Who Did What First?

Fast Lenny

Fast Lenny

Faster Than You...
Silver Member
I see so many designs out there today and many are imitated, duplicated and exact copies or tributes whatever you might call them. Who was the first to do the stitched ring work, Stroud with Joss West or Tad Kohara? Who was the first to do bar bell, notched diamond and propeller inlays? Are those SW tributes or copies in good taste? Is it okay to make a copy or a tribute of a deceased maker and not a living one? I know some of you are sensitive about the topic as collectors, does it hurt the value of your cue or does it just hurt your feelings that your cue is no longer unique if it ever was to begin with?

I personally do not see anything wrong with cue makers making tribute cues but some changes should be made. I got these two cues made and saw some people were not happy with JD cues because of it. I incorporated two styles of TAD cues, the forearm from one and the butt of another but left out the stitched ring work so I could just screw on an LD shaft if I like and wanted leather instead of linen. On the other cue which is a tribute if you want to call it of a Mottey, I wanted the cue wrap less which IMO looks better than the original. If I could have it done over I would have changed the inlays and ring work diamonds to notched diamonds which would look better I think but would it still be hated on?

I know I might get some hate mail and bashing for posting the cues but here they are. How much do you really need to change a cue so its not considered a copy?, just change the ring work, veneer color, or inlay material? Sometimes I see a forearm inlay pattern I like and a butt inlay pattern and want them in one cue like I had done with the TAD. I do not see many cues that are posted on here that can be called truly 100% original to be honest as most have done it before but do appreciate originality. Just interested in peoples opinions on this, do not worry I am thick skinned. :smile:

lennycue1-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
It not about notched diamonds, stitched rings, 4 pt, 4 veneer cues. It's about the over all design of the cue and how such design elements as those are used in a design.

The two cues you posted are unmistakenly copies of a Mottey and a Tad. Anyone that knows much about custom cues would think they were a Tad and a Mottey from across the room. When a cue is copied to the point that you recognize it as the original, that is wrong.

What I don't understand with guys that have the skills to make a good copy is why they don't use those skills to do their own thing. I suppose they are too lazy to come up with their own designs and take the easy way out by copying great designs from great cue makers. Or, they do not have any creative talent to make their own designs.
 
Worminator said:
It not about notched diamonds, stitched rings, 4 pt, 4 veneer cues. It's about the over all design of the cue and how such design elements as those are used in a design.

The two cues you posted are unmistakenly copies of a Mottey and a Tad. Anyone that knows much about custom cues would think they were a Tad and a Mottey from across the room. When a cue is copied to the point that you recognize it as the original, that is wrong.

What I don't understand with guys that have the skills to make a good copy is why they don't use those skills to do their own thing. I suppose they are too lazy to come up with their own designs and take the easy way out by copying great designs from great cue makers. Or, they do not have any creative talent to make their own designs.
Click to expand...

You are a cue dealer, are you saying you have never sold a SW tribute, copy or whatever? Are all the cues on your site original or could someone mistake any of them for a different maker such as Szamboti, Balabushka or someone else? I find this all interesting because people are on both sides of the fence here, some see it as fair game because most designs have been done over and over again and others hate it.

Here is a cue from your site, it is very nice btw but far from original or unique and this is just one cue on your site. Is it okay because the maker is respected or located here in the US? :cool:
 

Attachments

  • BC SBE 11_1.jpg
    BC SBE 11_1.jpg
    63.8 KB · Views: 890
In my opinion, the problem arises when someone looks at a cue and immediately thinks it is a Mottey or a Tad or whoever else when it is not. As a collector, when I look at the Blackcreek, there is no way I would confuse that with a Szamboti.
 
thepavlos said:
In my opinion, the problem arises when someone looks at a cue and immediately thinks it is a Mottey or a Tad or whoever else when it is not. As a collector, when I look at the Blackcreek, there is no way I would confuse that with a Szamboti.
Click to expand...

But you have to agree its not original and although not an identical copy it has a certain makers style I would say.
 
Here are some more originals. :smile:
 

Attachments

  • sbe_fore.jpg
    sbe_fore.jpg
    57.3 KB · Views: 869
  • sbe_butt.jpg
    sbe_butt.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 929
Would you mistake that cue for a Szamboti??? Probably not... but someone could think it is a Szam, or a Showman, or a Mottey, or many other cuemakers because it is a simple design. If you looked at that cue from across the room you would not guess one certain cuemaker right off the bat, because again, it is a simple design.

The issue becomes when a certain design that is associated with one single maker (the Tad designs, the Gina designs, Schick designs, etc.) are copied to make the cue appear to actually be one of those maker's cues.

