the hit of a balabushka, scruggs, szamboti, etc.
- Thread starter blueballs
- Start date
blueballs said:
I think I am clearer on what you are getting at.
This was 30 to 40 years ago. In those days, there were a lot fewer components available and everyone just used whatever they thought were best thing was they could get their hands on. Nobody that I know of was coring wood, so the parts had to be selected to give the proper balance and weight.
In terms of joints, Gus built them a variety of ways. Here's mine - it's a very early cue of his with a capped ivory joint and a 3/8 X 10 screw. I believe it has a weight bolt but I don't want to unscrew the rubber bumper to find out.
http://www.palmercollector.com/Gus.html
What I am saying is, these makers were successful despite the limited availability of machinery and components.
What would be a more interesting question would be this one;
If George and Gus were alive today, what components would they choose? What techniques would they use to build their cues?
Chris
blueballs said:
Man you're so right.. I cannot believe Mosconi ran 526 balls with a brass jointed cue. Have you ever seen the Crane 150 / out on Balsis. Luck, all luck. With a steel joint, how the hell can it be feel?
Joe (--personally I think "no screws", "all wood components" is just another sales pitch...
blueballs said:
My own thought is the problem with piloted steel joints is not the steel, but the difficulty in accurately fitting the joint. How many really fit tight and seat properly?
I think the best joint available today is the radial pin. Before that it was the 3/8X 10 pin. I prefer flat wood to wood contact. The collar material doesn't matter to me at all - that's just appearance and protection. The minute weight differential is something we pool players quickly adapt to.
Chris
blueballs said:
The cue maker's of today have a lot more to work with. The concept of "coring" wood to manipulate weight has enhanced design choices.
The cue maker most concerned about weight in his components today is Joel Hercek. The reason? Joel does not core woods and does not connect the parts with anything other than a splice. If he doesn't accurately choose his components, his finished product will be useless.
As far as weight bolts, having one is desirable because the cue's weight can be changed if it's sold.
Chris
Ps. I knew a cue maker who advertised "natural weight, no bolt". He never mentioned the lead shot he epoxied into the cavity!
classiccues said:
Mosconi probably could have ran hundreds with a broom handle with no tip. i think Tate is right, those cuemakers were the best of there era but were limited by the materials and the machines. if they were alive today they would probably use different materials.
the weight bolt just takes something away from the cue, imo. mass produced cues will always have them, but cues made one at a time dont have to, unless its ebony or a different wood selection that won't allow it. you say it's just a sales pitch, but if balabushkas didn't have a weight bolt you'd probably say it adds to the mystique, or that it's all part of Georges magic.
blueballs said:
Everyone says they were limited, thats not true. They were using the best they had at the time. Just like the cuemakers today use. (There cannot be limitations because products weren't invented) But there are some cuemakers today that still prefer the old waterbased glues, Tascarella comes to mind, and his cues hit very solid. The other problem I have with this theory is there are still many Balabushkas in use today. So please tell me where the glue issues are? I have a Gus Szamboti made in 1977 and its a solid today as it was the day it was built. I believe they probably would use materials of today if they thought it was better, OR the stuff they used got phased out.
I will ask this ? straight out.. there are still titlist cues being converted into two piece cues, this is some 30-60 years after their introduction, so please enlighten me with some data that shows the glue doesn't hold up? How many more years do you want? Also stix4sale is converting cues much older than that, how many has he had to "reglue"?
Balabushka play is subjective. I have hit with more than most and only two knocked me off my feet. I have had a higher percentage of nicer hitting Szambotis. No sales pitch needed. But weightbolts IMHO, at the time were used more to hold the sleeve assembly to the handle. The fact they can be used to adjust the weight was a bonus.
Joe
So please tell me where the glue issues are
Glues melt/crystalize at a much lower temperature than aircraft/golf club quality epoxy.
You'd have to blow torch the metal joint to remove it from a cue if it's epoxied.
Glue? Just turn it and press leather on it, it'll melt.
A 'bushka left in the car that reached 120+ degrees inside?
That metal bolt between the handle and forearm and on the sleeve?
