Snooker?
I thought you were talking about pool. Ever heard of Michael Vollmer? Thorsten Hohmann? That's $1,000. You want my paypal address?
Why a Full Splice?
- Thread starter Biloxi Boy
- Start date
I thought you were talking about pool. Ever heard of Michael Vollmer? Thorsten Hohmann? That's $1,000. You want my paypal address?
Neither of these people are top european snooker players. They're not even on the pro tour. US pool players from EU are obviously going to use US pool cues, but that really is a niche cue sport in EU. My original question was why EU cue makers use butterfly splices but US use sharp points. I wasn't trying to be controversial. This forum isn't half getting unpleasant
Last edited:
I believe Herman Rambow (who managed wood used by Brunswick for tables, cues and other wooden accesseries) first developed the full splice cues. I also believe the Full Splice cues that he developed were thought to be better for feeling the cue as it struck the cueball. Someone else may be able to better explain this concept.
I was talking about hand spliced cues with rounded points, not machine cut rounded points. But, either way, I wasn't asking about what you gave a rat's ass about, just wondered if anyone knew why european cue makers mostly use rounded points. Having looked at a couple of the snooker forums, they seem to suggest there is a lot of skill in getting even rounded points. But, as you say, in the US they have the exact opposite view. Given that most cues nowadays are produced on mass, you would have thought that if one way was easier, everyone would be making cues the same way.
It's also a matter of the balance and taper of the cue, the full splice cues tend to widen more, and many I played with are weighed towards the rear, the others are more of an even balance in the butt and don't taper as much.
To Mark 187-
i have not been rigorous in tabulating where partially remembered tidbits of cue related knowledge of occurred to me; howevever my sense is as follows. Splices were a means (as has been mentioned) to use different types of wood in an engineered structure to get performance properties. Heavy butt, strong, lithe shaft e.g. without a weak spot at the join.
My impression is that the simple fishmouth splice that was common in all forms of traditional/ancient wood work was the natural first progression. Any relatively accomplished woodworker in trades as diverse as barn building through wooden utensil making (noggins e.g.) through some forms of furniture or cabinet making could generate one by hand. Make a fishmouth splice & then turn or plane it round and the result is what poolplayers call butterflies.
i have never read who made the first 4-way splice but it is genius for the purpose from a 19th or early 20th c. wood technology perspective given the available glues. It is my impression from pix in old BBC catalogs that the joints were hand cut in their factories, at least initially. It seems pretty clear that well into the 20’s at least that BBC cues were hand planed to taper & shape. I’ve posted some of the photos in the past but don’t seem to have the facility while learning current ipad.
I would like to imagine that i could cut a decent 4 point splice by hand but have not found inspiration to take the time to try it. Infact, however, i have cut multiple acceptable fishmouth joints and “finger joints” by hand in early days for me; mostly splicing new wood seamlessly onto older millwork & structural posts where orginal parts had rotted off. Point being that a fishmouth, while no longer common, is not really a difficult nor completely unusual form of splicing wood. At one time it was a common part of repertoire for most woodworking technicians who assumed themselves accomplished.
A 4-prongsplice as used in cues is obvious, probably technically superior at least in theory, fiendishly difficult or at least time consuming for handwork, & not necessarily trivial even manufactured by machine. In practice, a fishmouth is manifestly more than adequate. Sticking with that confIguration for hand work no doubt saves a lot of wood, time, & aggravation.
Modern built up cue butts with A joints that include ”short splice” (no splice, actually)construction are technically less complex & perhaps easy to dismiss as trivial regarding point work. As you state Europeans prefere. It is difficult to imagine them ever being made other than by machine, though hand working one is possible. OTOH that form arguably allows the cuemaker to focus on other attributes & performance concerning theories of stability, balance, & gradated densities that affect “hit”.
It would be interesting to learn when the 4 point type splice was first used & if there are any examples that pre-date use in cues.
smt
i have not been rigorous in tabulating where partially remembered tidbits of cue related knowledge of occurred to me; howevever my sense is as follows. Splices were a means (as has been mentioned) to use different types of wood in an engineered structure to get performance properties. Heavy butt, strong, lithe shaft e.g. without a weak spot at the join.
My impression is that the simple fishmouth splice that was common in all forms of traditional/ancient wood work was the natural first progression. Any relatively accomplished woodworker in trades as diverse as barn building through wooden utensil making (noggins e.g.) through some forms of furniture or cabinet making could generate one by hand. Make a fishmouth splice & then turn or plane it round and the result is what poolplayers call butterflies.
i have never read who made the first 4-way splice but it is genius for the purpose from a 19th or early 20th c. wood technology perspective given the available glues. It is my impression from pix in old BBC catalogs that the joints were hand cut in their factories, at least initially. It seems pretty clear that well into the 20’s at least that BBC cues were hand planed to taper & shape. I’ve posted some of the photos in the past but don’t seem to have the facility while learning current ipad.
I would like to imagine that i could cut a decent 4 point splice by hand but have not found inspiration to take the time to try it. Infact, however, i have cut multiple acceptable fishmouth joints and “finger joints” by hand in early days for me; mostly splicing new wood seamlessly onto older millwork & structural posts where orginal parts had rotted off. Point being that a fishmouth, while no longer common, is not really a difficult nor completely unusual form of splicing wood. At one time it was a common part of repertoire for most woodworking technicians who assumed themselves accomplished.
A 4-prongsplice as used in cues is obvious, probably technically superior at least in theory, fiendishly difficult or at least time consuming for handwork, & not necessarily trivial even manufactured by machine. In practice, a fishmouth is manifestly more than adequate. Sticking with that confIguration for hand work no doubt saves a lot of wood, time, & aggravation.