My partner had a Szamboti "tribute" cue made by Travis of Blackcreek. It is on my website as well, but I was never in favor of him having it made. Some people are fine with copying a distinctive design, I am not. Again we are not talking about basic simple designs, everyone accepts those as the standard. But when unique designs are copied, I have an issue with that. What does that mean to you... nothing... it's just my opinion. Many agree, many do not.

The arguments from the people that are fine with copying designs always go back to notched diamonds, dots, and propellers... again, those are design elements that are widely accepted by cuemakers as standards in cuemaking.

This topic is kinda like politics debated over at the NPR section ad nauseum... does it change anyone's mind on who they will vote for... I highly doubt it.
 
Last edited:
Worminator said:
Would you mistake that cue for a Szamboti??? Probably not... but someone could think it is a Szam, or a Showman, or a Mottey, or many other cuemakers because it is a simple design. If you looked at that cue from across the room you would not guess one certain cuemaker right off the bat, because again, it is a simple design.

The issue becomes when a certain design that is associated with one single maker (the Tad designs, the Gina designs, Schick designs, etc.) are copied to make the cue appear to actually be one of those maker's cues.

My partner had a Szamboti "tribute" cue made by Travis of Blackcreek. It is on my website as well, but I was never in favor of him having it made. Some people are fine with copying a distinctive design, I am not. Again we are not talking about basic simple designs, everyone accepts those as the standard. But when unique designs are copied, I have an issue with that. What does that mean to you... nothing... it's just my opinion. Many agree, many do not.

It's kinda like politics debated over at the NPR section ad nauseum... does it change anyone's mind on who they will vote for... I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

I agree, I just want to see what line those in disagreement have drawn. Are Gus, Balabushka and others who are deceased fair game, what about SW style cues which are very common? At one time those propeller cues were unique just like some of the box cues and others, in time someone will want one like it and maybe the design of say that Mottey will be common just like those cues before it. I think most cue makers will build you whatever you want regardless of who made the original design, they might change a thing or two to make it their own but it could be mistaken.
 
I edited my post you quoted while you were posting your reply... I stated my opinion on notched diamonds, dots, and propellers. I'm not a fam of SW copies either... not 6 point cues, but EXACT SW copies.

My whole take on the matter boils down to this... why copy someone else's designs when you can use your talent to make unique and refreshing designs like this. And guess what... it has a notched diamond in it... :eek:

Haley2012Sleeve.jpg
 
hey..........

Don't really care one way or the other......but iirc, we were the first guys to start designing and ordering cues from certain cuemakers (Mottey/White, McDaniel, & Gilbert) that specifically had small tiffany style ivory diamonds inlaid directly over the ends of the veneer boxes like that. And you know what, dammit, we still haven't started getting any royalty checks !! :mad: lol........
 
Since you used my pics...

The first four on the left are representing a bygone era. Hence the name CLASSICCUES. We do not order copies of any cue, but we do order cues that could have been built at that time. There are a lot of people that cannot afford to have an original Bushka or Boti but might want something that looks like it if from that era. Again, I have never ordered an exact copy, just bits and pieces and I make pattern adjustments that I like.

I will always believe that until a black line is drawn that copying and the pointing out of such, has been tarnished by some personal agendas OR they cannot define the actual copy or not copy meaning. I mean a Hoppe cue is a copy and to say that someone at Brunswicks thought process means less than Ernie G's is insulting. Or that Frank Paradises arrangements are less in the art of design than that of Richard Blacks is crazy. Every design, no matter how simple, belongs to someone. The term common design element is a joke, since someone had to use it FIRST. Minimalizing anyones designs based on simplicity is hypocritical to say the least. Some of the best designs are SIMPLE.

JV
 
Hi,

I agree with Jammie about designs and one should push their creative envelope at their own pace of evolution as a cue maker for sure. You can't argue the fact that new designs should be what one must strive for.

That being said, as a custom cue maker you get people all of the time who request certain classic design attributes on a cue ie. N Dimonds, Props, barbells, certain rings or whatever. Many of these fine cues shown above that are very similar to other cues may just be custom cues whereby the player requested these geometries.

A very wise cue maker of the highest prominence among collectors gave me some great advise. Custom Cue Maker / Customer. "Give your customer what he wants" he said. Lets face it, you have to make a living and what are you going to say, no forget it. I am not doing that for you.

If a cue maker can progress to a higher level whereby collectors seek their cues it will be from the execution of there own designs and talent. That goes without saying.

Di Vince made a few "Mona Plane Janes" before he did the "Mona Lisa" I would think!! LOL It's all about time and a natural progression for each individual CM.

JMO,

Rick
 
Last edited:
I have had my Lucasi mistaken for a big name cue. I should remove the Lucasi logo and when someone says is that a (insert big name cue maker) I will just say yes. Nice cue huh?
No offensive to you serious cue collectors,I just see them as pool cues to be played with,nothing more.
 
lenny please ask scott about the spot question at 1p.org
your opinion also appreciated
sorry for the mini off topic post.....:embarrassed2:
carry on gentlemen
:)
 
Not every maker will "push the envelope" or create innovative designs. Some will, but others will simply make good or even great cues. In the end neither is superior at all to the other, just different.

