ring proportions

[cuesmith]

I do a square block ringwork similar to the "Bushka Ring" at all 5 places. In order to make them look proportionate I make the dashes, 8 at the joint, 10 at the a-joint and 12 at the butt sleeve. This way the white and black are about the same width. I do something similar for veneered RW to keep them proportionate.
Sherm

 

[cueman]

I personally think all five slot rings look fine the same length. I know people who measure every ring gradually getting smaller a few thousands on each of the five rings. Guess what happened to one of them? A customer starts wanting a refund becasue the rings are not the same length. The point is that everyone has their own taste.

 

[scdiveteam]

Don't forget to 'align' them or the cue-police will be all over your case.
Too bad they weren't around to dictate to Gus the value of their wisdom.
Just think of how great he could have been had he listened to the critics.


Hi,

The rings on that cue are screwed up and I don't care if Jesus Christ himself made it. Screwed up is screwed up period.

I look at some of the other details on this cue like the wrap groove fit, metal joint blend to finish and the inlays, ect. They show great cue making skills. He must have been drunk or on mushrooms or something when he aligned and glued the rings.

I don't think there are too many CMs here that would accept such shoddy tolerance for symmetry. Decor rings are all about symmetry! If not why index the billets? Just stitch the slots free hand.

I am sure some collector guy or salesman will claim this cue is worth much more $$$$ because of the "rare" misalignment, LOL.

Rick G

 

[cuesmith]

Don't forget to 'align' them or the cue-police will be all over your case.
Too bad they weren't around to dictate to Gus the value of their wisdom.
Just think of how great he could have been had he listened to the critics.


Hi,

The rings on that cue are screwed up and I don't care if Jesus Christ made it. Screwed up is screwed up period.

I look at some of the other details on this cue like the wrap groove fit, metal joint blend to finish and the inlays, ect. They show great cue making skills. He must have been drunk or on mushrooms or something when he aligned and glued the rings.

I don't think there are too many CMs here that would accept such shoddy tolerance for symmetry. Decor rings are all about symmetry!

I am sure some collector guy or salesman will claim this cue is worth much more because of the "rare" misalignment, LOL.

Rick G

Well Rick, I respectfully disagree. At the time this cue was made alignment of the ringwork was not considered important. In fact it wasn't considered at all. Using todays standards to judge something built before people even noticed such things is just as screwed up as you seem to feel this cue is.

 

[KJ Cues]

Don't forget to 'align' them or the cue-police will be all over your case.
Too bad they weren't around to dictate to Gus the value of their wisdom.
Just think of how great he could have been had he listened to the critics.


Hi,

The rings on that cue are screwed up and I don't care if Jesus Christ himself made it. Screwed up is screwed up period.

I look at some of the other details on this cue like the wrap groove fit, metal joint blend to finish and the inlays, ect. They show great cue making skills. He must have been drunk or on mushrooms or something when he aligned and glued the rings.

I don't think there are too many CMs here that would accept such shoddy tolerance for symmetry. Decor rings are all about symmetry! If not why index the billets? Just stitch the slots free hand.

I am sure some collector guy or salesman will claim this cue is worth much more $$$$ because of the "rare" misalignment, LOL.

Rick G

Rick,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I think that in this case it's based
on an artistic expression that is beyond your current level of comprehension.
Because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.
Artistic expression has confused the masses for eons.
It's obvious that you don't like the statement that Gus was making with that cue.
That's OK and I would think that even Gus would tell you that. (please forgive my 3rd party speculation).

Earlier in this thread, Neil Lickfold stated: "There is a reason for it being like that as well."
He's very correct. There is a reason for everything that was done on that cue and in
the manner that it was done. You could very well be that reason. You and everyone else who shares your
opinion, which btw is perfectly acceptable.
No one is right and no one is wrong. It's an expression, a personal statement in art form. Which is why it's
perfectly acceptable for anyone to think what they want of it.

Let's first consider that what you see in the pics is not an accident.
Therefore, it was done deliberately. Just as deliberately as if he had chosen symmetry.
Key-word here being 'choice' which was his and his alone.
Expressive art is about freedom, otherwise, it's not art. It's commercial and bland.

Art is meant to evoke emotions of all types in all it's forms. Obviously that cue got your attention.
It spoke to you and you didn't like what it was saying.
YOU weren't supposed to like it. Art doesn't speak to everyone in the same way.
That's why it's art. It has no boundaries and no default language.

