Problems with Perry Weston and the ACA.

[book collector]

Problems with Perry Weston

I must be missing something important.
If Mr. Weston is a member of the American Cuemakers Association and has to meet minimum requirements to be a member.
He then makes a substandard piece of work and they either cannot or will not do anything about it, what good is their stamp of approval at all ?
If they all just agreed to meet minimum requirements between themselves that is one matter.
But to form an organization and print your goals and present your members as a higher standard of cuemakers and then have this happen something is very wrong.
Each member submits a cue for the board to review unless they are an already well known top cuemaker.
Each new member pays 1000.00 the first year and 500.00 a year after that to be a member and is allowed to show the ACA logo in their ads.
{Doesn't this mean the Association is behind this cuemaker?}
I hope there is more to this story than what has been said so far.

 

[TATE]

I'm sad that I have to agree with ChicagoRJ.
I asked Joey to send pics to me and my view of Perry hasn't changed a bit.
I had Joey's back, but not after seeing the EBay ad.

Joey stated that Perry Weston made his money problems, my problems.
3 weeks prior to posting this ad, Joey attempted to make his problems, someone elses. Nothing more, nothing less. I can't feel sorry for someone who got screwed trying to screw someone else.
Sorry Joey, that kind of s h i t doesn't cut it in my book. The standard factory second line is just way too thin to garner any further sympathy on this forum.

I agree that it was bad form to come public only after the cue was sold, which explains why he didn't want the photos posted. I feel deceived. Joey was not exactly forthcoming.

Chris

 

[ridewiththewind]

I agree that it was bad form to come public only after the cue was sold, which explains why he didn't want the photos posted. I feel deceived. Joey was not exactly forthcoming and maybe he got the cue he was supposed to get after all.

Chris

I know how you feel, Chris. Lesson learned, from here on out, I will refrain from these types of threads. Not only were innocent people duped, but innocent people were hurt as well.

Ah well, his Karma is on the wheel; what goes around will come around.

Lisa

 

[cuesblues]

I haven't seen a story with a bigger twist since that movie The Crying Game

 

[joeyb]

I didn't post it until now because Dave Jacoby was trying to get Perry to fix it. I had not received payment and was still willing to give Perry a chance to rectify the situation. I also had to wait until Dave Jocoby got back from the US Open, so we could have a follow up conversation on the matter. Because I wanted to get the ACA's stance on the nasty email Perry sent me.

Eric,
Here is a copy of what me and Perry exchanges in emails were like before he shipped the cue.

*
RE: cue‏

To Perry Weston
From: Joey Branford (joeybranford@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 7/13/10 1:37 AM
To: Perry Weston (westoncues@yahoo.com)
I was thinking roman numerals I and II done in purple heart. How did the elforyn ferrules turn out? I hope you are feeling better.

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:00:57 -0700
From: westoncues@yahoo.com
Subject: cue
To: joeybranford@hotmail.com

Joey, I got you're voice mail. i will number the shaft protectors 1and 2. I should have had you're cue done by now. I will have it done soon, i have had some health issues to deal with. Hopefully all is well now.
Perry Weston

 

[Maniac]

joeyb,

I'm a bit confused. You stated that the "playability" of the PW cue was, in your words, excellent. Instead of selling the cue to a third party at a substantial loss, why didn't you just keep it as a player???

Maniac

 

[joeyb]

Because, I wanted it to be right and the biggest problem was the color of the forearm. And, I spent a lot of money on this cue, it needed to be right from the gate. There are so many cue maker now, that make great hitting cues. So, what you are really paying for is the cosmetics of the cue. I'm not a collector,
I'm a hardcore player. I have recently ordered a cue from Paul Drexler. It will be similar to the one I designed with Perry.

 

[KRJ]

Hmmmm

Because, I wanted it to be right and the biggest problem was the color of the forearm. And, I spent a lot of money on this cue, it needed to be right from the gate. There are so many cue maker now, that make great hitting cues. So, what you are really paying for is the cosmetics of the cue. I'm not a collector,
I'm a hardcore player. I have recently ordered a cue from Paul Drexler. It will be similar to the one I designed with Perry.

