Regarding construction and playability.

[Olive]

Here's another question. nr2.

I don't know much about custom cue making yet, but heres something i keep wondering.

As to construction i have come across terms like: Short spliced, long spliced, full spliced, finger spliced and i guess non-spliced cues.

Sneaky's tend to be spliced always with 4 or more points whereas high end customs more often than not do not have any points.

How do these different types of construction affect the cue as far as 'hit' and playability goes? I notice that many az'ers tend to have 'sneaky's as their players, is this cause these are cheaper and they don't want to use their high end expensive ones, or is the 'hit' of a spliced cue different... better?

Do the non spliced cues not have points in order to showcase more of solid wood area?

Please discuss!

Cheers, Oliver

 

[manwon]

Here's another question. nr2.

I don't know much about custom cue making yet, but heres something i keep wondering.

As to construction i have come across terms like: Short spliced, long spliced, full spliced, finger spliced and i guess non-spliced cues.

Sneaky's tend to be spliced always with 4 or more points whereas high end customs more often than not do not have any points.

How do these different types of construction affect the cue as far as 'hit' and playability goes? I notice that many az'ers tend to have 'sneaky's as their players, is this cause these are cheaper and they don't want to use their high end expensive ones, or is the 'hit' of a spliced cue different... better?

Do the non spliced cues not have points in order to showcase more of solid wood area?

Please discuss!

Cheers, Oliver

Hello Oliver, splices were first used as a form of decoration for cues. Cues that are spliced go back almost 200 hundred years they are really nothing new. Inlays and the colored material around points (veneer's) were also introduced around the same time for the same purpose.

Today I do not know of anyone who uses the splicing techniques used by Brunswick known as the Titlist. Today most points are inlay-ed not truly spliced. There are many things that will effect a cues hit, the tip, ferrule, joints, the cues taper, and coring a cues forearm.

The reason many people buy Sneaky's, is simple, this way you can try a cue by a particular cue maker at less expense to see if you like their taper, and over all hit of that cue makers cues.

Here is a website that may give some information that you are looking for:

http://www.cuemaker.com/book_on_cue_building.htm

http://www.dzcues.com/contact_info.htm

Hope this helps!!!

 

[Olive]

Thanks Craig, was wondering what these "titlist" conversions meant.

Ive actually read Dieckmans book just couple of days ago. Unfortunately he only covers mainly machines... and then some more machines... and then about his ventures about getting the machines.
fun read tho - he's got a very quirky sense of humor.

The other webpage you posted just had someone's contact info? Were you suggesting i call him or? I checked out his new webpage as well - couldnt find much about construction. (maybe he got rid of that bit since he seems to have recently changed his web site.)

From what you said about people purchasing makers sneaky petes in order to try out the taper and hit for a less amount of money - i take it there is no difference in the quality of hit? I for one much prefer the looks of spliced points to handle joined cues. they seem sleeker and more elegant.

 

[JoeyInCali]

I thought Brunswick started those spliced cues b/c they did not want one long piece of maple that long.
By splicing the bottom with harder wood like Philippine mahogany or rosewood ( even Brazilian, gulp) they were able to cut the maple down and add weight.

 

[tsp&b]

I thought Brunswick started those spliced cues b/c they did not want one long piece of maple that long.
By splicing the bottom with harder wood like Philippine mahogany or rosewood ( even Brazilian, gulp) they were able to cut the maple down and add weight.

Joey, change your avatar. I can't seem to keep my mind on anything you post... On second thought DON'T CHANGE IT!!

 

[socks]

here's anouther link to a good read for you.

http://www.cuecomponents.com/cuebuon.html

in thier forearm section, i belive that is considered a short or half splice method, though i dont really know. maybe someone will be kind and correct me if i'm wrong. either way, its an interesting read.

 

[rhncue]

I thought Brunswick started those spliced cues b/c they did not want one long piece of maple that long.
By splicing the bottom with harder wood like Philippine mahogany or rosewood ( even Brazilian, gulp) they were able to cut the maple down and add weight.

There is more than one reason for the two piece, star or butterfly spliced butt. The cue needed some balance and, as you state, the shorter pieces spliced together were easier to keep straight. The star and the butterfly joints were used both for strength, as there is so much more gluing area for the types of glues available then, and to help balance and the area where the two, largely different basic weight pieces of wood were spliced. It wasn't long before veneers and other, mostly decorative, additions were incorporated so as to increase the saleability of the cue, the same as today.

