Shaft Quality?

[cueman]

Duc,
Almost no cue builder will use the shaft with the two big black lines in them. Will it play good. It might. Is the playability the only thing we look for. In truth the answer is NO! What some look for is mostly just great looks that will still play okay. Others look for something that will play great and still looks okay. Others will settle for nothing less than something that will play great and looks great. Those shafts are far and few between and very few cuemakers achieve that goal. Now when I say "plays great" that does not mean there might not be a better playing shaft out there. It has already been pointed out that some of the better playing qualities in wood might be uglier in a shaft. But the market needs re-educated to not think snow white is right. Some people only care about playability. But if that was the case with everyone then we would not be building inlaid cues. There would be no slot rings, or insistance on even points if people did not care about beauty.
So with that said, the public need re-educated about hardness, stiffness, color and tone of wood, but the market as a whole will not accept big black lines in shafts no matter what. So the harder darker colored wood that has been air dried for a while and then kiln dried the slower ways with a sugar line or two in them should become the norm. It might not be as pristine as some are used to, but if it plays good and is not ugly then it will not take away from the beauty of the butt. So nothing fell on deaf ears here, but the market will accept what the market will accept. The market needs to accept darker, harder shaft that are not perfectly clean. But we can never expect them to accept big black lines in our shafts, until we quit putting inlays, points, butterflies and any other decorations in our cues.
Bottom line is cuemakers want to build great playing cues, but they also want to sell cues. So we have to find the happy medium that the market will buy. Cues are still an artistic expression as well as a sports instrument. A really ugly shaft will take away from a beautiful cue.

 

[Paul Dayton]

That mark is not sugar or mineral, it is a rejection stamp. If someone sees you playing with that on a cue you made, they might very well question your ability to select wood.

You don't even see shafts like that on Walmart cues. Throw it out.

 

[Mcues]

Duc
I would prefer the top one but the stain is a bit too much for me. Kind of like trying to sell a stained shirt. Shafts don't have to be white they just gotta play good. Better said by Eric. All things being equal and taking into consideration the current wants of the end users, I would go with Chris's choices for his cues.

Mario

 

[Cue Crazy]

I pretty much won't even use anything under 10 gpi, except for maybe jump/break shafts with a thicker taper, or maybe just to have an extra shaft on a personal cue. I like 13gpi and over, but really prefer them between 15 and 22 gpi, and usually willing to pay a little extra for those. I'm not saying that's what It takes to make a good shaft, just My personal preferences. I have seen plenty of shafts with a low count that played well though.

Grain runoff has be come a important factor to me. I prefer the grain to run as straight as possible.

As mentioned By others mineral and sugar marks don't make a shaft play any worse IMO, but most people want clean shafts, I have had some people tell me that even one small line near the ferrule is very distracting to them, but up closer to the joint It doesn't bother Them as much, so I guess It just depends on the person. At any rate I prefer them to be a clean as possible, unless It's on one Of My personal cues, because It does not bother me that much if any at all.

Some May feel I'm kind of picky, and that may be true, but It's just My preferences, And not a road map to go on, there are many factors that make a good shaft, and they don't have to meet My standards to play well.

I would rather buy them in lots of 20 or so with the characteristics I prefer, and pay a little more per dowel, then to Buy lots of 100, and hope for the best.

 

[qbilder]

Duc, that's not sugar. It's mineral. Worse yet, it's in a very bad spot on the shaft, right under where your eyes will be. It'll be distracting. Sugar lines are the thin reddish brown lines that show up between grain lines. Mineral isn't bad if it's small enough & closer to the joint, but out where the player can see it while stroking is not so great.

As for other things like Chris mentioned with inlays & points & such, I feel differently. You can take great wood & dress it up with rings & points & inlays, and it'll still be a great piece of wood & not compromise playability. The cue is built solid with good wood, and THEN dressed up to look good. This indeed puts playability at number one priority. The cue doesn't need to be ugly & plain to play well. It's comparing apples to oranges. The shaft is a different demon. In the shaft, either it's pretty or it's ugly, there's no dressing up an ugly shaft. So you choose it to fit the commonly requested criteria of white, clean, straight grain, tight grain. Or you take the time to learn what actually does make a shaft great & then educate your buyers. Straight, tight grain is nice & is a vague, initial indication to the builder that the shaft will be stable & consistent. It tells nothing of playability. White & clean mean absolutely nothing except that it'll look nice. But the root causes of a great shaft go well beyond visual inspection, and you'll need to learn that on your own. My point was that the tell tale signs of likely great wood are the things cuemakers avoid most because buyers are hard wired to believe white & clean is best. And it's been this way so long that many builders that have emerged in the last 10-15 years don't know any better themselves. The older ones only wish they could use the ugly stuff, but their buyers expect & demand something else. The biggest names in the playability department have told me personally that they wish they could convince their customers to use brown &/or sugar stained shafts, but they won't because the buyers think they know better & won't go for it. It's a vicious cycle. Luckily I started out using shafts graded for playability rather than appearances, and a lot of these are ugly. Now I actually have lots of people asking for ugly, brown shafts. This tells me things are slowly turning around.

