Deal gone bad on superior cues site

I just don't like the cue with weight bolt in the butt...what can I say...That's just my sickness and you can think that martin is not wrong all you want but he was ignoring my phone call the whole time but before then he use to pick up my call so you tell me what is he hiding?

What I think really happen is that Don bought a cue from martin and somehow he change his mind and ask to return the cue but martin offer to sell the cue for him on his site so He doesn't have to refund the money to don and Don can use that money to buy more cue from martin

Martin text me that he sold several cues to don before so Don has be one of martin top customer and that's prob why martin don't want to bug don so he won't be pissed and keep buying cues from martin.

But what about me? I bought several item from him also but I prob didn't spend as much as Don and that's prob the reason why he's siding with don but I am a customer though

And I just decide to take the cue out of the tube again to check the weight and it's all wrong! Don told me the butt weight 15.5 oz and both shafts weight 4.0 oz but they're not!

The actual weight of the butt is 15.3 oz and both shafts weight 3.7 oz so this Don guy lies about the whole cue so he can get rid of it! He's a total BS and so is martin!

And also martin stated that I threaten him and harrasing him.I didn't even use any profanity.All I did was asking for him to talk some sense into don and ask him to call me and tell him that don scam me and I trusted his site and that's why I dealt with don cause I thought it was safe.

If Martin can show any prove that I threaten him or harass him by text or voicemail.I will gladly give him $1000 in cash and return this cue to don for free for all the drama and trouble I put them through and I will not log on to AZ website anymore and I shouldn't cause it will show that I am a POS!

But if he can't prove it then I don't think he should log on here and try to sell anymore cues anymore cause he can't be trusted

Oh and one more thing...what would you do if you're martin in this situation? Would you at least pick up my phone and ask me what happen or at least try talking to don?

That's all I have to say sir.You have a wonderful day

So irregardless of how a cue plays, the weight bolt is the most important aspect of a cue for you? Very kooky IMO. But to each his own.

Regarding the weight, before you cast stones (albeit a little late for that), are you sure the scale you used was calibrated to NIST standards? That's the only way to get an accurate measurement.

Sheesh, threads like this make me really miss Kevin brewer.. Good luck pookster, I hope things work out for you. Why you didn't negotiate a three day trial period (kbrewer's policy) was not wise (and the paypal gift option)...
 
I have just read this entire thread.

There are people I respect on both sides of this issue.

To me, there are some very troubling aspects to this deal.

imo, first and foremost is that Pookster received a cue that was inaccurately described and, as such, he is entitled to a refund. All of the commentary about how odd it is for him to be so fixated over whether or not there is a weight bolt is not relevant to the central issue.

He deserves a refund.

However, another big consideration is who is really responsible (or at fault).

If Martin had a clear disclaimer on his website stating that this cue was his customer Don's, and that any dealings pertaining to this particular cue would be between any potential buyer and Don, and that he (Martin) would not be a part of any such deal, then how could that not remove Martin from any responsibility?

If I'm on that sight and read that disclaimer, I know 100% that if I contact Don and do a deal, it's me and him, period!

I don't blame Pookster one bit for being angry and upset but his issue is with Don, the seller.

There has been a lot of speculation over Martin and Don's relationship and whether or not Don's selling this cue would open the door for him to buy another cue from Martin; guys, please, this is just guessing.

Worse than that, imo, are the few posts where guys are saying they don't remember the details but believe there was a previous incident where Martin did wrong.

If you are going to publicly slam a man who makes his living selling cues, you should be absolutely certain about a previous bad deal you think he did and include those details. To do otherwise is patently unfair, don't you agree?

And this leads me directly into my next point.

If Pookster read the clear disclaimer on Martin's website stating that Martin would not be a part of his customer Don's cue sale, then was it fair for Pookster to start this thread stating he got a bad deal on Superior Cues?

And I guess, to boil it all down to the most simplistic form, shouldn't Martin, who has an over 200 all positive iTrader, be afforded the benefit of the doubt when it comes to all the wild speculations over possible future deals, commissions, and all other potential ulterior motives?

Can't it just as easily be possible that Martin was simply doing a favor for a customer by hosting a picture of his cue that the guy was trying to sell?

