Inlaying another makers cue upon customers request.

[ratcues]

Name is max mckee from charleston,sc and im learning on my own.Books, DVD's, This forum and anywhere else i an pick up tips. Its not rocket science..
I respect your opinion as well..I dont agree with you..i have sold several cues and dont care what the customers do with them..I have been paid and made my money..If the owner wants another cue maker to add inlays on one of my cues, great, i have no problem with that.

With all due respect, the difference between you and me is reasoning. I am not doing what I do because of the money. I do it because I love it. I am emotionally invested. I have a burning passion for cues. I care what happens to my cues when they leave me.

With all the passion and emotion comes respect for others that do this as well. If you do not respect another's work, in turn, no one will respect yours.

 

[Mr Hoppe]

There have been a lot of good responses to this question, and I can see both sides. In this industry cues change hands on the secondary market frequently, and I think ultimately it's up to that market to penalize non-original modifications by significantly decreasing the value of the cue in question. In fact, I have seen this in action one time on a Black Boar cue in the Wanted/For Sale section of the forum.

I have heard of higher-end cues being referred to as "functional art" before, and if we use that context, it would be un-heard of for the owner of a valuable painting gave it to another artist to have something else added, because the painting would certainly decrease in value. At the end of the day it is the customer's cue and he can do what he wants with it. It's up to the resale market to make non-original modifications something not worth pursuing.

 

[zx24]

There have been a lot of good responses to this question, and I can see both sides. In this industry cues change hands on the secondary market frequently, and I think ultimately it's up to that market to penalize non-original modifications by significantly decreasing the value of the cue in question. In fact, I have seen this in action one time on a Black Boar cue in the Wanted/For Sale section of the forum.

I have heard of higher-end cues being referred to as "functional art" before, and if we use that context, it would be un-heard of for the owner of a valuable painting gave it to another artist to have something else added, because the painting would certainly decrease in value. At the end of the day it is the customer's cue and he can do what he wants with it. It's up to the resale market to make non-original modifications something not worth pursuing.[/QUOTE]

Was wondering when you were going to chime in..For what its worth, i agree with you!!!

 

[cueman]

You could not be more right and so very wrong at the same time. The individual who purchases the cue does have every right to do with it as they see fit. Any Cuemaker that would add inlays or do major modifications to a collectible cue is doing a disservice to their own potential customers. Collectors are a significant percentage of the cue buying public and assuming full disclosure would have no interest in a modified cue.

Can any Cuemaker know that the intent of the customer is not to defraud a future buyer.

It does not matter the owners intentions if the one adding the inlays signs them by engraving deep into the inlay work like I did on the one I modified. A simple refinish would not get rid of the signature. The resale value was not a consideration on the cue that the guy wanted to give his daughter. It was not a collectible cue at this period in history. I am not sure if I would add inlays or not in the future since I now know how strongly some cue makers feel negatively about it. But the honesty thing was the issue when I put inlays into the cue. I did not want someone in the future to think they had one of the fanciest cues the guy ever did himself. So the cue has two logos on it. I was told in some posts on here that signing it was even worse than not. That I totally disagree with. Signing the inlay work makes that cue known to have had art work added, by someone else. I hope the cue stays with his daughter and makes her happy that her dad had something special done just for her.
I had someone in my early years of cuemaking say that he wanted me to copy his Balabushka cue. I sensed that he was up to no good and chose not to allow him to back me. He was offering to put up thousands of dollars to set my shop up if I could make "Exact copies".

 

[JCIN]

I see both sides of this argument. To me as a customer it comes down to one thing. If I buy a cue I can do any damn thing I want with it. If I want to use it as a tomato stake, set it on fire, cut it in half and use it for a jump cue.....whatever.

That said, if I was a cuemaker I wouldnt put inlays in another guys work. For one reason more than any other is I wouldn't want the rep of being "that guy". It seems every time a top level cue gets altered by someone else and then goes up for sale it never works out well for the the maker who came second and did the altering. I can think of a BB and SW of the top of my head.

