What is a full splice cue ?
What is the different between a full splice and a short one ?
Thank you . :smile:
What is the different between a full splice and a short one ?
Thank you . :smile:
What is a Full-Splice cue ?
- Thread starter HelloBaby-
- Start date
Have a look here
http://www.bearcues.com/fullsplicecue.htm
Quickly explained :
Full splice consists of wedges which goes down in to the arm (like a house cue).
The forarm goes therefor directly in to the butt section which completes the whole cue.
Short splice have a forarm (the portion over the grip - to the joint) which have
the wedges glued up, but these stops where the grip normally starts.
Here you have a joint (A joint) which joints the handle (under the wrap).
So its not two parts but forarm, wedges for the splices, handle and butt section.
Hope it helped
K
http://www.bearcues.com/fullsplicecue.htm
Quickly explained :
Full splice consists of wedges which goes down in to the arm (like a house cue).
The forarm goes therefor directly in to the butt section which completes the whole cue.
Short splice have a forarm (the portion over the grip - to the joint) which have
the wedges glued up, but these stops where the grip normally starts.
Here you have a joint (A joint) which joints the handle (under the wrap).
So its not two parts but forarm, wedges for the splices, handle and butt section.
Hope it helped
K
Mark Bear is the man. My expriences: I find that a full splice cue has the sweetest, most feeling, most comfortable hit available. I have a full splice cue made by John Davis, the master, and two cues of converted blanks made by Mark Bear. Mark is currently making me a cue that should be ready soon. George Balabushka, Gus Szamboti, Burton Spain and a lot of the old masters used a full splice for a reason...they wanted the perfect hit.
Mark Bear is the man. My expriences: I find that a full splice cue has the sweetest, most feeling, most comfortable hit available. I have a full splice cue made by John Davis, the master, and two cues of converted blanks made by Mark Bear. Mark is currently making me a cue that should be ready soon. George Balabushka, Gus Szamboti, Burton Spain and a lot of the old masters used a full splice for a reason...they wanted the perfect hit.
I think you are opening a whole can of worms here, simply because the "feeling"
or "hit" is very subjective. Some like this, some like that and in general it all
equals out.
What some like - does not necessarily mean that it's your flavor.
I would recommend testing the two versions and see if you feel any difference.
When you decide which "method" is yours - then you can start checking out
all the wood combos....
K
Your point should always be remembered in situations such as this. One man's Beef Wellington is another man's poison. Well said.
I wonder is the construction of the forearm is so important . In my opinion the important thing is that how the weight is distributed on the forearm that when you hold the cue you "feel" balanced , the same balance point doesn't mean you feel the same . And we have the joint , the shaft taper, the ferrule ....etc that effects the "hit" .But I think the "weight balanced" is the most important when we build a cue .
the construction of the forearm is what holds the cue together..the better the surfaces join then the better the cue can play, stay straight etc...its part of the foundation so it can't be said that anything is more important. If you have a weak
a-joint then the cue is going to move and shift, or it will start buzzing. Not to mention that spliced in points like ebony are going to stiffen up a forarm of say maple, and can stabilize it also.
That balance you talk about is one of the main reasons for the types of joining techniques....you use differient woods to create or shift the balance to where you want it...such as how John Davis implements his double splice technique by splicing a maple handle onto his ebony 4point blanks, so that way they are light in the end then add the joint/pin/shaft and the balance shifts to the proper place forward.
Its all intertwined and each dictates the effects of the other as a whole. No part of a cue is most integral, its not a complete tool piece by pice...its a tool as a whole. The tool is comprised of many "working" parts none work correct with out the other. Which is why I consider a pool cue to be more of a machine than anything else.
It's no can of worms to me. The poster asked for my experiences and I told him what I thought...feel free to do the same!