Authentication _ Discussion

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...

Duh...I was referring to cues from those makers who are still alive. Had I known you were referring specifically to dead makers, I would not have replied as such.

Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 4 Beta
 
Who authenticates the authenticator's authentication after the first authenticator is gone?
 
And oooooh the irony.

Looks like the cue maker in question who claimed this cue was a fake was, once again, wrong.
So again... authentication, even from the cue maker, is never 100% trustworthy.
 
mia said:
And oooooh the irony.

Looks like the cue maker in question who claimed this cue was a fake was, once again, wrong.
So again... authentication, even from the cue maker, is never 100% trustworthy.
Click to expand...
This is why I will never buy an unmarked one. I have heard things and this makes 2 errors in IDs that could cost someone big. Great cues, but staying away from anything unmarked.
 
Caveat Emptor

An argument can be made that if one needs to be told by a 3rd party what something is, then that person won't really have a complete appreciation for that item in the first place.

I probably place more responsibility on the buyer of something, in this case a cue, than some others might. A buyer should posses a fair amount of knowledge on what it is they are considering purchasing. If their knowledge falls short, and they use a 3rd party to assist them, the buyer shares some responsibility.

Said another way, if you don't know for yourself what you are thinking of acquiring, maybe you shouldn't buy it at all, or at a minimum, shouldn't be disappointed if you are wrong about its provenance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top