So how much different are Tasc's and Bushka's build and playability wise? Thanks
You haven't gotten much response to this question, which is a fair one, so I'll try to help, having played some with both George and Tasc cues.
The dimensions are different, as I said before. George's were a bit shorter, and a bit thicker. Feel of a cue is subjective, so individual preference would dictate which one would be preferable.
The hit of a cue is not so subjective. Either a cue has a good hit or there are some problems. Both George's and Pete's cues have good solid hits, given the level of craftsmanship and work in both. Attention to detail on both of them is no doubt why this is the case.
Is there a difference then, if both used the same techniques? Well, maybe a little. If you hit some with George's cues in the 70s, they originally had the old French Champion tips on, while Pete's cues come currently with LePros, with red fiber bases. I think they do it to be reminiscent of the old French Champion tip. The old Champion tip was much softer than a current LePro tip, even though the Champion may have been touted as a "hard" tip at the time. It wasn't, believe me. So, to make a short story long, assuming similar height of tip, my memory is that George's cues had a nice solid hit, and it was a bit more compliant than a current Tasc, which has a bit more crisp hit to it. This assumes a 5/16 X 14 shaft with steel joint, with a buttplate bumper for each, which the vast majority of George's cues had.
Just to add a bit of proof to the nostalgia, here are some of my old stock French Champion tips (along with some Crowns), which most of you have not played for some time, if ever. Completely different from today's, whether single or multi-layer. Both solid hitting cues; and original tips make a lot of difference. Hope that helps.
All the best,
WW