A man's lifes work
Dragging out a critique about two CNC masters arguing seems even more pointless than their argument. Most don't know the history or what is being said behind the scenes, and some don't have an inkling about 4th axis work at all.
Tate said it best IMO, all parties should listen: ...forgive him and move on...
I'm amazed at the negative and critical attitude from the cue buying public's point of view, about the use of the C.N.C. in Inlay creation! In just about every other Art form, at this time, it is regarded quite differently. At Gibson Guitar's custom shop, they produced some of their most collectible pieces (the G.I.N.C.H. series guitars) from the late 80's and early 90's using this tool of the trade, the C.N.C.. In the 50's it was the Gorton pantograph that did all their inlay. You'd have to go back to the 20's and 30's to find hand inlay being used regularly, but it was certainly not of a superior quality to the modern work of today. Now, what I find so--- funny here is, everybody in that medium new by the late forties, that hand inlay was a waste of precious time in a man's life. It certainly had nothing at all to do with the over-all quality of the work! In fact, it was usually the other way around, where quality was of the utmost concern, the machine did it more accurately! Now Luthiers are no slouches with tools, either. They'll use what's best, if they can get their hands on it. In that industry the C.N.C. was embraced long ago.
Personally, I've done and seen some amazing hand inlay. Most often that path is chosen to save time, on a moderately complex, 1-off piece. It has nothing to do with quality or collect-ability in the guitar industry!
An Artist see's something in his mind and uses the tools of that era to bring that vision into reality, period.
Throughout the time of man, what tool an artist chooses to use, on a project, is left to his perspective as to what he feels will give him the best rendition of his vision. Money or patronage usually helps make that choice for him, as well.
It's disappointing to see how much emphasis, people put on this misunderstood "sales bias," about C.N.C. produced inlay as opposed to C.N.C. cues. People seem to have so little understanding of the overall quality of cues, in cue making, in general! A C.N.C. is not some magic wand that creates masterpieces with-out the vision and discipline of an Artist creating it! In plain and simple truth, it requires every bit as much talent to program the C.N.C. machine, as it does to wield carving blades, probably more, certainly a lot more knowledge and every bit as much discipline, which is always the determining factor in the prestige of great works over the centuries.
When making templates for inlay patterns, to be cut on a pantograph, you often cut them by hand at 5 times their finished size. Even then they are much simpler patterns in design and therefore easier to cut. More can by accomplished with the use of a C.N.C. but one must sacrifice years of your life to learn how to use it in that way. In essence, mastery of this machine is equivalent to obtaining a PhD in C.N.C. programming.
At some point in the future the pool playing public is going to wake-up and realize that a " high renaissance in cue-making" took place right under their noses and that they slept right through it because of a silly "sales bias." A bias created and used by "hustlers," to promote certain cue-makers they favor, "Cue Mongers" (the guys who sell cue-sticks) have for years touted this lie before the general public, that using "a pantograph as opposed to the C.N.C. creates a better cue. From it's inception this was just a sales gimmick they created!" The public bought that LIE, hook, line, and sinker! In cue-making, making a V-mitered set of points in the prong is one thing, how the Inlay is put on the cue is quite another story altogether.
The over-all idea here is to support the great things that are happening in your world and share them with those who aren't familiar with what's going on with what you do. More people will find that interesting and get involved that way. Your Artisans will have patronage and the sport grows over-all from that! From the 20's to the late 80's, Pool totally belonged to the U.S., now it belongs to the countries of the east. It might be a good time to ask ourselves what went wrong with our Sport?
Cue-makers like Thomas Wayne, have stretched the ART of cue-making to it's highest heights, that's good for the sport of pool in general, too. Who would ever believe, that pool players anywhere, would become businessmen and create such amazing works of pure art? Is it any wonder a man like Thomas Wayne, feels cheated out of his "propers?"
When biased, criticisms about the use of antiquated machinery, are create by the "hucksters" to sell cues, B.S. will abound within the market place. It then becomes difficult to have a well educated criticism, about the provenance, of greater developments from within the artistic cue building community.
In the end, this man has given his life, to his work, and what he has contributed to "the state -of-the-art in cue-making," is what we're talking about here. When you look at it that way, it's easy to see why someone get's upset with the general lack of understanding, concerning who did what first. And by the way, the guy designed and built a lot of his own machinery back then, too! Upon reflection, one would hope to get the facts right in an article that has the potential, to remain available in print, for so long on the computer. Perhaps it's the authors of this controversy, that should print a public retraction of the statements, regarding the provenance of C.N.C. inlay development?
