$25 for a piece of chalk is ridiculous!

[justadub]

From your statement, I don't see that.

He didn't say 'any increase', according to you, he specifically quantified the increase. However, that still leaves the important question of what that quantification means.

Again, relativity plays a big part. 4 out of 4 is a lot different than 4 out of 104. "By 4" with no context doesn't mean anything.



Hyperbole does not make for a trustworthy opinion. Some are putting a lot of trust in a quote they can't seem to place in a proper context.

OK, for semantics sake, let's try again.

Perhaps he was meaning 4 fewer times than he would have were he using different chalk. for the duration of a given tournament. If that is 4 out of 200, or 4 out of 2000, it is still 4 fewer times. When every shot counts, 4 fewer times is four fewer times. Does that definition please the court?

It really doesn't matter, because those of you who feel so offended by this product will come up with whatever reason you like to argue the point. I'll grant you this thread has been more civil in it's debate than previous threads, for the most part. Still, it baffles me that there is so much hostility towards this product. (One that I haven't tried yet, either.)

If you don't like the price, that's cool. I don't like the price of lot's of pool equipment. That doesn't mean I'll come on here and proclaim that it cannot possibly be worth the money, even though I hadn't tried that particular product for myself.

 

[12ozCurl]

If John Schmidt is useing it, you can bet he got for free. Master chalk is 9 centavos a piece. $25 is pretty ballsy if you ask me.

Furthermore, the price of Kamui chalk alone will keep me from buying any of their other branded products. Kamui definetely doesn't have your "game" at heart or they would offer the wonder chalk at a more affordable price for everyone.

well that is your loss. They make damn good tips and even better chalk. If they would offer it at a lower price they would lose money......

I have already stated that they have only released 1300 peices of the #98 chalk over the past 6 months. If you do the math that is less than 10 peices a day...

This should tell you it is costly and time consuming. Quit *****ing if you cant afford it. Or atleast use it then ***** you didnt like how it worked.

It is not for everyone...

 

[Mitchxout]

well that is your loss. They make damn good tips and even better chalk. If they would offer it at a lower price they would lose money......

I have already stated that they have only released 1300 peices of the #98 chalk over the past 6 months. If you do the math that is less than 10 peices a day...

This should tell you it is costly and time consuming. Quit *****ing if you cant afford it. Or atleast use it then ***** you didnt like how it worked.

It is not for everyone...

If they're only capable of 10 pieces a day, they're in the wrong business. No, it's not for everyone, just suckers.

 

[Roadie]

The majority of products from China that are not ingested are safe. But the amount of cases of toxic materials in objects that can be ingested or are handled enough so that its possible to ingest residue is far higher in China than anywhere else in recent years.

The reactors were actually American designed from 30-40 years ago, so there goes that theory. Also, it was hit by one of the biggest quakes ever and a gigantic tsunami. Not many things in existence can stand up to that kind of beating. Its a wonder the buildings are even standing.

So you say but do you have actual data or are you relying on a few sensationalist stories?

Who spoke about the design of the reactors in Japan? The reactor design was not the problem. The tragedy was exacerbated by the fact, now known, that the company responsible for maintaining these reactors was lax in their duties and covered up safety issues in order to not have to spend the money, called profits, to fix them and make them stronger.

I completely agree that the power of nature dwarfs the tiny edifices we erect on the Earth. I agree that the people who work at Fukishima were/are brave upstanding men and women. Some of them have surely committed suicide by staying at the reactors and trying to contain the radiation. My point was that it is now known, after the fact, that some of the consequences could have been prevented if it weren't for the systemic covering up of safety issues. So it's not true that ALL Japanese follow the stereotype of being proud of "quality" and are morally unable to do something that harms their fellow man.

 

[Roadie]

If they're only capable of 10 pieces a day, they're in the wrong business. No, it's not for everyone, just suckers.

Why? Who determines how much of anything someone is allowed to produce?

Do you tell Barry Szamboti he is in the wrong business because he can only make 100 cues a year with his current setup?

It is sad to see people on this board calling other people suckers over this. The people doing the name calling generally do not use the product. They certainly do not make the product. They did not develop the product. They have no expense or investment in the product and yet they feel compelled to deride the maker and the customers of the product.

