how many custom cue makers

I see. That's what makes an ICA Cuemaker. I understand that, and the purpose of it. Most professions and trades eventually engage in credentials, licensure, regulation, standards, etc as a matter of protecting those organizing it. That's clear.

I have heard before of Abe Rich's comments about Balabushka. I always enjoy hearing of such things. Little golden nuggets of history.

From an "official" standpoint I understand the position of such an organization as the ICA.

But certainly, one cannot believe that is truly the definition of a Cuemaker. Of course, officially, such an organization must, in order to protect the interests of its members, maintain that it is the actual definition.


I feel confident that there are and have been numerous makers that in fact are not members of the ICM. Did cue makers not exist before the ICM?

I deal with such credentialing matters and the related organizations and memberships every day, but in medicine. I am keenly aware of the evolution and purpose of such things.


But at any rate. It is an interesting notion to ponder. What makes a cue maker a cue maker? There are indeed at least several quite legitimate perspectives on the matter.



.
 
In my opinion, if you can make, and sell, cues on a profitable basis, then you should be considered a cuemaker. I played music for many years, (drummer) and got paid to do so many times, but while I could play, and make money at it, I could not earn a living at it, so I was a musician, but not a professional musician the way I see it. I never even thought I was that good until other people said I was. As per cuemaking, if you can make and sell cues at a profit, and get people to want to buy them, by my reasoning you would be considered a Cuemaker.
 
I've made a dozen or so cues so far. More than that if you count the failures that ended up in the trash, or as test subjects for a new idea. I can't sit here and put myself in the same category as Tim Scruggs or Richard Black. Those guys are cue makers in my eyes. The reason being, they have mastered every aspect of cue construction in their own style. 4 point, 4 veneer cues aren't easy, and its common to see those from those makers. Zylr cues are known for their superb playability and low key looks. I would call him a cue maker as well, because if he wanted to do points and veneers, he could have done every cue that way, but from what I've read about him, his philosophy was more about making great playing cues. I've hit with some high end cues with lots of inlays and points and veneers and some hit like crap. I've never heard of a plain Jane TAD cue hitting like crap though. I'll be a cue maker someday, but for now I still consider myself a cue maker in training.

Joe
 
I think there are many levels of cue maker out there. There should be some kind of ranking system in the ICA. Like, guys like Scruggs, Mottey, Black, Runde, etc. Would be considered the highest level, and guys like me, the lowest level. Maybe give everyone a rank on a scale of 1 to 10 based on what they are capable of. Just a thought.

Joe
 
Professional:He who does it with proficiency

Professional: He who does it with proficiency. I can see now that more are jokers than pros.
juspooln said:
Kinda reminds me of my favorite golf quote " I hate this game... you wanna play tomorrow"

I built my first cue in late 05 am I a cue maker ? These days there are so many paths to being a cue maker each person has to figure their way out for them self

Are you a cue maker when your customers say you are ? or when your fellow tradesmen say it ? :confused:

Almost as bad as trying to figure out what constitutes a pro pool player:eek:

I think Chris would have the best estimate though
Click to expand...
 
Been There Done That!

snipershot said:
I think there are many levels of cue maker out there. There should be some kind of ranking system in the ICA. Like, guys like Scruggs, Mottey, Black, Runde, etc. Would be considered the highest level, and guys like me, the lowest level. Maybe give everyone a rank on a scale of 1 to 10 based on what they are capable of. Just a thought.

Joe
Click to expand...

We started the ICA out with several levels of cuemakers which were based on the level cue you presented for membership. If you presented higher level work later we would put a higher level number next to the cuemaker title. That turned into a nightmare with people complaining and causing us lots of grief. After someone resigned their membership over a trans-gender cuemaker being rated higher than them we decided it best to just include occasional low end cuemaking under the Cue-repairman title and drop the levels. Our former levels were 1 -5. We still list cues on our cue gallery site in those 5 categories, but no longer list the artistic level each maker has achieved.

We still once in a while have a cuemaker want us to put "Master Cuemaker" instead of just Cuemaker as their title if they join. We refuse and they don't join.

So yes, anyone who has ever built even one horrible cue is technically a cuemaker.
And anyone who has ever put on a tip is technically a cue-repairman.
But to get ACA or ICA status they will have to meet some standards.

I forgot to mention we also have another membership level for those building low end cues which have not reached ICA "Cuemaker" level and that is "Apprentice".
 
Last edited:
I haven't really looked at the standards etc required but that makes a lot of sense to me. Too many levels would get convoluted and would create a lot of BS I think.

From what I gather from the above post there is Apprentice, Cue Repairman, and Cuemaker.

Seems reasonable and pretty much makes a place for anybody that should reasonably belong to such an organization.

