Short Splice vs. Half Splice

[Fred Agnir]

Half splice should just be called V-points. If you are going to SPLICE something it should be 2 pieces fitted together.

I agree wholeheartedly. And I still have a tough time writing it as "splice." Although the deep V is still structurally different than some of the cuemaker's shallower V, it's an inlay technique, and not really a splice at all.

Fred

 

[RSB-Refugee]

If the purpose of the full-splice joint is primarily to provide structural integrity (eliminating "buzzing") when joining the forearm & the handle, isn't that benefit lost when there is a standard tenoned & bolted joint only a few inches below it? Why take such pains to eliminate a source of "buzzing" if you are going to introduce another source so closely?

Just one in a series of random thoughts I am plagued with.

Burton made the short splices 18" long. All of his cutomers except Geo. Balabushka cut them at the bottom of the points and "A" jointed them to a handle. Burton re-wrapped a Balabushka and discovered a joint a few inches behind the front of the wrap with a phenolic band at the joint. Burton believed that a full splice acted as a pitch fork of sorts. He said that by George moving the joint further back the vibration was less and the diameter was greater. These are my interpretation of Burton's writings in Making Blanks.

One thought I myself have is, back in George's day, players were not very tall on average and stances were much higher. If you look at old pictures, players held the cue just about where George's "A" joint was. I believe it allowed the vibrations to reach the player's hand unimpeded and every thing behind the joint did not matter.

Tracy

 

[classiccues]

Fred,

I agree with your interpretation of the terminology but, unfortunately, I think you're waging an uphill battle. Many people still fail to recognize the distinction between "squirt" & "deflection" despite years of arguing the difference.

That said, the posted picture of the "short, full-spliced blank" reminds me of a question I've often pondered:

If the purpose of the full-splice joint is primarily to provide structural integrity (eliminating "buzzing") when joining the forearm & the handle, isn't that benefit lost when there is a standard tenoned & bolted joint only a few inches below it? Why take such pains to eliminate a source of "buzzing" if you are going to introduce another source so closely?

Just one in a series of random thoughts I am plagued with.

And since links are posted to show full-spliced joints, I'll take this opportunity to post self-serving links showing a little about V-groove point construction:

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

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

Bob,
Very nice point work and great explanations on your pages. (I was wondering what your thought were to the benefit of these short "v" splices, points, whatever they may or maynot be.**) I remember reading Steve Mayhew's cuemaker interviews as well as I do Fred's now, and clearly the cuemakers that do this believe this adds strength to the forearm and many feel this prevents any warping that may occur. I believe there were maybe 6-8 guys that felt this.

But taking this to another level. If one can make the statement that if you cover a joint, many people wouldn't know a steel joint from a wood to wood joint. It could be said that if you covered the complete cue, that no one could pick out the "total" construction method; ie; full splice, short splice, cnc, v-grove , etc.. would this not be the case? and IF this was the case, then why would people make claims that the full splice is closer to the hit of a one piece cue when in fact if they were covered, you wouldn't know the difference? And who is it that said, the optimum feel is that of a one piece cue, and what is (was) his or her, authority on the matter?

Joe (--just curious

** Just noticed what you typed.... don't have to answer...

 

[Sheldon]

And since links are posted to show full-spliced joints, I'll take this opportunity to post self-serving links showing a little about V-groove point construction:
http://www.dzcues.com/point_blanks.htm

That is probably the BEST explanation of the difference between CNC and V points that I have ever seen on a cuemaker's website.
No bullshit, no smoke and mirrors, no predjudice, just the facts.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Btw, maybe off-topic, but any of you thing Burton Spain's book ( journal ) is a little dated now?
I know of a local maker who doesn't use buzz ring and his cues have no buzz.
Even after years of use in the desert.
Is there a possibility that a short-splice or the conventional v-pointed cues today are just as good as full-splice?

 

[RakmUp]

Btw, maybe off-topic, but any of you thing Burton Spain's book ( journal ) is a little dated now?
I know of a local maker who doesn't use buzz ring and his cues have no buzz.
Even after years of use in the desert.
Is there a possibility that a short-splice or the conventional v-pointed cues today are just as good as full-splice?

