Authentication _ Discussion

Ken_4fun

Ken_4fun

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
All -

I guess I would like to discuss authentication. We all see it on TV, and we are seeing it with cues often, especially with those unmarked.

A.) The ones I note most often are the Kersenbrock vs. Southwest. Laurie is most often noted as the authority. So I will ask one question on that. When you send one to her, does she say "YES, SOUTHWEST" or "NO, Not a SOUTHWEST", and then does she "No Not a Southwest and it IS a Kersenbrock"?

B.) Balabushka - Most state that Pete, is the authority, but I have often heard Schick, or Barry.

C.) We have read the fiasco on the TS cue. And I am not really to rehash it, but probably it is what has me asking additional questions.

Questions - Points of Discussion

1. If a cue maker says he didn't make the cue.
Is that the end? (Maybe)
Should it be the end? (Maybe)
Do cue makers make mistakes? (Sometimes)

2. I know probably the top cue maker in the country has made a mistake and has changed his policy on authentication. He was sent a cue for verification, and he verified the cue, and it was later discovered it was wrongly authenticated.

Let's assume you were buying a Balabushka, and sent it for verification. You get it and make a purchasing decision based on that authentication. Should the person that made the authentication bear any responsibility financially? (I think so, you pay for the authentication).

I don't read the authentication as an opinion; I think it stronger than that.

Just to be clear, I have nothing out for Authentication now. Nor do I have any issues, along these lines. I have "no dog" in the TS issue, I am only writing this for discussion and opinions. We have some dealers here, cue guys and overall nice fellas. But it is my opinion that most folks think that authentication is the end of ends.

Best of rolls for all,

Ken
 
If you pay someone to authenticate and they are wrong then they are liable. If it goes to court and you are the authenticator, then be sure to ask for a six woman jury.

JC
 
I can't really comment on whether or not Laurie says "Yes it IS a SW / No its NOT a SW. Its a Kers". I've never dealt with authenticating really. Just once and that was on an old Fedunka sent to Paul Rubino. I've owned and sold a few SW's and whenever I bought them, I knew they came from a reputable dealer who knew the maker, so authenticity wasn't a major concern. In hindsight, that was foolish. I've seen a few instances as where a reputable dealer was duped and didn't know better. And like you said, there have been a few instances in the past where a cue maker has said "Yep. I think that's one of mine" and wound up being wrong. Unless there are records to prove it, trusting the word of someone who is NOT the cuemaker, or trusting a cuemaker who has made hundreds or thousands of cues to be able to accurately recall each and every one he made... its a gamble.

To be honest, the TS/fake TS full splice threads have kinda opened a can of worms I'm not sure anyone expected. And to an extent, it does bring a degree of uncertainty to the authentication process. The idea that "Tim said" doesn't really mean much to me because Tim hasn't publicly said anything. We just have the claim that someone else swears 'Tim said'. And all of those clues that "anyone who knows Tim's cues can see the signs but we're not saying what those clues are". Well, a dealer who SHOULD know those clues didn't notice anything wrong and sold that cue as a TS. Paul Drexler's input doesn't do much in the way of verification either because, no offense to Paul, he doesn't/didn't work in that shop. And unless Tim and Mike filled him in on every single detail about every single cue they ever made, who's to say he's wrong OR right?

Its kind of a shame because all that ended up happening with those threads is... way too many people have walked away not feeling 'enlightened' but rather, feeling wary. Feeling enlightened would have helped the Scruggs market as it would have increased knowledge on what makes this cue or ANY cue legitimate OR a fake. Feeling wary hurts the marketing because ANY TS cue runs the risk of now being a fake unless its sold with a letter of authenticity. If the cuemaker in question is alive, has pretty extensive records, and is able to confirm, that's one thing. But otherwise, I'm not sure how reliable it is when asking another cuemaker if someone else may have made the cue in question however many years ago. Its just too much of a crap shoot. Who's to say the cuemaker in question didn't try a different taper on this one or used a different weight bolt at the customer's request, etc., etc.. It can be a big questionable gamble.

With regards to the questions you ask...

1. If a cue maker says he didn't make the cue.
Is that the end? I think this is going to vary depending on the situation. If a cuemaker has extensive records and can pull up the original order form or pics from the build... presto. You're about as close to validation as you can get. If not and the cuemaker just says "Yeah. I think I remember that cue!" or "Looks like one of mine", its questionable to say the least.