Just curious but was the buyer of the infamous Weston cue happy with what he got? And how much did you sell the cue for? Two simple questions that I look forward to being answered.

 

[qbilder]

I must be missing something important.
If Mr. Weston is a member of the American Cuemakers Association and has to meet minimum requirements to be a member.
He then makes a substandard piece of work and they either cannot or will not do anything about it, what good is their stamp of approval at all ?
If they all just agreed to meet minimum requirements between themselves that is one matter.
But to form an organization and print your goals and present your members as a higher standard of cuemakers and then have this happen something is very wrong.
Each member submits a cue for the board to review unless they are an already well known top cuemaker.
Each new member pays 1000.00 the first year and 500.00 a year after that to be a member and is allowed to show the ACA logo in their ads.
{Doesn't this mean the Association is behind this cuemaker?}
I hope there is more to this story than what has been said so far.

The association is designed for cuemakers to help cuemakers through association. Strength in numbers. They buy an entire row of booths at cue shows & get them discounted because of the bulk buy, so each builder pays less for booth space. They also get discounts through suppliers & such. That's the benefit of belonging. They have cue review for new members to ensure the builders are already solid & knowledgeable, and actual cuemakers. Beyond that initial test they have no authority over the builder & how he chooses to do business. They aren't a governing source or police. They trust that each member will have integrity & be honorable. You have to consider it's just a bunch of cue builders uniting to get a few benefits. None of them want to be involved in one another's business, or has any right to be. They each have their own business to care for.

Point being, people expect something of the ACA that isn't realistic. They don't want these issues any more than the buyers do. But they have no authority to do anything about it. The only thing they can do is excommunicate the offending builder, which takes several of the most ranking members to actually investigate the situation. That takes time away from their own work, which means they lose money. In the end if they find the suspected builder really is ripping folks off, then the most they can do is revoke his membership. But this all takes time & a full time cue builder has no spare time to spend on somebody else's business.

Hopefully that makes sense. I'm not trying to defend them. Their mission statement & propaganda are misleading and no different than politics. We all know what happens when we elect politicians full of promises. They soon find out they're powerless to support their mouths. All i'm doing is trying to explain it so folks understand that the ACA has no authority to intervene in this matter, nor the resources to do so. It's not their fault. They can't fix it. Even if they do revoke his membership, it'll take some time.

 

[JB Cases]

What does this do to the value of the Weston cues that are already out there if anything? If I owned one I'd be on the guy to get on here and do some damage control to protect my investment.

It does nothing. The only thing that this thread accomplishes is to provide a public record of one customer's dissatisfaction with Perry in this transaction and Perry's response.

In a few days it will be gone. In the future someone may google Perry's name and come across this thread and that may give them pause if they are thinking about ordering a Weston.

Or someone considering one on the secondary market may ask for detailed pictures to be sure that the cue they are looking at does not have major flaws.

But it's safe to say that 99% of Perry Weston cue transactions will happen without this thread influencing them one way or the other.

Although, to be honest I would have done everything possible to keep this off AZ. I have given horrible customer service in the past and when the customer finally had enough they put in on the forum and it hurts.

Forums are a double edged sword. Perry probably doesn't use them but people do read these long threads and some things stick with them.

Regarding the ACA they can only really admonish a cuemaker, they can't really step in and make a cue maker do anything.

I know another famous cuemaker who put a lot of time and personal effort building the ACA who recently resigned over a similar dispute where he felt that he was in the right and the customer was in the wrong and the APA handed down some sort of sanction, not real sure of the details, and he simply walked away form an organization that he had nurtured.

I recently sent a case to someone and it developed a problem that it should never have had. The customer told me about it and I coudn't even believe him because such a problem is so kindergarten that it was beyond me that the case could leave our shop like that. I honestly thought the customer was over reacting and being ultra nitpicky.

