Trevor White cue for swapsies for antique cue!

[ADR147]

I disagree totally with that , I bought my cue for £3.00 off a car boot ,its about 50 years old ,if not more,
I would not swap it for ten of your top of the range cues!
If you can get a good old cue they are miles better than the stuff made today.

well i have seen and owned literally thousands of old cues and i can promise you not even one in a hundred would compare to a top modern cue.

[bonoman1970]

well i have seen and owned literally thousands of old cues and i can promise you not even one in a hundred would compare to a top modern cue.

well if I was offered twenty modern day cues I still wouldnt even contemplate swapping mine ,the wood used in the oldern days was far far superior .

[bonoman1970]

but the end of the day its just a matter of opinion ....each to their own

[ADR147]

yes and no, the build quality is a matter of fact rather than opinion, the playability that's up to each individual.

[old school]

I promised myself that I would keep out of this one,but I cant keep that promise,so here goes.ADR you can find "older" cues that are both excellent in quality and playability,but they are rare,as you stated,if you find one you are lucky,but the question now is that ,if you asked a modern cue maker to make a cue using the same tools,machinery (if any) ,techniques etc even down to the abrasives used for finishing that they used say pre war,would they produce anything even near the quality of cue they currently produce,with all the benefits of modern equipment ??? I love the work of TW,MW,Robin,JP,Kev Muncaster etc and have owned cues by all the aforementioned but one of my favourite cues is a 1st Edition B&W Mascot ,which quite frankly is exquisite,simple but exquisite.How much of a modern cues "perceived superiority" is down to modern tools,machinery (e.g. lathe improvements) and finishing techniques (e.g. superior abrasives ) I wonder.This of course in no way takes away from or denigrates any cue maker I have previously mentioned and is of course just a personal opinion.Apologies for the rant,big up "perpetual".

[deant1982]

yes and no, the build quality is a matter of fact rather than opinion, the playability that's up to each individual.

Exactly. Some old cues are/were well made, and can more than hold their own with modern cues, however some of the older cues were well made, but not by today's standards. I've seen lots of old cues (I play in a league against loads of old timers with old cues) and most of them, whilst good, would not compare to modern handmade cues by mw, tw and the such. If you have a good old cue that you're happy with, fair play, but if I was in need of a new cue, I wouldn't specifically be aiming at an old cue because they are "made better". On a lot of old cues, that is simply not the case.
ADR147 knows his stuff on old cues, so If he were to say they are better, fair enough, but I am of similar opinion to him - whilst some are as good workmanship wise, most don't compete. Sav for about 5 I have seen, give me a mw over old cues any day!

[poolqjunkie]

well if I was offered twenty modern day cues I still wouldnt even contemplate swapping mine ,the wood used in the oldern days was far far superior .

Why we do not see any top pros using such old cues when they livelihood depend on it?
Why dont we see Ronnie O'Sullivan, John Higgins, and such, using this old wood which according to you is far far superior?
We are talking about overall craftsmanship and quality, i.e. precision of splice, finish, quality of wood selected, ... etc; not only playability.
If you like your 3GBP cue that is fair play, but just because you like how the cue plays does not make it a better cue than modern cues in terms of craftsmanship. And even if you 3GBp cue might be superior in every way it is probably a one off, not a general representation of the over all quality of old cues--which is what we are talking about here.
When people first started making cues they did not know as much about cue making as we do today. They did not have the knowledge, experience, and technology that we have today, and they did not have the feedback from top pros and the competition that is presented to cue makers in this age.
If a cue maker was to make a cue with the quality like the old cues we see pre-war he cannot survive the competition, which is why we see better crafted cues.
Even in terms of playability, we know much more today than the old cue makers in the 18 and early 19 century. We know more about what balance point, butt diameter, and taper, is suitable to play the modern day game. This is partly due to all the feedback pro player have given to cue makers over the years, and also the fact that we have more info to go by because of the Internet and there are many top notch cues we can try and compare and learn from.
A old cue may be very collectible and could even be a good playing cue but the overall quality of an old cue is not in the same league as the top modern cues we see today. This is just a fact.

