Titleist
- Thread starter edd
- Start date
The cue raises too many questions.
It could be a 26 1/2 or even a rare ebony Titlist conversion, but it also could have been something else, like a Spain for example (the blank does look very good to me). Question is when was it made? I don't recall ever seeing a wrapless Paradise four pointer. Another question - is the handle especially thin? It should measure approximately 1.20 inches at the lower base of the points. If it's much thinner than that, I would wonder if the cue had a wrap channel that was sanded off.
What also bothers me about this cue (besides the buttcap) is the joint. It looks like it is new -notice how there is not a speck of dust or chalk inside the joint marking the wood? Just not possible on an old cue - that would indicate recent work. It also appears to be stainless - not very likely on an old Paradise. The other thing is the shaft inserts appear to have brass nipple pilots. This was not used on Paradise cues and was a feature that showed up about 10 years after Paradise stopped making cues. The shafts normally have a wooden tenon and a brass insert with a shoulder. That being said, the unsanded shaft wood and forearm do appear to be aged somewhat. So I am a little confused about the cue.
It is important to get history on cues when you buy them, especially unmarked cues from a maker like Paradise. There were so many one-off designs nobody can ID all of them.
It could be a 26 1/2 or even a rare ebony Titlist conversion, but it also could have been something else, like a Spain for example (the blank does look very good to me). Question is when was it made? I don't recall ever seeing a wrapless Paradise four pointer. Another question - is the handle especially thin? It should measure approximately 1.20 inches at the lower base of the points. If it's much thinner than that, I would wonder if the cue had a wrap channel that was sanded off.
What also bothers me about this cue (besides the buttcap) is the joint. It looks like it is new -notice how there is not a speck of dust or chalk inside the joint marking the wood? Just not possible on an old cue - that would indicate recent work. It also appears to be stainless - not very likely on an old Paradise. The other thing is the shaft inserts appear to have brass nipple pilots. This was not used on Paradise cues and was a feature that showed up about 10 years after Paradise stopped making cues. The shafts normally have a wooden tenon and a brass insert with a shoulder. That being said, the unsanded shaft wood and forearm do appear to be aged somewhat. So I am a little confused about the cue.
It is important to get history on cues when you buy them, especially unmarked cues from a maker like Paradise. There were so many one-off designs nobody can ID all of them.
Last edited:
I have one of the Greenleaf cues as well as a couple of the original and unfinished, over-sized titlist blanks. Is anyone surprised?
Last edited:
i have one of the greenleaf cues as well as a couple of the original and unfinished, over-sized titlist blanks. Is anyone surprised?
mr.hoppe????????????????????
All good points.
A few random thoughts.
The joint collar and pin do look to be stainless, but Frank did offer
a Nickel Silver joint, so maybe - but most of all, that pin looks
like a 5/16 x18 to me. Which would point more to Palmer. The shaft
inserts, as you say, more likely late 70s or 80s.
Of course, it could easily be a re-worked Paradise. You just can't
imagine how cheap these vintage cues were prior to 'The Color of Money'
Dale
I have one of the Greenleaf cues as well as a couple of the original and unfinished, over-sized titlist blanks. Is anyone surprised?
I'm NOT surprised!
Thanks to Tate and yourself for your input.
Bought nearly 15+ years ago, played with sparingly, then stored but never really knew what it was - then came across this thread
And as Tate mentioned the butt SEEMS not thin at all but on the thick side actually if I was to micrometer it which I dont have
Any other or additional info would be greatly appreciated
Thx for your time, Bill
I have one of the Greenleaf cues as well as a couple of the original and unfinished, over-sized titlist blanks. Is anyone surprised?
Can you look over the Greenleaf and see if you see any weight markings in the forearm or on the butt and advise? A picture of a weight stamp could help a lot too.
It doesn't look a Paradise to me, it only looks like a recently converted Brunswick 26 1/2 but, I am certainly not a Paradise expert. The cues pin joint and bumper all look like they were done recently. Back in the day they never used a Stainless Steel pin like the in that cue.
The bumper also is something that is currently used today, I am not trying to be negative only honest. I hope you did pay a great deal for that cue.