One man or 1 million men will not define art yet each is entitled to their opinion.
Art will not be defined, it is much freer than that. As it should be.

 

[Paul Dayton]

Well Rick, I respectfully disagree. At the time this cue was made alignment of the ringwork was not considered important. In fact it wasn't considered at all. Using todays standards to judge something built before people even noticed such things is just as screwed up as you seem to feel this cue is.

Absolutely right. Alignment of rings in the 70's and part of the 80's was ignored. It didn't matter and it wasn't noticed.. Many of the finest custom cues had 5 and 6 part butt sleeves and 4 point fronts.

It wasn't an artistic expression, it was how cues were built.

 

[scdiveteam]

Rick,
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I think that in this case it's based
on an artistic expression that is beyond your current level of comprehension.
Because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.
Artistic expression has confused the masses for eons.
It's obvious that you don't like the statement that Gus was making with that cue.
That's OK and I would think that even Gus would tell you that. (please forgive my 3rd party speculation).

Earlier in this thread, Neil Lickfold stated: "There is a reason for it being like that as well."
He's very correct. There is a reason for everything that was done on that cue and in
the manner that it was done. You could very well be that reason. You and everyone else who shares your
opinion, which btw is perfectly acceptable.
No one is right and no one is wrong. It's an expression, a personal statement in art form. Which is why it's
perfectly acceptable for anyone to think what they want of it.

Let's first consider that what you see in the pics is not an accident.
Therefore, it was done deliberately. Just as deliberately as if he had chosen symmetry.
Key-word here being 'choice' which was his and his alone.
Expressive art is about freedom, otherwise, it's not art. It's commercial and bland.

Art is meant to evoke emotions of all types in all it's forms. Obviously that cue got your attention.
It spoke to you and you didn't like what it was saying.
YOU weren't supposed to like it. Art doesn't speak to everyone in the same way.
That's why it's art. It has no boundaries and no default language.

One man or 1 million men will not define art yet each is entitled to their opinion.
Art will not be defined, it is much freer than that. As it should be.

KJ,

Thank you for acknowledging that I am entitled to my opinion as I also do always respect yours. Your explanation of the art was quite descriptive and all of what you say is very true about art. Maybe I am not seeing this for what it is. It is hard for me to see how moving a ring off alignment a little has an element of preconceived artistic expression. When Miles Davis plays a note that is atonal to the key signature of the tune he expresses a shocking sensation to the ear that evokes an emotion of non uniformity as to our expectations. Are you saying this is what people have done in cue making?

My level of comprehension is of a pragmatic nature and also, intuitive and analytical or at least I hope but I do respect art and it freedoms for expression. I do respectively disagree and believe that what is going on here is horizontal collectivism in the broadest sense. Usually when something quacks, has webbed feet and looks like a duck, it is a duck.

In my view, there is the the lack of attention to detail during the glue up. That must be a consideration. My friend has a Gus cue with the simple dash rings from the 70s and when you make the face the dash rings still line up. Was that an accident? Or was it life imitating art, I hardly think so. Just the same, to explore this ring line up issue, I just went for a stroll on the www. and found some pics of other Gus cues shown mated to the shafts and they were also lined up. If he misaligns rings with the concise effort as art, he must have decided to be an artist one day at a time or cue at a time and that is also plausible but also questionable.

In my opinion not paying attention to the detail of alignment is being called art because no one wants to say it may be a mistake by the master. Thomas Jefferson was a great founder of our free republic but he was also a slave owner.

IMHO this cult like culture that seems to permeate the secondary cue market is the fodder that drives up the price of these cues made by the old timers. This is a "great thing" because it creates real expanded value to a collector without any additional production. As cue maker's however we understand the how's and why's associated with the construction and details required to build a cue. There are no hidden secrets as might be construed by the lay person. I myself wish to be objective in my observations concerning a center ball hit or a miscue. If it is indeed art and was a deliberate attempt by Gus, I admit that I don't understand it.

Everyone has to have someone that they draw inspiration from in any endeavor. Gus was definitely a great trailblazer in our industry and one we can look up to. I myself like the work and contributions of David Kersenbrock but would be the first to say one of his cues were flawed if the rings were a-skewed. Just that simple.

