General Cue Description-
One of George Balabushka’s earliest works, this rosewood, full-spliced house cue conversion is a coveted collectible. The forearm is curly maple, which is a rare on cues from this period. Balabushka was known for using stainless-steel joints, so this brass joint example helps to determine its age and rarity. White and black joint collar rings flank the brass joint. A smooth black leather wrap finishes the handle area. Cue maker Pete Tascarella painstakingly restored the cue. Shafts have ivory ferrules and it is reported to be an excellent playing cue.
Here’s what the experts think-
 |
Dick AbbottThis circa 1959 (Balabushka’s first year of cuemaking) house cue conversion is an excellent example of the master’s earliest work. It’s a missing link of the transition from Rambow clunkers to cues utilizing the weight, balance and physical dimensions that we still enjoy today in fine playing instruments. Restored by Pete Tascarella, this cue would make a great addition to any ‘Bushka’ collector’s showcase, will continue to appreciate in value and begs to be a daily player for the discriminating person who loves to play with the classics. All things considered, the cue is on the cusp of monsterdom, close but no cigar. |
|
|
Fred AgnirThis is a fantastic cue, but I think it falls short of being considered a MONSTER. This is such a rare cue even for Balabushka collectors that it should get honored in its own place in the history of cues. The brass joint, a house cue conversion, curly maple, the use of ivory… all things George pretty much abandoned early in his career. This is a pretty special cue for the Balabushka lovers. However, given some of the other Balabushka cues out there, I don’t think this one is a monster. |
|
|
Deno AndrewsI appreciate Balabushka’s contribution to cue making and tend to like early examples. However, this cue has been restored, leaving much to the imagination with regard to the original construction technique, finish, wrap, and other key attributes important to historians and astute collectors. In fact, I consider it more of a Tascarella now. Although coveted by Balabushka collectors because of its age and uniqueness from other Balabushkas, it’s definitely not a monster in my book. |
|
|
JimBoI love all things Balabushka and believe that almost all cues made by George should be in the Monster range, but this cue is not a Monster. If the cue could be documented as Georges FIRST cue I’d vote yes, but the fact that it’s been refinished and it’s all around simplicity to me take it out of the running. I’d love to call the cue my own but for this one it’s a no. |
|
|
Jim StadumThis cue more than any of the others begs the question – What makes a cue a “Monster”? IMO we are talking about cues not cuemakers and this cue is not even close. Collectable? Yes. Rare? Yes. Made by the most famous and recognizable cuemaker of all time? Yes. “Monster”? Noooooo. |
CueZilla says-
CueZilla says that even the legendary Balabushka can make a mortal cue!
A lot of these Balabushka cues and even a lot of Szambotis were quite unbalanced in their elements. I understand that this was a different time and that fashions were different back then but to me a pool cue that is visually appealing must be coherent. For this reason alone I would never rate a cue that has such disparity in it’s look to be a monster cue. UNLESS that was it’s particular theme – then I would consider it.
I am sure it’s a MONSTER PLAYER. If that alone were the criteria then all Balabushkas are monsters.
As to it’s historical significance, well in that sense just about any surviving Balabushka is a monster simply because of what it is and the rarity of it.
everyone has already expressed my thoughts on this cue. good job guys!
Does Monster and Balabushka mean the same thing? I wish I could say YES, but alas, I haven’t played with a Balabushka and have only heard of its rare quality that ‘beams’ GREATNESS. Looks alone cannot be the only definition of MONSTER. If being a RARE Collectible isn’t a plausible definition of MONSTER what is? I vote MONSTER by reputation and collectibility. <—is that a word?
I own 8 Bushkas and all 8 play differnetly, a couple of them are horrible and 2 are just amazing the rest are very good. Point is until you play with it ya just dont know. There are monster Bushkas out there, this is a historical Bushka-even if it is the best playing cue he ever built its not in the monster class.
Monster by reputation? Maybe.
Monster by looks. Definitely not.
nice cue but no monster never heard of them being monster players some good but like eric said some bad but i have played with one and taking in to thought that the time in which it was made it plays awesome but back then they didnt know or have a quater of the high tech stuff we have george was way ahead of his time as was gus just think if he still was around what he could do and gus WOW! this cue would a monster if it had a ivory butt or if those ring at the joint were ivory becuase of how rare it would be.
I’ve been lucky enough to hit with two Balabushka cues in the past and both were “eh” in the hit department for me. Both were fat, butt heavy and somewhat muted in their feel. So, voting it as a monster based on the playability reputation of George’s work does not fit for me. Since the cue is plain, has no stated ownership provenance and has been refinished, I have to say:
Historical cue, yes. Collectible, undoubtedly. However, not a Monster for me.
Scott
Come on..most certainly not a monster. One might define this cue as George Balabushka’s “practice”.
I’ve run across (and bought) what appears to be an older balabushka Cue. It is all done in ivory with Chess pieces at the bottom. It has two shafts, one that was probably made custom as a Snooker shaft (longer). Is this a collector type cue? How many of these were made. I haven’t been able to find anything like it anywhere. Help. rw