I saw a very high level "museum quality" cue posted here with glue lines, gaps, and crooked inlays that not even the most critical collector or dealer on the board had the fortitude to point out (at least not in public). Everybody just went ape-shit over it. Why? the name on it, no other reason...I have no other plausible explanation. Surely, it was extremely original. A design masterpiece. But an executional failure for one of the greatest names that we all take our hats off to. I am less than an amateur observer, so I won't be pointing it out.

So where does that leave me?

I like classiccues' approach. I really do. Most of us will never afford the ones we want, so there is another way. BUT. If somebody wants to commission an EXACT copy, I really am not bothered by it as long as it is not presented as an original.

You can buy a kit car as a turn-key vehicle. And some of them are in fact faster than the original supercar. So what?

There is only one original. Ever.



Some designs become classics, representative of a standard...copied over and over.

There is still only one original.

Some styles become classics, representative of a standard...copied over and over.

There is still only one original.

A high grade copy is still a high grade cue. It can even be made to play like the original by a skillful cue maker.

There is still only one original.

If somebody tries to pass off a copy as an original, I find that offensive. Other than that, I am not concerned.

But that's just me. Others are perfectly free to feel differently.

.
 
Not sure if there have been any other threads like this but if not, this has been a long time coming. The line that separates a copy and an original is obviously judged on design, but to a certain extent. The more inlays, rings, designs...etc make it much easier to call one cue a copy of another. Southwest has got to be close to the top of the copied/tributed cues. They have basically set the standard for the 6 point cue with veneers, standard sets of rings and the wide ring in the buttsleeve. How many 'copies' of the few fancy cues (compared to total produced) they have made are out there? Not that their cues are not great but the only major difference in most of them is the woods used. With exception of a few custom cue makers, most out there could be accused of copying a SW if people were to go off of the routine 6 point style cue.

If thats the case then would the 4 point steel joint cues with simple inlays such as some Szambotis, Motteys, Whites, Scruggs, Blacks, Searing...etc be copies of earlier cue makers such as Balabushka and so on? Its much easier to determine when you take a cuemaker who has a very distinct design and originality to most of their cues. For example, the cues Bob Manzino is making today. He has got to be one of the few guys who is always coming up with new ideas, more extravagant every time it seems. I guess the easiest way to sum it all up is the title of the thread, try and figure out who did what first and go from there.....:shrug:
 
The only thing I know is all the cues posted in here look pretty sweet to me. I will not say I cannot afford a Tad or a Mottey but I just do not see myself spending $5000 on a cue. I have owned cues from $20-$2000 but never have went above that. I doubt someone can show a Tad which is exactly like the cue I have had made because I chose two different cues to use the butt design and forearm design.
 
I am still looking for answers to my questions in my original post from all the cue experts on here. :)
 
Fast Lenny said:
I see so many designs out there today and many are imitated, duplicated and exact copies or tributes whatever you might call them. Who was the first to do the stitched ring work, Stroud with Joss West or Tad Kohara? Who was the first to do bar bell, notched diamond and propeller inlays? Are those SW tributes or copies in good taste? Is it okay to make a copy or a tribute of a deceased maker and not a living one? I know some of you are sensitive about the topic as collectors, does it hurt the value of your cue or does it just hurt your feelings that your cue is no longer unique if it ever was to begin with?

I personally do not see anything wrong with cue makers making tribute cues but some changes should be made. I got these two cues made and saw some people were not happy with JD cues because of it. I incorporated two styles of TAD cues, the forearm from one and the butt of another but left out the stitched ring work so I could just screw on an LD shaft if I like and wanted leather instead of linen. On the other cue which is a tribute if you want to call it of a Mottey, I wanted the cue wrap less which IMO looks better than the original. If I could have it done over I would have changed the inlays and ring work diamonds to notched diamonds which would look better I think but would it still be hated on?

I know I might get some hate mail and bashing for posting the cues but here they are. How much do you really need to change a cue so its not considered a copy?, just change the ring work, veneer color, or inlay material? Sometimes I see a forearm inlay pattern I like and a butt inlay pattern and want them in one cue like I had done with the TAD. I do not see many cues that are posted on here that can be called truly 100% original to be honest as most have done it before but do appreciate originality. Just interested in peoples opinions on this, do not worry I am thick skinned. :smile:

lennycue1-1.jpg
Click to expand...

FWIW I have a thread started about who was first with design and construction elements. It has had some great information posted.

I will post the link later.

Cue Design - Who Did What First - here is the link to the thread with interesting discussion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top