I think the market has done a good job of answering this question. The whole "Don't touch another mans work out of respect" thing sounds good in theory but for some people if a customer is paying the freight he gets what he wants so I'm not going to blame the guy for giving a clueless customer what he wants. That is what makes the world go around.

One big thing I agree 100% with is if inlays are added or changes on that level are made to a cue then the repairman/second guy needs to mark the cue in some way. I realize that is complete fantasy but it would lessen some of the hostility towards certain people I think.

 

[ratcues]

At the end of the day it is the customer's cue and he can do what he wants with it.

Although this statement is true, it really has nothing to do with what Mike originally posted. We are talking about inlays added by someone else. If approached with the proposition, what would you say? Would you do it?

Another angle is I don't want someone showing off my cue with someone's hack job inlays in it. It doesn't matter if he says "Its a Rat cue but I had Hacker Joe inlay these chicken nuts to it" All that person remembers is the "Rat cue+chicken nuts=ugly" part of the conversation.

<~~I'm not too far off because I've seen inlay tolerances that I could get closer with a 12 gauge.

 

[Mr Hoppe]

Ryan,
I share your passion and ownership of my own work, and would not like to see another adding anything to it. I agree with you that other cue makers should respect the work of his peers and decline such a customer request.

I would like to ask you a favor though, if it's not too much to ask, could you send me chicken_nuts.dxf? Sounds right up my alley...

 

[dave sutton]

I am on both sides I guess. I think a cuemaker adding ivory joint or buttcap is just as bad. Would I do it. Yes. I have. An ivory joint has playability factors but an buttcap does not. That's strictly for value. IMO

Now, I recently had a customer ask me if I could add a chess piece into a cue. No I can't but I did inquire to another maker if he had any chess piece programs for a cue. For this I'm on the fence. I want to make the customer happy but I don't want to pass the cue off as mine. I told him flat out I can't do it but I know someone who can.

I can see where it is a sticky situation but I think if it is fully disclosed then in certin situations it can be acceptable.

 

[ratcues]

I've always followed a simple rule. "Do no harm." It is like the hypocratic oath, I guess. I don't want to do anything to a cue that makes it worth less than when it came in. Yes, there will be exceptions but I feel that is the best way to sum it up.

 

[KJ Cues]

I've always followed a simple rule. "Do no harm." It is like the hypocratic oath, I guess. I don't want to do anything to a cue that makes it worth less than when it came in. Yes, there will be exceptions but I feel that is the best way to sum it up.

Tap, Tap, Tap.
My sentiments exactly.

 

[blackpearlmaker]

I've always followed a simple rule. "Do no harm." It is like the hypocratic oath, I guess. I don't want to do anything to a cue that makes it worth less than when it came in. Yes, there will be exceptions but I feel that is the best way to sum it up.

And i second to this....

 

[scdiveteam]

"Do no harm."

Well Said!!!

 

[cueman]

Although this statement is true, it really has nothing to do with what Mike originally posted. We are talking about inlays added by someone else. If approached with the proposition, what would you say? Would you do it?

Another angle is I don't want someone showing off my cue with someone's hack job inlays in it. It doesn't matter if he says "Its a Rat cue but I had Hacker Joe inlay these chicken nuts to it" All that person remembers is the "Rat cue+chicken nuts=ugly" part of the conversation.

<~~I'm not too far off because I've seen inlay tolerances that I could get closer with a 12 gauge.

It might be possible that someone who is not a "hack", could do as tight or maybe even tighter inlay work than yourself and that cuemaker is personal friends with the cue owner. Then if the cuemaker put a few inlays in the butt sleeve and intitialed them, would he still be "Doing Harm."
You might answer Yes because he upset you. But if he refuses to do it for his personal friend then he might Upset him. So what harm has he done? It will probably increase the value of the cue, and certainly will not hurt it in the short run.

 

[Michael Webb]

It might be possible that someone who is not a "hack", could do as tight or maybe even tighter inlay work than yourself and that cuemaker is personal friends with the cue owner. Then if the cuemaker put a few inlays in the butt sleeve and intitialed them, would he still be "Doing Harm."
You might answer Yes because he upset you. But if he refuses to do it for his personal friend then he might Upset him. So what harm has he done? It will probably increase the value of the cue, and certainly will not hurt it in the short run.

