General Cue Description-
This cue design is named the Pinnacle and was introduced at the Gallery of American Cue art held in New York City around 1999. This design has become one of McMorter’s most famous creations. The serial number on the but sleeve is 1499 which mean this particular cue was probably made in 2004-2005. The cue features Ebony with Amboyna Burl inlays and a subtle Ivory inlay as well. Fine line silver work, which McWorter is known for, adorns both the forearm and the butt of the cue. McWorter’s designs are unique and often play with the balance of positive and negative space. In this design, the inlay pattern in the forearm creates stylized “points.” In the butt section, the inlays create the look of “windows,” which are typically inlaid.
Here’s what the experts think- they are limited to 500 characters!
 |
Dick AbbottThe ‘Pinnacle’ is a beautiful cue and the design flows nicely. The combination of amboynia burl and ebony, accented with silver and ivory, work well together and enhances its eye appeal. This is a cue I would love to own and I’m sure Mr. McWorter is very proud of but it is not quite a monster. |
|
|
Fred AgnirAs always, Jerry McWorter comes with a non-traditional look with elegance, balance, and flawless execution. McWorter has to be considered one of the greatest cuemakers of his era. However, due to his own brilliance, Jerry’s standard cue output today is very much like this Pinnacle Cue. For a Jerry McWorter cue to be monster, it has to be something beyond what he puts out on a regular basis, in my opinion. |
|
|
Deno AndrewsI have always been a fan of Jerry’s work. His designs are fashionable and unique. This cue is a spectacular example of expert use of positive and negative elements such as color, shapes, and layout. The inlay work is spectacular and leads the eyes around the cue wonderfully. I have always thought of McWorter as the “Versace” of cue makers. This cue is beautiful but not quite a monster in my opinion. |
|
|
JimBoThis cue’s use of negative space and new age style are unique and breathtaking in this day and age of cookie cutter knockoffs labeled as “Tribute”. It’s great to see a cuemaker have the guts to create his own style and stick with it. Jerry’s designs are easily identified from across any room. I can see TW’s influence in a lot of what he does. The execution of this cue is also top notch, the lines are smooth and the sharp parts are sharp. IMO it needs to be a one of a kind, No Monster. |
|
|
Jim StadumIMO the Pinnacle design was the beginning of a trademark style that set the course for a look that make Jerry’s cues identifiable. Beautiful choice of materials, perfect design flow, and not too busy. This cue is not only easy on the eyes I do believe it is good for them. I am going to go with “Mini Monster” on the design, not because of the amount of work but because of the simplicity…..He nailed it. |
Nice cue with a new old design that with new technology is made a little more simple. The thin lines of silver are a sure sign of the time spent on this and evey McWorter cue. It is no monster but is truly a wondeful cue to have in a collection.
I love Amboyna Burl, probably my 2nd favorite wood next to Ebony but Im not a big fan of diamond patterns in any cue. I wouldnt add it to my brood but its definatly beautiful, not a monster.
I really like Jerry’s work, and for the most part I like his designs. But I’m not a big fan of the “Catalog Cue” or “cue model” thing. For this reason I would have a hard time calling one of Jerry’s cues a monster.
I agree with Jaime. Jerry does some amazing ‘outside the box’ designs. And like Steve, I’m a HUGE fan of anything amboyna. Its my favorite wood for its color and figure. This design takes the traditional point and puts a unique twist on it to create something never seen before by any other maker… but seen by Jerry MANY times over. If it were the only cue of it’s kind, I’d say MONSTER. But since its just a standard McWorter design, its just a really pretty cue… ie ~ NO MONSTER.
monster design . . . YES!
monster cue . . . . . . . . . . .
As someone who spends a lot of time on design I call this cue a monster. Everything flows so beautifully on this cue that I want to believe that Jerry spent a lot of time refining it. While this particular combination of materials is stunning I can see that it can be equally stunning in any number of combinations.
Steven Covey says, ‘everything in the world is created twice, first in the mind and then in reality.’
Designs like these flow from creative minds and the ability to dream them and execute them are truly what separates a monster cue maker from the mere mortals. This is not the sort of design that cue makers with less experience can dream up and then bring into reality.
100% a Monster to me.
i’m going against the trend here and calling this cue a monster, its not a monster for the reasons our esteemed panal of experts pointed out. So the burdon of why it is a monster is now upon my shoulders.
I love this site….
Its a monster not because of design but the execution of the build, look at how perfect the colors, spaces, dimensions, etc of the cue flow. From a distance. Up close it dosent appear to me as much of a monster but from a distance or a pic online it looks great the tones of the colors. not too much of anything. balance of color too.
off to see the wizard, see ya next week!
eric
Is McWorter’s “Pinnacle” a monster? That depends entirely how you think a monster should be defined. After all, some on this website have opined that a cue is automatically NOT a monster if it’s not “one-of-a-kind” – but we’ve been also told [by at least one commenter] that ANY Szamboti cue is automatically a monster (even though Gus built very few “one-of-a-kind” cues.
In my opinion both positions exhibit flawed logic.
Consider, for the moment, that the cue submitted is the very first McWorter “Pinnacle” ever built. NOW is it a monster? Suppose we had a Burton-Spain-pointed Balabushka to discuss, and we knew absolutely that it was the very first one he ever made. Without a doubt many here would consider THAT a monster – even though George went on to make dozens (if not hundreds) just like it. Getting away from cues entirely, what about a Lamborghini Diablo Roadster VT? Without question a monster by the standards of auto collectors around the globe – yet the production numbers for that piece of functional art run over one thousand. The greatest books written are published by the hundreds of thousands of copies, and the most popular music albums run into the millions. Surely the number of times a design is replicated cannot, in and of itself, disqualify a piece of art from monster status.
