07-26-2004, 08:15 PM
So I received my Lucasi last Thursday and my Viking today in the mail. Boy was I excited. At first I thuoght the Lucasi was better looking going by the pictures, but boy was I wrong.... when the Viking came in today the beauty of the inlays and the way they reflect off lights is simply AMAZING and I actually prefer it's more "natural" unique look to the cookei-cutter Lucasi.
http://www.insidepool.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=7483&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
There's pics btw.
I tried both of them out for more than an hour just hitting balls, hard and soft. The Viking to my surprise feels like a toy compared to the Lucasi. The Viking's shaft in the first place seemed a little weaker and felt "rough" in a sense, while the Lucasi's was beautifully smooth and slick as can be. Lucasi wins hand down here, especially when I use a closed-grip--the way the Lucasi's shaft feel is just twice as good.
Now for the hit--the Lucasi's hit has a deep, solid, powerful sound, but surprisingly soft at the same time which I was surprised since the Uni-loc joint is supposed to deliver a hard hit, I thought. The hit of the Viking is a litttle more high-pitched, definitely a lot less solid, and felt rather flimsy compared to the Viking. It reminded me of the way cheap cues hit... :-/ Either way, if I am wrong about thiese speculations, and the Viking's hit is actually the preferred one, I think that personally I like the Lucasi's better (but do let me know what kind of hit is considered "good").
This is strange since I at first thought the Lucasi was much better looking but would be of lower quality in terms of feel, but what actually was the case was that the Viking looks much better in my eyes with stain and custom look of the pearl and rings by the joints (ohhhhhh mannnnnn) and plays a little worse i.m.o.
I am still however a n00b and these are the first two sticks I've tried besides my Cuetec split diamond and perhaps my views on these sticks are distorted. My attraction to the Lucasi however is not based on its looks beacuse now I rate them evenly in that department.
Can it be that the Lucasi LE-16 is one of the higest end Lucasi's so has much more detail put into it, despite being a Lucasi which has a reputation for being "cheap"? This Viking is a limited edition, and looks beautiful as well, but maybe not as much care was put into its construction because it was not mass-produced like the normal models? Maybe it was poorly constructed and thrown together?
http://www.insidepool.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=7483&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
There's pics btw.
I tried both of them out for more than an hour just hitting balls, hard and soft. The Viking to my surprise feels like a toy compared to the Lucasi. The Viking's shaft in the first place seemed a little weaker and felt "rough" in a sense, while the Lucasi's was beautifully smooth and slick as can be. Lucasi wins hand down here, especially when I use a closed-grip--the way the Lucasi's shaft feel is just twice as good.
Now for the hit--the Lucasi's hit has a deep, solid, powerful sound, but surprisingly soft at the same time which I was surprised since the Uni-loc joint is supposed to deliver a hard hit, I thought. The hit of the Viking is a litttle more high-pitched, definitely a lot less solid, and felt rather flimsy compared to the Viking. It reminded me of the way cheap cues hit... :-/ Either way, if I am wrong about thiese speculations, and the Viking's hit is actually the preferred one, I think that personally I like the Lucasi's better (but do let me know what kind of hit is considered "good").
This is strange since I at first thought the Lucasi was much better looking but would be of lower quality in terms of feel, but what actually was the case was that the Viking looks much better in my eyes with stain and custom look of the pearl and rings by the joints (ohhhhhh mannnnnn) and plays a little worse i.m.o.
I am still however a n00b and these are the first two sticks I've tried besides my Cuetec split diamond and perhaps my views on these sticks are distorted. My attraction to the Lucasi however is not based on its looks beacuse now I rate them evenly in that department.
Can it be that the Lucasi LE-16 is one of the higest end Lucasi's so has much more detail put into it, despite being a Lucasi which has a reputation for being "cheap"? This Viking is a limited edition, and looks beautiful as well, but maybe not as much care was put into its construction because it was not mass-produced like the normal models? Maybe it was poorly constructed and thrown together?