It is very difficult for me to believe that someone goes through the motion to make a simple thing like a ring combination and then say's, I am Salvador Dolley so I am going to go against the grain of symmetry in this design to make an artistic impression today and then puts simple rings on a cue and goes the the trouble to make then line up at mating by facing them correctly to fit. Trying or thinking one can mind read what a dead person's motives where 40 years ago seems a little unimportant but then here we are discussing it. Go figure. His body of work speaks for itself and I think we must at least consider he was a man capable of mistakes, just like you and I. On several occasions I have lined up my ring works during gluing and found out later that I had bumped them out of alignment when I tightened the clamping fixture. It happens and when it does for me I cut off the rings and do it again.

In the final analysis be it a design flaw execution error, or an artistic expression it won't work today. The world is in a more sophisticated state and if you or I presented a cue with rings like that to a customer and said it was our artistic presentation, they would think we were full of baloney. That is some thing I do have the ability to comprehend! Maybe the booze or the mushrooms cause him to see the art! :rotflmao1: The booze and mushroom thing was my attempt at comedy.

Rick G

 

[JoeyInCali]

Don't forget to 'align' them or the cue-police will be all over your case.
Too bad they weren't around to dictate to Gus the value of their wisdom.
Just think of how great he could have been had he listened to the critics.


Hi,

The rings on that cue are screwed up and I don't care if Jesus Christ himself made it. Screwed up is screwed up period.

I look at some of the other details on this cue like the wrap groove fit, metal joint blend to finish and the inlays, ect. They show great cue making skills. He must have been drunk or on mushrooms or something when he aligned and glued the rings.

I don't think there are too many CMs here that would accept such shoddy tolerance for symmetry. Decor rings are all about symmetry! If not why index the billets? Just stitch the slots free hand.

I am sure some collector guy or salesman will claim this cue is worth much more $$$$ because of the "rare" misalignment, LOL.

Rick G

Does Gus really deserve that disrespect ?

 

[icem3n]

Don't forget to 'align' them or the cue-police will be all over your case.
Too bad they weren't around to dictate to Gus the value of their wisdom.
Just think of how great he could have been had he listened to the critics.


Hi,

The rings on that cue are screwed up and I don't care if Jesus Christ himself made it. Screwed up is screwed up period.

I look at some of the other details on this cue like the wrap groove fit, metal joint blend to finish and the inlays, ect. They show great cue making skills. He must have been drunk or on mushrooms or something when he aligned and glued the rings.

I don't think there are too many CMs here that would accept such shoddy tolerance for symmetry. Decor rings are all about symmetry! If not why index the billets? Just stitch the slots free hand.

I am sure some collector guy or salesman will claim this cue is worth much more $$$$ because of the "rare" misalignment, LOL.

Rick G

Rick, you gonna lose a lot of respect from cuemakers and prospect customers just by putting up this post.

 

[conetip]

It was Van Gogh that painted and showed the world through eyes with cataracts. Yet at the time, no one knew what a person with cataracts was actually seeing.
The perfect picture of an event is a photograph, yet not everyone is actually seeing those colours or depth of field or even the detail. Everyone's view is different for numerous reasons, too many to list.
Engineers like, symmetry , perfection , they try to make things that actually do not exist in nature. Not that there is anything wrong in that.
But in nature , things are seldom perfect in the physical world.
Eyes are a funny thing, if something is straight, perfect symmetry, our eyes pick up on that as something not normal. But patterns that seem random, the eyes can ignore and accept and allow you to see through and past it to focus on what is necessary.
Like looking for something in a corn field that has perfectly straight rows. It plays heck on your eyes. But looking for a similar thing in a random planted filed is alot easier on your eyes and much easier to focus on what you are trying to find.Try it some day.
Science and Art is all around us, we only have to look for it, and then appreciate we we see.
Like Van Gogh painting,it can be a thing of beauty and wonderment. It can also be viewed as, what is wrong with the focus, the colours merging , the depth of field ? Why could he not make it right like other artists at the time ?
Art is an individuals expression, usually unique to that person. Not everyone can understand the concept, because that is what makes everyone unique.Sometimes it takes many years to discover the reasons behind the art, other works of art are still awaiting our understanding and awakening.

So when you make joint collars,decorative rings, show your expression. Everyone else can spend a lifetime trying to understand the message you are creating through your work.

 

[Tommy-D]

So,let's say I decide I want to make a cue with classic Bushka rings,using an ebony billet with 8 ivory slots .125 wide,and plan to have SS rings on either side,and part them off .1875 thick. My finished billet diameter is .860.

