Should Cuemakers show Their Cuemaker Tree Diagram???

Cornerman said:
I said this last time… Mike Bender does not belong under Kersenbrock.
Click to expand...
And you failed to mention Dieckman Apprentice under Stout Cue, in NC in 1992 .... in your Cuemaker magazine article on Dieckman.

This why I believe Cuemaker should show their own cuemaker tree... Whether by apprentice, training, or in our disputed/case employment a more Knowledgeable Cuemaker to pick their knowledge!

Today, with all the videos on youtube, materials..Books. Where are the new cuemaker getting their knowledge/ training!..

Cornerman, we might never agree on the issue of Mike Bender. But the true Questions... Too much info is missing or questionable.. you make your point, on my post, and I will let Buyer decide when they have a bender cues!!!

Inside on Dieckman and Stout... I had a letter (1992- 1993) on what happen, a part, he wanted to leave out / forget. But for Cues value --- need to be known.
 
Last edited:
Never heard of such a thing. So, no. I mean, I guess if they come from some specific lineage of apprenticeship it could be a selling point for some, but I don’t see having such a lineage as a prerequisite for being able to build a quality cue. Especially now, information has been democratized via the internet. I’d rather judge a builder on the quality of their output than on how they arrived there.
 
slide13 said:
Never heard of such a thing. So, no. I mean, I guess if they come from some specific lineage of apprenticeship it could be a selling point for some, but I don’t see having such a lineage as a prerequisite for being able to build a quality cue. Especially now, information has been democratized via the internet. I’d rather judge a builder on the quality of their output than on how they arrived there.
Click to expand...
Very true slide13..... But for cue collectors .... might be different story.
 
Sheldon said:
It's interesting, but ultimately irrelevant in many ways.
Building a cue is not that complicated, and where you learned your skill is less important than how well you develop them yourself.
Click to expand...
Might be true Sheldon.... But then look at the price for Pool Cue Books Blue Book or V. Stein Billiard Book. Or Why are there articles written on Cue Makers??
 
Sheldon said:
It's interesting, but ultimately irrelevant in many ways.
Building a cue is not that complicated, and where you learned your skill is less important than how well you develop them yourself.
Click to expand...
I can think of four or five long gone cuemakers that found cue making complicated.. Lol
 
lfigueroa said:
Endless arguments.

The answer to your question is no.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
Maybe you're right, but from my point of view, I'd like to know just for the History.
Where did Rambow learn. Did he have any guidance in cue building or did he just figure things out. Was there anyone that coached him in woodworking? or did he just figure things out. Maybe the answers are well known to many but I don't have that history.

If he did have teachers, what aspect of woodworking were they known for? And where did they get the information?

I'm not sure if Bob is suggesting cue builders should post their pedigree, or post their prodigy, or both.
I'm think'n if they wanted to do that they would need permission either way.
 
billiardshot said:
And you failed to mention Dieckman Apprentice under Stout Cue, in NC in 1992 .... in your Cuemaker magazine article on Dieckman.

This why I believe Cuemaker should show their own cuemaker tree... Whether by apprentice, training, or in our disputed/case employment a more Knowledgeable Cuemaker to pick their knowledge!

Today, with all the videos on youtube, materials..Books. Where are the new cuemaker getting their knowledge/ training!..

Cornerman, we might never agree on the issue of Mike Bender. But the true Questions... Too much info is missing or questionable.. you make your point, on my post, and I will let Buyer decide when they have a bender cues!!!

Inside on Dieckman and Stout... I had a letter (1992- 1993) on what happen, a part, he wanted to leave out / forget. But for Cues value --- need to be known.
Click to expand...
There is no “we might never agree.” Mike Bender was not a Kersenbrock apprentice. It’s common knowledge that they only used “DPK” with Omega because of marketing. Mike was already an established cue maker before being hired by Ed Boado. Kersenbrock never made a cue at the shop when Mike Bender was growing Omega/dpk.

if Dieckman apprenticed under Stout, Dennis never mentioned it. How is that even relevant??? It’s like when an ex-wife bitched about how the cuemaker I wrote about was an a$$ as a husband and father., and that I “failed to mention it.” Odd definition of “failed.”
 
