Cue Balancing Points

[Darren Clark]

I'm currently speaking to Stamford cues to get a new cue made up by them.

The spec on my current cue is:

58"
18.25oz
9.5mm
Balance point 17.5"

Seems that they feel they couldn't achieve that balance point - "a standard balance point for a 58” cue is around 16” so this is still slightly further forward. We consider 17” high."

Most 58" cues i've seen are balanced between 17-18.5".

Are Stamford cues generally balance a bit further down?

[Darren Clark]

My cue is a 3/4, where as the new one is going to be a 1 piece. Not sure if that makes any difference?

[ghost121]

Sounds a bit 'old school' thought to me, Parris is the same. Personally, I find a balance point of 17 inches feels very neutral, although it does depend on factors like where you hold the butt and what sort of stroke you have. And it does make a hell of a difference. Maybe 17.5 is a tad high, but I think 16 inches is a tad low.

[ghost121]

It's also generally easier to balance a 3/4 cue, so when building a one piece, Stamford may have a point regarding the 'natural' balance. Still, it would need weighting anyway.

[Darren Clark]

Yeah that's what I thought, don't think i've ever really seen a cue spec with a balance of 16".

(I hold the cue pretty much right at the end of the butt).

[cueman]

Never heard of such tripe. Basically they don't want to put the work in to drill further down the butt to put the weight in to get the balance where you requested. In all honesty if I was told this by a cue maker I would take my money and custom elsewhere. I bet they wouldn't tell Ding or Selby that!

[Darren Clark]

Never heard of such tripe. Basically they don't want to put the work in to drill further down the butt to put the weight in to get the balance where you requested. In all honesty if I was told this by a cue maker I would take my money and custom elsewhere. I bet they wouldn't tell Ding or Selby that!

Yeah, maybe you are right!

"Taking the weight into account and and ash shaft we would be doing well to get a 16.5” balance point"

[billabong]

Sounds a bit 'old school' thought to me, Parris is the same. Personally, I find a balance point of 17 inches feels very neutral, although it does depend on factors like where you hold the butt and what sort of stroke you have. And it does make a hell of a difference. Maybe 17.5 is a tad high, but I think 16 inches is a tad low.

I find it depends on each individual cue, where the balance point feels right.

Played with one where 16" felt just nice, whereas others with the same overall dimensions and weight, felt ok with a balance point at 17".

Who knows, if I try enough of them, another one at 18" might feel perfect too . . . for that bit of wood.

[j6uk]

its all about the wood

[samcc]

Dose it related to the density of the front shaft? e.g. higher density (heavier) of the shaft might works well with a lower (more near to butt) balance point i guess....?? Just my two cents.

[bigandyg]

Made hundreds of cues from snooker professionals to the club pool player and not a single one of them asked about the balance point, just goes to show how things change and how much more difficult it is these days for cue makers.

[Shockerz]

Made hundreds of cues from snooker professionals to the club pool player and not a single one of them asked about the balance point, just goes to show how things change and how much more difficult it is these days for cue makers.

I played for over 20 odd years the first time and the only mention of balance point was when I'd drunk too much. No one mentioned it around me as far as I knew.

Obviously I now more now about cues but I agree, the wish list for guys wanting a cue must be quite taxing for cue makers as everyone wants their pound of flesh.

It certainly doesn't look like an easy way to make a living.

[jim evans]

If you cut the shaft about 10 ins up before splicing get the cue weight up to about 15 oz,reconnect the butt part and splice as normal,, chance of getting it then.