Is this journal, book available today for aspiring cuemakers to read?
Even if outdated, I am sure beginners could get much valuable information from it.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Is this journal, book available today for aspiring cuemakers to read?
Even if outdated, I am sure beginners could get much valuable information from it.

It's not available commercially as far as I know.
Just like Kershenbrock's manual.
I am not in the liberty to make copies of my copies.

 

[rhncue]

Btw, maybe off-topic, but any of you thing Burton Spain's book ( journal ) is a little dated now?
I know of a local maker who doesn't use buzz ring and his cues have no buzz.
Even after years of use in the desert.
Is there a possibility that a short-splice or the conventional v-pointed cues today are just as good as full-splice?

Wood is like a whole bunch of tiny straws bunched together. Moisture absorpation into wood is probably 85 to 90% thru the end grain. End grain is all these little tubes coming to an abrupt stop. when this end grain is abuted to other end grain, and there is any movement it is just like a cricket rubbing his legs together making noise, a buzz. With this in mind, a buzz ring, glued between the abuting endgrains, usually eliminates any buzz even if there is slight movement.
I, myself, don't see where it makes a difference in where the splice is made as long as there is a ring between the abuting surfaces. Since end grain is being glued you have to deal with the glue being wicked away from the joint thru capilairy action in these tubes and making a weak joint. I believe it is much more important to stop this wicking action by sealing the faced surfaces with glue and after the glue dries to reface them again before gluing the parts together with the buzz ring in place than it is as to where this joint is placed ( at the end of the points or a few inches into the handle ).
Dick
P.S DZ, that is very nice veneer work by the way.

 

[Sheldon]

Btw, maybe off-topic, but any of you thing Burton Spain's book ( journal ) is a little dated now?
I know of a local maker who doesn't use buzz ring and his cues have no buzz.
Even after years of use in the desert.
Is there a possibility that a short-splice or the conventional v-pointed cues today are just as good as full-splice?

It's not only possible, it's obvious.
There will always be those that will debate the fact, but when It comes right down to it, the points in the butt of a well built cue are simply decoration.

 

[qmakr]

That's what I thought, too. He makes both full length and shorty's.

Fred

Fred: I've never built a cue on a shorty blank, they are all made on full spilce blanks.

Joel Hercek

 

[Fred Agnir]

Fred: I've never built a cue on a shorty blank, they are all made on full spilce blanks.

Joel Hercek

Even your ebony points??? I'm sure on your post card, you show a shorty blank ( a short full-splice blank).

Fred

 

[qmakr]

What you see on that postcard is a full splice that has an extra splice under the wrap. Most all my cues are built with this technique which was passed down to me by Burt.
This enables a true full splice to be used with the added benefit of controlling the weight and balance. My opinion of a full splice is where the points are a true extension of the handle, no matter the length.

Where did you get that postcard, I made those up in 1994, I haven't see one of those for years.


Joel Hercek

 

[Fred Agnir]

My opinion of a full splice is where the points are a true extension of the handle, no matter the length.



Joel Hercek

Joel, I think we're talking about the same thing. A shorty blank is what Burton refers to as the short full-splice blanks he provided for George and others. That's why I started this thread in the first place. The confusion in terms. He called the individual inlaying of squares into individual V-grooves as "half-splice." The full-splice blanks that were shorter (18"), he calls "short blanks" in his "Making Blanks" book.

Are you saying that he didn't use the same terminology when you were learning his techniques from him?

Fred

 

[qmakr]

Joel, I think we're talking about the same thing. A shorty blank is what Burton refers to as the short full-splice blanks he provided for George and others. That's why I started this thread in the first place. The confusion in terms. He called the individual inlaying of squares into individual V-grooves as "half-splice." The full-splice blanks that were shorter (18"), he calls "short blanks" in his "Making Blanks" book.

Are you saying that he didn't use the same terminology when you were learning his techniques from him?