I make the joint collar first,and using the dimensions above,it comes out exactly as I want it to.

Knowing that my next billet will be of a larger diameter,as well as this scenario repeating itself with the next step past that,etc,how do I adjust things so they all match?

Change the number of slots depending on position,or alter the slot width and stick with 8? Those are the options I've picked up on so far,are there more? Tommy D.

 

[scdiveteam]

Does Gus really deserve that disrespect ?

Rick, you gonna lose a lot of respect from cuemakers and prospect customers just by putting up this post.

Johnny,

Thanks for that heart felt advise. It is appreciated. This goes to my point about Horizontal Collectivism. The booze and mushroom thing was my attempt as a joke.

If I lose customers or respect about how I think, that's ok because I will loose respect for myself if I go along with it's ok to misalign my rings, "due what you feel". I can't control what others want to do. I knew a guy who built cues and when he screwed up a feature on his cue and someone called him on it he always says, "it is what it is, it's art". No one ever believes him.

When I build a cue that is flawed I fix it. If it can't be fixed it goes over to the band saw.

I never attacked Gus only the collective idea that art was the reason not a screw up.

Everyone screws up now and then.

I have seen a pic of a guy's cue with a point inlay installed off the centerline. He was attacked by a pack of dogs here and they kept re posting his pic with his name signature for all to see over several pages. Maybe he was trying to be artful. No one would have believed him either.

Thanks,

Rick

 

[JoeyInCali]

Johnny,

Thanks for that heart felt advise. It is appreciated. This goes to my point about Horizontal Collectivism. The booze and mushroom thing was my attempt as a joke.

If I lose customers or respect about how I think, that's ok because I will loose respect for myself if I go along with it's ok to misalign my rings, "due what you feel". I can't control what others want to do. I knew a guy who built cues and when he screwed up a feature on his cue and someone called him on it he always says, "it is what it is, it's art". No one ever believes him.

When I build a cue that is flawed I fix it. If it can't be fixed it goes over the the band saw.

I never attacked Gus only the collective idea that art was the reason not a screw up.

Everyone screws up now and then.

I have seen a pic of a guy's cue with a point inlay installed off the centerline. He was attacked by a pack of dogs here and they kept re posting his pic with his name signature for all to see over several pages. Maybe he was trying to be artful. No one would have believed him either.

Thanks,

Rick

Two wrongs don't make one right .

 

[KJ Cues]

Rick,
A flaw or screw-up is when the attempted alignment is off by a thou. or few.
The pics I presented show a cue that was done deliberately.
I'd have a hard time mis-aligning them any more than what they are.
But at the end of the day, that was his statement.
Right or wrong - take it or leave it.
Who knows what he was thinking that day? That's not the point, not entirely anyway.
The point is, it got your attention and it's been getting people's attention for many years.

Once again, Neil has shared some insight. It might be worth a re-read for some.
"Art is an individuals expression, usually unique to that person. Not everyone can understand the concept, because that is what makes everyone unique.Sometimes it takes many years to discover the reasons behind the art, other works of art are still awaiting our understanding and awakening."
Actually his entire post is worth a re-read. Thanx Neil.

We sometimes become so entrenched in a mindset that we can't see the forest for the trees.
I think that may be the case here. You've come to a point where alignment of rings is
the norm and when they are not, they must be an accident or flaw.
If you deny yourself the artist's expression, then all you see are misaligned rings.
(Politely) Open your mind to more than what you currently hold as acceptable.
Or not, it's up to you. Your interpretation of the art is equally relevant to the statement that the artist is attempting to make.

I personally don't like aligned rings unless the design/layout of the cue dictates it.
The Gus cue is one where the rings 'should' have been aligned. He knew that when he
built it yet chose to take efforts to do otherwise. He was making a profound statement.
Given his other work where the alignment is perfect, this was not a subtle statement.
It continues to evoke strong reaction even today.

You mentioned an appreciation for DPK's work and I'm sure you're familiar with the
DPK/SW association. According to you, DPK aligned rings yet I know that SW doesn't.
Is one right and the other wrong? Or are there 2 different statements being made?
I find both to be acceptable. Neither is wrong, only different.

As a side note, could you please explain "Horizontal Collectivism"?
It's a term that I'm not familiar with and would rather not guess as to your definition.