Yet by the same token no one complains about a $100 aluminum rack vs. a $5 wooden one. No one calls the buyers of the $100 one suckers.

No one complains about $1000 cues vs. $25 cues. Or $500 vs. $25 or even $200 cues vs. $10 cues and calls the people who buy the more expensive options suckers.

No one says that the person who opts to put the most expensive cloth on their table is a sucker. Or the person who buys Aramith balls for $250 vs. other balls for $25 is not called a sucker repeatedly.

This is simply a product. It's expensive relative to the other products in its category. It has several claims to live up to in order to justify that price and the market will determine if the price is justified or not.

People are fond of quoting PT Barnum where he allegedly said, "there is a sucker born every minute". While this statement is certainly a good one to apply to the proclivity of a lot of people's natural tendency to want to believe outrageous claims it in no way means that every company which makes products that claim to be improvements over the status quo are lying to the consumer. Because that is the implication when you say that Kamui chalk customers are suckers. You imply that they are buying into lies and quackery and by extension calling Kamui chalk makers liars and thieves.

Is that what you want to say? That they are liars and thieves and we who bought the chalk are victims of fraud and our own gullibility?

 

[XxMerlinxX]

Wow, can't believe you girls are still bickering about this.

 

[Roadie]

Well, I'd say his stroke under pressure is probably what he would need to work on to remedy that. What do you think his advice to himself would be, the same thing. Why do you think there are miscues? Pro pool players aren't Gods, they are guys who play very well.

For the purposes of the discussion professional pool players represent the pinnacle of technical precision currently existing. It's fair to say that they understand their game, their mechanics and the dynamic of the game in a far deeper sense than those who don't share their ability. Of course they may occasionally be wrong about the science when trying to describe an effect but they are not wrong in that they experience that effect with much more sensitivity than amateur players.

I would say that Mr. Schmidt's comment can be quite simply interpreted like this. Miscues happen and if the chalk product can help to reduce them then it's worth the money. Mr. Schmidt knows that miscues happen with the current brands of chalk, he is fully aware of his ability as a player and very experienced with playing under pressure. Thus I interpret his opinion to be that if the only new variable is chalk that actually reduces miscues (which would mean that it would have to have more grippiness) then it's worth the price being currently asked.

Where is this quote anyway, you seem obsessed with it. I'm not sure what he means by "it". I hate to break this to you, but everybody already knows that 4 reduced miscues in a tournamnet is very strong, so why keep bringing it up? This isn't evidence corroborating your assertions or anything. There is also a big "if" in that sentence, underlined by yours truly.

During one of the streams John was asked for his opinion about the chalk and this was his response.

New chalk just simply isn't how you miscue less, it's not the answer. But, let's just say for one second that this new chalk is the answer to miscuing less. Well, you're still wrong because any miscue after using the new chalk would still have to remedied by work on your stroke (under pressure), right? Or maybe you think a new piece of miracle chalk would be out by then? Or you think miscues wont exist after the kamui chalk?

Let's please restate the premise and take the stroke mechanics completely off the table. The use of chalk at all is how you miscue less. Period. Take five brands of chalk and start with no chalk and 1.5 tips from center ball. You will miscue 100%. Now chalk up with an even covering layer and shoot the same shot at 1.5 tips from center until you miscue. That will tell you how well the chalk performs for you.

The two things that are important when speaking about chalk are how well does it stay on the tip and how well does it increase the friction between the tip and the cue ball. If we are all truthful with ourselves we have to admit that we really do not understand the science behind the tip-chalk-ball reaction. Most of us that is because there are some bonafide physicists on this forum who do understand it at the theoretical level. But most of us have nothing more than our feeling to go on when we attempt to quantify performance in our equipment. There is no data, no charts that tell us what the absolute optimal combination of chalk, tip and ball is to produce a consistent result.

So it all boils down to simply try it and see how you like it. No need to berate others and tell them that their stroke sucks or they are suckers. Mr. Schmidt's point was that if it works to do x, then for him, it's worth it. And that's really the only point, if it works for the user to do x then for that user it's worth it. The next person may or may not have the same experience.

Obviously I agree with you that no matter what brand of chalk a person is using, no matter the cue or tip, they should certainly improve their mechanics to the point that mechanics are not to blame for errant shots.