First of all, how could any cue maker know how a cue should play/ feel unless they were a fairly accomplished player themselves. Cue balance, shaft tapers ( old school wood shaft), cue construction techniques, cue material selections etc. all affect how a cue feels and plays. I think the trademark of most of our best cue makers is that each understood how they themselves would want a cue to hit and feel as a final product before putting wood to lathe.

So pedigree as to cue maker training, to me, should include how and why a cue maker decided their cues should play in a certain way. Following that would be what decisions they made in terms of material selections and construction techniques to achieve their desired final cue product.

To me, who someone apprenticed under is much less important that the why and how a cue maker got into the field and what they currently do to produce a specific cue with select playing features.
 
billiardshot said:
Lou, I Agree... But then is someone a player with a good cue ... winning money or a cue collector/investment wanting to known the history of the cue/cuemaker?
Click to expand...

I think if player/collector knows the lineage of their cue(s) and/or the cue maker that's great.

Cuemakers advertising their lineage, maybe not so much.

Lou Figueroa
 
3kushn said:
Maybe you're right, but from my point of view, I'd like to know just for the History.
Where did Rambow learn. Did he have any guidance in cue building or did he just figure things out. Was there anyone that coached him in woodworking? or did he just figure things out. Maybe the answers are well known to many but I don't have that history.

If he did have teachers, what aspect of woodworking were they known for? And where did they get the information?

I'm not sure if Bob is suggesting cue builders should post their pedigree, or post their prodigy, or both.
I'm think'n if they wanted to do that they would need permission either way.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate wanting to know all that but I'm not so sure how important it is nowadays.

Lou Figueroa
 
mikemosconi said:
First of all, how could any cue maker know how a cue should play/ feel unless they were a fairly accomplished player themselves. Cue balance, shaft tapers ( old school wood shaft), cue construction techniques, cue material selections etc. all affect how a cue feels and plays. I think the trademark of most of our best cue makers is that each understood how they themselves would want a cue to hit and feel as a final product before putting wood to lathe.

So pedigree as to cue maker training, to me, should include how and why a cue maker decided their cues should play in a certain way. Following that would be what decisions they made in terms of material selections and construction techniques to achieve their desired final cue product.

To me, who someone apprenticed under is much less important that the why and how a cue maker got into the field and what they currently do to produce a specific cue with select playing features.
Click to expand...

Right.

It would be informative to know why a cue maker makes their cues the way they do. Sometimes I wonder if the goal of some guys is just to make straight, pretty cues, with playability almost a secondary thought. Not too long ago I had one guy making a cue for me and when I called for an update he tells me, "This is going to be a great playing cue, sometimes you can just tell." I hung up thinking: what a load of horse dung. You don't know how well a cue is going to play until it hits that first ball.

Lou Figueroa
 
lfigueroa said:
Right.

It would be informative to know why a cue maker makes their cues the way they do. Sometimes I wonder if the goal of some guys is just to make straight, pretty cues, with playability almost a secondary thought. Not too long ago I had one guy making a cue for me and when I called for an update he tells me, "This is going to be a great playing cue, sometimes you can just tell." I hung up thinking: what a load of horse dung. You don't know how well a cue is going to play until it hits that first ball.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
So, how did it hit or did you cancel the order right there? What constitutes playability from one cue to another? A different tip?
 
lfigueroa said:
Right.

It would be informative to know why a cue maker makes their cues the way they do. Sometimes I wonder if the goal of some guys is just to make straight, pretty cues, with playability almost a secondary thought. Not too long ago I had one guy making a cue for me and when I called for an update he tells me, "This is going to be a great playing cue, sometimes you can just tell." I hung up thinking: what a load of horse dung. You don't know how well a cue is going to play until it hits that first ball.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...
A maker should have a great idea how the cue will play after the butt has been assembled and in near final size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb
JoeyInCali said:
A maker should have a great idea how the cue will play after the butt has been assembled and in near final size.
Click to expand...
I am wondering how a cue maker would know this without hitting a ball? Just looking for some knowledge as to how that degree of certainty could be achieved off the pool table?
Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top