Modern built up cue butts with A joints that include ”short splice” (no splice, actually)construction are technically less complex & perhaps easy to dismiss as trivial regarding point work. As you state Europeans prefere. It is difficult to imagine them ever being made other than by machine, though hand working one is possible. OTOH that form arguably allows the cuemaker to focus on other attributes & performance concerning theories of stability, balance, & gradated densities that affect “hit”.
It would be interesting to learn when the 4 point type splice was first used & if there are any examples that pre-date use in cues.
smt
Last edited:
Snooker or pool? Snooker cues tend to have rounded 'points' because they are planed to a round shape by hand. Most production pool cues are made by CNC and the points are almost always rounded off.
I was thinking of snooker cues. Just wondering why there are different conventions for each. Tbh this forum attracts so much BS, I'll ask on The Snooker Forum instead so no need to reply
The butterfly splice is simple....I was told you can do it with a handsaw.
I’ve seen a full splice four pointer before it was joined at Dufferin Cue...it’s complicated.
My feeling is the four pointer gives us a more balanced cue....if the butterflies are up or sideways, I would think
there’s a subtle difference in the hit, especially if you’re spinning....kinda why I don’t like ash cues, because spin
squirts differently if the grain is up or sideways.
The first two piece full splice cue to win a world snooker title was used by John Spencer in ‘77...he beat Cliff Thorburn in the final, who was using the same model. It was a Dufferin Title.
Vollmer Cues - Michael Vollmer | Büdingen
Vollmer Cues - Michael Vollmer. 1,992 likes · 2 talking about this. Ever thought about a Professional Custom Cue from one of the Top 10 Cue-Makers in the World? Vollmer
www.facebook.com
Top notch cuemaker from Germany. Not China. You never heard of Michael Vollmer?
Regarding snooker I'm guessing the brits all use the same style of cue for the same reason they all have the same stance. They go to a school to get on the tour and the school pushes them in a certain direction. They also don't put the chalk on the rail even if they are paying pool in the USA because the school tells them not to put the chalk on the rail. Deviation from the norm is not encouraged.
Wow, so many different tangents going on in this thread.
To answer OPs question, here are my thoughts:
Why full splice? This is a method of joining two pieces of different wood that is very strong. It provides a large surface area for glue to contact. You cannot glue end grain, hence different splicing methods. IMO snooker and carom "butterfly splicing" isn't really splicing. It's lamination on angled cuts. Machine splice cues are very tough to do well and you can tell quality by evenness and sharpness of the points.
The other reasons for combining a dense wood to a lighter wood is reducing warpage and balance. If you just had a full length house cue made of solid maple there is higher chance it would not stay straight. Full splices negate the need for an A joint, which is inherently weaker.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
To answer OPs question, here are my thoughts:
Why full splice? This is a method of joining two pieces of different wood that is very strong. It provides a large surface area for glue to contact. You cannot glue end grain, hence different splicing methods. IMO snooker and carom "butterfly splicing" isn't really splicing. It's lamination on angled cuts. Machine splice cues are very tough to do well and you can tell quality by evenness and sharpness of the points.
The other reasons for combining a dense wood to a lighter wood is reducing warpage and balance. If you just had a full length house cue made of solid maple there is higher chance it would not stay straight. Full splices negate the need for an A joint, which is inherently weaker.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
In general, snooker cuemaking in the UK/Europe are so stuck in "tradition" that it has failed to progress and improve over time. Many don't even use a lathe.
There isn't one single school for snooker. There is a tour qualifying event called Q-School but it isn't an actual school, it's just the name of a tournament series. There are academies where young players play each other, but there are many different coaches who don't all teach the same thing. Have you actually watched any snooker? Have you been to England or China and visited one of these academies? Have you spoke yo pro snooker players who told you about this school that churns out production line players? I have watched snooker for 30+ years and spoken to pros and top coaches, and snooker players all have different stances and strokes.Vollmer Cues - Michael Vollmer | Büdingen
Vollmer Cues - Michael Vollmer. 1,992 likes · 2 talking about this. Ever thought about a Professional Custom Cue from one of the Top 10 Cue-Makers in the World? Vollmer
Top notch cuemaker from Germany. Not China. You never heard of Michael Vollmer?
Regarding snooker I'm guessing the brits all use the same style of cue for the same reason they all have the same stance. They go to a school to get on the tour and the school pushes them in a certain direction. They also don't put the chalk on the rail even if they are paying pool in the USA because the school tells them not to put the chalk on the rail. Deviation from the norm is not encouraged.
With the chalk, generally they don't leave it on the table as that's a tradition thing. Some players do though, including Ding Junhui.
I hadn't heard of Michael Vollmer, but you bet $1000 that you could name a top European snooker player who used a cue with sharp points. Michael Vollmer isn't a snooker player, so I don't get your point on that one.
Well old Titlists are great IMHO. Most date back to 1950's & before.
Old Wood has unique feel. JMHO
Old Wood has unique feel. JMHO
B'wick full-splice cues go all the way back to around 1900. Titleist name dates to the 40's.
Vollmer is a cuemaker. Not a snooker player. He is from Germany. He makes cues with sharp points. The $1,000 you owe me wouldn't buy a Vollmer cue but I knew you weren't going to pay when you said you would.
I said I'd give you 1k when you name a top european snooker player who uses a cue with sharp points. The good thing about a forum like this, is that it's all in writing. Still waiting.
Greg M
Active member
Ken Doherty uses a 4/5 jointed warped machine-spliced cue. Won the 1997 world championships with the thing.
You were vague in your original post. You said “player” and did not specify a “snooker player”.