On the other hand, the “Gold Balabushka” is the only example of that maker’s work I would consider a monster, and I have yet to see the Szamboti that meets that criterion (personally speaking, of course).
Jerry is one my closest friends, and we have few secrets between us – so I know for a fact that this cue has proven an extremely popular design for him. It’s been featured in almost every book, calendar or Billiard magazine at one time or another for the last 10 years – that is to say, if there is an article written about high-end pool cues and a McWorter cue is pictured within that article then that cue will be a “Pinnacle”. It’s a relatively expensive cue, yet to my knowledge Jerry has built and sold – to date – about 3 DOZEN of them (!) Surely the sheer popularity of such a design MUST be given some consideration when discussing monsterdom. In fact, considering the relative percentages, if this were a high-end car it would be considered a cornerstone model; if it were music it would definitely be regarded as “platinum”.
And, perhaps most importantly, it’s a hell of a design. It’s well balanced, employs design elements that were definitely unique in its day (late 90’s), and its… well, for lack of a better word… sexy.
I’d have to argue that those factors combined – first of its kind, extremely popular worldwide, and sexy – should define a MONSTER, or else I guess I don’t know what does. I will say this though: if “every Szamboti is a monster” then THIS cue (which Gus Szamboti couldn’t have built, even to save his soul) definitely qualifies.
Having said all that, I come to one last point. If I were asked to choose one of McWorter’s cues for consideration of monster status it wouldn’t have been this one. My choices would have been either the “Victorian” ( http://www.mcwortercues.com/pool_cues/1444_the-victorian.html ) or the “Venetian” ( http://www.mcwortercues.com/pool_cues/1605_the-venitian.html ). But that’s just me.
Thomas Wayne
I would like to say that I really love the concept of cuezilla.com. I think this opens up important dialog between cuemakers, players, collectors and dealers. This helps give cuemakers an idea of what players and collectors like and want, therefore influencing what they will build. It also has the potential of giving the players and collectors a perspective of why some cuemakers build what they do. The great thing about cuezilla is there is no wrong answer, only opinion. I would like to give some insight on how I determine if a cue is a Monster or not, but first, I would like to say that IMO there are three things that make a great cuemaker:
1 – He makes great playing cues.
2 – He’s not afraid to make cues HE likes.
3 – He makes cues that are appealing to the eye, creative in design, and all in all good looking cues. (although all great cuemakers are guilty of making at least one dog in their career)
I don’t agree with the notion that a cue needs to be a one of a kind cue to be a Monster. What is a one of a kind anyway? If a cuemaker makes the same design 10 times out of totally different materials are they all one of a kind? I think there can be Monster designs as well as Monster cues. For example, our Swirl design has been a Monster design for us over the years but there are only a very small number of that design that I would consider as a Monster cue. Take the same design mixed with odd looking woods and the cue suddenly loses its “monster’ appeal. Monster design – not a monster cue at that point. Cuemakers that do this full time for a living simply can not afford to come up with a killer design and only build it one time. Sometimes it seems that we are in the only industry where we are expected to make only one of a kind product. In many other Industries 1000 of a particular item is considered rare.
I don’t think that every cue that a Legendary cuemaker made is automatically a Monster. They should also be considered on a cue by cue basis. To me, because a particular cuemaker is deceased, and he did not build very many cues in his career does not make everything he did build a Monster. It does make them rare and collectable as well as valuable. It does not seem right that a living cuemaker who creates a killer design and repeats it 20 times is not deserving of having any of those cues qualify as a Monster because: “He made too many of that design”. If that same cuemaker is suddenly struck by a bus and killed the story would just as suddenly change to: “He only made 20 of that design, and they are all Monsters”.
I am only a bad pool player and collector of some cues, but i had the big luck to get my hands on one of the “pinnacles” in the past. When i looked at it the first time, i couldn´t put it away for more then two hours. My eyes and brain were going crazy and i fall in love with that cue from that point on. I would never resell it again, because i think it´s on the most “monsterous” designs i ever owned and ever hold in my hand. The flow of the wood and the colours used in that cue are awesome, and the silver work is flaweless, and in my eyes it´s at least a “mini” monster, too.
I have seen very few of Jerry’s “non-traditional” designs that I would not consider to be Monster designs. And, this one is sure near or at the top of the heap.
My primary subjective criteria for “Monsterness” is “If I owned the cue, do I feel that every time I pulled the cue out of the case I would be stunned/pleased/satisfied all over again?” Obviously, this can involve several factors; design/execution, provenance, uniqueness/rarity, or timing.
I would smile every time I pulled out this cue to hit balls. Every time.
Scott
I for one “don’t” think that a cue has to be one of a kind to be a monster. There are many old “catalog” Schon, Joss, and Meucci cues (yes…Meucci cues) that are “monsters” by my definition of the word. The old Schon SL 24, an old Joss J18, or Meucci “Crown Jewels”. All monsters.
This cue is incredibly well designed. Jerry’s cues play great! I love the woods and materials used..oh yeah – DEFINITELY a monster to yours truly.
I have to agree with most here in the criteria of a “MONSTER” cue in the fact that this should not be judged on a “one of a kind” basis. I think that Samsara and TW really hit the nail on the head in saying that these “MONSTERS” should be judged on a design to design basis. NOT on how few or how many of that particular design they rolled out. That being said, I do not feel this cue from Jerry is fitting of MONSTER status. I agree with TW here in saying that if any of Jerry’s are worthy, it would be the “Venetian”. Jerry has a flawless concept here in this design from top to bottom. It oozes sexuality in the lines created and the beautiful materials used. It has a factor of elegance about it that reminds me of a lot of art designs of the early 1920′s and 30′s. I think Jerry captured the look and feel that he was striving for in this cue very well. Beautiful piece of work!