Question about Titleist conversions

PoolSleuth

Banned
Every once in a while I run on an old Titleist, and have often consider buying on to to a conversion. but the always feel to “FAT” for my Hands, plus all seem to “WEIGH” in about 20 OZ +. i would like to snag on, and get it convetted, but often wonder if when the Conversion is Done it it possible to turn the Butt Section down, and make it Thinner without screwing up the Points, and Veneers? Plus make a 18.4-18.5 Oz Cue out of the Finished product?
 
Turning it down is what makes the veneers more vibrant, so yes, you can turn it down as much as you'd like. A competent cuemaker can do this without screwing up the points, dependent upon the blank quality....

As with any cue, you can have whatever weight you want.
 
PoolSleuth said:
Every once in a while I run on an old Titleist, and have often consider buying on to to a conversion. but the always feel to “FAT” for my Hands, plus all seem to “WEIGH” in about 20 OZ +. i would like to snag on, and get it convetted, but often wonder if when the Conversion is Done it it possible to turn the Butt Section down, and make it Thinner without screwing up the Points, and Veneers? Plus make a 18.4-18.5 Oz Cue out of the Finished product?

Good morning, I completely agree with the others posters. I have converted a Titlist one piece cue that I use as my main playing cue.

I turned it and made it comfortable for me with no problems, the cue I converted was a 17 oz so controlling the cues weight was very easy.

However, even if the was a honking 22 or 23 oz butt it could be easily cored and made lighter with no major problem.

I would say go for it, but I would also recommend a one piece cue for conversion, one they do not have wrap, two if you use a two piece Hoppe, you can not be certain how the wood looks until the wrap is removed. three, by using the one piece you can pick and choose to find just the right one for you.

View attachment 23982

View attachment 23983

Craig
 
Last edited:
awesome conversion buddy, oh and the reason why they make good conversions is because they are so meaty. They can be easily worked with. I say go ahead and have one converted. Pick your favorite cuemaker and get it done.

Tony
 
PoolSleuth said:
Every once in a while I run on an old Titleist, and have often consider buying on to to a conversion. but the always feel to “FAT” for my Hands, plus all seem to “WEIGH” in about 20 OZ +. i would like to snag on, and get it convetted, but often wonder if when the Conversion is Done it it possible to turn the Butt Section down, and make it Thinner without screwing up the Points, and Veneers? Plus make a 18.4-18.5 Oz Cue out of the Finished product?


One of the things you have to watch out for, is the points. The glue they used then, was no where near as good as the stuff we're using today. Sometimes when you're cutting the butt thinner, you run into glue failures. That's where the glue is no longer holding the point or vaneers. When this happens the point can lift & splinter as you cut it. When I cut these, I coat the points with super glue gel after each turning. It seems to hold everything together as a unit...JER
 
The fatter and heavier butts are an advantage actually when you're looking for one to do a conversion, often times you get dings on the older cues that you need to turn down to remove.
 
BLACKHEARTCUES said:
When I cut these, I coat the points with super glue gel after each turning. It seems to hold everything together as a unit...JER

I do the same but I use a thin epoxy. A little insurance is a good thing.
 
Murray Tucker said:
I do the same but I use a thin epoxy. A little insurance is a good thing.
Years ago when I was still turning using a router bit, I did the same even on my new cues. The bit has a tendency to tear the veneers right at the tip. Then along came slotting cutters :)
 
I've never turned titlists, but had some vintage short blanks that I had the same problem with, and when I turned them, no matter how smooth the cut was, the tips or other parts of the veneer would try to tear out on me. My solution was pretty much the same, only I used slower setting thin CA, In hopes it would soak in alittle better. Greg
 
Back
Top