And make no mistake, pretty shafts can play great, ugly shafts can play like crap. I don't put much faith in appearances. The shafts are graded first by my own system. Then of those chosen, the pretty ones get used in higher end, expensive cues & the uglier ones get used in lower end cues. My trash can stays full of beautiful, straight grain, tight grain, clean, white shafts. I use them in my fire pit on my back patio. They burn well.

 

[Cuemaster98]

Thanks Guys,

Here's a pic of some of the turning square for shafts that I pick up. Is it better to buy dowel or square? which of these will give you better information in regards to shaft quality? Does the square need to be turn down to determine quality eg. weight ring count..etc.?

Thanks,
Duc.

 

[qbilder]

Those blanks look ok from the pics, pretty full of birdseye, though. Stay away from too many &/or too large of eyes. They create weak points. A few eyes is fine.

I find it easier to initially grade shafts in square form. Many prefer dowel.

 

[BLACKHEARTCUES]

That mark is not sugar or mineral, it is a rejection stamp. If someone sees you playing with that on a cue you made, they might very well question your ability to select wood.

You don't even see shafts like that on Walmart cues. Throw it out.

I agree with Paul on this one. Remember that the cue you play with is probably the most important cue you will make. It is a walking, talking billboard that says "I AM A CUEMAKER & THIS IS WHAT I CAN DO". I personally don't wear jewelry, other than a watch & would prefer to play with a plain jane cue . BUT I play with a beautiful $1500 cue, I made. Dozens of times players have come up to me & asked to see it or hit a few balls with it. They walk away saying how nice it plays & how pretty it is...JER

 

[Cuemaster98]

Thanks Guys, I think it going to be a long learning cycle. I think I starting to get a handle of what I think some of the starting criteria are for selecting the initial shafts...the only thing that can prove if my assumption are correct is to use them and then find out.

Initially, I was hoping that someone may have already did all these tests and found out through experience and/or trial and error that these common qualities that are considered to be quality of good playable shafts would have been confirmed already. From the feedbacks and in speaking with some high end builders and seeing works from a lot of high end builders....I'm more confused now that when I started.

Each variables that are learned by an experience builder as quality that would make a shaft play better add an additional layer of permutation....so I'm just really wondering if any builders really have specific selection critirea or they are just shooting in the dark based on experience and generalize criteria with testing hitting them as the final test for a shaft once it's completed. To do the test properly, you would think that all the various combination would have been tested and that sound like a lot of shafts.

If we have a dead nut dowel (will play great) mixed in with a bunch of other dowels and we let 10 qualify cue builders chose, do you think they choose the same dowel?

I guess cue building is an art so beauty or playability will be in the eye of the beholder. One cue builder said his selection is based on his criteria of what and how he like his shaft to play based on his construction and style of cue...doesn't neccessarily said it the best for everyone but it's the best for him. So I guess in that sense, if you found something that works for you then you should continue to look for the same quality as the probability of yeilding the result you want would be very good.

Regards,
Duc.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Those blanks look ok from the pics, pretty full of birdseye, though. Stay away from too many &/or too large of eyes. They create weak points. A few eyes is fine.

I find it easier to initially grade shafts in square form. Many prefer dowel.

I prefer dowel b/c I can wet them with mineral spirits and see the grains.

 

[Mr Hoppe]

Ok, I'll go ahead and say it. The grain in the square second from the top is probably not what you're looking for in a shaft.
Mr H

Thanks Guys,

Here's a pic of some of the turning square for shafts that I pick up. Is it better to buy dowel or square? which of these will give you better information in regards to shaft quality? Does the square need to be turn down to determine quality eg. weight ring count..etc.?

Thanks,
Duc.

 

[Cue Crazy]

I agree with Paul on this one. Remember that the cue you play with is probably the most important cue you will make. It is a walking, talking billboard that says "I AM A CUEMAKER & THIS IS WHAT I CAN DO". I personally don't wear jewelry, other than a watch & would prefer to play with a plain jane cue . BUT I play with a beautiful $1500 cue, I made. Dozens of times players have come up to me & asked to see it or hit a few balls with it. They walk away saying how nice it plays & how pretty it is...JER

The way You explain sounds like good advice, something I really never gave much thought to because I'm always experimenting and trying new things to fit My style of play, so I tend to alternate, and am not as concerned with what I use as long as It works for Me. I guess I should keep that in mind though, but if I try to build something nice for Myself It ends up in someone else's hands.

I don't Wear jewelry too often either, just a modest stainless Citizen watch that I scratched up chasing a couple of dudes that rifled behind the counter at the pool hall while no one was up there, then ran out and tried to jump on paying table Their time.:angry: One thing I learned though, is I'm getting to old to be chasing people into dark allies. No didn't get jumped, stabbed or shot, but Hit a stuco wall, busted My ass, scratching My watch when It was brand new, then soon after ended up in a ditch full of stinking water before We caught one of them.:embarrassed2: Not one of My most glorious nights. It ruined My playing time, because I Had no choice but to leave early. I was soaked and smelled like a wet sewer rat.