Pookster, I think you're a good guy and Don really needs to square you away. And I agree with you that it would have been nice if Martin responded to you and even tried to contact Don on your behalf to see if that might help, even though he was under no obligation to do so (remember, disclaimer).

Being the fair guy you are, Pookster, maybe it would be nice if you backed off of Martin and do no further harm toward his and his company's rep.

And we can all turn our focus back on Don, where it belongs, to help you get back your refund and send the cue back to Don. :)

best,
brian kc
 
Last edited:
I have just read this entire thread.

There are people I respect on both sides of this issue.

To me, there are some very troubling aspects to this deal.

imo, first and foremost is that Pookster received a cue that was inaccurately described and, as such, he is entitled to a refund. All of the commentary about how odd it is for him to be so fixated over whether or not there is a weight bolt is not relevant to the central issue.

He deserves a refund.

However, another big consideration is from whom, and who is really responsible (or at fault).

If Martin had a clear disclaimer on his website stating that this cue was his customer Don's, and that any dealings pertaining to this particular cue would be between any potential buyer and Don, and that he (Martin) would not be a part of any such deal, then how could that not remove Martin from any responsibility?

If I'm on that sight and read that disclaimer, I know 100% that if I contact Don and do a deal, it's me and him, period!

I don't blame Pookster one bit for being angry and upset but his issue is with Don, the seller.

There has been a lot of speculation over Martin and Don's relationship and whether or not Don's selling this cue would open the door for him to buy another cue from Martin; guys, please, this is just guessing.

Worse than that, imo, are the few posts where guys are saying they don't remember the details but believe there was a previous incident where Martin did wrong.

If you are going to publicly slam a man who makes his living selling cues, you should be absolutely certain about a previous bad deal you think he did and include those details. To do otherwise is patently unfair, don't you agree?

And this leads me directly into my next point.

If Pookster read the clear disclaimer on Martin's website stating that Martin would not be a part of his customer Don's cue sale, then was it fair for Pookster to start this thread stating he got a bad deal on Superior Cues?

And I guess, to boil it all down to the most simplistic form, shouldn't Martin, who has an over 200 all positive iTrader, be afforded the benefit of the doubt when it comes to all the wild speculations over possible future deals, commissions, and all other potential ulterior motives?

Can't it just as easily be possible that Martin was simply doing a favor for a customer by hosting a picture of his cue that the guy was trying to sell?

Pookster, I think you're a good guy and Don really needs to square you away. And I agree with you that it would have been nice if Martin responded to you and even tried to contact Don on your behalf to see if that might help, even though he was under no obligation to do so (remember, disclaimer).

Being the fair guy you are, Pookster, maybe it would be nice if you backed off of Martin and do no further harm toward his and his company's rep.

And we can all turn our focus back on Don, where it belongs, to help you get back your refund and send the cue back to Don. :)

best,
brian kc
This is a crazy response and you know it!

Pooky has no leverage with Don! None!

Martin is responsible for anything on his site or affiliated with his company! No disclaimer can "undue responsibility' despite Martin's cries!

Martin regrets getting involved and posting items/soliciting sales for others misrepresenting the warranty and return policy.

Martin needs to stop this misleading business practice.

Additionally, Martin has engaged in defamation of pooky's character. Pooky has rebutted those claims and asked for proof! Never provided!!!

The conduct of Martin and superior cues speaks for itself!!!

Just glad the leopards are showing their true spots!!
!

Kd
 
I have just read this entire thread.

There are people I respect on both sides of this issue.

To me, there are some very troubling aspects to this deal.

imo, first and foremost is that Pookster received a cue that was inaccurately described and, as such, he is entitled to a refund. All of the commentary about how odd it is for him to be so fixated over whether or not there is a weight bolt is not relevant to the central issue.

He deserves a refund.

However, another big consideration is from whom, and who is really responsible (or at fault).

If Martin had a clear disclaimer on his website stating that this cue was his customer Don's, and that any dealings pertaining to this particular cue would be between any potential buyer and Don, and that he (Martin) would not be a part of any such deal, then how could that not remove Martin from any responsibility?

If I'm on that sight and read that disclaimer, I know 100% that if I contact Don and do a deal, it's me and him, period!

