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