[poolqjunkie]

I promised myself that I would keep out of this one,but I cant keep that promise,so here goes.ADR you can find "older" cues that are both excellent in quality and playability,but they are rare,as you stated,if you find one you are lucky,but the question now is that ,if you asked a modern cue maker to make a cue using the same tools,machinery (if any) ,techniques etc even down to the abrasives used for finishing that they used say pre war,would they produce anything even near the quality of cue they currently produce,with all the benefits of modern equipment ??? I love the work of TW,MW,Robin,JP,Kev Muncaster etc and have owned cues by all the aforementioned but one of my favourite cues is a 1st Edition B&W Mascot ,which quite frankly is exquisite,simple but exquisite.How much of a modern cues "perceived superiority" is down to modern tools,machinery (e.g. lathe improvements) and finishing techniques (e.g. superior abrasives ) I wonder.This of course in no way takes away from or denigrates any cue maker I have previously mentioned and is of course just a personal opinion.Apologies for the rant,big up "perpetual".

If you look at old furnitures made over 100 years ago, you would notice that they actually were able to execute a lot of very fine work with the equipment they had back then.
I would not say modern day technology is the main reason why cues are better. I persoanlly think it is mostly because in the old days people just did not pay attention to a lot of things that are very important to cue makers and cue collectors today. Cue buyers did not expect them so cue makers did not try to perfect them
For example, a lot of old cues did not have shaft chevrons lined up with the top ebony splice. May be at a time it was not required but nowadays it is pretty much the norm. Not only that, customers also require all kind of even chevrons and how the back chevrons should look and such when they order a cue today, which push cue makers to pay closer attention to such details.
Lots of old cues did not have even splices, but today when you oder a top notch cue you expect the splices to be even not only on the top but also the bottom. As customers become more decerning and knowledgable, cue makers need to become more skillful with their execution, the par of cue making is therfore raised. Cue makers now strive to make all the splices even top and bottom, which was not as big a deal in the old days when old cues were made.
In the old days, I did not believe they were lacking fine abrasives. A lot of fine antique furniture I saw were very nicely polished and look even better than the ones we see today. But no one can agrue that the cues today are in general featuring much better finish than the old cues. I would say this is because of the attention to details that the cue makers are paying to their work as a result of consumers who have grown to be more knowledgable and decerning. As more cue makers are paying such atention to details, others realize they also need to do the same in order to stay with the competition.
Consumers are demanding a smooth finish so cue makers strive to take more time and spend more efforts to polish and finish their cues to a mirror like finish. In the good old days, a few coats of raw linseed were good enough but not anymore. Because of the vast amount of top notch cues a cue maker now needs to pay close attention to every details in order to stand out.
I can go on and on but the bottom line is when we have a few top notch cue makers who have raised the par, the rest will strive to follow. As consumers notice and learn to appreciaet the finer quality they will demand a higher standards and this chain reaction is keeping the standard of modern day cues higher than ever.

[old school]

Airin, I am a great admirer of your work and I know what attention to detail you put in each and every cue,but I was asking a question relating to old vs new and whether or not technology improvements have contributed to an increase in the quality of " modern cues".Specifically if a modern cue maker could replicate his or her work using tools and technology from say a pre-war era i.e prior to 1939.Modern lathes and modern abrasives as well as better tool steel must have some contributory factor ( I doubt that 2000 grit wet and dry even existed then) .It stands to reason that as technology improves so does quality.That does not at all take anything away from the undoubted skill and expertise people such as yourself bring to the art of cuemaking.I am well aware of the intricate work of historical furniture makers but if you are comparing like for like I would have used French marquetry cues as an example,also there have been professional players using older cues,most notably Shaun Murphy with an old Tom Newman 1370,he became world champion with it.I will concede that as ADR says old,quality cues are hard to find,hence the rarity of pro players using older cues.The convenience and availability of modern cues as opposed to quality "older" cues must also be taken into account from a professional players point of view. Apologies to Mike F for taking the thread off course.

[poolqjunkie]

Airin, I am a great admirer of your work and I know what attention to detail you put in each and every cue,but I was asking a question relating to old vs new and whether or not technology improvements have contributed to an increase in the quality of " modern cues".Specifically if a modern cue maker could replicate his or her work using tools and technology from say a pre-war era i.e prior to 1939.Modern lathes and modern abrasives as well as better tool steel must have some contributory factor ( I doubt that 2000 grit wet and dry even existed then) .It stands to reason that as technology improves so does quality.That does not at all take anything away from the undoubted skill and expertise people such as yourself bring to the art of cuemaking.I am well aware of the intricate work of historical furniture makers but if you are comparing like for like I would have used French marquetry cues as an example,also there have been professional players using older cues,most notably Shaun Murphy with an old Tom Newman 1370,he became world champion with it.I will concede that as ADR says old,quality cues are hard to find,hence the rarity of pro players using older cues.The convenience and availability of modern cues as opposed to quality "older" cues must also be taken into account from a professional players point of view. Apologies to Mike F for taking the thread off course.