I don't blame Pookster one bit for being angry and upset but his issue is with Don, the seller.

There has been a lot of speculation over Martin and Don's relationship and whether or not Don's selling this cue would open the door for him to buy another cue from Martin; guys, please, this is just guessing.

Worse than that, imo, are the few posts where guys are saying they don't remember the details but believe there was a previous incident where Martin did wrong.

If you are going to publicly slam a man who makes his living selling cues, you should be absolutely certain about a previous bad deal you think he did and include those details. To do otherwise is patently unfair, don't you agree?

And this leads me directly into my next point.

If Pookster read the clear disclaimer on Martin's website stating that Martin would not be a part of his customer Don's cue sale, then was it fair for Pookster to start this thread stating he got a bad deal on Superior Cues?

And I guess, to boil it all down to the most simplistic form, shouldn't Martin, who has an over 200 all positive iTrader, be afforded the benefit of the doubt when it comes to all the wild speculations over possible future deals, commissions, and all other potential ulterior motives?

Can't it just as easily be possible that Martin was simply doing a favor for a customer by hosting a picture of his cue that the guy was trying to sell?

Pookster, I think you're a good guy and Don really needs to square you away. And I agree with you that it would have been nice if Martin responded to you and even tried to contact Don on your behalf to see if that might help, even though he was under no obligation to do so (remember, disclaimer).

Being the fair guy you are, Pookster, maybe it would be nice if you backed off of Martin and do no further harm toward his and his company's rep.

And we can all turn our focus back on Don, where it belongs, to help you get back your refund and send the cue back to Don. :)

best,
brian kc
You ask from who should refund the money?

When Martin and superior cues agreed to post the item for sale on his site. Part of that agreement would be to follow the "company's refund and return policy? "

Martin should have included buyer protections and protections for himself and his company! His short sightedness is not pookies problem but his!

The guy don won't do right then it falls on martin and superior to fix it and go after don to return the funds and adhere to the return policy of his business and site used to facilitate the sale.

Kd
 
This is a crazy response and you know it!

Pooky has no leverage with Don! None!

Martin is responsible for anything on his site or affiliated with his company! No disclaimer can "undue responsibility' despite Martin's cries!

Martin regrets getting involved and posting items/soliciting sales for others misrepresenting the warranty and return policy.

Martin needs to stop this misleading business practice.

Additionally, Martin has engaged in defamation of pooky's character. Pooky has rebutted those claims and asked for proof! Never provided!!!

The conduct of Martin and superior cues speaks for itself!!!

Just glad the leopards are showing their true spots!!
!

Kd

easy tiger, I'm not the enemy. :) I even like you.

just think about this, Kid, and please answer, yes or no. No need for further detail, just yes or no.

Is it possible that Martin was simply trying to do a favor for a friend (or just a customer) by hosting a picture of that friend's (customer's) cue with no other motive aside from doing a favor?

If you are being completely honest and unless you have inside info that the rest of us don't, then the answer *has to be* YES.

Then, logically, it's not a big stretch at all to connect the other dots provided in my "crazy response" above. ;)

Don owes Pookster, I think we should try to help him get the refund he's due.

best,
brian kc
 
Last edited:
Bottom line, is NEVER gift for a purchase. It's NOT fair to PayPay, and it leaves the buyer vulnerable.

A reputable seller should NEVER insist folks pay using the "gift" option.... because it only saves the seller money, while taking away valuable rights from the buyer. It does NOT help the buyer one iota, so don't do it, EVER. Not even for buying cheap stuff, like chalk.
 
Last edited:
You ask from who should refund the money?

When Martin and superior cues agreed to post the item for sale on his site. Part of that agreement would be to follow the "company's refund and return policy? "

Martin should have included buyer protections and protections for himself and his company! His short sightedness is not pookies problem but his!

The guy don won't do right then it falls on martin and superior to fix it and go after don to return the funds and adhere to the return policy of his business and site used to facilitate the sale.

Kd

Pookster is an adult and on Martin's site was a clear message stating that Martin is not a part of that cue sale, that if someone wants to contact Don, the seller, about purchasing that particular cue, that it would be between the potential buyer and Don.

Martin put potential buyers on clear notice that he was out.

