Very Fancy Original Balabushka
- Thread starter skierlawyer
- Start date
When i dream....this cue always shows up.
This cue is so beautiful and such a shining example of George's great design eye. So much so, this almost made the cut for what we have planned. However knowing it was already "tributed", we passed.
It's important that a special cue design does not become more than a tribute. Some makers have decided that one tribute is not enough and they have to make a "line" of that one single cue design. IMHO this does diminish the pride of ownership for all parties involved to a certain degree. Some people need to look up the word restraint. (it does not mean to straint again)
(End of rant)
JV
It's important that a special cue design does not become more than a tribute. Some makers have decided that one tribute is not enough and they have to make a "line" of that one single cue design. IMHO this does diminish the pride of ownership for all parties involved to a certain degree. Some people need to look up the word restraint. (it does not mean to straint again)
(End of rant)
JV
I got to hit some balls with 2 of Brians Buskas. I'm not sure if this one was one of them.
Eat your heart out Busboy. :thumbup:
They were both Measureman approved.
Fantastic discovery and an amazing cue for sure:smile::smile::smile::thumbup::smile::smile::smile:
I'm glad this thread got bumped. This cue and the story with it is really a slice of history. I got one of the JerryR/deanoc bushka tributes and it's very similar in appearance although I had not seen this particular cue. The one I saw was a cue built for Mosconi. I'm curious about the forearm/prongs. Was it ever clarified? Is this a Gus blank or prongs?
Same here.
I like thicker butts.. I've never been a fan of any cue that has a slimmer profile...
Actually while most of the butts are bigger, especially on early cues, the 70's cues tend to be a little slimmer.
Just an FYI
JV
Just an FYI
JV
Do you mean all cues in general or are you specifically referencing Balabushka cues?
Thanks for your input, I am trying to learn.
Ken
Well most older cues from that time period were modeled after titlists and Rambows which were FAT. George emulated the dimensions, as he should have. I think the rapid changes in cloth and better balls, made slimmer / lighter cues more popular. Just a theory.
JV
Basically, the joint diameters of the cues haven't changed tremendously since the days of George. They'll pretty much come close to 835 to 850 thousands of an inch, give or take a bit. I've seen a McWhorter that was slimmer, but that was an exception.
The difference is how they taper to the buttplate. The older cues had a steeper taper to the end of the buttplate. The biggest buttplate in my collection is my Palmer Model C, at 1.28 inches. The others, Scruggs, Black, etc, are about 1.25 to 1.26 inches. Not a lot of difference, is it? But it is in your hands. And the older Bushkas were no doubt a bit thicker in the buttplate, but I think we're talking several hundredths of an inch, not something like a quarter of an inch.
Except, I will admit, a Rambow Tim Scruggs showed me in the late 70s that he had gotten for repair/refinish. Normal joint diameter, and the buttplate looked and felt more like a Louisville Slugger than a cue, it was so big in the back. There was some variation in the early days.
A few hundrendths of an inch feels major in your hands. For example, in the middle of my wrap areas, my skinniest Scruggs Titlist conversion is 1.09 inches. The largest in the collection is 1.13 inches, a 1976 Joss. Feels like the difference between night and day. And it's only, you guessed it, four hundredths of an inch.
Get your micrometers and dial calipers out. The differences feel pretty major in your hands, but they actually measure smaller than you might think. Assuming you don't get your hands on one of those Louisville Sluggers...
The difference is how they taper to the buttplate. The older cues had a steeper taper to the end of the buttplate. The biggest buttplate in my collection is my Palmer Model C, at 1.28 inches. The others, Scruggs, Black, etc, are about 1.25 to 1.26 inches. Not a lot of difference, is it? But it is in your hands. And the older Bushkas were no doubt a bit thicker in the buttplate, but I think we're talking several hundredths of an inch, not something like a quarter of an inch.
Except, I will admit, a Rambow Tim Scruggs showed me in the late 70s that he had gotten for repair/refinish. Normal joint diameter, and the buttplate looked and felt more like a Louisville Slugger than a cue, it was so big in the back. There was some variation in the early days.
A few hundrendths of an inch feels major in your hands. For example, in the middle of my wrap areas, my skinniest Scruggs Titlist conversion is 1.09 inches. The largest in the collection is 1.13 inches, a 1976 Joss. Feels like the difference between night and day. And it's only, you guessed it, four hundredths of an inch.
Get your micrometers and dial calipers out. The differences feel pretty major in your hands, but they actually measure smaller than you might think. Assuming you don't get your hands on one of those Louisville Sluggers...
I haven't logged on to AZ in a long time, but when I did saw my old thread was bumped, how cool. This cue is still the pride of my collection. It's housed in a smooth black Fellini case now. I should go hit some balls with it 
Your right but I think you mean a few "thousandths".., several hundredths is more than a quarter inch... 50 thou dif is pretty easy to feel for sure.. A few hundredths WOULD make it feel more like Louisville..lol