KJ

 

[dunkelcustomcue]

Everyone has a right to their opinion. I think the point could have been made without the poor attempt at humor.

 

[scdiveteam]

Rick,
A flaw or screw-up is when the attempted alignment is off by a thou. or few.
The pics I presented show a cue that was done deliberately.
I'd have a hard time mis-aligning them any more than what they are.
But at the end of the day, that was his statement.
Right or wrong - take it or leave it.
Who knows what he was thinking that day? That's not the point, not entirely anyway.
The point is, it got your attention and it's been getting people's attention for many years.

Once again, Neil has shared some insight. It might be worth a re-read for some.
"Art is an individuals expression, usually unique to that person. Not everyone can understand the concept, because that is what makes everyone unique.Sometimes it takes many years to discover the reasons behind the art, other works of art are still awaiting our understanding and awakening."
Actually his entire post is worth a re-read. Thanx Neil.

We sometimes become so entrenched in a mindset that we can't see the forest for the trees.
I think that may be the case here. You've come to a point where alignment of rings is
the norm and when they are not, they must be an accident or flaw.
If you deny yourself the artist's expression, then all you see are misaligned rings.
(Politely) Open your mind to more than what you currently hold as acceptable.
Or not, it's up to you. Your interpretation of the art is equally relevant to the statement that the artist is attempting to make.

I personally don't like aligned rings unless the design/layout of the cue dictates it.
The Gus cue is one where the rings 'should' have been aligned. He knew that when he
built it yet chose to take efforts to do otherwise. He was making a profound statement.
Given his other work where the alignment is perfect, this was not a subtle statement.
It continues to evoke strong reaction even today.

You mentioned an appreciation for DPK's work and I'm sure you're familiar with the
DPK/SW association. According to you, DPK aligned rings yet I know that SW doesn't.
Is one right and the other wrong? Or are there 2 different statements being made?
I find both to be acceptable. Neither is wrong, only different.

As a side note, could you please explain "Horizontal Collectivism"?
It's a term that I'm not familiar with and would rather not guess as to your definition.

KJ

KJ,

Thanks, I respect your thoughts about an old timer like Gus doing it on purpose. I will have to trust your judgement on this one.

I am an objectivist and do not adhere to Kant's reasoning as a philosopher.

Horizontal collectivism is based on enforced equality and conformity within a group making a decision or observation. We can recognize two major foundations of horizontal collectivism: relativism and utilitarianism. Relativism is the belief that morality ( in this case Gus's motivation to misalign those rings as art ) depends on group identification and collective decision-making regarding a motivation. Utilitarianism is the belief that morality of an action or observation is based on how much benefit it brings to the group as a whole regarding a determination. Inherent in these two foundations is the idea that the individual must be morally subservient to the group, in the name of the “common good.” The only difference is that this “common good” is ostensibly the collective aggregate of a group and does not always represent the truth as it exists when viewed from outside the group or collective.

It is where politics and philosophy interact, pretty deep stuff to say the least.

If you ever followed Star Trek Next Generation, the Borg was an example of the collective.

To be honest from my heart, as an objectivist I think the mis aligned rings just look bad.

I don't have the courage to go "artsy" concerning intentional ring misalignment as I have mouths to feed and wish to get paid for my hard work. LOL.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Rick G

 

[yahosh]

Ok, so I installed the butt sleeve and rings. Unfortunately the alignment falls
into KJ's "screw-up" category, as they are indeed off by a few thou's (or so)
Oh well, I'm no pro, that's for sure. I want to thank the contributors to this
thread for making me think really hard about what I want my cues to look like
in the future. I can assure you that the next one will reflect more of my
personal taste.
Also thanks to KJ for his awesome mandrel/saw setup, without which my work
would look even more amateur lol.

 

[KJ Cues]

Don't cut yourself short, that's a good looking cue.
Keep it clean through the rest of the build and show us what you've got when you're done.
Take Care & Good Luck,
KJ

 

[ComptonCustomCues]

One quick way of getting the rings to line up is to use your crossslide and a correct height tool bit.....a square not shaped blank is great and run it down the cue and adjust the rings to it. Make sure you bore your ring billets concentric because a little can make it off alot....ask me how I know....I bore before sloting and then use a very tight fighting dowel and then knock it out when I am ready to cut my rings.....may not be right way but it has worked for me.

 

[yahosh]

Thanks John, I will try it that way next time.