very irritated about this Cue

[sad_clown0306]

Here is an Adam AH-10 on ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com/New-Adam-AH-10-...hZ024QQcategoryZ21568QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

A while ago here was a thread on the sales board with the same model
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=94847&highlight=adam+ah-10

I am not an expert on this but it seems that the Adams from the AZ Board was very valuable and the ebay Cue is not similar in the quality.

What is the difference ???

 

[jkmarshall_cues]

The difference???

Age and collectability.

The one sold on AZbilliards was an original from the early 1970's. The new one on eBay is a new copy of the 1970's cue.
John

 

[dave sutton]

heres a cue i picked up. original from 70's. i think i got a good deal but not great. for the work the 70's adam cues should sell higher IMO

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=90231

 

[sad_clown0306]

But what about the playability ?

Is there a difference ??

Thanks for answering so far my question. Got a good info now.

 

[dave sutton]

well the old adams were full spliced but very fat. kinda clunky. i guess the production version plays about as good as a production could. i had a balabushka like 10 years ago it hit ok

 

[jayman]

well the old adams were full spliced but very fat. kinda clunky. i guess the production version plays about as good as a production could. i had a balabushka like 10 years ago it hit ok

Actualy, most of of mine are on the thin side as cues go.
They did make plenty of the ones with a wider grip also.
I dont care for the feel of wide ones either.i dont see all that many of them generaly.

The current reproductions are quite decent cues. they are made to the same standards as the balabushka cues. (much higher than some of there other lines) they have enough differences built into them to keep them from being passed as originals though.
I.E. different colored veneers, different thread pitch etc...

In my opinion, if Palmer did a high quality retro cue line, like what Adam did. They would sell a ton of em!


Jayman.

 

[dave sutton]

the galaxie i got was .860 atthe joint and 1.285 at the back. the handle was much much fatter. maybe the equivalent to a cue that is well over 1.3 in the back.

it was ridiculiosly fat

i would deff ge a few palmer retro cues. h,i, j,k,m, supreme

 

[jayman]

the galaxie i got was .860 atthe joint and 1.285 at the back. the handle was much much fatter. maybe the equivalent to a cue that is well over 1.3 in the back.

it was ridiculiosly fat

i would deff ge a few palmer retro cues. h,i, j,k,m, supreme

Wow! that is a thick one! i just measured the st. moritz i was using yesterday it has an .834 joint, and a very thin grip.

I'll take two of of those model#'s..hell yes!

Jayman.

 

[cyrex]

Adam Ritz

Sorry I don't have any of the cue's specs from before I sold it. But I don't remember it being especially thick butted. Everything was pretty standard aside from it being 57" overall. Which, of course, was standard for those cues at the time. Cue was in great shape. Even nicer after the restoration.

 

[Papa Red]

What's it worth

I have one just like that I won in 1968 & one with circles I won in 1965. What would they be worth.

 

[jayman]

I have one just like that I won in 1968 & one with circles I won in 1965. What would they be worth.[/QUOTE

Can you post some pictures of them?

Jayman.

 

[Papa Red]

I have one just like that I won in 1968 & one with circles I won in 1965. What would they be worth.[/QUOTE

Can you post some pictures of them?

Jayman.

I,m new too this forum and don't know how.

 

[jayman]

I,m new too this forum and don't know how.

How did you get all the greenies in like what, 6 weeks?

Jayman.