Then I got the case back and the problem was worse than I thought. I was horrified and called the customer within minutes to profusely apologize. He was gracious and is allowing me to make some other cases to make up for it. The case is subsequently fixed the right way, the way it should have been in the first place. I was at fault for not inspecting it properly and thoroughly before it left the shop or I would have caught the error and fixed it.

Sometimes it's brutal to face an error but it's going to happen and the way to resolve it is simply to jsut take care of it even though the profit is gone. The goodwill and preserving one's record is a something that trancends the loss and I look upon it as an investment and write it off as marketing expense.

 

[Bishop]

The association is designed for cuemakers to help cuemakers through association. Strength in numbers. They buy an entire row of booths at cue shows & get them discounted because of the bulk buy, so each builder pays less for booth space. They also get discounts through suppliers & such. That's the benefit of belonging. They have cue review for new members to ensure the builders are already solid & knowledgeable, and actual cuemakers. Beyond that initial test they have no authority over the builder & how he chooses to do business. They aren't a governing source or police. They trust that each member will have integrity & be honorable. You have to consider it's just a bunch of cue builders uniting to get a few benefits. None of them want to be involved in one another's business, or has any right to be. They each have their own business to care for.

I think that's a pretty fair and accurate assessment of what the ACA is however that's not how they represent themselves to be to the general public.

They represent themselves as a core body that sets a standard within the industry. There mission statement very specifically involves them in another's business. They charge a fee to represent these cuemakers who allegedly meet the required "standard" that they put forth. In return for that fee they provide the buying public with a reasonable sense of comfort and assurance when dealing with their members.

You basically described a boys club, which apparently is what they are. That's not how they put themselves out there.

Now I'm with you I understand that there isn't anything the ACA can do "forcefully". Even if it was there intention to be as advertised I still wouldn't expect them to find resolution but they should have taken a much more proactive approach to the problem. Considering how they advertise themselves to the buying public as setting a standard in the industry.

Surely you're not saying this is acceptable -

Anyone can form a club, charge a substantial fee. Then exaggerate criteria for membership and provide a false sense of security to the buying public with little to no recourse for their actions. Because despite what they advertise and charge for they're really just a bunch of friends with similar interests who are just trying to pat each other on the back.

Out of this entire thread I can see just about every different perspective and stance and reasonably agree with most of the posts even if it doesn't mirror my own thoughts. I cannot even begin to understand the posts that excuse the ACA from the ruse of an organization they've turned out to be. A fee for representation that has zero value. Despite their claims.

I don't think anyone expects the ACA to refund this guy his money but they need to at least give a crap. Hold their members accountable and stand behind their mission statement.

 

[cardiac kid]

John,

After all you said on this post, it came down to doing the right thing for an unhappy customer. Unless my reading comprehension has gone to zero, that was all the OP wanted originally. Just an acknowledgement there was a problem and the cue would be fixed or replaced. Mr. Weston's response was unjustified even if the OP was a dick to him(???). It's all I ever asked for and expected to receive from my suppliers. My old customer base expected that in return from me as well. Like you said, it's customer service!

Lyn

 

[joeyb]

Well, I got to tell you that I was never disrespectful to Perry.(I have the emails to prove it) I sent him a very nice email regarding the problem and left a voicemail stating that I wasn't mad just disappointed, let's try to work it out. And, he didn't have the balls to call me back, to man up on it.(the last time we spoke was when I was picking the cue up from Fedx) When you are dealing with someone who spent a couple thousand dollars on a product, you at least owe them a phone call. But, this is also a sign that he had no intentions of resolving the issue. His nasty email was the most words he sent to me during the whole process.

 

[qbilder]

I think that's a pretty fair and accurate assessment of what the ACA is however that's not how they represent themselves to be to the general public.

They represent themselves as a core body that sets a standard within the industry. There mission statement very specifically involves them in another's business. They charge a fee to represent these cuemakers who allegedly meet the required "standard" that they put forth. In return for that fee they provide the buying public with a reasonable sense of comfort and assurance when dealing with their members.

You basically described a boys club, which apparently is what they are. That's not how they put themselves out there.

Now I'm with you I understand that there isn't anything the ACA can do "forcefully". Even if it was there intention to be as advertised I still wouldn't expect them to find resolution but they should have taken a much more proactive approach to the problem. Considering how they advertise themselves to the buying public as setting a standard in the industry.

Surely you're not saying this is acceptable -

Anyone can form a club, charge a substantial fee. Then exaggerate criteria for membership and provide a false sense of security to the buying public with little to no recourse for their actions. Because despite what they advertise and charge for they're really just a bunch of friends with similar interests who are just trying to pat each other on the back.

Out of this entire thread I can see just about every different perspective and stance and reasonably agree with most of the posts even if it doesn't mirror my own thoughts. I cannot even begin to understand the posts that excuse the ACA from the ruse of an organization they've turned out to be. A fee for representation that has zero value. Despite their claims.

I don't think anyone expects the ACA to refund this guy his money but they need to at least give a crap. Hold their members accountable and stand behind their mission statement.

Oh by no means am I justifying the ACA. Their arrogance & false representation is what got them in trouble for something that really doesn't concern them. I was just giving folks an idea of what to realistically expect from them. There's a reason I have never wanted to be in the ACA. I don't have to pay somebody to say my cues are good cues. At the base, the association is founded on honorable grounds. But the hogwash arrogant misrepresentation leads people to think they are something they aren't. That's something they should probably deal with sooner than later & make things right. But defending them, no. My point was to explain what they actually are in real world, so people bashing at them can understand that it's not within the ACA's power to do anything about this matter except excommunicate Weston from the group. And that will take time & cost several builders the money in the time they lose dealing with it.

Did they bring this on themselves? Yes. Does it make them look bad? Yes. Is it misleading to the buying public? Yes. There's no defending that. If they are serious about their image then it's something they should likely get together & fix. But i'm not a member and have nothing to do with that. I'm friends with several members, spoke with two of them about this mess. Nobody likes the negative publicity but there's nothing they can do. Not immediately, anyway.

 

[Kickin' Chicken]

Oh by no means am I justifying the ACA. Their arrogance & false representation is what got them in trouble for something that really doesn't concern them. I was just giving folks an idea of what to realistically expect from them. There's a reason I have never wanted to be in the ACA. I don't have to pay somebody to say my cues are good cues. At the base, the association is founded on honorable grounds. But the hogwash arrogant misrepresentation leads people to think they are something they aren't. That's something they should probably deal with sooner than later & make things right. But defending them, no. My point was to explain what they actually are in real world, so people bashing at them can understand that it's not within the ACA's power to do anything about this matter except excommunicate Weston from the group. And that will take time & cost several builders the money in the time they lose dealing with it.

Did they bring this on themselves? Yes. Does it make them look bad? Yes. Is it misleading to the buying public? Yes. There's no defending that. If they are serious about their image then it's something they should likely get together & fix. But i'm not a member and have nothing to do with that. I'm friends with several members, spoke with two of them about this mess. Nobody likes the negative publicity but there's nothing they can do. Not immediately, anyway.

Tap, Tap, Tap!

Let's hope there can be an upside that comes from this long and winding thread:

(less desirable): ACA will abandon their current mission statement and just be a discount buying club for its members...

OR

(much more desirable): ACA will implement a policy that guarantees to those doing business with their members, that they will receive quality products and be treated as one would expect to be treated as a valued customer.

Best,
Brian kc

 

[kvinbrwr]

I'm sad that I have to agree with ChicagoRJ.
I asked Joey to send pics to me and my view of Perry hasn't changed a bit.
I had Joey's back, but not after seeing the EBay ad.

Joey stated that Perry Weston made his money problems, my problems.
3 weeks prior to posting this ad, Joey attempted to make his problems, someone elses. Nothing more, nothing less. I can't feel sorry for someone who got screwed trying to screw someone else.
Sorry Joey, that kind of s h i t doesn't cut it in my book. The standard factory second line is just way too thin to garner any further sympathy on this forum.