If it was my cue, I would be very upset. he might as well remove my logo while he's at it. There is no justification for it on my cue if I was not involved. I tell friends "no" all the time, if they are a friend, they'll respect my opinion. But with my opinion comes an explanation of why I said no.

 

[KJ Cues]

I don't think it's a question of how well the work can be done but the principle of the practice.
If the CM that's been asked to do the work doesn't get permission from the builder, he's disrespecting that builder and his work.
If he does have the permission of the builder then all concerns are removed.
It's real simple, get permission or don't do it.

You could also take the position that you don't need anyone's permission other than the owner's. That's certainly an option but it should be understood, as evidenced by this thread, that not everything thereafter would be considered favorable.
This is a strong topic with strong implications.
My concern is that of protecting the integrity of the builder.
There are few exceptions where this wouldn't apply but 'builder's permission' trumps them all.

 

[hangemhigh]

The thing that gets me is 9 pages and not one pic of an altered cue. This much to do about the bastardization of some-one's work must be prevalent for this voluminous of a discussion. Let's see those desecrated works of art everyone is talking about.

I can't post any because as I mentioned on page one that kind of work is always turned away at the shop.

 

[cueman]

The thing that gets me is 9 pages and not one pic of an altered cue. This much to do about the bastardization of some-one's work must be prevalent for this voluminous of a discussion. Let's see those desecrated works of art everyone is talking about.

I can't post any because as I mentioned on page one that kind of work is always turned away at the shop.

The practice is so rare that no one can post any examples. Much to do about nothing pretty much sums it up. I could dig out my old Schon and show it but I am not going to bother.
I guess the new question should be how many times has this been done to Mike's cues for him to be so upset about it?
I just remembered my first major cue work I did was in the early 80's and it was a paint job on a plain jane Mali I owned. I painted fancy black designs all over it and yes even then I signed my artwork and sprayed canned laquer over it. So twice I have made other makers cues fancier and both cues have my signature and logo on it as well as the makers. I almost forgot about that cue. I still have it too.

 

[JoeyInCali]

I don't think it's a question of how well the work can be done but the principle of the practice.
If the CM that's been asked to do the work doesn't get permission from the builder, he's disrespecting that builder and his work.
If he does have the permission of the builder then all concerns are removed.
It's real simple, get permission or don't do it.

tap tap tap
I have three problems with the practice.

1. You don't know the customer's motive . Or the next person who buys that cue. Sooner or later, it will get misrepresented. Maybe if it was in the open and the maker knows about it , it might be ok.
2. IT COULD ruin the original maker's name somewhat . Most won't know if this gaudy-looking ugly inlayed cue was done by another maker or not.
3. Inlaying a cue might ruin it's flow. It might look pretty to you or the customer but it might not have the flow that you don't even realize.
p.s.
Please don't inlay my cue. It's ugly enough.

 

[dr9ball]

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.

Ok, I don't build cues but I do some small repair work from time to time. So I hope I am not out of line asking a couple of questions here.

How do multiple man shops compare when one person leaves the shop?

Example would it be ok for Evan to modify/add inlay to a Schon cue that Bob Runde built years ago before he left Schon. or for Dan Janes / Tim Scruggs to work/add inlay to a cue that was built by Bill Stroud while at Joss?

Just curious. Also if an apprentice makes the cue and inlays it and the "master" cuemaker signs it, who should modify it the apprentice who actually built the cue or the "master" who signed the cue with their name? Particularly if the apprentice is now on their own in a new shop?


Thanks for indulging my questions.

Rufus

 

[Michael Webb]

The thing that gets me is 9 pages and not one pic of an altered cue. This much to do about the bastardization of some-one's work must be prevalent for this voluminous of a discussion. Let's see those desecrated works of art everyone is talking about.

I can't post any because as I mentioned on page one that kind of work is always turned away at the shop.

If pictures were posted, this thread would get deleted and quick too. Because now instead of talking about it, Fingers would be pointed. I didn't start this thread to single any one individual out and I hope everyone respects that.