 

[cueman]

Duc, that's not sugar. It's mineral. Worse yet, it's in a very bad spot on the shaft, right under where your eyes will be. It'll be distracting. Sugar lines are the thin reddish brown lines that show up between grain lines. Mineral isn't bad if it's small enough & closer to the joint, but out where the player can see it while stroking is not so great.

As for other things like Chris mentioned with inlays & points & such, I feel differently. You can take great wood & dress it up with rings & points & inlays, and it'll still be a great piece of wood & not compromise playability. The cue is built solid with good wood, and THEN dressed up to look good. This indeed puts playability at number one priority. The cue doesn't need to be ugly & plain to play well. It's comparing apples to oranges. The shaft is a different demon.

I am not sure from this post if you understood my intended points in my post. My point is that playability is not ALL that we care about. If it was we would just build plain cues. So we care about looks some also. And to take a fancy cue and put a ugly shaft on it would take away from the beauty of the cue. I never said a cue needs to be plain or ugly to play well. I am only saying if we only care about playability we wouldn't waste time making it fancy, because plain cues can play just as good as fancy cues. Making playability the number ONE priority is a given, but there are other priorities that come into play. So playability is not the ONLY priority, it should just be the top priority.

 

[qbilder]

I am not sure from this post if you understood my intended points in my post. My point is that playability is not ALL that we care about. If it was we would just build plain cues. So we care about looks some also. And to take a fancy cue and put a ugly shaft on it would take away from the beauty of the cue. I never said a cue needs to be plain or ugly to play well. I am only saying if we only care about playability we wouldn't waste time making it fancy, because plain cues can play just as good as fancy cues. Making playability the number ONE priority is a given, but there are other priorities that come into play. So playability is not the ONLY priority, it should just be the top priority.

I agree 100%. My point in the earlier post was that I found it ironic that cuemakers ALL attest to playability being number one priority, but then we too often see cues equipped with beautiful appearing shafts that are junk. I have had lots of cues before I was a builder and several after. Many times I had cues that hit like crap because the shaft was crap, not because the butt was. I just never did agree with sacrificing structural integrity for asthetics, except for extreme cases of a huge mineral spot. I think we are in the same chapter, but different page I agree 100% with you, Chris. We just went two different routes to make the same point.

 

[Cuemaster98]

Ok, I'll go ahead and say it. The grain in the square second from the top is probably not what you're looking for in a shaft.
Mr H

Hi Mr H,

I think that just one side of the square..if you look at the other side..the grain is tight and very straight.

Regards,
Duc.

 

[Cuemaster98]

I am not sure from this post if you understood my intended points in my post. My point is that playability is not ALL that we care about. If it was we would just build plain cues. So we care about looks some also. And to take a fancy cue and put a ugly shaft on it would take away from the beauty of the cue. I never said a cue needs to be plain or ugly to play well. I am only saying if we only care about playability we wouldn't waste time making it fancy, because plain cues can play just as good as fancy cues. Making playability the number ONE priority is a given, but there are other priorities that come into play. So playability is not the ONLY priority, it should just be the top priority.

Hi Chris, I agree but I always thought that's how a cue builder would start. Build the best plain playing cue possible...once you're able to replicate the playability then you move on to fancy cues.

Bill McDaniel and Robinson cues are some great example...their plain jane cues are the based for all their fancy cues and the playability are very consistent. I would imagine regardless of value of their cues...their shafts are consistent across all their cues.

Schon is another great example, their shafts selection are very consistent and hence the playability of their cue are very consistent. I probably think consistent construction processes has a lot to do with the consistency as well.

Jerry Olivier is another cue builder that produces cue that have a great consistent hit and every time you pick up his cue...you know it will play solid. This has a lot of to with his shafts selection but also his consistent processing of his cue. Jerry has a really nice turret lathe that he use specifically for installing his joint pin for all of his cues (High or low end).

So...maybe Good Shaft wood/cue components and Consistent processing of these component is what yield good playability on cues.

Regards,
Duc.

 

[MVPCues]

Hi Mr H,

I think that just one side of the square..if you look at the other side..the grain is tight and very straight.

Regards,
Duc.

If that is the case, then next time when taking a pic of shaft wood stock and asking opinions, lay them so the "quarter sawn" face is showing rather than the "flat sawn" face.

Even given that, both sides tell a story and when the flat sawn side is that bad, runoff will usually show up somewhere when turned round. Although the more grain lines per inch, the worse the flat sawn side can look in square form and the blank still be very good.

The squares where the grain runs diagonal from corner to corner when looking at the end of the square IMO are easier to judge.

Kelly

 

[JoeyInCali]

Jerry has a really nice turret lathe that he use specifically for installing his joint pin for all of his cues (High or low end).
You sold him your Feeler?

 

[JoeyInCali]

So...maybe Good Shaft wood/cue components and Consistent processing of these component is what yield good playability on cues.
It's the sum of all parts.

 

[PoolTrip]

It's the sum of all parts.

Tap Tap. You got my vote on that.