Dick

Dick

 

[manwon]

I thought Brunswick started those spliced cues b/c they did not want one long piece of maple that long.
By splicing the bottom with harder wood like Philippine mahogany or rosewood ( even Brazilian, gulp) they were able to cut the maple down and add weight.

They kinda copied them from existing designs that were being produced in Europe.

Here is an interesting website with cues that were made before Brunswick started their major production.

http://users.skynet.be/billard.billiards/sum.htm

 

[manwon]

There is more than one reason for the two piece, star or butterfly spliced butt. The cue needed some balance and, as you state, the shorter pieces spliced together were easier to keep straight. The star and the butterfly joints were used both for strength, as there is so much more gluing area for the types of glues available then, and to help balance and the area where the two, largely different basic weight pieces of wood were spliced. It wasn't long before veneers and other, mostly decorative, additions were incorporated so as to increase the saleability of the cue, the same as today.

Dick

Dick

Dick, I also agree that balance was an issue, and Brunswick along with all others were concerned about it. However, as we all know in the Mid-1920's the balance issue was solved by Herman Rambow when he designed and patented the Hub Cue that was produced by Brunswick. Hermans cue was the first model that used what we call an A-joint today. The major difference being that the joint was not permanently closed / sealed after the balance was adjusted. The design allowed a joint like our current jump break cues that could be unscrewed, so the balance could be adjusted forward or back at any time.

After this design which is still used today, ones ability to balance a cue became a very stable method, unlike the years before the design which were hit and miss.

 

[spliced]

Today I do not know of anyone who uses the splicing techniques used by Brunswick known as the Titlist. Today most points are inlay-ed not truly spliced.

Except for hercek, tascarella, davis, prather, mark bear, blackcreek, tucker, arnot, whisler, cuemaster, predator, and im sure a few others who all make their own four point full splice butts with veneers.

 

[manwon]

Except for hercek, tascarella, davis, prather, mark bear, blackcreek, tucker, arnot, whisler, cuemaster, predator, and im sure a few others who all make their own four point full splice butts with veneers.

None of these makers make truly FULL SPLICED CUES that are made using the same techniques that Brunswick used to build theTitlist. Again to my knowledge know one is currently using the Techniques used by Brunswick. If I am wrong show me I want to learn, but my first question would have to be do you know how Brunswick made the Titlist? If so, please explain the technique and equipment used.

Please, I am very interested in your comments.

Have a nice day!!!!

 

[JoeyInCali]

None of these makers make truly FULL SPLICED CUES that are made using the same techniques that Brunswick used to build theTitlist. Again to my knowledge know one is currently using the Techniques used by Brunswick. If I am wrong show me I want to learn, but my first question would have to be do you know how Brunswick made the Titlist? If so, please explain the technique and equipment used.

Please, I am very interested in your comments.

Have a nice day!!!!

If the 4-prong handle is one piece and the forearm is one piece with the fork to meet and glue with the 4-prong handle, isn't that full-splice?

 

[BLACKHEARTCUES]

None of these makers make truly FULL SPLICED CUES that are made using the same techniques that Brunswick used to build theTitlist. Again to my knowledge know one is currently using the Techniques used by Brunswick. If I am wrong show me I want to learn, but my first question would have to be do you know how Brunswick made the Titlist? If so, please explain the technique and equipment used.

Please, I am very interested in your comments.

Have a nice day!!!!

How about SCHMELKE?...JER

 

[qbilder]

Brunswick used a tablesaw for the prong, and the butt. I know this much because I have disassembled them & can clearly see circular saw marks. Besides that, not much difference in them & any full splice.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Brunswick used a tablesaw for the prong, and the butt. I know this much because I have disassembled them & can clearly see circular saw marks. Besides that, not much difference in them & any full splice.

MIght have been a compound saw ala one hall of famer.

 

[ridewiththewind]

Here's another question. nr2.

I don't know much about custom cue making yet, but heres something i keep wondering.

As to construction i have come across terms like: Short spliced, long spliced, full spliced, finger spliced and i guess non-spliced cues.

Long splice, full splice, and finger spliced are basically, if I am not mistaken (and I will be corrected if I'm wrong! LoL) are of the same construction technique, and encompass what is generally known as the 'sneaky pete' when non-veneered, and 'full splice' when veneered. While they may, as a rule, cost less money from most makers, it certainly does not mean that they take any less work. In fact, they can be very labor intensive, if done right. Finger splicing is just one technique in which to join the two pieces in order to make the long or full splice.

