I thought I understood the OP's proposition, but many of the responses prove (as my wife tells me all the time) I don't know a #(%*!)# thing.
If the the whole butt is one piece of wood than I would think you meet the requirements as the butt cap and joint appear to have the rings imposed and they are not separate.Does the one on the right count?
My playing cue is a Meucci SS-15, 19 oz, antique stained maple butt, Irish linen wrap that is lacquered (I like that it has a feel of a wrapless cue with the aesthetics of a wrapped cue), 11.8 CF shaft. It is a stiff cue with an effortless hit.
View attachment 752908
Where is it written that a 'merry widow' has to be a one-piece butt? Virtually every MW i've seen used a multi piece butt section. My favorite were the Judd mw's. Fkng gorgeous cues. https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/judd-cues-wts-wtt.293456/
Then i guess all the multi-piece butt MW's made were not MW's?? C'mon man.I dont have a copy so i cannot confirm the details, but apparently the billiards encyclopedia mentions this on page 197 (Post number 10 talks about it in the link). I've also seen multiple other persons mention this specific reference through the years.
I thumbed through the "BILLIARD ENCYCLOPEDIA" & on page 197, it says that the BRUNSWICK catalog from 1923-24, has a "MERRY WIDOW" model cue. It has no points or inlays. It does have a wrap. By the way the word "point" in those days referred to the ferrule...JER
Multiple piece butts should be referred to as a plain jane, not merry widow. At least that my understanding. I don't really care about semantics too much, but this one caught my interest because I always thought a merry widow was any plain butt, and then I found that comment!Then i guess all the multi-piece butt MW's made were not MW's?? C'mon man.
Very nice!It doesn't get much simpler than this. It plays great.
2 pieces of wood. Rubber on one end, plastic and leather on the other with G10 in the middle.
Oil finish
![]()
![]()
![]()