Titleist

For the record, I would probably exclude Rambow from that list.
By the time the Titlist came about, he was already a well known and sought after cue maker.


...........doing my penance for being involved in the hi-jacking of this thread by arguing with a troll........
 
Last edited:
this is true, and i know that was the point...
just wanted to clarify that Rambow didnt cut his teeth on the titlist...
hell, he may have even invented it.

...........................................................................................
 
Last edited:
Well, since we are clarifying, as I assume you know, the Titlist was just
a re-working of the 26 1/2, which Brunswick had been producing for decades. And nobody,
at Brunswick invented it. They did what
they did best, stole the design from much older European cues.

One thing about the Hoppe version - it established the change to the
pin-in-the-butt design. The Hoppe was so popular it set the idea of
what a 2 pc cue was. Ironically, Hoppe's own cue had the pin in the shaft,
as did most of Brunswick's cues at the time he became a household name.

Dale

All true, but think about this...the WHP although a 2-piece cue was STILL full-splice. How many full-splice wrapped cues do you see today? Unfortunately this is where modern cues went astray. IMO the short-splice will never have the feel of a full-splice cue! Hence NO modern cue will ever be as popular as the WHP! Everyone is constantly exchanging one cue for another trying to find the "right" feel. When you own a full splice, even a sneaky pete...you'll know the difference!
 
No Titlist was ever made with BEM...it was considered a defective wood. Only straight-grain maple was used on Titlist forearms!

Interesting>I have seen hundreds of Titlists and never seen BEM in one yet.

I do have a Ku King snooker cue with birdseye shaft:cool: The shaft is as crooked as any I have ever seen:grin:
 
He certainly did - has anyone said he didn't?

Well, this is what you said...perhaps it wasnt what you meant.
Rambow, Paradise, Palmer, Balabushka, Szamboti, Gina, all started out relying heavily, even entirely on re-working Titlist and Hoppes.

Again, my point is simply the fact that he didn't "start" making custom cues with the Titlist, as you have suggested.
 
Well, this is what you said...perhaps it wasnt what you meant.


Again, my point is simply the fact that he didn't "start" making custom cues with the Titlist, as you have suggested.

Fixating on footnotes...

.....................................................................................................................


If you want to start a Herman thread, I'll jump right in. But I wil no longer
be a co-jacker of this one.<didn't exactly stick to my guns>
 
Last edited:
Dale, dont be patronizing, I'm not your enemy. You just happened to have worded your statement in such a way as to make it slightly misleading. Its not that big a deal.

Oh and by the way - you brought up Rambow, not me.
 
Dale, dont be patronizing, I'm not your enemy. You just happened to have worded your statement in such a way as to make it slightly misleading. Its not that big a deal.

Oh and by the way - you brought up Rambow, not me.


................................................................................................
 
Last edited:
Patronzing it starts with P, that rhymes with P, that stands for pedantic...

Have you noticed, no one was confused but you?

I'm a bit scared at the thought of how you would have re-acted
if it had been a bif deal.

Dale


not confused at all. apparently its quite the opposite.
perhaps next time type what you mean the first time.
 
edited for wordiness, syntax, and possible plagiarism.
 
Last edited:
not confused at all. apparently its quite the opposite.
perhaps next time type what you mean the first time.

...............................................................................................
 
Last edited:
The Titlist was probably just dreamt up by marketing guys (the basic cue with these veneers colors dates back to the early 1900's 26 1/2).

In all reality, you're probably right.
But given his position at the time, it's not unreasonable to think that Herman could have been instrumental in the development of many of their production cues over the years. (some proof would be nice lol)

On another subject, is that Chicago Billiards Museum your site? Someone sent me a link to the Billiards Museum and I was quite impressed. I was trying to figure out if Claudius Berger actually was a cue maker as well as a billiards champion (Brunswick refers to the pronged full splice jont as a 'Berger Style") - it turn out your site contains the information that he actually made cues as well.

Yes sir, that's my baby. Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it.

And yes, it appears that Berger was a very skilled cue maker. You might have noticed that one of his custom cues was awarded to the winner of the first professional tournament on record (1860). I'd be willing to bet that more than one american cue maker copied his style...
 
In all reality, you're probably right.
But given his position at the time, it's not unreasonable to think that Herman could have been instrumental in the development of many of their production cues over the years. (some proof would be nice lol)



Yes sir, that's my baby. Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it.

And yes, it appears that Berger was a very skilled cue maker. You might have noticed that one of his custom cues was awarded to the winner of the first professional tournament on record (1860). I'd be willing to bet that more than one american cue maker copied his style...

Thanks for the reply (I edited the original post to avoid any further bickering but I'm glad you responded).

I think your site is very well done and quite a contribution to the game of billiards.

You didn't happen to know Bob Haddad (from Chicago too) ? I have his Rambow Titlist conversion from the 1950's.



Photo: A couple of Titlist conversions, a Rambow from the 1950's top and a Palmer C from the 1960's below.
 

Attachments

  • palmer C and rambow.JPG
    palmer C and rambow.JPG
    64.8 KB · Views: 1,548
Last edited:
Haddad ? Hmmm I dont think so...?

Since we're talking about Titlists, lemme ask your opinion on something...

Why exactly are/were they so popular, when there were other good cues to choose from?

Just a fad gone wild? Or is there something inherently better about that cue?

no right or wrong answer, just your thoughts
 
Haddad ? Hmmm I dont think so...?

Since we're talking about Titlists, lemme ask your opinion on something...

Why exactly are/were they so popular, when there were other good cues to choose from?

Just a fad gone wild? Or is there something inherently better about that cue?

no right or wrong answer, just your thoughts


Good question. I have some facts to work with and some theories.

