Unwrapped Cues Question - Structural or Aesthetics?

1 Pocket Ghost

1 Pocket Ghost

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Seeing as how I'm a player and not a builder of any kind, can some of you cue-builders answer this question for me that I've always wondered about...

The predominant style by far, of unwrapped cues that have no points ('merry widows'), is to have a 'handle' consisting of a contrasting wood, in more or less the same place on the butt that a wrap would be on a wrapped cue.....so my question is...

With unwrapped cues that have no points, is there a necessary structural reason to have the butt made up of three sections? - or, when unwrapped cues started being built some years ago, was this style just more or less adapted as an automatic aesthetic mimickry of the three sections that are necessary in building a wrapped cue.


Thanks for any answers, Ghost
 
You answered your own question. There is no real structural reason....simply keeping the traditional aesthetics. Notice that Eric has built multiple Sugartree cues that are 1 solid piece or 1pc all the way down then add a different buttsleeve. Builders choice.:smile:
 
1 Pocket Ghost said:
Seeing as how I'm a player and not a builder of any kind, can some of you cue-builders answer this question for me that I've always wondered about...

The predominant style by far, of unwrapped cues that have no points ('merry widows'), is to have a 'handle' consisting of a contrasting wood, in more or less the same place on the butt that a wrap would be on a wrapped cue.....so my question is...

With unwrapped cues that have no points, is there a necessary structural reason to have the butt made up of three sections? - or, when unwrapped cues started being built some years ago, was this style just more or less adapted as an automatic aesthetic mimickry of the three sections that are necessary in building a wrapped cue.


Thanks for any answers, Ghost
Click to expand...

Depending on the wood the cue may be too light. You would have to load up the butt with weight or drill it very deep to created some balance. As long as you need to add some weight by splitting the butt piece you may as well make it look pleasing. Even if you just add decorative rings.
 
Last edited:
Actually the butt is made from 2 pieces of wood & the butt sleeve is mearly a 3-4" washer that is slid on the end tenon & glued. Joining 2 pieces of wood together at the top potion of the handle gives you an opportunity to add or subtract some weight, in that area. This results in a much better balanced cue...JER
 
The shorter the wood the more stable it can get b/c it has less chance of twisting and moving.
It's easier to line up the center grain end to end on a 13-17" piece than on a 29" piece.
 
Ok, then....but so far the stability and weight adjustment factor, has been compared to the 29" one piece butt option - but that's not the only other option....I would assume that a two piece butt would afford the same structural needs as the three piece butt would...

I've always thought that a two piece butt looks very good - a butt with equal 12"-13" sections of beautiful contrasting woods (I've been wanting to have one built) - but I see very, very few of them....again, I wonder if it's just tradition that has cuemakers sticking to the three piece, as opposed to a two piece butt - or are cuemakers concerned maybe, that a two piece butt will look too much like a jb cue?


- Ghost
 
1 Pocket Ghost said:
Ok, then....but so far the stability and weight adjustment factor, has been compared to the 29" one piece butt option - but that's not the only other option....I would assume that a two piece butt would afford the same structural needs as the three piece butt would...




- Ghost
Click to expand...

The butt as Jer mentioned is really a two-piece . About a 12" forearm and 17" handle ( the bottom 4-5 inches is turned down for the buttsleeve ).
If you don't want a buttsleeve, it can be done.
It'd look ugly imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top