| Cue Joints [message #37863] |
Thu, 30 December 2004 14:26 |
|
I noticed that at the recent Gulf Coast Classic there were almost no top
players who used a cue with a steel or metal joint. Actually, after
realizing the aforementioned, I did not observe one. I found this quite
interesting and invite comment.
richard s
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #37925 ] |
Fri, 31 December 2004 22:54 |
|
It's because metal joints don't give the best 'feel' or the best hit. The
most 'natural' joint is wood-to-wood. If you want to protect the wood at
the joints you use phenelic or equivalent rings; something with the similar
weight, texture, and feel of wood.
Metal is heavier, not at all 'compatible with wood, and simply doesn't
provide the same feel and hit as wood or plastic at the joint.
--
8-Ball
"Richard Sharp" <shar9380 [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:giTAd.2511$Gj2.2239 [at] bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> I noticed that at the recent Gulf Coast Classic there were almost no top
> players who used a cue with a steel or metal joint. Actually, after
> realizing the aforementioned, I did not observe one. I found this quite
> interesting and invite comment.
>
> richard s
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #37946 ] |
Sat, 01 January 2005 04:59 |
|
8-Ball wrote:
> Metal is heavier, not at all 'compatible with wood, and simply doesn't
> provide the same feel and hit as wood or plastic at the joint.
Bet you can't tell the difference blindfolded.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #37952 ] |
Sat, 01 January 2005 08:16 |
|
Not blindfolded--but put tape over the joint and let me shoot a shot
and I can tell.
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #37953 ] |
Sat, 01 January 2005 08:16 |
|
Not blindfolded--but put tape over the joint and let me shoot a shot
and I can tell.
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #37959 ] |
Sat, 01 January 2005 14:27 |
|
Pat's right about this -- this has already been tested somewhere. Although
I, and just about everybody I know up here in Wa. State, prefer the feel of
the wood-to-wood joint and the way it plays, I wouldn't take a bet on this.
Mike Collier
Oak Harbor, WA
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #37990 ] |
Sun, 02 January 2005 05:23 |
|
A while back someone I knew was playing with a new cue and told me excitedly
it was a Tad Kohara. I'd heard of Tad but never seen one up close. This was
one of his plain "players" cues, just maple forearm and butt, Cortland wrap
and a stainless steel joint. I'd hit with a few cheap cues with steel joints
and never preferred them to cues with phenolic/wood-to-wood joints. (I've
never played with an Ivory jointed cue so I can't comment on that)
I took a few shots it and I did not really notice how much or how little
"feel" there was through the joint, as every ball I hit went in the pocket
like it was on rails. It was the best cue I have ever shot with. I strongly
believe a skillful cue maker can make a great playing cue with almost any
combination of normal materials.
--
Aunty Dan
------------------------------------------
"For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoisted with his own petard."
- W. Shakespeare
------------------------------------------
"Mail Man" <not.here [at] too-long-gone.com> wrote in message
news:leedneVsA7TDOUvcRVn-pg [at] comcast.com...
> Pat's right about this -- this has already been tested somewhere.
> Although
> I, and just about everybody I know up here in Wa. State, prefer the feel
> of
> the wood-to-wood joint and the way it plays, I wouldn't take a bet on
> this.
>
> Mike Collier
> Oak Harbor, WA
>
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #37992 ] |
Sun, 02 January 2005 05:39 |
|
Aunty Dan wrote:
> ... every ball I hit went in the pocket like it was on rails.
And you attribute this to the cue?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #37993 ] |
Sun, 02 January 2005 08:52 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #37994 ] |
Sun, 02 January 2005 10:53 |
|
"Aunty Dan" <auntydan [at] xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hHKBd.6046$232.4576 [at] fed1read05...
> A while back someone I knew was playing with a new cue and told me
excitedly
> it was a Tad Kohara. I'd heard of Tad but never seen one up close. This
was
> one of his plain "players" cues, just maple forearm and butt, Cortland
wrap
> and a stainless steel joint. I'd hit with a few cheap cues with steel
joints
> and never preferred them to cues with phenolic/wood-to-wood joints. (I've
> never played with an Ivory jointed cue so I can't comment on that)
>
> I took a few shots it and I did not really notice how much or how little
> "feel" there was through the joint, as every ball I hit went in the pocket
> like it was on rails. It was the best cue I have ever shot with. I
strongly
> believe a skillful cue maker can make a great playing cue with almost any
> combination of normal materials.
>
> --
> Aunty Dan
IMHO - you have hit on a very important
steel jointed cues have gotten a very bad rap, see for example, 8-ball
above,
often from people who should know better, but more often from people who
don't
there are some great hitting SS jointed cues that have NONE of the typical
"problems" people complain about, trouble is many of them do
as always, the proof is in the pudding
one other problem, that Tad was what? $1000?... $1500?
many good hitting SS cues are way out of the price range many
people will pay for a "player's" cue
there are some guys making great ones at modest prices, but you have
to look hard to find them
CBII
> ------------------------------------------
> "For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
> Hoisted with his own petard."
> - W. Shakespeare
> ------------------------------------------
> "Mail Man" <not.here [at] too-long-gone.com> wrote in message
> news:leedneVsA7TDOUvcRVn-pg [at] comcast.com...
> > Pat's right about this -- this has already been tested somewhere.
> > Although
> > I, and just about everybody I know up here in Wa. State, prefer the feel
> > of
> > the wood-to-wood joint and the way it plays, I wouldn't take a bet on
> > this.
> >
> > Mike Collier
> > Oak Harbor, WA
> >
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #56313 ] |
Sun, 09 January 2005 03:22 |
|
Wood to wood is the most natura? How so? Once you chop her in half, the feel
of a one piece cue is forever lost. Personally, I love stainless jointed cues
and would never buy anything else, except for plain jane sneaky petes. And the
latter is for price and look of one piece cue, not for the joint.
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #56316 ] |
Sun, 09 January 2005 04:54 |
|
"RWMCT" <rwmct [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050108212203.11389.00003283 [at] mb-m29.aol.com...
> Wood to wood is the most natura? How so? Once you chop her in half, the
feel
> of a one piece cue is forever lost. Personally, I love stainless jointed
cues
> and would never buy anything else, except for plain jane sneaky petes.
And the
> latter is for price and look of one piece cue, not for the joint.
you are correct sir
CBII
|
|
|
| Re: Cue Joints ... Not Metal [message #56543 ] |
Thu, 13 January 2005 05:53 |
|
>sittingduck spam.to.sitting-duck [at] spamgourmet.com writes:
> I will not build a cue with a heavy metal joint unless
>someone specifies it.<<
What if I want a classic rock joint?
Joe (---deviates from heavy metal sometimes.. :)
|
|
|
