Is it honest.......?

Is it honest?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 17.9%

  • No

    Votes: 32 82.1%
  • Total voters
    39
subdude1974

subdude1974

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
To call a cue made by one cuemaker out of a blank from another cuemaker to be one of the others? In other words, if I had a Scruggs blank and had somebody else complete it, is it being dishonest to call it a Scruggs? I have had a certain cue offered to me in trade, the same cue, at least twice, maybe three times by different people. Once I see it, I know what it is but everyone has called it not by the makers name but rather the blanks name. I personally think it is very shady and dishonest. Curious what others think.
 
"X" = The cuemaker putting together/building/completing the cue, regardless of where the blank came from.
"Y" = The cuemaker who made the blank.

IMO it is only proper to call a cue such as you described one of two things. Either an "X cue", or an "X cue made with a Y blank".

It should never be referred to as simply a "Y cue" and I agree that calling it such is dishonest.
 
Last edited:
I can understand saying it is an "X made from a Y blank". But definitely not just a Y. If so, I should be able to sell some Palmers as Gus Szambotis as some were made with his blanks. Thankfully, I knew the cue as soon as I saw the pics. But if I was buying the cue, the seller wasn't volunteering the info.
 
Completely dishonest, but I'd suspect one person sold it as a scruggs (in your example) and the others didn't know until they went to move the cue. If you think you have a scruggs, and find out later someone says it is a schon, who are going to believe. The person that sold it to you, or the person who said its a schon?
 
My question is this to make any of this valid.

What really makes a cue? Is it the wood used? The way it is made if used made out of layers? Or is it the art work that is used to distinguish the cue?

To me, - the art work is simply decoration and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual functionality of the cue. The wood, ferrule and joint do. However, saying a cue is made by X is implying that the cue was designed and completely finished by X so if you only say it is a X cue without specifying it is X cue with art by Y then I would say yes you are being dishonest.

I would be willing to bet that whomever is the more popular or individual who's name you can use to monetize it more is the one you will call it by. If you have some no name "artist" finishing the cue and their work will not be up to the standard of the person you want to call it by, are you being honest?
 
Funny to see a $30 dollar Dufferin made into a sneaky pete with a "S" on the bottom

of it and see it sell for $1,500.
 
There are plenty of cues that are from others blanks ,, Titleist conversions are always called just that ,, cues made using John Davis or Pranther blanks are almost always disclosed , I have never seen a blank called a Scruggs blank but if it is it should be disclosed in today's world

Back in the day they were not

1
 
I am not talking about conversions. Conversions are easy to spot for the most part. But as far as the Dufferin converted and had an S put on it, I would ask this question. Do you sell it as an S or an S conversion? To me, conversions and/or cues made from blanks should be sold as such. To list it otherwise is crooked as he'll.
 
cubswin said:
Completely dishonest, but I'd suspect one person sold it as a scruggs (in your example) and the others didn't know until they went to move the cue. If you think you have a scruggs, and find out later someone says it is a schon, who are going to believe. The person that sold it to you, or the person who said its a schon?
Click to expand...
The person never mentioned it to me until I pointed out what it was and they already knew but didn't disclose it.
 
By saying it is honest to say that, then you should be able to honestly sell a Palmer made from a Szamboti blank as a Gus Szamboti. It is the exact same thing. It is misleading in the very least.
 
subdude1974 said:
To call a cue made by one cuemaker out of a blank from another cuemaker to be one of the others? In other words, if I had a Scruggs blank and had somebody else complete it, is it being dishonest to call it a Scruggs? I have had a certain cue offered to me in trade, the same cue, at least twice, maybe three times by different people. Once I see it, I know what it is but everyone has called it not by the makers name but rather the blanks name. I personally think it is very shady and dishonest. Curious what others think.
Click to expand...

If X blank is used but finished and made a cue by Y, it is the cue of maker Y.

If X is less than Y, then Y must be the prime. :)

If a cuemaker (x) was to pass and the cue needed a wrap and finish, then the cue went to (y) for finishing.

Then X is greater than Y, and therefore it is an X.

JV
 
By the same token, the blank maker is not responsible for the work of the cuemaker!
 
Bushka made cues out of Spain and Szamboti blanks as well as Titlist. They are Buska. I have a Dale Patten cue madefrom a Szamboti blank. It is a Dale Patten not Szamboti. And so it goes....anyone thinking otherwise is flat wrong. If you disagree, I will sell you this cue at half the value of a Szamboti :thumbup:
 
That is exactly what I was saying to the guy. I think some were confused and thought I was referring to a conversion. Any collector or dealer that has half a brain understands the concept. Sad thing is, the guy told me he sold the cue. I just hope it was disclosed that it was a cue finished by a second maker from a blank made by a different maker.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top