve on his forearms. That itself presents an interesting question on sanding arbors if he used one.
If he sanded the joint , he'd be sanding it on a straight angle.
I'm not too sure if he'd like that.
If he chucked up on the butt's joint and joined the matching shaft, he can easily take a fine pass on the shaft to match the dimensions following his taper bar at that( before finishing ).
Again to each his own.

 

[cueman]

As most know I think highly of Carbide Sanding madrels. I have used them for many years and plan to continue. But SW who does a good job of interchanging shafts does not use them. So if you are spraying your finish pretty thin I could see not using them. I quit spraying years ago, so to me having the mandrels is pretty important. Could I build cues without them? Yes, and I did for several years. I built cues with two shafts without them, but it was more trouble than with the mandrels. There are more roads to nice cues than one.

 

[scdiveteam]

To each his own.
I taper the handle section differently.
If I'm using a real stiff handle, I'll make it as thin as possible.
IF it's going to have a wrap and it's a maple handle, I'll make it fatter.
I can change where the forearm's angle pivots on the fly.
Not everyone likes .840-1.250 straight angle. I don't like it but I love how Scruggs hit. Most I don't.
I like .850 to .855 joint before finish but would stay around .840 for un-cored real rigid hard woods. Bottom can be 1.225 to 1.250. Taper can be .010 to .014 per inch.
SW and DPK of course preferred them at around .835 with a huge curve on the forearm section. Mr. Brick here I believe also has a curve on his forearms. That itself presents an interesting question on sanding arbors if he used one.
If he sanded the joint , he'd be sanding it on a straight angle.
I'm not too sure if he'd like that.
If he chucked up on the butt's joint and joined the matching shaft, he can easily take a fine pass on the shaft to match the dimensions following his taper bar at that( before finishing ).
Again to each his own.

Hi,

I have to agree with Joey as I too like a thinner handle also. My A-Joint is only .985. My butt end is 1.255 and my nose is .855. Unlike SW or DPK my parabolic curve is from the butt end into the handle, then it transitions into a constant angle to the nose.

I don't pivot my bar as it has a fixed geometry but I can see where Joey is coming from and I like his approach and why he may change it up.

Cues are like ice cream, you don't always want vanilla.

JMO,

Rick

 

[DanO]

Not having to sand/polish the butt & shaft(s) together and still have a perfect fit makes it all worth it for me. Doing two shafts with every cue makes it difficult to do the matching when finishing. Now I can build a butt, finish it, put it away, then build shafts & finish them and know they're perfect fit without ever testing. It's a level of comfort & confidence that you can never have otherwise.

Well said. You get a repeatable joint that you know is always concentric. I went with a Ø difference of .005" on mine and I'm spraying auto clear.

 

[qbilder]

To each his own was kinda what I was getting at. The OP asked about if using sanding mandrels was worth it or not, and one of the answers was that he couldn't consistently build great hitting cues if he used them because in order to do so, he'd have to vary his dimensions accordingly. I disagree(d). I'd even go as far as to say that there are more notable builders using them than not. I'm not arguing whether or not anybody should be varying the thickness of their handles or why. That's a completely different topic. I am only contesting the idea that using arbors prevents a guy from building consistently good cues.

Fact is, it's the end result that matters. Doesn't matter how you get there. Your method is surely going to be different than mine and that's ok. I used to use compound tapers in my components, especially handles, for years. At some point along the way I realized it was a PIA trying to figure out dimensions because it changed with the woods used. Keep in mind, 95%+ of my cues are wrapless with exotic handles, where back then most cues were maple handle with wraps. I began coring & adjusting things internally, keeping a constant outer dimension. It was easier & more predictable for MY cues. It also opened the door to use of arbors. So I understand the other point of view perfectly. Again what I don't agree with is that the use of arbors prevents consistent results in playability.

 

[cuejo]

I have Decided that sanding mandrels will be a tool I use to maintain tight tolerances between cues.
All I need to do now is decide what joint is going to be most common for me and order a set of mandrels to match!
Thanks for all the great responses!

