A Lousy Move By Bob Meucci - a PSA

sellingboe said:
Secondly, in tennis I chose a control racket because I could generate my own power, but others might have chosen a stiffer racket to generate more pace because they didn't have the power to generate pace. What is the cue analogy?
Click to expand...

hi there, interesting that you mention/ask about this-
as a tennis/pool guy myself, I've often considered pool in tennis terms, since I, too, started with a racket
lately, I've been thinking a little about my cue compared to my tennis racket
I use an open bridge and so I've been experimenting with using a heavier shaft, but I'm not sure what the racket comparison is
you get significantly more power from the racket using a head-heavy racket, but I don't think as much with the heavy shaft
I will say that I don't need or like a heavy cue, overall- I can generate enough of my cue speed
I would liken that to my racket of choice, where more of the racket's weight lives in the grip
I also like a stiffer tennis racket, for control, and maybe that's why I like a conically-tapered cue
I also like a smaller racket head, maybe there's a connection between that, and the smaller cue tip I use (11.5-12mm)
having relatively small hands, I also use a 4 1/8 inch racket grip, so it makes sense that I don't like a really thick cue handle
etc...it's interesting to think about. would also be curious to hear more opinions on such comparisons-

edit: like jay said, as a shorter guy (also with shorter arms), I do kind of favor a shorter cue, and also a more forward-leaning BP
 
Kickin' Chicken said:
I, like many who played pool in the late 70's and 80's, enjoyed using a Meucci Originals cue. To me, they not only had some very nice designs but the playability was terrific. Meucci was flying high back then sponsoring many of our pool heros (and heroines) and it looked like there was no stopping them. Fast forward nearly 40 years and while Meucci is in another attempt at resurgence, it remains to be seen if they can come out from the deep hole they dug for themselves, specifically, I'm referring to their poor quality and equally poor customer service. I know about both of these from many reports as well as my own first-hand experiences.

On to the purpose of this post. In a weak moment a couple months ago I was talked into selling my main player from the 80's, a MO plain jane maple cue with a sprayed-over wrap. This cue played beautiful. I had a few other MO's along the way that I also sold and each of them played equally well and so I decided I was going to treat myself to another MO.

I searched and found one that I liked on eBay and negotiated a Buy Now price with the seller but something was telling me the cue isn't right. I asked myself, Could this be one of the reissue "Meucci Originals" that I've heard about which are not nearly the same quality as the real originals?

I started to research how to tell the difference between the genuine MO's and the reissues since Bob didn't mark these reissues any differently. Was this done to be deceptive? He had to know the confusion this would create in the market, and it sure has. What I did find was helpful for me and helped me to determine that the eBay MO was not an original. The telltale sign was that the "A" in the word originals had bleeding causing the top of the A to be a solid colored triangle. The reference I found that discusses this is in the link below. fyi, this problem with the top of the A is not that way on all reissues but if it's there, be suspicious. The other thing they mentioned is that the diameter of the butt cap openings that accept the rubber bumpers is different. The genuine originals are approx .750 whereas the reissues are approx .675. Here is the link:

How to Date a Meucci Original MO-7?

How to Date a Meucci Original MO-7?
www.billiardsforum.com

The eBay MO I found can be seen at the following link - if you view the pics you'll see a closeup showing the "A" with ink bleed:

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-...0001&campid=5335988529&icep_item=174578442823

I didn't buy it; I wonder if the new owner knows it's a reissue... o_O

So, bottom line is that if you are in the market for a Meucci Originals cue and you do not want one of the reissues then proceed with appropriate caution.

best,
brian kc
Click to expand...
Meucci cues were the choice of champions. Now they are tied for last at the bottom rung of third tier cues.

I had good memories of my first Meucci. However these days there are a hundred better options for your dollar. My opinion
 
mikemosconi said:
Thanks for this information- I agree with you- some may say here that he owns the right to the name and so he can re use it anytime he desires- however, once he dropped the Meucci Originals series of cues and started using just the name Meucci on his cues; it now becomes buyer beware for anyone looking for a pre 95 series Meucci cue to know whether they are buying a Meucci Original or a Meucci original RE-MAKE.

I personally think that his 95 series cues played the best- We have a 95-17 and 95-19 cue in my family- these were remakes from his Meucci Original "OLDIE Series " cues- one looks like a Bushka and the other was also known as the "airplane" cue. One certainly does not need a pure stroke to draw well with any quality Meucci shaft pre 2000.
Click to expand...
He worked for Paul HUEBLER way back and they had a HUEBLER , Meucci custom cue line under Paul’s branding. When Bob tried going on his own Paul did not let him use that name and that’s how Meucci Originals came to be. Then he went to Meucci and his customs are BMC Bob Meucci custom.

Trademark issues 👍
 
Mr. Meucci Is smart marketing guy, some Cuemakers keep doing same Cue designs as over & over again.

Why change if people are buying?
 
garczar said:
LD vs. non-LD????? How does that apply to a racket? You guys are really reaching. I used to be in that business. Knew engineers at Head, Yonex, Kennex pretty well. Two different tools for two totally different games.
Click to expand...
Now you're just defending an indefensible statement. Rackets have a flexibility scale. Isn't the shaft analogous to the racket frame? Isn't the string analogous to the tip? Big deal, you knew engineers. Tools...you said it. Who gives a fuck about the fact they're two different games. Do you understand what an analogy is?
 
garczar said:
What's your fkng problem? Wow. Not get your Thorazine today?
Click to expand...
Me? Seriously? I notice you do this a lot. You have some really good input, often in fact, and then out of nowhere you make some ridiculous statement and rather than take a "my bad" approach, you double down. Why? You don't need to be right all the time. It's ok to not know everything. I'm done. Have the last word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top