I agree with you that in the old days they probably did not have the kind of polishing compound, fine sandpaper for wet/dry sanding and such. Even the hand planes in the old days probably were very simple and primitive. I agree they may not have the kind of technology to make steel as sharp as they are today, and the planes as we have them today come in many different angles and are very well made which no doubt allow us to make our cues with higher precision.
To be able to cut out ebony splices with power saw is no doubt easier than doing it with a hand saw.
I actually do not disagree with you but I just wanted to express the point of view that the main reason, as I see it, why our modern day snooker cues are so much better made overall is largely due to a higher standards of craftsmanship and more knowledge as a result of a high demand for such high standard in the market place. I feel that as customers are becoming more educated cue makers have to improve their crafts in order to stay on top. As you have more cue makers who are really outstanding it pushes the envelope. This few "top cuemakers" would become the target for the new cue makers as they aim to build their cues to the same or even better standards.
For example, I doubt customer would demand even splices (top and bottom) in the olden days. The overall expectations of what consitute a good cue were much more simple. A "good" cue back in those days was of a lower standard than a "good" cue today as the par has been set much higher in our modern era.
I do not know what kind of tool they used in the pre-war age. I am sure we use better tools these days and that certainly have made our job easier. I do not disagree with you on this point at all. I guess perhaps what I wanted to say was that it was not only in the tools, but the skills, knowledge and experience that the top modern day cue makers have acquired which have allowed them to make cues to the standard displayed today.
If you go back in time and give a good cue maker from the pre-war era all the tools in the modern world without showing him what a modern cue is like, I do not believe he can make an "old" cue to the standards of the top notch cue today. If you spend a lot of time to teach him what we consider as a good cue and show him the top notch cues from our era then may be in time he can master it. But without any help, by only providing him with a set of modern tool, he will have no chance to make a cue that can match the standard of a Mike Wooldridge cue.
To answer your question, I am confident if you bring Mike Wooldridge or Trevor Whote back in time to 1939 and give them only the tools that were used by the early cue makers in those days, their cues would still be better made than the cues made by the cue makers from that era. They simply have more knowledge and more skill than the early cue makers regardless of the tools presented to them. May be their cues would not be as good as the cues they make with modern day tools but they will be better than those made by the early cue makers in 1939 with the same set of tools.
I believe Shaun Murphy's cue is a Newman that has been altered in terms of spec to suit the modern game. Can anyone verify that please?

[jim evans]

just thought ide stick my bit in out of the 130 old cues i have i would hazard a guess that prob about 10 could be used as a playing cue today, my first and second edition mascots,my tom newman,a couple of joe davis and my blackpool black arrows just a few of top of my head

[ADR147]

Airin, I am a great admirer of your work and I know what attention to detail you put in each and every cue,but I was asking a question relating to old vs new and whether or not technology improvements have contributed to an increase in the quality of " modern cues".Specifically if a modern cue maker could replicate his or her work using tools and technology from say a pre-war era i.e prior to 1939.Modern lathes and modern abrasives as well as better tool steel must have some contributory factor ( I doubt that 2000 grit wet and dry even existed then) .It stands to reason that as technology improves so does quality.That does not at all take anything away from the undoubted skill and expertise people such as yourself bring to the art of cuemaking.I am well aware of the intricate work of historical furniture makers but if you are comparing like for like I would have used French marquetry cues as an example,also there have been professional players using older cues,most notably Shaun Murphy with an old Tom Newman 1370,he became world champion with it.I will concede that as ADR says old,quality cues are hard to find,hence the rarity of pro players using older cues.The convenience and availability of modern cues as opposed to quality "older" cues must also be taken into account from a professional players point of view. Apologies to Mike F for taking the thread off course.

yes murphy uses and old cue as does steve davis but both cues have been heavily worked on by modern cue makers.