 

[Roadie]

Wow, can't believe you girls are still bickering about this.

It is cheaper than a movie and more entertaining. Much more fun to debate the price of chalk rather than the truly criminal price of popcorn.

 

[Roadie]

If John Schmidt is useing it, you can bet he got for free. Master chalk is 9 centavos a piece. $25 is pretty ballsy if you ask me.

Furthermore, the price of Kamui chalk alone will keep me from buying any of their other branded products. Kamui definetely doesn't have your "game" at heart or they would offer the wonder chalk at a more affordable price for everyone.

Yes of course and if everyone in the billiard business cared about your game then they would give away everything for free or no profit. Would you be so kind as to reveal to us the cost of making this Kamui chalk product, to include any and all research and development costs? I would like to make the determination of what earnings, if any, Kamui is entitled to by judging the numbers for myself.

Maybe the answer is that any pool player who is so poor that they cannot afford $25 for a particular piece of equipment should consider finding a cheaper hobby?

 

[Masayoshi]

So you say but do you have actual data or are you relying on a few sensationalist stories?

Who spoke about the design of the reactors in Japan? The reactor design was not the problem. The tragedy was exacerbated by the fact, now known, that the company responsible for maintaining these reactors was lax in their duties and covered up safety issues in order to not have to spend the money, called profits, to fix them and make them stronger.

I completely agree that the power of nature dwarfs the tiny edifices we erect on the Earth. I agree that the people who work at Fukishima were/are brave upstanding men and women. Some of them have surely committed suicide by staying at the reactors and trying to contain the radiation. My point was that it is now known, after the fact, that some of the consequences could have been prevented if it weren't for the systemic covering up of safety issues. So it's not true that ALL Japanese follow the stereotype of being proud of "quality" and are morally unable to do something that harms their fellow man.

That's quite a different issue than product quality control, but I will concede considering that you seem so set on the fact that Chinese manufacturing is even in quality with Japan. Its no use arguing with someone that already has their opinion made up.

 

[Roadie]

That's quite a different issue than product quality control, but I will concede considering that you seem so set on the fact that Chinese manufacturing is even in quality with Japan. Its no use arguing with someone that already has their opinion made up.

I didn't say for one second that Chinese manufacturing is on par with Japanese. Of course in the aggregate it's not. That was not the issue you raised. You simply chose to bring up a stereotype which is not true.

China as a whole is full of factories where quality control is not as stringent as the standards by which the factories in more developed nations operate. That is clear. However it is a fallacy to then come to the conclusion that that a majority of products from China are dangerous to health. Quite simply put the remark about a Chinese knockoff of Kamui chalk being likely to contain poison is sensationalist based on a few reports and not based on the actual and real statistics covering the flow of Chinese products into the world.

Certainly I will grant you that any incidence of tainted products that are dangerous to health should be taken seriously and that such incidences should lead to greater scrutiny of the process as a whole. Poisoned bottles of Tylenol in the USA led to the implementation of tamper-proofing medicine and foodstuffs.

Thus is someone today contended that American medicine is unsafely packaged based on the news from two decades ago then they would be wrong. However today there is a lot of counterfeit medicine on the market with most of it coming from South America. This counterfeit medicine has made it's way all the way into pharmacies and given out on legitimate prescriptions. Does this mean that the next bottle of pills you get is likely to be fake or poisonous? No because the vast majority of pills are legitimate and the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of any given person getting the real thing from the pharmacy. But it would be easy enough to simply choose to ignore the data and sensationalize the fact that counterfeit medication exists, thus causing people to avoid medication altogether out of fear.

Also my opinion is a direct result of my job. I travel to China quite a bit sourcing products and materials. I have been in the worst factories you can imagine and factories so clean that you could eat off the floor. I do not rely on the news for my information when it comes to how I view China and Chinese products. Frustration is a constant companion when you deal with Chinese factories. But one deals with them because the quality is completely acceptable. If it were not then the low price would be meaningless.

 

[12ozCurl]

If they're only capable of 10 pieces a day, they're in the wrong business. No, it's not for everyone, just suckers.