A short spliced cue will generally be crafted by joining a butt sleeve, to a handle, and then the forearm, which will often have the points placed into that, whether it be by inlaying them or using a v-splice technique. The v-spice/v-groove is generally considered to be the stronger of the two construction techniques, as it becomes an integral part of the forearm, and can actually add strength and stability...while the inlayed points are just that, inlayed, and generally do not add to the forearm's overall structural integrity.

Sneaky's tend to be spliced always with 4 or more points whereas high end customs more often than not do not have any points.

How do these different types of construction affect the cue as far as 'hit' and playability goes? I notice that many az'ers tend to have 'sneaky's as their players, is this cause these are cheaper and they don't want to use their high end expensive ones, or is the 'hit' of a spliced cue different... better?

I have owned both types of cues, and am now pretty much a full splice fanatic. There are some that will argue that you cannot tell the difference in 'hit' between the two. I, however, tend to disagree for the most part, as for me, I can tell the difference. Not long ago, I had the opportunity to play with two cues, (one long spliced, one short spliced), from the same maker, who is known for his consistency in 'hit' between his cues. The long splice, to me, felt a tad bit stiffer, and offered amazing feedback. The short spliced cue, while still providing great feedback, it was not quite as pronounced, thus feeling like it had a slightly 'softer' hit. I should note that play was outstanding between the two, and both got the job done, very well. I just like a cue that really 'talks' to me, and as a rule, I can find that slightly more pronounced in the long splice cue, when properly crafted and with quality woods and other components.

While yes, as a rule, they are less expensive, that is not always the main reason that many play with them...it is because, as a rule, they are more responsive...and the feel of the cue is much like that of the good ol' barstick that we all grew up starting out with when first stepping to the table.


Do the non spliced cues not have points in order to showcase more of solid wood area?

Please discuss!

Cheers, Oliver

While I am not a cuemaker.....I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night ...no, I didn't!

Lisa

 

[qbilder]

MIght have been a compound saw ala one hall of famer.

No, doubt it. These house cues are from the teens & twenties. Overhead saws were a little later. These are too crude to be done with an overhead. In fact, they are so crude that i'm baffled at how they managed to make them look good. I can see how once set up, they could produce thousands in a short time.

 

[JoeyInCali]

No, doubt it. These house cues are from the teens & twenties. Overhead saws were a little later. These are too crude to be done with an overhead. In fact, they are so crude that i'm baffled at how they managed to make them look good. I can see how once set up, they could produce thousands in a short time.

Ah ok.
Might have been pedal-powed saws too.

 

[spliced]

duh

None of these makers make truly FULL SPLICED CUES that are made using the same techniques that Brunswick used to build theTitlist. Again to my knowledge know one is currently using the Techniques used by Brunswick. If I am wrong show me I want to learn, but my first question would have to be do you know how Brunswick made the Titlist? If so, please explain the technique and equipment used.

Please, I am very interested in your comments.

Have a nice day!!!!

The titlist consisted of a hardwood handle and a maple forearm spliced together. That is the definition of a full splice. No A joint. Just wood and glue. This is the exact same way that hercek, tascarella, davis, prather, mark bear, blackcreek, tucker, arnot, whisler, cuemaster, predator, and im sure a few others make their full splice cues. Of course nobody is using the old outdated equipment used by brunswick. I'm sure everybodys equipment and glues are a little different but they are all making FULL SPLICED cues in the same tradition as the titlist.

Claiming these cuemakers do not make FULL SPLICED cues is insulting to their work. I'm sure they have all ripped apart a few titlist cues and know exactly how they are constructed and if anything improved upon the original design.

Here is an excerpt from Mark Bear's website (www.bearcues.com):

"Over the years Mark has constantly improved upon his designs and construction techniques with the latest being what he calls the "Modern Day Full Splice". This is based on the tried and true Brunswick TITLIST design."

From the interview portion of Hercek's website (www.hercek.com):

"..in 1991 Burton Spain started working on a full spliced blank, the kind used in the TITLIST. With a full spliced blank, the handle and prongs are made from the same piece of wood and finger spliced into the maple nose section of the cue."

 

[manwon]

If the 4-prong handle is one piece and the forearm is one piece with the fork to meet and glue with the 4-prong handle, isn't that full-splice?

Joey, I suspect that I should have been more clear when I spoke about techniques. Yes that would certainly be a fullsplice.