Why is it okay then to tarnish Martin's rep?

best,
brian kc
 
Last edited:
Pookster is an adult and on Martin's site was a clear message stating that Martin is not a part of that cue sale, that if someone wants to contact Don, the seller, about purchasing that particular cue, that it would be between the potential buyer and Don.

Martin put potential buyers on clear notice that he was out.

Why is this being debated?

best,
brian kc
Now we get into the legal realm of what constitutes legal notice!

Pooky legally was not given proper notice of the disclaimers associated with the sale!

Its given proximity and location on the site is grounds to logically deduce the company's warranty and return policy applied!

Kd
 
You ask from who should refund the money?

When Martin and superior cues agreed to post the item for sale on his site. Part of that agreement SHOULD would be to follow the "company's refund and return policy? "

Martin should have included buyer protections and protections for himself and his company! His short sightedness is not pookies problem but his!

The guy don won't do right then it falls on martin and superior to fix it and go after don to return the funds and adhere to the return policy of his business and site used to facilitate the sale.

Kd
I dunno, kid...I think- at best- martin might refund pookie out of goodwill.

If there were only 2 options about the sale's responsibility, either don or Martin, then responsibility for meeting the obligations of the sale would clearly lie with don. Reality certainly says that the listing being posted on martins site lent it a degree of credibility it would not have had otherwise, therefore our thought that Martin does bear some responsibility for the exchange is valid.

Should he refund 4 figures though? That would be a lotta goodwill and I don't think it would really earn him what it's proponents are suggesting it would.

As I recall, pookie only asked for him to work to influence don to correct the matter. Any talk of Martin buying the cue is solely the azb's creation.
 
Pooky, why did you "gift" the payment ??

cause I'm stubborn and I trusted martin website.Hey I'll do it again if I trust someone...ummmmmm I don't know if I would but I don't think it should be an issue if you deal with a well reputated site or people
 
Now we get into the legal realm of what constitutes legal notice!

Pooky legally was not given proper notice of the disclaimers associated with the sale!

Its given proximity and location on the site is grounds to logically deduce the company's warranty and return policy applied!

Kd

legal schmegal.

if Pookster saw that Martin posted that any deals on this cue would be solely between potential buyers (Pookster) and Don, then *logically* Martin is out.

Out as in I'm just doing a favor here, not getting paid, don't want to deal with any subsequent bs if there is any...

my sense is that Pookster, perhaps with the help of the long arm of az, will get taken care of.

Based on the facts we know right now about this deal, Martin & Superior Cues should not be taking a hit to their rep.

best,
brian kc
 
Pookster is an adult and on Martin's site was a clear message stating that Martin is not a part of that cue sale, that if someone wants to contact Don, the seller, about purchasing that particular cue, that it would be between the potential buyer and Don.

Martin put potential buyers on clear notice that he was out.

Why is it okay then to tarnish Martin's rep?

best,
brian kc

Brian,

Drive into your nearest major indoor mall. Park your car and lock it. Go into, lets say, Dick's Sporting Goods. Return to your car and find it broken into. Just try to sue Dick's. Try to sue the mall. Ain't gonna happen. If you're lucky, the mall MIGHT provide the local police with surveillance footage.

I agree Martin is not responsible for the doings of a "visitor" to his website. If you fail to read the "legalese", you are the responsible person. Also agree "pookster" is a good guy and regardless of his reason for not wanting the product purchased, he should deal with the previous owner of the product, not Martin.

To be upfront, I have purchased from Martin in the past and will continue to do so if an opportunity presents itself. JMHO.

Lyn
 
legal schmegal.

if Pookster saw that Martin posted that any deals on this cue would be solely between potential buyers (Pookster) and Don, then *logically* Martin is out.

Out as in I'm just doing a favor here, not getting paid, don't want to deal with any subsequent bs if there is any...

my sense is that Pookster, perhaps with the help of the long arm of az, will get taken care of.

Based on the facts we know right now about this deal, Martin & Superior Cues should not be taking a hit to their rep.

best,
brian kc

That is one BIG if!!!

You think pooky saw the disclaimer and was properly notified and proceeded anyway with Reckless abandon on a 1k plus deal???