They are not exclusive Chalk makers....infact they are a Tip company. They produce very good quality tips. The chalk is kind of like a side project. Their tip scuffer works quite well too!

Its not for suckers....

When your game reaches a certian level, you can tell the difference between chalks. You can tell the difference between shafts, tips, ferruls, cloth, and even balls....

I dont usally sell it to bangers. They cant justify the cost. Women buy it like crazy, but the guys that buy it from me are usally A or AA players.

If you make it out to the middle of the state let me know, I'll let you try a cube for a couple racks, then feel free to bash it.

 

[jimmyg]

That's quite a different issue than product quality control, but I will concede considering that you seem so set on the fact that Chinese manufacturing is even in quality with Japan. Its no use arguing with someone that already has their opinion made up.

Generally speaking, the Chinese are renowned for the poor quality of their manufacturing, conterfeiting, and outright dangerous consumer products.

The Japanese, on the otherhand, enjoy an excellent, well deserved, reputation.

J

 

[Roadie]

Generally speaking, the Chinese are renowned for the poor quality of their manufacturing, conterfeiting, and outright dangerous consumer products.

The Japanese, on the otherhand, enjoy an excellent, well deserved, reputation.

J

And 40 years ago you would have made the first statement about the Japanese.

The actual statement above should be stated like this, generally speaking the Chinese are stereotyped as having poor quality manufacturing, counterfeiting, and outright dangerous products. In fact the good products from China are rarely highlighted for the same reason bad news gets on the front page and good news is somewhere in the middle. Sensationalism sells.

Ask Sony's gaming customers how they feel about Japanese attention to quality while the network was offline for a month after Sony's computers were hacked using exploits that have been well documented and which would have been easy to secure. Sony is after all one of the oldest technological companies in the world. So if one wants to stereotype based on certain incidences should we conclude that the rest of the Japanese tech world is lax about security because Sony was?

 

[jimmyg]

And 40 years ago you would have made the first statement about the Japanese.

The actual statement above should be stated like this, generally speaking the Chinese are stereotyped as having poor quality manufacturing, counterfeiting, and outright dangerous products. In fact the good products from China are rarely highlighted for the same reason bad news gets on the front page and good news is somewhere in the middle. Sensationalism sells.

Ask Sony's gaming customers how they feel about Japanese attention to quality while the network was offline for a month after Sony's computers were hacked using exploits that have been well documented and which would have been easy to secure. Sony is after all one of the oldest technological companies in the world. So if one wants to stereotype based on certain incidences should we conclude that the rest of the Japanese tech world is lax about security because Sony was?

Not trying to get into a pissing contest here, just trying to separate fact from fiction. Sterotypes are popular beliefs about individuals and social groups, business reputations, on the other hand, are based on experience and are easily documented and measurable.

Fifty years ago Japanese products were mostly known as well made, cheaply priced. electronic, and other small consumer items. Forty years ago their electronic consumer products (Akai, Sony, Sansui) were state of the art, although their automobiles were newer to the market and of lesser quality. Currently, they enjoy a well deserved excellent reputation in most areas of manufacturing, including autos.

My prior statement on Chinese manufacturing is a widely known fact based on documented evidence, and stands on it's own merit. "Generally speaking, the Chinese are renowned for the poor quality of their manufacturing, conterfeiting, and outright dangerous consumer products."

J

 

[Roadie]

Not trying to get into a pissing contest here, just trying to separate fact from fiction. Sterotypes are popular beliefs about individuals and social groups, business reputations, on the other hand, are based on experience and are easily documented and measurable.

Fifty years ago Japanese products were mostly known as well made, cheaply priced. electronic, and other small consumer items. Forty years ago their electronic consumer products (Akai, Sony, Sansui) were state of the art, although their automobiles were newer to the market and of lesser quality. Currently, they enjoy a well deserved excellent reputation in most areas of manufacturing, including autos.

My prior statement on Chinese manufacturing is a widely known fact based on documented evidence, and stands on it's own merit. "Generally speaking, the Chinese are renowned for the poor quality of their manufacturing, conterfeiting, and outright dangerous consumer products."

J

Ok. Then the amount of American and Japanese Fortune 500 companies producing their products on the Chinese mainland should be enough to accurately measure the true state of quality of Chinese goods.

