Too heavy and they get dead. I’ve noticed that. 5oz shafts ugh.
Too light and they ding up and wear down-balsa wood trash(super bleached maple).
There’s a sweet spot in there.
Oh I forgot Tad shafts are pretty strong as well. On his cues made up to about 1990 had better shaft wood than the newer cues(still way above average).
Personal preference as well is a huge factor.
Just keep looking and eventually you’ll fall on a shaft that is a 10/10 for you. Don’t matter what the other guy thinks.
I have a Gus shaft, cross grain, huge growth rings that run off 6” under the ferrel looks like a POS. I was wondering if Gus was drinking the day he chose that shaft. It’s on a late 70’s cue. It looks horrible in terms of what we visually look for in traits for a “good hitting” shaft-what ever that means. Anyways I looked and figured well Gus shipped it, how bad can it be? It’s beyond great. Looks like garbage plays beyond good.
I told Barry about it. He replied “Dad always picked what he thought would play the best-didn’t matter what it looked like and he could pick good wood”. Clearly looks isn’t why Gus picked that shaft. I still have it, I played a lot with it. And it still looks like a throw away piece of wood. Gus didn’t make a mistake and it wasn’t a accident. And that’s why Gus cues are huge $ and have a following to this day. It’s not a accident.
Point is, play with shafts-as many as possible and don’t go into it thinking that more growth rings or straight grain is everything. It’s a generalization at best. So let the shaft tell you when you play with it. You don’t tell the shaft.
When I listed above, that’s a estimate of % chance you’ll get a good shaft. Meaning Searing has the highest % you’ll get a good shaft. All I mentioned. But can be a Mali from 1985, ya never know. But that’s a 4% chance. Searing 90% chance it’s a good shaft.
It’s all trial and feel, subjective things never have hard and fast rules. And what you like now might not be the same in a few years. Factor that in as well
Best
Fatboy
What I discovered by trial and error initially and eventually by research and discussion with expert cue makers is this.
There is a essential weight ratio between the shaft & the cue butt. The two should align with obviously more weight in
the cue butt and less in the shaft. The cue butt weight and balance is affected by the inclusion of any weight bolt and
bolts can vary in metallurgy and size. For example, a butt can be 15.0 ozs sans any weight bolt even with a bumper.
But it can also include a single 1.0 bolt in the bottom of the cue butt or inserted higher as a headless bolt. It also could
be two 1/2 oz. headless bolts placed in different positions. Headless bolts can also weigh as little as 7 grams (1/4 oz.)
so a cue but could have several positioned higher in the handle when the butt is cored. And again, the cue butt can be dead on in weight without any bolt. The last cue Bob Owen made me doesn’t have any weight bolt and came in exactly
at 14.52 ozs and I asked for 14.5. The last cue Jerry R. made me uses two 7 gram headless bolts that are 3-4 inches
apart in the cue butt. The manufacture of the butt is affected by the wood used, materials in its design & butt diameter.
The shaft weight is decided by the wood selected, shaft diameter, taper & length, ferrule material, tip and any receiver.
A piloted metal receiver adds weight to the shaft in contrast with a flat faced wood joint. So two identical weight shafts with the exact same specifications, except one is 5/16x14 piloted steel and the other is 3/8x10 flat faced, which shaft has a heavier wood? That metal receiver adds 6-8 grams weight whereas the flat faced shaft doesn’t have any. That’s
why I prefer flat faced cue joints, plus the notion a piloted steel cue joint feels different. Getting back to the shaft weight
since the ratio is what I am driving at, there is a weight range ratio that I’ve been preaching about for the last 15 years.
18-23%…….above 20% tends to be better than below but it’s always a matter of preference. My preference is 22%.
Now I do not expect any cue maker to be able to deliver exact numbers but it certainly gives them a target to
shoot for. I told my cue makers I wanted a certain playing weight and provided the weight of the butt I wanted and the
shaft weights I’d like to get. The ratio was 22% and it pretty simple. Build me a cue butt weighing 14.5 ozs and shafts
that weigh 4 ozs. I’ve looked at cues made over the decades and cue butts and cue weights have gotten lighter. But
over the last 30-35 years, the popular names in cue making seems to have used this ratio in building their cues. That
might be a coincidence but my conversations with cue makers and my own experience coincides with this approach.
Most players I encounter do not even know the weight of their cue, let alone how much their shaft weighs. And I can’t
think of a single reason why they’d want to know. As long as they’re pleased with their cue, it’s the only thing that really
counts. Heck, nowadays carbon fiber shafts are the dominant trend and I do no know squat about carbon fiber shafts.
My comments relate to original maple shafts that the cue maker uses when he builds your cue. The time may have
arrived where you order the cue butt from a cue maker and just have a CF shaft you like sent to the cue maker to use.
However, if you’re going to order a cue, give some thought about speaking with the cue maker about the shaft weight.