[ADR147]

i should point out that i am a huge fan of older cues i am just saying its a safer bet to buy a modern cue to play with, that said some older cues are more likely to be more usable than others. for example cannon match cues tend to be very good players and eureka's tend to be like fly fishing rods!

[old school]

PQJ ( Airin) the cue makers I mentioned earlier all make quality cues,no doubt,but I have another question relating to economies of scale.Is it also possible that time is a contributing factor if you are considering outright quality.e.g. a cuemaker in B&Ws or Thurstons or Rileys old workshop ( line production,if you like) has to make x quantity cues in x quantity time-result= not so much attention to detail.Cuemakers such as Mike,TW,Robin,Coutts,yourself etc are free,within reason ,to set your own timescale as you are individual craftsmen working on small numbers of cues at a time.As long as you keep the customer happy and the time /delivery schedule reasonable ,then you are free to set your own quality control ( albeit to a high standard).I know that you and like minded cue makers set amazingly high standards and would never let a cue leave the workshop of a "lower than expected quality" ( except sin bins,but they are still brilliant,MW).A modern comparison would be say comparing mass produced cues of whatever origin,Far East or otherwise, to individual craftsmen such as yourself.One is high volume,perhaps highly automated (with the benefit of modern technology) and the other is low volume, high quality ,individual cues where you are free to set your own standard.It stands to reason that low volume done right will be of a higher quality,but then it should be as there are no constraints on timescales,no shareholders to satisfy,no sales targets to meet,etc,etc.Shauns Newman was altered by Rodney Hinde ( I think ),Steve Davis s has been altered by JP.I dont think that the shaft on Shauns cue was altered much,if at all,so I tend to consider it as an "older" cue.Quality old cues as players and aesthetically, do exist they are just rarer and harder to find.

[poolqjunkie]

PQJ ( Airin) the cue makers I mentioned earlier all make quality cues,no doubt,but I have another question relating to economies of scale.Is it also possible that time is a contributing factor if you are considering outright quality.e.g. a cuemaker in B&Ws or Thurstons or Rileys old workshop ( line production,if you like) has to make x quantity cues in x quantity time-result= not so much attention to detail.Cuemakers such as Mike,TW,Robin,Coutts,yourself etc are free,within reason ,to set your own timescale as you are individual craftsmen working on small numbers of cues at a time.As long as you keep the customer happy and the time /delivery schedule reasonable ,then you are free to set your own quality control ( albeit to a high standard).I know that you and like minded cue makers set amazingly high standards and would never let a cue leave the workshop of a "lower than expected quality" ( except sin bins,but they are still brilliant,MW).A modern comparison would be say comparing mass produced cues of whatever origin,Far East or otherwise, to individual craftsmen such as yourself.One is high volume,perhaps highly automated (with the benefit of modern technology) and the other is low volume, high quality ,individual cues where you are free to set your own standard.It stands to reason that low volume done right will be of a higher quality,but then it should be as there are no constraints on timescales,no shareholders to satisfy,no sales targets to meet,etc,etc.Shauns Newman was altered by Rodney Hinde ( I think ),Steve Davis s has been altered by JP.I dont think that the shaft on Shauns cue was altered much,if at all,so I tend to consider it as an "older" cue.Quality old cues as players and aesthetically, do exist they are just rarer and harder to find.

Yes, that is a very good point. Thanks for bringing this up.
I totally agree with you.
As they were made with a more tight time constrain without the luxury to select the best material they could put their hands on(as it was a line production operation and the cost had to be set at a certain level), the quality in terms of wood selection and attention to details should not be expected to be as high as the custom cue we see today.
Also, as there were more than one cue maker working on cues in B&W, EJ Riley, Thurston, and so on, back in the days, as their skills and experience varied, the quality also varied depending on who did what, which brings us to the issue of consistency.
I also want to say I love old cues and I am a big fan of the older classical designs. I think early cues are a true beauty, a piece of history, and a very fine collectible item.
I just do not consider them, in terms of craftsmanship, on par with the top cues we have on the market today.
Perhaps it is not fair to compare the two as the early cues were made, as you said, on a production line, without given the luxury of the best material and all the time they needed to pay attention to details, employing much more simple and inferior tools, as the custom cues made today.
This makes owning a very nice early cue that much more precious as they were quite rare, doesn't it?
Thank you for your valuable input. Appreciate it.
Cheers.:-)