I think the Apprentice level is especially important. Without such a thing the organisation would be exclusionary and perhaps seem a bit too aloof. It serves the goals of the preservation and advancement of the trade I think.


.



.
 
cueman said:


We started the ICA out with several levels of cuemakers which were based on the level cue you presented for membership. If you presented higher level work later we would put a higher level number next to the cuemaker title. That turned into a nightmare with people complaining and causing us lots of grief. After someone resigned their membership over a trans-gender cuemaker being rated higher than them we decided it best to just include occasional low end cuemaking under the Cue-repairman title and drop the levels. Our former levels were 1 -5. We still list cues on our cue gallery site in those 5 categories, but no longer list the artistic level each maker has achieved.

We still once in a while have a cuemaker want us to put "Master Cuemaker" instead of just Cuemaker as their title if they join. We refuse and they don't join.

So yes, anyone who has ever built even one horrible cue is technically a cuemaker.
And anyone who has ever put on a tip is technically a cue-repairman.
But to get ACA or ICA status they will have to meet some standards.

I forgot to mention we also have another membership level for those building low end cues which have not reached ICA "Cuemaker" level and that is "Apprentice".
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't think about peoples egos. I would say I'm at the apprentice level, but the journeymen who are teaching me are all here on AZB. At least I'm not transgendered. Lol. Thanks for the post Chris.

Joe
 
Chopdoc said:
I haven't really looked at the standards etc required but that makes a lot of sense to me. Too many levels would get convoluted and would create a lot of BS I think.

From what I gather from the above post there is Apprentice, Cue Repairman, and Cuemaker.

Seems reasonable and pretty much makes a place for anybody that should reasonably belong to such an organization.

I think the Apprentice level is especially important. Without such a thing the organisation would be exclusionary and perhaps seem a bit too aloof. It serves the goals of the preservation and advancement of the trade I think.


.



.
Click to expand...

With our Apprentice membership the qualification is they must own or have access to cuemaking equipment and be actively pursuing the advancement of their cuemaking skills. Well even then I had a member resign because we voted to allow an Apprentice to join from a country known for making low quality cues. An apprentice need not have great skills as he might still be in the lower learning levels. But some wanted us to discriminate against apprentices from that country. Some did not want us to allow any members from that country. Well the board stood for what we thought was right and lost some members over it. One resigned over it on the spot and others just did not renew their memberships at the end of the year. At one time I felt more like a referee than a director. But in recent years everyone is getting along and we have a great group of guys. Our forum has been dead lately compared to AZ, but there has been a lot of good info shared there.
 
cueman said:
With our Apprentice membership the qualification is they must own or have access to cuemaking equipment and be actively pursuing the advancement of their cuemaking skills. Well even then I had a member resign because we voted to allow an Apprentice to join from a country known for making low quality cues. An apprentice need not have great skills as he might still be in the lower learning levels. But some wanted us to discriminate against apprentices from that country. Some did not want us to allow any members from that country. Well the board stood for what we thought was right and lost some members over it. One resigned over it on the spot and others just did not renew their memberships at the end of the year. At one time I felt more like a referee than a director. But in recent years everyone is getting along and we have a great group of guys. Our forum has been dead lately compared to AZ, but there has been a lot of good info shared there.
Click to expand...


On the various medical and specialty boards there is generally a layperson member. Is that the case on yours? This often provides an outside perspective.

The example I would give is a friend and mentor who is a PhD in anatomy. He is a layperson member of the Board of Clinical Pathology. Although he is in the sciences he is not a clinician, not a physician at all.

I can imagine the kinds of things you would deal with and you have my respect for stepping up to the plate. It isn't easy.

As for the matter of certain countries being discriminated against, a cue maker cannot help where he was born and in addition if I am not mistaken the I in ICA stands for International.



.
 
Chopdoc said:
On the various medical and specialty boards there is generally a layperson member. Is that the case on yours? This often provides an outside perspective.

The example I would give is a friend and mentor who is a PhD in anatomy. He is a layperson member of the Board of Clinical Pathology. Although he is in the sciences he is not a clinician, not a physician at all.

I can imagine the kinds of things you would deal with and you have my respect for stepping up to the plate. It isn't easy.

As for the matter of certain countries being discriminated against, a cue maker cannot help where he was born and in addition if I am not mistaken the I in ICA stands for International.

.
Click to expand...

Your quote in bold is what I thought and said.
All board members are cuemakers. We do have members who are not into cue repair or building. They are associate members and we also have supplier members.
 
cueman said:
Your quote in bold is what I thought and said.
All board members are cuemakers. We do have members who are not into cue repair or building. They are associate members and we also have supplier members.
Click to expand...



What does associate membership entail?


.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top