Should it be the end? See above. If its documented, sure. If not, not if there is a reason to question it.
Do cue makers make mistakes? Every one of them does. No reason to think that one's memory may not be good or that another cuemaker wasn't emulating his work at the time.

2. Let's assume you were buying a Balabushka, and sent it for verification. You get it and make a purchasing decision based on that authentication. Should the person that made the authentication bear any responsibility financially? (I think so, you pay for the authentication). I think the person who verified it is completely responsible for this. But good luck getting them to pony up the $10-$20k you may have spent on it. You're more likely to have the cuemaker stand by his authentication rather than say "I'll reimburse you the $$$$.
 
Last edited:
JC said:
If you pay someone to authenticate and they are wrong then they are liable. If it goes to court and you are the authenticator, then be sure to ask for a six woman jury.

JC
Click to expand...

JC -

I asked my relator a question when I bought my house. We had an inspection done. I think it was around $300.

I asked her and then I asked the owner of the inspection company, what he makes a mistake and misses something that I have to later fix, is he liable.

Both of them said "No". I said damn that sounds like a great business, you inspect and if you make a mistake you aren't liable. Obviously, it hasn't happened to me and if it did, I would probably pursue legal, but I did think it was interesting.

As far as six women on a jury, IMO, I would think that would be tougher for the processcution because of my experience with my wife....I cant even get her to decide where she wants to out to eat...:rolleyes:

Ken
 
Things would be much easier if cue makers provided a Letter of Provenance with each custom cue they built. There is at least one maker I know that does this.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
A- I have heard a rumor that there was a cue that she said SW made, and Dave said he made.

B: Right now, Petes letter is the standard.

1: If a cuemaker says he didn't make the cue, you have to take it that way. Could he be mistaken, yes, however its the last word UNLESS the original owner comes forward with proof that the cuemaker DID make the cue.

2: ??? Anyone can make a mistake, top cuemaker or not. Its my opinion that cuemakers should concentrate on their own work. There are so many rumors of "fakes" after 1986, how do you know that's the letter wasn't written to cover the cue makers own ass.

3: Authentication mistake? Who gets to say that the cue is a fake? Lets say someone writes a letter for the cue, I x-ray it and say well, internally this cue is not what so and so would have done. The original authenticator sticks by his assessment, so what happens now? Two different opinions...

Slippery slope compounded by the fact there are no angels in pool halls. :wink:

JV

Ken_4fun said:
All -

I guess I would like to discuss authentication. We all see it on TV, and we are seeing it with cues often, especially with those unmarked.

A.) The ones I note most often are the Kersenbrock vs. Southwest. Laurie is most often noted as the authority. So I will ask one question on that. When you send one to her, does she say "YES, SOUTHWEST" or "NO, Not a SOUTHWEST", and then does she "No Not a Southwest and it IS a Kersenbrock"?

B.) Balabushka - Most state that Pete, is the authority, but I have often heard Schick, or Barry.

C.) We have read the fiasco on the TS cue. And I am not really to rehash it, but probably it is what has me asking additional questions.

Questions - Points of Discussion

1. If a cue maker says he didn't make the cue.
Is that the end? (Maybe)
Should it be the end? (Maybe)
Do cue makers make mistakes? (Sometimes)

2. I know probably the top cue maker in the country has made a mistake and has changed his policy on authentication. He was sent a cue for verification, and he verified the cue, and it was later discovered it was wrongly authenticated.

Let's assume you were buying a Balabushka, and sent it for verification. You get it and make a purchasing decision based on that authentication. Should the person that made the authentication bear any responsibility financially? (I think so, you pay for the authentication).

I don't read the authentication as an opinion; I think it stronger than that.

Just to be clear, I have nothing out for Authentication now. Nor do I have any issues, along these lines. I have "no dog" in the TS issue, I am only writing this for discussion and opinions. We have some dealers here, cue guys and overall nice fellas. But it is my opinion that most folks think that authentication is the end of ends.

Best of rolls for all,

Ken
Click to expand...
 
mia said:
Who's to say the cuemaker in question didn't try a different taper on this one or used a different weight bolt at the customer's request, etc., etc.. It can be a big questionable gamble.
Click to expand...

