review of "Andy Travis"

[old school]

Some "invisible joints" are not wood to wood ,they are black to match the ebony of the cue butt.This is the type I think Andy uses (why not ask,he is a forum member).PQJ tried this type of joint as well,experimentally,I believe.MW "invisible joints" are not technically wood to wood either,but are near invisible (good joint I have to say).I have a cue that is a proper wood to wood joint i.e. the joint faces are bare wood ,although the pin is brass,the female socket is inside theshaft.There is no sign of wear yet.Also check out some Aeons and Rileys (probably same joint,knowing what we do of Aeon) they are wood to wood and the ones I am thinking of are plus 25yrs old and still the joints are sound.Hope this puts your mind at ease.

[poolqjunkie]

My invisible joint is installed with the insert and pin recessed into the wood, with bare wood surrounding the pin and insert making full contact.
I believe Mike's joint is done that way as well. Yes, beautiful joint that is.
You can also just put a black joint collar on top of the wood and then insert a joint pin into the collar. A black collar, rather than brass, is placed at the joint to give it the impression that the joint is invisible. The joint face is actually not bare wood, but black plastic or phenolic.
It is not the same joint in terms of construction, but it also give the impression that the joint is invisible and I believe the black plastic collar will most likely give the cue a more quiet hit.
It depends on a lot of things whether the joint will wear off. I would say a lot of it is how the joint is constructed, and how it is handled, rather than whether it is invisible or not.
I have not had one invisible joint that has gone off line so far but may be I am just lucky.:-)
Invisible joint is much harder to install if you are doing it with the joint pin and insert recessed into the wood offering true wood to wood contact at the edge.

[damienlch]

Upon closer scrutiny, yes I can just about see the joint collar.

Although I know nuts about cue making, I can imagine the difficulty, probably in getting alignment of the joints correct when installing wood to wood joints.

Thanks for the info guys, much appreciated!!

[MikeWooldridge]

MW "invisible joints" are not technically wood to wood either,but are near invisible (good joint I have to say).I have a cue that is a proper wood to wood joint i.e. the joint faces are bare wood ,although the pin is brass,the female socket is inside theshaft.

My join is wood to wood on the outer part and brass to brass on the inner, sort of half wood to wood, half metal to metal.

The metal to metal part is there to help minimise any wear over the years, the wood contact gives the cue a better feel.

I consider them to be more of a wood to wood join than a basic metal to metal join, not least cos it feels like wood to wood when you do it up, and certainly feels and plays like it.

So, it may not be 100% wood to wood but it is definitely technically wood to wood, if only in part.

That was the whole point when I designed it and why, IMO, and an increasing number of end users, it is superior to basic metal to metal joins.

I should mention here that I am talking specifically about my AirTwist join which was designed from the ground up with this in mind. The original AirLock metamorphosised into the 'secret' or 'invisible' AirLock as I experimented with the concept in the early days.

My invisible joint is installed with the insert and pin recessed into the wood, with bare wood surrounding the pin and insert making full contact.
I believe Mike's joint is done that way as well.

Lol. Believe? Of course you believe. You copied me!

In all my years I've never seen a recessed 'faced' join. Different thickness joins yes, but not a fully recessed 'proper' join that is set in such a way as to ensure a healthy dose of wood to wood contact.

So, as far as i'm concerned, I invented it.

I also consider it a compliment that you did your homework and decided to 'borrow' the style. Good business sense my friend. You'll go far...

Lot harder to fit than normal joins though eh? I sometimes wish I stuck with ordinary joins, soooo much easier to fit.

P.s. Did you see that I called Will Hunt to find out for you?

[Deepscrew]

Whats your thoughts on the Bob Akers joint, Mike? The brass to perspex one.

[poolqjunkie]

Flat face wood to wood joint has been used for years in the US pool world. When I first joined this forum I asked (and that was before any one lauched any invisible joint) why a wood to wood flat faced joint was not used in snooker. I think people generally considered me nuts back then. It was more like 'if something was not broken why fix it". I have been wondering why not use a wood to wood joint ever since. I have tried many ways to do it but was not happy. It took me a while to figure out how to install it properly.
I have seen some Thai cues and Chinese cues with a certain flat face invisible joint before. One of the Stamford joints is a kind of invisible joint if you remove the brass collar.
Actually, most SD joint connection in most snooker cues is an invisible joint in principle.
Being in Canada, seeing a lot of Brunswick old snooker cues growing up, wood to wood joint is not a new concept for most Canadian cue makers. I personally think a flat face connection is better than the piloted fit used by Tom Gauthier and Kevin Deroo but that is just my own opinion.Tom Gauthier started using a light brown coloured collar with a wood to wood connection which is a kind of invisible joint more than 10 years ago.
In US pool cues, it is very common to see 3/8x10, 3/8x11, radial pin, and other types of flat face wood to wood joint being used. But usually the female insert is also wood or phenolic. Without any collar this will be called an invisible joint.
Adam also had made a wood pin with a wood female with a flat face joint, which was total wood to wood. If they had removed the plastic collar it would have been an invisble wood to wood joint in its true sense.
A lot of US pool cues use what we called a sneaky pete joint, which is usually a flat face wood to wood joint with a brass pin and a brass insert, no joint collar. It is called sneaky pete because when the cue is jointed you cannot see the joint (invisible joint) so the owner can fool his opponent into thinking he was only using a house cue. This, in principle, is the same as the invisible joint used today in snooker cues. The major difference is in how the pin and insert are constructed.
I like Mike's joint, especially how he installed the extension socket which I think is really beautiful.
My joint pin is completley different from others. Mine only has three threads arranged in a conical profile on top of a vacuum rod which has no thread at all protruding at the end. The rod helps to allign the pin and it offers a large contact surface at the joint connection without running the risk of having threads which may wear off over time. My joint is a vacuum joint which can be used even without the top three threads being tightened. It will not give out any funny rattle even if you just insert the pin into the insert without tightening it up and start hitting balls. It is very precisely machined that the two parts are literally touching and hence will not rattle--even without the threads to hold them together. The threads are there just to make sure the shaft will not fall off when you hold the cue upside down. Most pins are worn off because the owner did not put the pin into the insert straight. Due to the rod I have, the joint pin will always go in straight so that greatly reduces the chance of even wearing of the pin over time.
I have seen and tried cues made with all sorts of joints that play really well. I am just looking at this from a mechanical point of view, and my concerns is more regarding durability and how effective vibration is transferred through a joint.
I am in no way saying one joint is better than the other as it takes many different components to make a good cues so a joint is not the "end all" factor, and I have seen many good cues with many different kinds of joints. As a cue maker I can only do my best to make every component the best I can, to the best of my knowledge and ability.
.