Craig
Thanks for the comments. Definately understand you're not being negative but honest. No problem
Tate said it has some issues as well
It hasn't been recently since it may have been converted because I've owned for 15 years. Did say that the bumper was much newer but the butt itself with the mother of pearl rectangle and the titlelist points? Just didn't know what has occurred here. When I bought it was said to be a Paradise
It's straight and hits well. I can make the cue work just don't know what I'm working with
Appreciate all the comments for sure. Experience is certainly in gear here at AZ. Many thanks to all who did comment
The Mother Pearl Square in the cues butt was placed there to accept a name. Brunswick 26 1/2 cues with the Triangle or Square in the butt are known as Trophy cues because they were made that way to list a tournament winners name, or to identify the cues owner.
The pin and joint of the cue also looks very new, especially the Stainless steal pin, which they did not use during that time frame.
If you did not pay too much for the cue it is still a very nice conversion cue to use a as player, in fact I made a Brunswick 26 1/2 into a conversion that I currently use as my player.
Craig
No weight stamp or branding of any kind other than the words "Ralph Greenleaf" stamped once above and between the points. The veneer colors are black (or very dark blue), red, mahogany, and maple, and the bumper is white and held in place with a flat screw (not philips.) The pin is in the butt, and is significantly flattened at the tip, extending up beyond the brass joint collar only about .125". The last inch of mine is different than the one you linked to on the 3cushion site. Mine has about 3/4" white "ring" between two black rings, and then has the white bumper that I mentioned above.
I remember seeing a cue very similar to this with the name of a Mexican champion stamped on it rather than RG. I don't remember the name (possibly Chavez?) and don't remember exactly how similar the cues were.
Last edited:
Thinkin outloud here...
I can't really argue with what Craig said about the (greenleaf cue's) construction fitting into the 50s -70s timeframe... but... if that's true, it also means that the cues fall into the Keefe & Hamer timeframe...which means that other than producing the blank, Brunswick didn't have squat to do with Greenleaf's name appearing on those cues.
Greenleaf was a broke, dead, 'nobody' by the end of 1950 anyway - IMO Brunswick would never have been interested in producing a Greenleaf cue with their new golden boy Willie Mosconi already on the scene.
So, if the cues are authentic, it would seem that someone asked Rambow and/or Kimmel to produce a Greenleaf named cue, post-mortem, between 1950 and 1967...
If Rambow was not involved, Kimmel could have burned the name many years after 1967, he didnt die until 1990.
I can't really argue with what Craig said about the (greenleaf cue's) construction fitting into the 50s -70s timeframe... but... if that's true, it also means that the cues fall into the Keefe & Hamer timeframe...which means that other than producing the blank, Brunswick didn't have squat to do with Greenleaf's name appearing on those cues.
Greenleaf was a broke, dead, 'nobody' by the end of 1950 anyway - IMO Brunswick would never have been interested in producing a Greenleaf cue with their new golden boy Willie Mosconi already on the scene.
So, if the cues are authentic, it would seem that someone asked Rambow and/or Kimmel to produce a Greenleaf named cue, post-mortem, between 1950 and 1967...
If Rambow was not involved, Kimmel could have burned the name many years after 1967, he didnt die until 1990.
I own one of these Greenleaf cues, but I am no expert on it. That being said, I see noting about it's materials or construction that prevent it from being made prior to 1950. In fact, if you look at the pics posted on 3cushion, it is very similar to a Hoppe Professional cue, and those were being made well before 1950. To me, this cue could easily have been produced in the 40s.
Last edited:
I'm curious if it's a full splice handle. The Ralph Greenleaf signature appears to be a depiction of Mr. Greenleaf's real life signature (someone had a piece of old signed chalk in a collection and it was similar).
No way for me to tell if it is full spliced, as my original leather grip is firmly in tact, and the end of the points are beneath it. I do notice, however, that Deno calls it a full spliced cue on the 3C site.
Again, just thinking outloud here since you brought up the signature...
And using the example provided by Mr. Hoppe...
The sig. obviously doesnt appear to be custom scroll work like Kimmel would have done, but more like pre-fab stamp...and other than that, it doesn't really deviate much from an over-the-counter Brunswick two piece. So, it may be that the cue was never altered by Rambow or Kimmel at all...but simply by whomever put that stamp on there....
If it does considerably pre-date 48,49,50'...maybe Brunswick did stamp it.....
There is no doubt in my mind that these are not custom pieces. The production may have been limited, maybe even very limited, but I believe these are production cues none the less. I have a few Rambow's, and it would be interesting to compare the actual tapers, but I have little doubt that Rambow did not produce these RG cues by himself in his shop. I agree with your comments about the pre-fab stamped signature.
Last edited: