Can you spot where the "round points" end and the "Sharpee'd points" begin?
- Thread starter p1noy
- Start date
- Status
Cuemaster98 said:Hi Ryan/ Larry,
Have either of you shown Mr. Clarke these pics? If not, you guys might want to send these to him. He probably missed it like everyone else.
I haven't made many cues but I know for a fact that the point is not splice but CNC. It's pretty clear in the picture. I myself use a sharpie mainly to keep the point even or for touch up but this is not the case with this cue. The points are for sure rounded and the marker added to make the point look sharp. You can tell from the dark ebony wood grain against the maple grain highlighted by the marker.
All Schon plays great whether it's sharp point or rounded
In any case, Larry have done quite a lot of business on here so I don't think anyone needs to doubt his reps. Situation is pretty simple really.
Ryan send the cue back. Larry check cue out and send refund with holding the $40.00 for shipping until he get additional info from Evan regarding the rounded point and touch up? on this cue. (I don't think Evan himself will dispute this point especially after seeing these pics.) Myself and many other would be curios to his response on this one...probably worth $40.00 for the knowledge.
I'm willing to paid $4.00 for the answer...just need another 9 guys to jump in on this one. Anyone up for it? $40.00 would paid for Larry trouble in finding out an interesting question about runde cue.
If this is the case, then Larry would refund the additional $40.00 for shipping. Basically both of you will lose out no matter what but it's part of doing business and it's pretty fair. Ryan lose out on shipping and Larry lose out on shipping. No Biggee...$40.00... I think you guys probably wasted more time than it's really worth it for the $40.00. Not to mentioned the bashing on this thread....don't even know how it got like this.
Larry, I don't see why you have to stop selling cues on here. Man, I'm always looking for deals and Trade. You have some nice stuff up sometimes...so I think people would miss out. Just do what you do...this thread will die in a few months..so just let it goes.
Regards,
Duc.
Duc I already offered to pay for the shipping for both party just to close this issue and move on....
I do not think that the seller intentionally misrepresented this cue, although you do start to wonder based on the way that he has chosen to handle this.
So far Evan has only said that sometimes a manufacturer will touch up full spliced points to make them look perfect. He has NOT said that Schon has manufactured cues with rounded CNC points that the factory then used a sharpee to draw in sharp points on so that it would look like a full spliced cue.
The points on this cue are CNC points that are large radius (very) rounded, and somebody used a sharpee to extend them to a sharp point to make them look like full spliced points. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could look at the pictures and see it without any doubt whatsoever. Fact.
--IF this cue is not an R2 as the seller advertised, then the seller owes for all of the shipping both ways, as well as a full refund due to misrepresentation.
--IF this cue is not a Runde era Schon as the seller claimed and sold it as, then the seller owes for all of the shipping both ways, as well as a full refund due to misrepresentation.
--IF this cue has rounded CNC points that were extended with a sharpee to look like sharp full splice points, then the cue could in no way be considered as "mint condition" or even "over 90% condition" as the seller advertised. The seller owes for all of the shipping both ways, as well as a full refund due to misrepresentation.
Whether any misrepresentation was intentional or not has no bearing on the seller's responsibility. He is equally responsible either way. The buyer is never responsible for any of the seller's misrepresentations, whether the seller did it intentionally or not.
The ONLY exception to any of the above is if Evan verifies that this is in fact a Runde R2, and that it was originally built at the factory with CNC points that were then drawn in with a sharpee by the factory to look like sharp full spliced points, and that all of this was done before the cue was ever first sold. Basically that it originally came from the factory like this, and that it was a standard and accepted way of building that cue at the time.
In that case and that case only, the seller should refund the buyer in full in the interest of customer service, with the seller eating the original shipping charge, and buyer eating the return shipping charge.
Another seller I will never do business with.
So far Evan has only said that sometimes a manufacturer will touch up full spliced points to make them look perfect. He has NOT said that Schon has manufactured cues with rounded CNC points that the factory then used a sharpee to draw in sharp points on so that it would look like a full spliced cue.
The points on this cue are CNC points that are large radius (very) rounded, and somebody used a sharpee to extend them to a sharp point to make them look like full spliced points. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could look at the pictures and see it without any doubt whatsoever. Fact.
--IF this cue is not an R2 as the seller advertised, then the seller owes for all of the shipping both ways, as well as a full refund due to misrepresentation.
--IF this cue is not a Runde era Schon as the seller claimed and sold it as, then the seller owes for all of the shipping both ways, as well as a full refund due to misrepresentation.
--IF this cue has rounded CNC points that were extended with a sharpee to look like sharp full splice points, then the cue could in no way be considered as "mint condition" or even "over 90% condition" as the seller advertised. The seller owes for all of the shipping both ways, as well as a full refund due to misrepresentation.
Whether any misrepresentation was intentional or not has no bearing on the seller's responsibility. He is equally responsible either way. The buyer is never responsible for any of the seller's misrepresentations, whether the seller did it intentionally or not.
The ONLY exception to any of the above is if Evan verifies that this is in fact a Runde R2, and that it was originally built at the factory with CNC points that were then drawn in with a sharpee by the factory to look like sharp full spliced points, and that all of this was done before the cue was ever first sold. Basically that it originally came from the factory like this, and that it was a standard and accepted way of building that cue at the time.
In that case and that case only, the seller should refund the buyer in full in the interest of customer service, with the seller eating the original shipping charge, and buyer eating the return shipping charge.
Another seller I will never do business with.
all of us should just wait until larry gets the cue back. no point arguing about what to do when the next step is clear. larry needs to get the cue back then move forward with the situation which he has said he'll do. the extra 40 to cover shipping can be resolved once he takes it to evan. i guess the most important thing would be to have evan put it in writing or something just to close the situation once and for all.
Misrepresentations of material fact in contractual negotiations, intentional or negligent, should lead to rescission of contracts at the election of the aggrieved party. That being said, long ago, situations such as this were governed by the doctrine of caveat emptor. Today, this strict penalty has been relaxed due to public policy demands for consumer protection. These protections often require the inclusion of "as is" language to invoke the caveat emptor effect of yesteryear. Absent a clear, conspicuous "as is" disclaimer, buyer should usually prevail.
Because there was a misrepresentation, albeit an unintentional (negligent), here, the buyer should be afforded the opportunity to rescind the transaction. Furthermore, because the old world caveat emptor rule is no longer followed, the buyer should not be punished. Lastly, because there was no mention of "as is" in the transaction, the buyer should get a refund.
Whether or not the parties to the present dispute should "eat" shipping costs is another matter entirely. If the original arrangement called for a certian party to pay shipping, it seems reasonable for that same party to pay the shipping to rescind the deal.
Because there was a misrepresentation, albeit an unintentional (negligent), here, the buyer should be afforded the opportunity to rescind the transaction. Furthermore, because the old world caveat emptor rule is no longer followed, the buyer should not be punished. Lastly, because there was no mention of "as is" in the transaction, the buyer should get a refund.
Whether or not the parties to the present dispute should "eat" shipping costs is another matter entirely. If the original arrangement called for a certian party to pay shipping, it seems reasonable for that same party to pay the shipping to rescind the deal.
How do you figure this sounds reasonable in a case of misrepresentation by the seller? If the seller misrepresented the deal, then the seller should be out all of the shipping and other associated costs. After all, the buyer wouldn't have bought it at all, and therefore would not have paid shipping or anything else, if it had been represented properly. Why should the buyer have to pay for the seller's mistake?J. Learned Hand said:
Now if it is something besides misrepresentation that you are talking about, then I can see where you are coming from.
:thumbup: 
There used to be a guy in Germany named Peter Hackbarth who specialized in upgrading the designs on cues. He could take a plain cue and when you got it back it looked like it was worth 10,000. He charged a good amount for this service and everyone assumed he was inlaying the cues.
Turns out he had a really good printer. This all came out the first time someone took a "hackbarth" pimped out cue to get it refinished by someone else. The $400 inlay work just disappeared. Overnight the embellishment business for Peter dried up. Good thing too because I was going to send my cue to him.
Anybody from Germany remember Peter Hackbarth?
Turns out he had a really good printer. This all came out the first time someone took a "hackbarth" pimped out cue to get it refinished by someone else. The $400 inlay work just disappeared. Overnight the embellishment business for Peter dried up. Good thing too because I was going to send my cue to him.
Anybody from Germany remember Peter Hackbarth?
They are definitely rounded points with sharp points drawn on. In the pictures you can see the rounded point under the drawn on sharp point.
pj
chgo
OK I've had enough. Every Cuemaker that draws in points is a hack period. This is absolutely unacceptable. With the amount of knowledge out there today there is NO reason for points to be altered with a sharpe. I spend time at 2 cuemakers shops in S. FL. & this would never happen nor is there ANY reason for it to happen, anybody that thinks this is acceptable deserves what they get.
The good parts that came out of this thread:
-------------------------------------------
1. The seller indicates he'll refund the buyers money.
2. The seller is a good person (who didn't know about the cue)
3. The buyer is a good person (not a scam artist as suggested by the seller)
The sad parts that came out of this thead:
-----------------------------------------
1. The seller is in denial and thinks the cue is normal. Severely damages credibility in my eyes. If he thinks the cue is fine, I won't be buying anything from him in the future.
2. Evan says its an R2 and the cue is fine. Call it what you will, R2, R3, R10, Super Duper R2, 1 of 1 R2, etc... Doesn't change the fact that this cue once had rounded points and it some how transformed. Maybe this cue started off as a different model, then sharp points were added, then it was "ordained" an R2 by Evan ? "Here ye , here ye. From this point forward'th you will hereby be called an R2". If that's what happened, then Evan is right , it is an R2 because he says its an R2
. Perhaps everyone's telling the truth !
The facts are:
--------------
1. This cue once had rounded points.
2. This cue was transformed afterwards to sharp points
How the cue was transformed is a mystery. It could be a marker, water colors, charcoal, cardboard construction paper, toilet paper, or yes, even wood. Perhaps it was an experimental by Schon?
"Let's see if we can make some sharp points out of round ? " ....Maybe they were looking at ways to save time or something ? Its hard to believe Evan gave this cue his blessing
-------------------------------------------
1. The seller indicates he'll refund the buyers money.
2. The seller is a good person (who didn't know about the cue)
3. The buyer is a good person (not a scam artist as suggested by the seller)
The sad parts that came out of this thead:
-----------------------------------------
1. The seller is in denial and thinks the cue is normal. Severely damages credibility in my eyes. If he thinks the cue is fine, I won't be buying anything from him in the future.
2. Evan says its an R2 and the cue is fine. Call it what you will, R2, R3, R10, Super Duper R2, 1 of 1 R2, etc... Doesn't change the fact that this cue once had rounded points and it some how transformed. Maybe this cue started off as a different model, then sharp points were added, then it was "ordained" an R2 by Evan ? "Here ye , here ye. From this point forward'th you will hereby be called an R2". If that's what happened, then Evan is right , it is an R2 because he says its an R2
. Perhaps everyone's telling the truth !The facts are:
--------------
1. This cue once had rounded points.
2. This cue was transformed afterwards to sharp points
How the cue was transformed is a mystery. It could be a marker, water colors, charcoal, cardboard construction paper, toilet paper, or yes, even wood. Perhaps it was an experimental by Schon?
"Let's see if we can make some sharp points out of round ? " ....Maybe they were looking at ways to save time or something ? Its hard to believe Evan gave this cue his blessing
Some thoughts
Evan said that touching up points was common. Evan has just refinished the cue recently. . . . . . . . . . . ???
The images that links were posted to leave no doubt that the images are of sharpied points. Not only did the sharpie leak out wider than the taper of the point in 13.jpg, but in 11.jpg the rounded point and maple wood grain continuing under the sharpie area is clearly visible. 9.jpg is clearly sharpied also. Bottom line is that the points in the images are sharpied and sharpied over maple. Had that much of the point been torn out from a full splice cue there would have been a major crater there to fill which clearly on some points there was not.
The images are of a doctored cue. From the message which is supposedly from Evan, he may have done the doctoring or redoctored when he refinished the cue since he seems to feel this is typical practice.(according to this statement)
A disclaimer here. I have no way of knowing that the statement credited to Evan is indeed from him or that the images are even of the cue in question. That is the danger of the internet, we assume what we see is true. However, at this point until a third party without a vested interest in the deal examines the cue the overwhelming indications are that the buyer is justified in requesting a full refund including two way shipping. Nothing wrong with the buyer paying return shipping but he will be the one going a little above and beyond if he does, as I say just based on what has been presented here.
Hu
Evan said that touching up points was common. Evan has just refinished the cue recently. . . . . . . . . . . ???
The images that links were posted to leave no doubt that the images are of sharpied points. Not only did the sharpie leak out wider than the taper of the point in 13.jpg, but in 11.jpg the rounded point and maple wood grain continuing under the sharpie area is clearly visible. 9.jpg is clearly sharpied also. Bottom line is that the points in the images are sharpied and sharpied over maple. Had that much of the point been torn out from a full splice cue there would have been a major crater there to fill which clearly on some points there was not.
The images are of a doctored cue. From the message which is supposedly from Evan, he may have done the doctoring or redoctored when he refinished the cue since he seems to feel this is typical practice.(according to this statement)
A disclaimer here. I have no way of knowing that the statement credited to Evan is indeed from him or that the images are even of the cue in question. That is the danger of the internet, we assume what we see is true. However, at this point until a third party without a vested interest in the deal examines the cue the overwhelming indications are that the buyer is justified in requesting a full refund including two way shipping. Nothing wrong with the buyer paying return shipping but he will be the one going a little above and beyond if he does, as I say just based on what has been presented here.
Hu
iowa_player said:Roscoe kiss my ass !!! I will be at shooters in olatha < not sure about he spelling in Kansas next month PLEASE come tell me about my common sense to my face !!!
Larry < just loves those internet tough guys
Are you REALLY resorting to threats now? I am down in S FL, if you would like to meet in FL and discuss this situation, let me know.
Man, this is unbelievable. The FIRST person to use threats is almost always the first to run out of any valid arguments. Not knowing what else to do, they attempt to resort to name calling and bullying. You have proven your maturity AGAIN.
You should put a passcode on your computer to keep your kids off of it. They are making you look like an idiot.
edited for spelling
Last edited:
Iowa_player- Why do you feel that the buyer should be out $80 for shipping when he is not satisfied with the cue? You want him to pay shipping both ways. Somehow you feel him being out $80 and you breaking even is fair. Just doesn't make any sense.
Fact of the matter is, you unknowingly got stuck with a 'lemon'. If you want to pass on the cost to someone else, all well and good. But this isn't the way to do it.
Fact of the matter is, you unknowingly got stuck with a 'lemon'. If you want to pass on the cost to someone else, all well and good. But this isn't the way to do it.
Last edited:
ShootingArts said:
There's "touching up a point" and then there is "creating a point". To me, if you splice your points, and then "sharpie" them to even them up, that's a little different than CNCing a point, then making it sharp by using a "sharpie". In this last method, the sharpie has become a method of construction, and not a touch up tool. I personally think anyone who uses a sharpie to fine tune their points is labelling the end customer as "too dumb to know".
fully agree
Shawn,
I fully agree with you. Touching up a point is BS in my opinion but is still far different than trying to hide the method of construction. What I don't know is if Evan when refinishing a cue with points that had been sharpied would simply redo the sharpied points as part of the job without saying anything about it. Very hard to believe that someone that refinished the cue didn't know the points were sharpied. Not impossible not to notice I suppose. The sharpie bled to the sides a good bit, I suppose that it bleeds into the wood a certain depth also. I have to confess an ignorance of sharpie use on cues and it is one area I don't plan to expand my personal knowledge in. If the points on a blank won't hold up to turning then the blank hits the scrap wood box.
Hu
Shawn Armstrong said:
Shawn,
I fully agree with you. Touching up a point is BS in my opinion but is still far different than trying to hide the method of construction. What I don't know is if Evan when refinishing a cue with points that had been sharpied would simply redo the sharpied points as part of the job without saying anything about it. Very hard to believe that someone that refinished the cue didn't know the points were sharpied. Not impossible not to notice I suppose. The sharpie bled to the sides a good bit, I suppose that it bleeds into the wood a certain depth also. I have to confess an ignorance of sharpie use on cues and it is one area I don't plan to expand my personal knowledge in. If the points on a blank won't hold up to turning then the blank hits the scrap wood box.
Hu
I don't think cuemakers used ink to fix short points(where 1 or 2 points are not even like the old titlist 1 was always shorter than the other 3) I have 8 old 81-85 schons when Bob Runde first started he had uneven points on most of his cues as most of mine are! He didn't INK them in I have a R14 all 4 are even the inner points are not.I have a Runde 06 looks like a R14 except 5 veneers all points are even SHARP inner and outer all even he mastered it before he turned it over to EVAN. Anybody that owned this could not notice it being cnc'd and sharpied in.It's only a opinion mine that this makes it fraud,counterfit whatever you call it FAKE is a good word to describe it! I would not want it with radius points or sharp points I like veneers guess this would mess you up with your sharpie eh! Iowa-Player is a good name you PLAYED the ole boy that bought this piece of firewood from you! I would not deal with a 39 year old goin on 3 what a DICK bet your real name is Richard eh DICK!Guess you wan't to fight me now! Good luck selling anything to anybody anywhere! What an @ss!!! Ron
Last edited:
- Status