These things happen with about every cue I ask to have made. Even in an example of a blank I had made. I asked John Davis to make me one differently than you see most of his blanks in modern times. So if it were not for emails and original shipping box from John, one could say 10 years from now that it is not a John Davis blank, as that is not the way he made them in this time period etc.......
We can see how messy these things can get over many years.

Even with a letter of authenticity (if we are speaking about very high dollar cues), I would still see the cue in person, take my own measurements etc... Before I laid my money out. But that's just me.
 
Thanks this is exactly what I hoped for.

Another item, years ago I know John Wright would occasionally would have other cuemakers add inlays in cues that were not theirs. Again, this wasn't a huge deal back then as cues were cheap really, and I equate it to adding mag wheels to a 1969 Camaro.

This practice was done often by owners of cues as well as dealers. I have know several who had done it. Not to make it worth a ton more but to add their own custom touch.

Now because higher end cues demand such a premium it is done to deceive, IMO.

Ken
 
ridewiththewind said:
Things would be much easier if cue makers provided a Letter of Provenance with each custom cue they built. There is at least one maker I know that does this.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Click to expand...

The milk is already spilt.

Hard to get George Balabushka, Gus Szamboti, George Rambow to provide a letter of provenance...:rolleyes:

Ken
 
Ken_4fun said:
The milk is already spilt.

Hard to get George Balabushka, Gus Szamboti, George Rambow to provide a letter of provenance...:rolleyes:

Ken
Click to expand...

And in the Scruggs case, even Tim's word is somewhat questionable when the question is... did Mike make it and Tim just not know?
Sadly, we can't ask the one person who could answer that question.
 
i think we need to have cuemakers start using holograms in their logos so it cant be duplicated.
 
Wouldn't the authenticity, if paid for, map out liability? It is a service paid for.

If I were going to spend a lot of money on a cue, say more than 1K, and I had any doubt to the origin of said cue, I would just pass. Just too many cues out there today to mess around with something that could be a problem.
 
Not a cue guy but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express once.

If you make someone who does authentication pay money if it turns out they're wrong...
then from that moment onward every authenticator will just play it safe and say
"My best guess is this is a ________ cue, but I cannot guarantee it".
They may also make you sign something.

I think you have a slim chance of getting a judge to award money exactly once
before every cue expert hears about it and figures out how to cover his ass.
 
classiccues said:
A- I have heard a rumor that there was a cue that she said SW made, and Dave said he made.

B: Right now, Petes letter is the standard.

1: If a cuemaker says he didn't make the cue, you have to take it that way. Could he be mistaken, yes, however its the last word UNLESS the original owner comes forward with proof that the cuemaker DID make the cue.

2: ??? Anyone can make a mistake, top cuemaker or not. Its my opinion that cuemakers should concentrate on their own work. There are so many rumors of "fakes" after 1986, how do you know that's the letter wasn't written to cover the cue makers own ass.

3: Authentication mistake? Who gets to say that the cue is a fake? Lets say someone writes a letter for the cue, I x-ray it and say well, internally this cue is not what so and so would have done. The original authenticator sticks by his assessment, so what happens now? Two different opinions...

Slippery slope compounded by the fact there are no angels in pool halls. :wink:

JV
Click to expand...

As concerning x-rays. What type of place would still have the right equipment to x-ray cues and give us something we could see showing the internals of a cue? I would like to x-ray several hall of fame cuemakers cues.
 
cueman said:
As concerning x-rays. What type of place would still have the right equipment to x-ray cues and give us something we could see showing the internals of a cue? I would like to x-ray several hall of fame cuemakers cues.
Click to expand...

I get mine from a podiatrist. He has a digital one so there is no processing costs and the results are instant.

tiger.jpg


Kevin
 
Ken_4fun said:
JC -

I asked my relator a question when I bought my house. We had an inspection done. I think it was around $300.

I asked her and then I asked the owner of the inspection company, what he makes a mistake and misses something that I have to later fix, is he liable.

Both of them said "No". I said damn that sounds like a great business, you inspect and if you make a mistake you aren't liable.
Click to expand...

No one would authenticate anything if they were liable for any mistake.
If there was a contract it would say they are using their best judgement, but cannot be liable for any mistakes or issues outside of their control or knowledge.

(This is a big deal in the Art world as well.)

An "authentication" is only worth what their reputation is worth (which could be a lot or a little), and its never something you should bet your life on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top