[jrc750]

Airin can you please put up a close up pic of your joint

[DWOT]

Airin can you please put up a close up pic of your joint

Cue a photo of Cheech and Chong!

[MikeWooldridge]

Whats your thoughts on the Bob Akers joint, Mike? The brass to perspex one.

i don't know that one, but i travelled to leeds and bob fitted his original camlock join in the second cue i made. it had two nylon collars.

the camlock was great but the collars were a bit iffy.

[jrc750]

i don't know that one........

One of these things Mike

[MikeWooldridge]

Flat face wood to wood joint has been used for years in the US pool world. When I first joined this forum I asked (and that was before any one lauched any invisible joint) why a wood to wood flat faced joint was not used in snooker. I think people generally considered me nuts back then. It was more like 'if something was not broken why fix it". I have been wondering why not use a wood to wood joint ever since. I have tried many ways to do it but was not happy. It took me a while to figure out how to install it properly.
I have seen some Thai cues and Chinese cues with a certain flat face invisible joint before. One of the Stamford joints is a kind of invisible joint if you remove the brass collar.
Actually, most SD joint connection in most snooker cues is an invisible joint in principle.
Being in Canada, seeing a lot of Brunswick old snooker cues growing up, wood to wood joint is not a new concept for most Canadian cue makers. I personally think a flat face connection is better than the piloted fit used by Tom Gauthier and Kevin Deroo but that is just my own opinion.Tom Gauthier started using a light brown coloured collar with a wood to wood connection which is a kind of invisible joint more than 10 years ago.
In US pool cues, it is very common to see 3/8x10, 3/8x11, radial pin, and other types of flat face wood to wood joint being used. But usually the female insert is also wood or phenolic. Without any collar this will be called an invisible joint.
Adam also had made a wood pin with a wood female with a flat face joint, which was total wood to wood. If they had removed the plastic collar it would have been an invisble wood to wood joint in its true sense.
A lot of US pool cues use what we called a sneaky pete joint, which is usually a flat face wood to wood joint with a brass pin and a brass insert, no joint collar. It is called sneaky pete because when the cue is jointed you cannot see the joint (invisible joint) so the owner can fool his opponent into thinking he was only using a house cue. This, in principle, is the same as the invisible joint used today in snooker cues. The major difference is in how the pin and insert are constructed.
I like Mike's joint, especially how he installed the extension socket which I think is really beautiful.
My joint pin is completley different from others. Mine only has three threads arranged in a conical profile on top of a vacuum rod which has no thread at all protruding at the end. The rod helps to allign the pin and it offers a large contact surface at the joint connection without running the risk of having threads which may wear off over time. My joint is a vacuum joint which can be used even without the top three threads being tightened. It will not give out any funny rattle even if you just insert the pin into the insert without tightening it up and start hitting balls. It is very precisely machined that the two parts are literally touching and hence will not rattle--even without the threads to hold them together. The threads are there just to make sure the shaft will not fall off when you hold the cue upside down. Most pins are worn off because the owner did not put the pin into the insert straight. Due to the rod I have, the joint pin will always go in straight so that greatly reduces the chance of even wearing of the pin over time.
I have seen and tried cues made with all sorts of joints that play really well. I am just looking at this from a mechanical point of view, and my concerns is more regarding durability and how effective vibration is transferred through a joint.
I am in no way saying one joint is better than the other as it takes many different components to make a good cues so a joint is not the "end all" factor, and I have seen many good cues with many different kinds of joints. As a cue maker I can only do my best to make every component the best I can, to the best of my knowledge and ability.
.

lol.

what about will hunt?

[poolqjunkie]

What is a camlock? :-)
I always want to know what that white joint really looks like on Jimmy White's early cue, anyone has a picture?
Mike, thanks for that Will Hunt info, appreciate it. I will send you some pictures you asked for on facebook. It is nothing special really though. Thank you.:-)

[ADR147]

never been a fan of the bob ackers joint.

[jrc750]

never been a fan of the bob ackers joint.

Don't look pretty do they

[poolqjunkie]

A while ago I saw this cue which featured a spoirloc joint with black plastic rings, has to be over 10 years old this cue.
Still in line after all these years. Not problem with alignment whatsoever.
If another black joint collar was installed in the butt joint, with the brass pin in the butt recessed, this would have been a kind of invisible joint.
Aeon used to do something like this, is that right?