Kd
 
If Martin had a clear disclaimer on his website stating that this cue was his customer Don's, and that any dealings pertaining to this particular cue would be between any potential buyer and Don, and that he (Martin) would not be a part of any such deal, then how could that not remove Martin from any responsibility?

If I'm on that sight and read that disclaimer, I know 100% that if I contact Don and do a deal, it's me and him, period!

I don't blame Pookster one bit for being angry and upset but his issue is with Don, the seller.

There has been a lot of speculation over Martin and Don's relationship and whether or not Don's selling this cue would open the door for him to buy another cue from Martin; guys, please, this is just guessing.

Worse than that, imo, are the few posts where guys are saying they don't remember the details but believe there was a previous incident where Martin did wrong.

If Pookster read the clear disclaimer on Martin's website stating that Martin would not be a part of his customer Don's cue sale, then was it fair for Pookster to start this thread stating he got a bad deal on Superior Cues?
best,
brian kc

Would someone please post this disclaimer, I cant find it.
 
cause I'm stubborn and I trusted martin website.Hey I'll do it again if I trust someone...ummmmmm I don't know if I would but I don't think it should be an issue if you deal with a well reputated site or people

Pookster;

Our late, great, business guru, Kevin Brewer, always told us never to pay on paypal using the gift option because if something goes wrong, there is no recourse.

Instead, fund all paypal purchases using your credit card choosing the "goods and services" option and by doing so you will have both paypal buyer's protection as well as your credit card which you can file a dispute with, if needed.

best,
brian kc
 
Pookster is an adult and on Martin's site was a clear message stating that Martin is not a part of that cue sale, that if someone wants to contact Don, the seller, about purchasing that particular cue, that it would be between the potential buyer and Don.

Martin put potential buyers on clear notice that he was out.

Why is it okay then to tarnish Martin's rep?

best,
brian kc

Chicken I never ever blame matin in the first first.I never ask him for a refund either.All I ask is for him to call me back and if Martin would of call me back and say Hey Pooky I am not responsible for don and he is sorry or something that make me feel like he wasn't part of it then I would ok with martin and move on

Now martin use to pick my call cause I was one of his customer but when I have a problem he ignore me.Why is that???? I think that's F up!

Chit I lose way more money than that on the pool table and in casino but this is not about money cause I feel like I got scam.

I call martin and left a message twice then I call about 2 more time.He won't pick up and I know he didn't pick up cause it was me calling.I text him and ask him nicely to call me back.I ask him nicely ( no profanity ) I use PLEASE also and martin still won't call me back.

Instead he text me and just flat out say He has nothing to do with what don does to me.Are you going to ask me what happen at least? And he accuse me of threaten him and harassing him.Really??? I am from the the country where we were taught to respect our elders ok and to be honest cause KARMA is Bit@$!
 
That is one BIG if!!!

You think pooky saw the disclaimer and was properly notified and proceeded anyway with Reckless abandon on a 1k plus deal???

Kd

yes I do and the reason why is because we are on page ten and the disclaimer has been mentioned ad nauseum and Pooskster has not disputed it.

In fact, in responding about it he commented that he wasn't looking for Martin to refund him but rather to intervene on his behalf with the seller, Don.

best,
brian kc
 
Bingo. A thousand to the pook isn't money. It is the principle of the matter that gets under his skin. He was wronged by the don and should be refunded, by the don.

Chicken I never ever blame matin in the first first.I never ask him for a refund either.All I ask is for him to call me back and if Martin would of call me back and say Hey Pooky I am not responsible for don and he is sorry or something that make me feel like he wasn't part of it then I would ok with martin and move on

Now martin use to pick my call cause I was one of his customer but when I have a problem he ignore me.Why is that???? I think that's F up!

Chit I lose way more money than that on the pool table and in casino but this is not about money cause I feel like I got scam.

I call martin and left a message twice then I call about 2 more time.He won't pick up and I know he didn't pick up cause it was me calling.I text him and ask him nicely to call me back.I ask him nicely ( no profanity ) I use PLEASE also and martin still won't call me back.

Instead he text me and just flat out say He has nothing to do with what don does to me.Are you going to ask me what happen at least? And he accuse me of threaten him and harassing him.Really??? I am from the the country where we were taught to respect our elders ok and to be honest cause KARMA is Bit@$!
 
Back
Top