 

[QMAKER]

To each his own was kinda what I was getting at. The OP asked about if using sanding mandrels was worth it or not, and one of the answers was that he couldn't consistently build great hitting cues if he used them because in order to do so, he'd have to vary his dimensions accordingly. I disagree(d). I'd even go as far as to say that there are more notable builders using them than not. I'm not arguing whether or not anybody should be varying the thickness of their handles or why. That's a completely different topic. I am only contesting the idea that using arbors prevents a guy from building consistently good cues.

Fact is, it's the end result that matters. Doesn't matter how you get there. Your method is surely going to be different than mine and that's ok. I used to use compound tapers in my components, especially handles, for years. At some point along the way I realized it was a PIA trying to figure out dimensions because it changed with the woods used. Keep in mind, 95%+ of my cues are wrapless with exotic handles, where back then most cues were maple handle with wraps. I began coring & adjusting things internally, keeping a constant outer dimension. It was easier & more predictable for MY cues. It also opened the door to use of arbors. So I understand the other point of view perfectly. Again what I don't agree with is that the use of arbors prevents consistent results in playability.

I bought my carbide tapered arbors from Blud years ago and would not/could not even think about building a cue without them. But, then again "to each his own". Eric hit the nail right on the head with his comments.

 

[JoeyInCali]

I have Decided that sanding mandrels will be a tool I use to maintain tight tolerances between cues.
All I need to do now is decide what joint is going to be most common for me and order a set of mandrels to match!
Thanks for all the great responses!

And you need to decide on the diameter.
And you prefer an angle for the butt, what taper ?

 

[cuejo]

I'm thinking .840 for the diameter.
Does the butt half really need to be tapered? All the mandrels I've seen are all flat ground...

 

[Canadian cue]

Another consideration is pin type and joint style. Piloted or non, if you have not settled on one type of pin it can get expensive to have a set for every joint type you use. Just a thought.

 

[cuejo]

I'm torn between 3/8-10 and 3/8-11
At this point it is meaningless, but I'm a month or two when I start making a ton of dust it will.

 

[KJ Cues]

There is no right and there is no wrong here. There is only what works best for the person doing it.
It's pointless to argue this when both achieve the same end result. Does it matter how they got there?
One of the great benefits of this trade is the freedom it brings. Not just from the alarm clock or time-card either.
The freedom to think for one's self and to learn from the results of those thoughts.
The freedom to come to your own conclusions.
I personally like the concept of different approaches. I may not like each and every idea presented but
each of them has the ability to open a window to a view that I may not have had before.
Every builder has their own way of doing things, their own techniques that they've developed and perfected.
Individuality is another level of the art-form. Without the individuality it becomes redundant and is
no longer an art-form. Not a lot of fun either.

I'm not chastising or defending anyone's particular point of view.
I'm merely saying that even though it may not be the way that the majority does, doesn't make it wrong.
It's just different and thank GOD for it.

KJ

 

[cuejo]

If you are going to sink some money in madrels I would recommend John Rocker. I just received mine and I couldn't be more pleased. I tried some from another person on here and it was a disaster. You will receive a quality product dealing with John.
Marc

I'm getting a set of mandrels from John.
I decided to only get one set sized for final size.
Thanks for all the input and suggestions.

 

[whammo57]

There is no right and there is no wrong here. There is only what works best for the person doing it.
It's pointless to argue this when both achieve the same end result. Does it matter how they got there?
One of the great benefits of this trade is the freedom it brings. Not just from the alarm clock or time-card either.
The freedom to think for one's self and to learn from the results of those thoughts.
The freedom to come to your own conclusions.
I personally like the concept of different approaches. I may not like each and every idea presented but
each of them has the ability to open a window to a view that I may not have had before.
Every builder has their own way of doing things, their own techniques that they've developed and perfected.
Individuality is another level of the art-form. Without the individuality it becomes redundant and is
no longer an art-form. Not a lot of fun either.

I'm not chastising or defending anyone's particular point of view.
I'm merely saying that even though it may not be the way that the majority does, doesn't make it wrong.
It's just different and thank GOD for it.

KJ

I wish everyone thought like that.................

Kim