Will prolly loosen-up a bit. A friend of mine owns a Bushka collection.
A few of them have rattles.
Glues melt/crystalize at a much lower temperature than aircraft/golf club quality epoxy.
You'd have to blow torch the metal joint to remove it from a cue if it's epoxied.
Glue? Just turn it and press leather on it, it'll melt.
A 'bushka left in the car that reached 120+ degrees inside?
That metal bolt between the handle and forearm and on the sleeve?
Will prolly loosen-up a bit. A friend of mine owns a Bushka collection.
A few of them have rattles.
JoeyInCali said:
ok.. and if I drop an epoxied cue out of a 4th story window it will break.
This is all fine and yes some older cues do rattle, but no one today is leaving a Bushka in a car. Also at that temperature you have other issues besides glue failure. BTW I have seen new cues rattle, with epoxy.
But the fact remains, there are still some old cues in fantastic playing shape with the original glue.
So I am not saying the new glue isn't better, I am saying there is not catastophic failure is every old cue.
Joe (--so where are the glue issues?
Wood glue does not stick to metal as well either.classiccues said:
So if the old cues happen to have the usual 3/8th stud in the A-joint, it won't hold that well. First, there's not much gluing surface ( one of the things why Spain loved full-splice is because there was a LOT of gluing surface ) and secondly wood glue was not designed to hold a 3/8" diameter metal bolt on wood. Wood glue's impact resistance is also nowhere near that of quality epoxy. Over time the vibration inside that forearm will break down wood glue imo b/c the metal in there has no give. So the softer material being the glue, will proll break down.
Epoxies today? You can hammer them and the hammer might just bounce.
New cues rattle? Absolutely, there are plenty of them.
Last edited:
Chris, I bet that cue hits great. I just ordered a Titlist conversion with a 3/8x10 pin and flat-faced ivory joint - I think that joint combination with the old straight-grain maple forearm should really hit great. The cuemaker is adding purpleheart to the handle to get the weight up (it's walnut).TATE said:
IMO nothing is more debatable than the joint of a cue.
Especially since some "experts" feel that joint type has a very little or a whole lot to do with the hit or the feel.
The one thing I do know: a joint in a cue does nothing to add (notice I was careful not to say that it takes away) to the playability. Some most highly regarded snooker cues are one piece.
Especially since some "experts" feel that joint type has a very little or a whole lot to do with the hit or the feel.
The one thing I do know: a joint in a cue does nothing to add (notice I was careful not to say that it takes away) to the playability. Some most highly regarded snooker cues are one piece.
Surely, they are kidding.Gregg said:
So, they think an ivory jonted cue with radial pin would make no difference with the same cue with plastic collar and small pin?
Didn't McChesney do a test years ago where he put masking tape over the joints of a number of different cues, and had people try them out; I don't remeber the conclusion but I believe that people weren't always able to distinguish between the different joints.
Paul
Paul
TATE said:
Tate, I think that you are onto something. IMO, the crux of this is that many cuemakers today either do not understand how to make a great SS joint or they just do not want to take the time. SS joints are labor-intensive and time consuming to do right. Think about the best hitting steel jointed cues made today....Searings, Tascs, Tibbitts, Herceks, and B.Szams. All fit together very, very snugly. So do Bushkas and G.Szams. Sure, many of the old cues had tendencies to rattle over time, but not all did. These guys really understood what it takes to build a great hitting cue with the materials they had at the time.....Gus in particular.
Also, I don't necessarily buy into the theory that a glued-up splice is always better than a pinned A-joint. I mean, how many Spains have you seen than were badly warped there? For me, it's a bunch. Joel is very meticulous, though, and IMO has a much better understanding of wood properties than Burt did. Because of this fewer of his cues tend to warp.
Just a few of my rambling thoughts.
Sean
I can't tell the difference in PLAY between two 5/16x14 pin SS and ivory joint cues made by the same cue-maker, but the feel is different. When you talk about a "great" SS joint, is the difference in the work it takes to do basically 'the same thing' correctly, or do different cue-makers actually make SS joints using different construction techniques?cueaddicts said:
What is a pinned A-joint?cueaddicts said: