Inlaying another makers cue upon customers request.

JB Cases said:
:-) Good points and something I should perhaps put some more thought into.

There used to be a guy in Germany named Peter Hackbarth who became well known for "upgrading" cues. He would take a plain cue and turn it into one that looked like a $10,000 cue. And he'd take a couple thousand for his work.

This went on for a few years and he had plenty of work until one day a customer needed to have his Hackbarth cue refinished. Ooops all the "inlays" came right off with the old finish. All decals.

Twice I have had cues refinished by other makers than the original maker and both times those cues have come back discolored.

I will think about your perspective a little deeper.

I am not a money grubbing ho for selling Justis interior replacements am I? Jessie needs new clothes every month..... :-)
Click to expand...

John
I have never had any issues with you and you and I have talked in person and talked via email. I am confident knowing that anything we talk about is kept in Private as two men who respect each other.
On a seperate note, If it is forbidden to inlay such cues as Barry's, Dennis, Tasc, BB's then why not treat every cue with the same respect, You don't know who will be at that level tomorrow. In case you can't tell, I'm cutting shafts today, so I'm basically watching paint dry.
 
KJ Cues said:
Damn Mike, you come up with some of the strongest threads and this one is no exception.

When does the cue start to become not the builders?
I don't think we're talking about ownership here.
Tips, ferrule, rewrap, etc. are routine maintenance services and I wouldn't expect that everyone of my clients send their cue back to me for those services.
But to significantly alter or modify the cue that I built would not sit well with me at all. If I found-out about it, that buyer would never be able to purchase another cue from me, PERIOD.

It was stated that once a client purchases a cue, he's free to do as he pleases with it. On the one hand, that's technically correct.
On the other hand, depending on the request, it borders on disrespect for the orig. builder. Cutting into the cue crosses that line.

Look, it's my name on that cue. If I didn't do the inlay work, then what the hell is that inlay doing on there. It's no longer a true KJ cue and there's no room next to my signature for: "modified by whoever".
That probably doesn't mean much to most who frequent this site but it means something to me.

I'm going to go the extent of saying that those who dabble in this practice have no respect for the original builder and that the prospect of money means more to them than respecting your fellow tradesmen.
If the CMs who indulge in this practice haven't realized it yet, it's being disrespectful. If they do realize it and pursue the request anyway, you have my pity.
Click to expand...

I'm a bich but I'm respectable at it. :grin-square:
 
Had a really highly respected maker explain to me that we're all really just renting the cues we own (as in renting them from posterity). There's a great deal to that, particularly with respect to the work of known "masters". You're correct in that we don't know who may be included in that definition down the road.
Consider how many Balabushka cues Pete Tascarella has had in his hands - many of them plain as pudding. Now Pete knows a thing or two about making/repairing cues, but do you think he'd for a second even consider cutting inlays into a Bushka? Re-tapering the butt or shafts? Has Barry ever altered a Gus that way?
If not them, then who...
Same with Tommie, and Bill's cues.
Regular maintenance is different, but should still be approached thoughtfully.
We all know that there have been unfortunate times where massive repair work necessitated breaking the mold for the sake of reason or utility. But there is usually a pretty high price paid.

Interesting thread, guys.
 
Last edited:
I like this thread a lot. It did get me thinking though. Why is it a titlist does not fall under this do not inlay blanket? After all arent you altering a cue that was sold as a completed cue? It was not sold as a blank that was to be modifyed. Sure you can do the regular matanace. Do we just turn a blind eye because the money is so good for those old converted titlists? Maybe im off point but I really dont see any diffrence. I just want to be clear. Im not talking about fixing the joint or butt cap. I just did a quick search and saw at least a dozen that had inlays added to them. Further more why sign them. After all if you took a cue that need the joint, and a refinish your not going to sign it are you? Shoudnt it say something like brunswick titlist by (insert maker) Or Hoppe by (insert maker) at the very least??
 
Last edited:
LosOsosCues said:
I like this thread a lot. It did get me thinking though. Why is it a titlist does not fall under this do not inlay blanket? After all arent you altering a cue that was sold as a completed cue? It was not sold as a blank that was to be modifyed. Sure you can do the regular matanace. Do we just turn a blind eye because the money is so good for those old converted titlists? Maybe im off point but I really dont see any diffrence.
Click to expand...

Hi Dustin
That's a great point and I wish I had a valuable answer to it, The only part of the answer I can think of is, Most if not all Titlist cues are done in a tribute sought of way so there leaves something to the imagination.
 
Last edited:
LosOsosCues said:
I like this thread a lot. It did get me thinking though. Why is it a titlist does not fall under this do not inlay blanket? ??
Click to expand...

The answer is clear, they were production cues. No single maker made every one of them. They never had s/s joints, rarely had Ivory joints, and most were 1 piece. Add the fact that most were over sized compared to today's preference and you can understand why modifying them is not considered a no-no by all cue makers today. The fact that they are full spliced and decades old are the two main reasons they are favored for conversions, not just modifications to the existing cue.
 
hangemhigh said:
The answer is clear, they were production cues. No single maker made every one of them. They never had s/s joints, rarely had Ivory joints, and most were 1 piece. Add the fact that most were over sized compared to today's preference and you can understand why modifying them is not considered a no-no by all cue makers today. The fact that they are full spliced and decades old are the two main reasons they are favored for conversions, not just modifications to the existing cue.
Click to expand...

Tap, Tap, Thank you
 
I wouldn't touch another makers work. There is no reason that I can think of to justify it.

I've added to inlays to some of my own cues, but that's a different story.

If one of my cues was inlaid by another cue maker, without my permission, the owner certainly would never get another cue from me. I might even go as far to say that if the maker who did the modifications were to breathe on one of my cues, any implied warranty would be void.
 
hangemhigh said:
The answer is clear, they were production cues. No single maker made every one of them. They never had s/s joints, rarely had Ivory joints, and most were 1 piece. Add the fact that most were over sized compared to today's preference and you can understand why modifying them is not considered a no-no by all cue makers today. The fact that they are full spliced and decades old are the two main reasons they are favored for conversions, not just modifications to the existing cue.
Click to expand...

So since its production we can change anything we wish, and what about signing are names to them? There not ares or sold as blanks
 
Last edited:
LosOsosCues said:
So since its production we can change anything we wish, and what about signing are names to them? There not ares or sold as blanks
Click to expand...

The Titlist cues are different from any other production cue, and have the one characteristic none since have, the ability to be converted by any maker and still be recognized. You can change it any way you wish, and it does not matter who converted it or how, it is still easily identifiable as Titlist conversion and no one can be fooled. That is the salient point about them, no matter what you do to them, they remain first and foremost, Titlists.



avatar5216_1.gif
 
Last edited:
Tony Zinzola said:
I wouldn't touch another makers work. There is no reason that I can think of to justify it.

I might even go as far to say that if the maker who did the modifications were to breathe on one of my cues, any implied warranty would be void.
Click to expand...

lmao, :bow-down: I love it.
 
Michael Webb said:
John
I have never had any issues with you and you and I have talked in person and talked via email. I am confident knowing that anything we talk about is kept in Private as two men who respect each other.
On a seperate note, If it is forbidden to inlay such cues as Barry's, Dennis, Tasc, BB's then why not treat every cue with the same respect, You don't know who will be at that level tomorrow. In case you can't tell, I'm cutting shafts today, so I'm basically watching paint dry.
Click to expand...

More than 100% agreed Mike. What we talk about in private is private.

For this topic I think you brought up a strong subject and not one that is 100% black and white, to me. I can see the black/white side of it and respect it.

I think on reflection there is much more to be gained by staying hands-off of other maker's work.

For me I have always collected other people's work and used it to learn and to criticize. Had I to do it over again I would have just collected the cases privately and never mentioned them publicly.

And if offered another maker's work to substantially modify then I would turn it down. Beyond just repairs which I would do.

Good topic, thought provoking.
 
JB Cases said:
More than 100% agreed Mike. What we talk about in private is private.

For this topic I think you brought up a strong subject and not one that is 100% black and white, to me. I can see the black/white side of it and respect it.

I think on reflection there is much more to be gained by staying hands-off of other maker's work.

For me I have always collected other people's work and used it to learn and to criticize. Had I to do it over again I would have just collected the cases privately and never mentioned them publicly.

And if offered another maker's work to substantially modify then I would turn it down. Beyond just repairs which I would do.

Good topic, thought provoking.
Click to expand...


As always, Thank you very much. I would also like to thank everyone else for their thoughts and views and very much appreciate that no names were brought in or singled out, I can only hope it stays that way. Mutual respect for everyone no matter how known they are sure would be a good direction. Just my opinion.
 
So quick question.....if a new cue maker like myself whom does not own a cnc yet....makes a cue that is ment to be an inlayed cue......designs the inlays.....and even know how to write the program and have the file stored on a zip drive......approaches another cue maker with a cnc with the request to either cut the inlays or let the new cue maker use his or her machine to cut the inlays........I have not done this but honestly I have 4 cues I am waiting on a cnc to finish and have been tempted to do just this......how do yall feel about that??? This has been a question on my mind lately......I have always prided my self on doing 100% OF all work myself.....I don't use any kind of blank exept for house cues....I don't buy shaft blanks even....cut them outta boards I buy.....soooo.......I'm very torn....I'll probably just wait until I have my own.....but still a good question
 
jcaction2587 said:
So quick question.....if a new cue maker like myself whom does not own a cnc yet....makes a cue that is ment to be an inlayed cue......designs the inlays.....and even know how to write the program and have the file stored on a zip drive......approaches another cue maker with a cnc with the request to either cut the inlays or let the new cue maker use his or her machine to cut the inlays........I have not done this but honestly I have 4 cues I am waiting on a cnc to finish and have been tempted to do just this......how do yall feel about that??? This has been a question on my mind lately......I have always prided my self on doing 100% OF all work myself.....I don't use any kind of blank exept for house cues....I don't buy shaft blanks even....cut them outta boards I buy.....soooo.......I'm very torn....I'll probably just wait until I have my own.....but still a good question
Click to expand...

There is absolutely nothing wrong in asking a friend for help. You are involved in every single stage. No issues with me and it shows a lot of class on your part. You don't even have to say who helped with the inlays, Unlike points and veneers which has already been beaten to death because it is and always will be, a major selling point and a very critical part of the cues construction, inlays are a cosmetic feature although still very important. Your still in total control of the cue.
 
Last edited:
I believe that most buyers are savvy enough to pick up on when a cue has been modified from it's original state by someone other than the original maker . A good example would be the southwest in the w/fs section that JV started a thread on . I would say that it made the cue more attractive cosmetically but killed the value . I wouldn't want the cue for even 1/5 of what the owner is asking. It has now become a Bastard child that nobody but the owner would want IMO. Everything about the cue has changed it is more of a Richard HSU cue now than a Southwest.

There was also a BB around that keeps popping up that was inlaid by Phillippi . Usually the second or third post in the thread outs the cue as a non-original.

Matt
 
Mike ,

How do you feel about a different maker fixing an inlay that is messed up by the original maker? Is that ok since it would be considered a repair?
 
I think one would be pretty naive to think this hasnt happened 100's of times. It is a common practice and has been for a long time.

I was told that one of the earliest cue dealers did this all the time. Most collectors know this.

Ken
 
lenoxmjs said:
I believe that most buyers are savvy enough to pick up on when a cue has been modified from it's original state by someone other than the original maker . A good example would be the southwest in the w/fs section that JV started a thread on . I would say that it made the cue more attractive cosmetically but killed the value . I wouldn't want the cue for even 1/5 of what the owner is asking. It has now become a Bastard child that nobody but the owner would want IMO. Everything about the cue has changed it is more of a Richard HSU cue now than a Southwest.

There was also a BB around that keeps popping up that was inlaid by Phillippi . Usually the second or third post in the thread outs the cue as a non-original.

Matt
Click to expand...

Hi Matt
I've done the best I can responding and being responsible for the threads I choose to start so I'm not going to run from you.
First-
Whether people like it or not, The Southwest in question value has been seriously damaged. It may have an ivory joint and butt cap but that rule doesn't apply to a cue such as a Southwest. The hit has been altered and it cannot be restored to it's original condition if the ring work has been lowered to accommodate the new joint. At best, it can be offered for sale with modifications done by Mr. Hsu,

Second-
Their is absolutely no one who has more respect for Mr.Phillippi than I do. I have been a fan of his work for as long as I can remember.

Any cue that has had inlays added by someone other than the original maker is just wrong. It should be disclosed when ever a cue of this nature should come up for sale and it does hurt the value.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top