My apologies for adding to this but the assertion that your statement is a fact based on documented evidence is unnerving. Would you be so kind as to point us towards the documented evidence that backs your statement? I am not aware of any documented evidence that draws this conclusion which has been thoroughly peer reviewed. I can certainly agree with you that one could find plenty of biased articles to back up the statement you contend is a fact.

But I am interested in the measurability you mentioned. Can we make an agreement to take the 500 companies that make up the Fortune 500 and select the ones who are having a large portion of their hard goods produced in China and compare that to the amount of product bulletins issued in the past ten years? So, the test is import volume of goods produced by these companies vs. the volume of recalls for defective and potentially dangerous goods to find the percentage of such. This should be an accurate enough measure to tell us whether your statement is a fact, or whether it is a stereotype fueled by sensationalist reporting.

After all no one much cares about a headline that reads 50 million toys imported to America last year with no problems whatsoever. However if one toy is found to have some dangerous substance then it's news for weeks. As it ought to be in order to get the word out so that parents can make sure that their children are not exposed to that toy. But to extrapolate that incident to the whole production of a nation is a bit of a stretch.

Therefore I will be more than glad to change my position if you would be so kind as to provide proof of what you claim to be fact. Until then I respectfully disagree with your claim that your statement is fact and consider it to be stereotyping.

 

[jimmyg]

Originally Posted by jimmyg
Not trying to get into a pissing contest here, just trying to separate fact from fiction. Sterotypes are popular beliefs about individuals and social groups, business reputations, on the other hand, are based on experience and are easily documented and measurable.

Fifty years ago Japanese products were mostly known as well made, cheaply priced. electronic, and other small consumer items. Forty years ago their electronic consumer products (Akai, Sony, Sansui) were state of the art, although their automobiles were newer to the market and of lesser quality. Currently, they enjoy a well deserved excellent reputation in most areas of manufacturing, including autos.

My prior statement on Chinese manufacturing is a widely known fact based on documented evidence, and stands on it's own merit. "Generally speaking, the Chinese are renowned for the poor quality of their manufacturing, conterfeiting, and outright dangerous consumer products."
J Quote]

Ok. Then the amount of American and Japanese Fortune 500 companies producing their products on the Chinese mainland should be enough to accurately measure the true state of quality of Chinese goods.

There are certainly examples of higher standard Chinese factories manufacturing quality products, but there are thousands more examples of Chinese made junk in Wal-Mart and K-Mart. :smile:

Mercedes, Ferrari, and Lexus are not offshoring their products to China yet. Or, I suppose, we can take a good look at the Chinese cue industry.

Anyhow, I have no vested interest here so I'll let those that do continue.

J

 

[Roadie]

There are certainly examples of higher standard Chinese factories manufacturing quality products, but there are thousands more examples of Chinese made junk in Wal-Mart and K-Mart. :smile:

Mercedes, Ferrari, and Lexus are not offshoring their products to China yet.

Anyhow, I have no vested interest here so I'll let those that do continue.

J

Mercedes - http://articles.economictimes.india..._mercedes-benz-daimler-ag-largest-auto-market

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/mercedes-benz-to-expand-production-capacity-in-china-19521.html

Fiat, parent company of Ferrari - http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2009/gb2009077_696269.htm

Toyota/Lexus - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/20/us-toyota-china-idUSTRE73I2L120110420

I can't tell if Lexus is yet being made in China or not. In any event we can do a simple quality checklist and walk through a Wal-Mart and evaluate the products on sale. I am confident that the vast majority of Chinese made products on sale at Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Sears, Costco and Sam's Club will score well on the quality checklist in blatant and measurable opposition to the stereotype.

My "vested interest" lies only in having interesting discussion. Although my job is sourcing from China it in no way relies on anyone's opinions of China. Should there be a seismic shift in public consumption which would eliminate my job then I will simply find another one. My disagreement with your assertion stems purely from my experience and not because I wish your view to be untrue. I completely understand your point of view and I feel as though I know where it comes from. Belief does not make truth however.

 

[Spider1]

China today is no different than Japan of 1970, Taiwan of 1980 and Korea of 1990.

India will be next.

 

[alstl]

...but $1,000 dollars for a pool cue is normal.