In the 1920's there was a divergance between the design of 3 cushion cues and pocket billiards cues. Up until then, cues were shorter, fatter,and stiffer. As pocket billiards became a more popular game, cues designed for playing pool becaume more popular.

In the 1920's Brunswick mainly had a cue numbering system instead of a naming system, so these models like 26 1/2 and 360 didn't describe anything. In the 1930's, Brunswick decided to go with names instead of numbers for what I think were marketing reasons. Around that time, the "pro taper" was introduced. The pro taper is a weaker, more flexible taper than the European style cone shape. It transmitted more feel and was more suitable to pool, where the cone taper is more suitable to 3 cushion's larger, heavier balls, masse's and more powerful stroke.

Around 1940/41, the Titlist was introduced and was marketed as a fancy house cue for pool rooms. Brunswick was big into pool rooms and bowling alley's, so this was their mass market. These older Titlists are of similar dimensions as the modern pool cue, with similar tapers, feel, and weights. They play good and feel good - especially since they were one piece cues. The Willie Hoppe pro is similar but the fatter handle with leather grip didn't have quite the feel of a Titlist.

The best cue makers of the 1950's and 1960's used the Titlist as their "go to" cue for conversion. Makers like George Balabushka, Herman Rambow, Frank Paradise, and Palmer were turning them into first class playing cues.

Why were these cue makers choosing Titlists? There was nothing else at the time that were as well made or as good looking. Brunswick had the best production cue making operation.

Later on, in the 1960's and especially ther 1970's, as cue making techniques advanced, this was no longer the case and Brunswick shut down their cue making operation.

With all that being said, I think it's really because they look good to this day and are a "classic". To own a Titlist conversion is like owning a classic car. Take a '57 Chevy for example. It may not be as good or as fast as a 2012 Chevy, but which one looks cooler and gets more attention cruising down the boulevard?

The question I never figured out was why Brunswick wanted Willie Hoppe's signature on a pool cue? I realize he was a champion but a pool player would have been more appropriate.
 
Good answer... thats more or less what I thought about it myself..

Speaking of Hoppe's name...I was told an interesting story a few years back. Allegedly, there was almost a Greenleaf branded cue as well. But as we all know, things didn't go well between Ralphy and Brunswick...

I really wish I had something more to go on than just the story, but its still an interesting tale nonetheless...
 
The question I never figured out was why Brunswick wanted Willie Hoppe's signature on a pool cue? I realize he was a champion but a pool player would have been more appropriate.

I was born and raised in farmland outside of a small city (pop.17,000)
We played snooker, 8-ball and rotation but didn't know any official rules.
And we didn't know about any famous players but one............
...Willie Hoppe.....we actually thought he was a snooker player..:o

Willie was the billiard world's first millionaire (when that was a lot of $$$$)
His name had to be the first consideration on any billiard product.
 
Good question. I have some facts to work with and some theories.

In the 1920's there was a divergance between the design of 3 cushion cues and pocket billiards cues. Up until then, cues were shorter, fatter,and stiffer. As pocket billiards became a more popular game, cues designed for playing pool becaume more popular.

In the 1920's Brunswick mainly had a cue numbering system instead of a naming system, so these models like 26 1/2 and 360 didn't describe anything. In the 1930's, Brunswick decided to go with names instead of numbers for what I think were marketing reasons. Around that time, the "pro taper" was introduced. The pro taper is a weaker, more flexible taper than the European style cone shape. It transmitted more feel and was more suitable to pool, where the cone taper is more suitable to 3 cushion's larger, heavier balls, masse's and more powerful stroke.

Around 1940/41, the Titlist was introduced and was marketed as a fancy house cue for pool rooms. Brunswick was big into pool rooms and bowling alley's, so this was their mass market. These older Titlists are of similar dimensions as the modern pool cue, with similar tapers, feel, and weights. They play good and feel good - especially since they were one piece cues. The Willie Hoppe pro is similar but the fatter handle with leather grip didn't have quite the feel of a Titlist.

The best cue makers of the 1950's and 1960's used the Titlist as their "go to" cue for conversion. Makers like George Balabushka, Herman Rambow, Frank Paradise, and Palmer were turning them into first class playing cues.

Why were these cue makers choosing Titlists? There was nothing else at the time that were as well made or as good looking. Brunswick had the best production cue making operation.

Later on, in the 1960's and especially ther 1970's, as cue making techniques advanced, this was no longer the case and Brunswick shut down their cue making operation.

With all that being said, I think it's really because they look good to this day and are a "classic". To own a Titlist conversion is like owning a classic car. Take a '57 Chevy for example. It may not be as good or as fast as a 2012 Chevy, but which one looks cooler and gets more attention cruising down the boulevard?

The question I never figured out was why Brunswick wanted Willie Hoppe's signature on a pool cue? I realize he was a champion but a pool player would have been more appropriate.

..............................................................................................
The question I never figured out was why Brunswick wanted Willie Hoppe's signature on a pool cue? I realize he was a champion but a pool player would have been more appropriate.
...............................................................................................

To engage in a little conjecture - Brunswick was obsessed with the idea
of cleaning up the image of pool. Pool halls, were thought, by the general
public to be dens of eniquity, where men loafed around and gambled. Many
of the patrons of such establishments were regarded as the dreadful
"pool room bum".

They never did make much progress on the image improvement front, tho
they were able to sell the idea that: 'gentlemen play Billiards, bums
play pool'. Even the term gentleman conveyed much more the idea of
respectability and affluence than today.

Consider, Mosconni had not won a championship yet - as pt109 said,
Hoppe was by far the best known, most dominant, and most respected
guy to ever swing a cue stick in this country.

Greenleaf was also well known, but so was his lifestyle.

Dale
 
Last edited:
Back
Top