Ditto.

When you sell items sight unseen it is your responsibility as a seller to disclose all issues that the buyer can't see because he isn't there to personally inspect the item.

Selling something with undisclosed flaws on a "as-is no return" basis is dishonest, not that it really makes a difference as most all eBay buyers use PayPal and most use credit cards and as a seller you ultimately have to satisfy the buyer regardless of what return stipulation you try to hide behind.

Thanks

Kevin

 

[Salamander]

Just curious but was the buyer of the infamous Weston cue happy with what he got? And how much did you sell the cue for? Two simple questions that I look forward to being answered.

That is an excellent question and one that needs to be answered. How about it Joey, care to address this?

 

[kvinbrwr]

It does nothing. The only thing that this thread accomplishes is to provide a public record of one customer's dissatisfaction with Perry in this transaction and Perry's response.

In a few days it will be gone. In the future someone may google Perry's name and come across this thread and that may give them pause if they are thinking about ordering a Weston.

Or someone considering one on the secondary market may ask for detailed pictures to be sure that the cue they are looking at does not have major flaws.

But it's safe to say that 99% of Perry Weston cue transactions will happen without this thread influencing them one way or the other.

Although, to be honest I would have done everything possible to keep this off AZ. I have given horrible customer service in the past and when the customer finally had enough they put in on the forum and it hurts.

Forums are a double edged sword. Perry probably doesn't use them but people do read these long threads and some things stick with them.

Regarding the ACA they can only really admonish a cuemaker, they can't really step in and make a cue maker do anything.

I know another famous cuemaker who put a lot of time and personal effort building the ACA who recently resigned over a similar dispute where he felt that he was in the right and the customer was in the wrong and the APA handed down some sort of sanction, not real sure of the details, and he simply walked away form an organization that he had nurtured.

I recently sent a case to someone and it developed a problem that it should never have had. The customer told me about it and I coudn't even believe him because such a problem is so kindergarten that it was beyond me that the case could leave our shop like that. I honestly thought the customer was over reacting and being ultra nitpicky.

Then I got the case back and the problem was worse than I thought. I was horrified and called the customer within minutes to profusely apologize. He was gracious and is allowing me to make some other cases to make up for it. The case is subsequently fixed the right way, the way it should have been in the first place. I was at fault for not inspecting it properly and thoroughly before it left the shop or I would have caught the error and fixed it.

Sometimes it's brutal to face an error but it's going to happen and the way to resolve it is simply to jsut take care of it even though the profit is gone. The goodwill and preserving one's record is a something that trancends the loss and I look upon it as an investment and write it off as marketing expense.

John

That's a funny story about the return and I totally relate. I sell primarily on the internet and my buyers can't see my goods which are most often used or antique so they are described by subjective terms that describe quality and condition. Because the items aren't seen by my buyers and the descriptions are subjective I offer a satisfaction or return guarantee and I get a return every once in awhile.

Invariably when I'm reading the description from the person returning, I'm thinking "this guy is nuts" and when I get it back I'm always changed to "how could I have missed that?".

Thanks for showing me that its not just me.

Kevin

PS I love my case still.

 

[kvinbrwr]

Well, if there should be little or no confusion with the disclaimer, then you need to quote the entire thing.

The item may be a factory second or a new, unused item with defects. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections

It's very clear that the seller should have disclosed the problems in his listing since the disclaimer directs the reader to look there for any disclosures.

Also, the poor guy who got stuck with this cue has absolutely no recourse now since Joey here basically let PW off the hook. Now that the cue has been resold PW has no direct responsibility to the owner.

I agree with everything you say except for the no recourse thing.

Thanks

Kevin

 

[joeyb]

Under the ebay ad I noted the cue as defective! The item being tag as such I expected people asked, what was wrong and people did. And, as for the no return that was because if the buyer damaged it once they received it. I would have had no way of proving the damage vs the flaws to ebay in a dispute.
The cue was sold and there has been no complaint.