Fred

Correct, Burt never used the term "short blank" with me when refering to a full splice. Sometimes when thoughts are put into words, terminology can get confusing.

I've built cues from, 56 inches to 60 + inches and although some blanks are shorter then others, I've never considered calling one a short full splice verses a long full splice, they were simply just full splice blanks. Burton Spain was an incredibly gifted individual and can articulate his thoughts better then most anyone I've even known. I've always had trouble with that particular description of his 18" full splice. I recently had a discussion about this very topic with his old partner, John Davis. John used the term short splice when he was referring to the 18" full splice. I imagine this was a common term back when Burt and John were building cues, and this was conveyed in Burt's book. While I was in training with Burt, when he referred to a "short splice" he meant a blank that was built using four separate pieces of wood to make up the points. We made both full and short spliced blanks for other cuemakers during that time. You raised an interesting topic and I'm please this was brought up in this forum. I enjoy reading the different views and thoughts of other posters.

Joel

 

[BLACKHEARTCUES]

short spliced vs full splice

Correct, Burt never used the term "short blank" with me when refering to a full splice. Sometimes when thoughts are put into words, terminology can get confusing.

I've built cues from, 56 inches to 60 + inches and although some blanks are shorter then others, I've never considered calling one a short full splice verses a long full splice, they were simply just full splice blanks. Burton Spain was an incredibly gifted individual and can articulate his thoughts better then most anyone I've even known. I've always had trouble with that particular description of his 18" full splice. I recently had a discussion about this very topic with his old partner, John Davis. John used the term short splice when he was referring to the 18" full splice. I imagine this was a common term back when Burt and John were building cues, and this was conveyed in Burt's book. While I was in training with Burt, when he referred to a "short splice" he meant a blank that was built using four separate pieces of wood to make up the points. We made both full and short spliced blanks for other cuemakers during that time. You raised an interesting topic and I'm please this was brought up in this forum. I enjoy reading the different views and thoughts of other posters.

Joel

Hi Joel, hope your golf game is doing well. What do you call the blanks you make, that are Maple forearms, with Ebony points spliced as if it were a FULL SPLICE, but then has a maple SPLICED handle area? ...JER

 

[qmakr]

Hi Joel, hope your golf game is doing well. What do you call the blanks you make, that are Maple forearms, with Ebony points spliced as if it were a FULL SPLICE, but then has a maple SPLICED handle area? ...JER

Hi Jerry:

I'm still a hacker on the course but love the game, if you ever get up this way, we should go out. We'll play even up, no strokes. Jerry, to keep things simple, they all Full Splices. It's much easier not to do the extra splice under the wrap, but it's also not as strong or stable.

Joel

 

[BLACKHEARTCUES]

short splice vs full splice

Hi Jerry:

I'm still a hacker on the course but love the game, if you ever get up this way, we should go out. We'll play even up, no strokes. Jerry, to keep things simple, they all Full Splices. It's much easier not to do the extra splice under the wrap, but it's also not as strong or stable.

Joel

I have some pictures of Joels beautifull blanks, if someone would post them...JER

 

[Fred Agnir]

I've always had trouble with that particular description of his 18" full splice. I recently had a discussion about this very topic with his old partner, John Davis. John used the term short splice when he was referring to the 18" full splice. I imagine this was a common term back when Burt and John were building cues, and this was conveyed in Burt's book.

That's good to know. At least I'm not too crazy after reading the manuscript.

While I was in training with Burt, when he referred to a "short splice" he meant a blank that was built using four separate pieces of wood to make up the points.

Oh groan... so much for using Burt's words as some kind of clarifier. Well, at least this answers why there's so much contradiction.

Thanks Joel.

Fred

 

[TATE]

I have some pictures of Joels beautifull blanks, if someone would post them...JER

Jer,

E-mail them to me at palmercollector@aol.com and I'll put them up.

Chris

 

[TATE]

Oh groan... so much for using Burt's words as some kind of clarifier. Well, at least this answers why there's so much contradiction.

Thanks Joel.

Fred

We went full circle and were right back to the beginning...