Classic Cue Designs.
JimBo said:
We have gone round and round on the topic, I'm not looking to do it again. WHat I have done is drawn attention to something that is wrong and I know from some posts and PM's that I have opened some people's eyes to this fact, I've gotten people talking about it and asking cuemakers what they think. Sure some people think there is nothing wrong with it, even some cuemakers, but most of these people are the ones doing the stealing so it's clear to see where their inspiration comes from.
Anyone who truly wanted to read what I write without prejudice can clearly see that I have said many times this is more an issue of fancier designs or exact copies. I would never say a notched diamond or points and veneers fit that bill. I would not say a 6 point cue is a SW knockoff, but when you see the split butt with the same dementions and the similar ring work it's very clear that the look they are *stealing* is from Southwest, it's even more proof when you see the cue advertised for sale as "SW Style" or when the person who owns the cue comments that they wanted a SW but couldn't afford one. It's been going on for so long now by so many different makers (Coker,Gilbert,Omen,Wayne) that it's thought of now as excepted behavior. The fact is it's wrong and no matter how long it goes on and who does it that fact isn't changing.
I can understand liking the "classic" style as it were, but with today’s materials and technologies copying is just not needed, there are many subtle things that can be done to change the inlays to where you can still have a classic design and have not be a direct knockoff. Just wait till you see what Zeeder has done with a classic old school design to make it his own. But again what I am most offended by is the new fancier designs that are being knocked off by cuemakers with the skill and talent to where they shouldn't have to. Jim being the perfect example of it, when you look at his original design cue that Bill (cornerstone) posted it would make you wonder why he'd ever do someone else’s designs, the man is a genius and his work is top notch.
As for your cue (Haley) I see a basic design, I don't see any theft, I just see many aspects taken for other cues that you must have enjoyed over the years, but I wouldn't confuse it for a distinct design from across a room. I don't want people to stop using diamonds or notched diamonds, I just want them to stop using them in the same exact places and making them the same exact size on cues with the same exact rings and the same exact veneer colors in the same woods. I'm not the copy police, but if a majority of people look at your cue and think it's something it isn't maybe you or the maker crossed a line.
Just some food for thought, no flames.
Jim
I have a new cue being made for me by a cue maker:
My new cue will be a two (2) piece cue. Not the first to do this. It is a copy of someone else's original idea.
My new cue will have an ivory joint. Not the first to do this. It is a copy of someone else's original idea.
My new cue will have eight (8) points in the forearm. 4 hi and 4 low. Not the first to do this. It is a copy of someone else's original idea.
My new cue will have ivory inlays. Not the first to do this. It is a copy of someone else's original idea.
My new cue will have diamond shaped inlays. Not the first to do this. It is a copy of someone else's original idea.
I cannot arbitrarily say that the simpler items above are not copies of other’s work where only other components or designs are copies.
If you have a four-point veneer cue with three veneers on each point built, four-point veneer cues have been made before and that component of the cue is a copy of someone else’s idea. The colors you select have probably been done before in that same combination before. If you want that color combination, that is your affair. If you want a diamond shaped inlay or a propeller in a cue, it is a copy of someone else’s idea. How can you say it is OK to use a diamond inlay in a cue but wrong to use a propeller?
I doubt there is a cue that will exactly match the new cue I have being built. In fact, I have almost assured my entire new cue will be different as a completed cue “assembly”. I copied other’s ideas I liked, drew them up in AutoCAD, went to a cue maker with what I wanted built. We agreed on specifications and a price, and it is being built. You can look at a component and find someone who may have done that part before. If that component has been done before, that component is a copy of someone else’s original idea. As a completed assembly, my new cue will not been built before. I have subtle changes and positioning in the cue and added others. I left out some components I do not like and had to choose between other options I do like where I could not have both.
If you do not like cue making, then you likely are not reading this forum or this post. You are not looking at the cue photos being posted to determine in your own mind what aspects of cues you like and what cues you do not like.
I had the cash to go to a cue maker and buy what I wanted built. If someone else has the “dust” to do have a cue built, that is his or her business. If someone wants to buy a complete cue design copy from the same cue maker or a different cue maker, more power to him or her.
If they can only afford a complete cue copy design from overseas that warps in a week and selects to do so, more power to them. There is a reason why this cost less, which can be both in quality and living conditions of the people involved in both the cue and cue components.
Some people like classic plain designs, others like wheel spinners.
If you have a cue with points in it, it is a copy of someone else’s idea unless you own “numero uno”. Simple and logical as that.
I do not like cue design copies as a complete assembly. If everyone on earth does not agree with me including the people buying the copies, I can live with that.
