SSach said:
I never said it was ok for anyone to copy a cue, I can tell that since you were very careful in your wording that you already know this, so what's the point of this post other then to try and get some attention. A Bushka line (your words) is traditional 4 point cues that have some diamonds and other early 70's type of design elements. Tim made cues in this era, along with Bill Stroud, Bill Schick, Dan Janes, Ernie, Gus and George. There wasn't much in the way of diversity, they all bought their inlays from the same place, they all used the same stuff. Times were very different then and many early cues looked the same, this is a big part of the reason many older cues turn up as unknown maker or confusion as to who made them. Although this isn't an excuse to make a direct copy of another design it is reason why Tim is well within his bounds to make any cue that uses that look, he was one of the originators of "that look". Also none of this needs to be said because this Bushka line that you speak of has not been compared to any one Bushka design, again the same exact woods, veneers, colors, ring position, and inlay pattern. If you know of one of these cues that is an exact copy of an exact bushka please post a picture of both cues and I will be sure to once more state that it's wrong until then your post and opinion on this go down as just what it is, a trouble making idiotic post. You're trying to start something yet even you were smart enough to word it the right way, you never said Scrugg's copy and that's because you know there aren't any, proof you are smarter then you are letting on.
You then go on to say that the cues on the original post of this thread are not exact copies of the cues that I posted the link to. Well, what you really said was that you couldn't figure it out, that is the part that concerns me. If you look at those cues and understood how complex the designs were you'd know that they were copies. The funny thing is some people who disagree with me go on to say they are glad they were made because they love the design and can't afford the Ginacue originals (thus agreeing they were copies) Another guy says it's ok to make copies because everyone can tell there is only one original, yet he continues to try and argue they aren't copies (even though in his eyes it would be fine). this thread started because someone posted pics of a cue and said it was a direct copy made from a picture, he also said it's the copy of this famous cue for those who have never had a chance to see it. Once the heat got to warm he changed his tune and said it wasn't a copy it was only inspired and he deleted the thread, somehow I'm labeled as a flip flopper LOL. I will admit and have stated that the rings in the phillippi COPIES are changed the design is so complex that it's very obvious they are COPIES right down to the colors in the rainbows between the points. A cue maker weighed in and claimed that butterfly in between V points is a practice going back 100+years well I feel bad for him and anyone who thinks about buying a cue from him if he thinks that cue is butterfly in between V points, those are inlays, not butterfly splices, and not only did Phillippi STEAL that design they STOLE the exact colors, it's really sad.
Do I think what I type here will change this act of stealing designs?? Not at all, I do know that someone was almost sued for a copy of a design that wasn't as close to the one (2) we are talking about. The major problem here is that in this day and age with technology the way it is the there are no limits to the diversity of designs these people can come up with and to just be so lazy that you don't want to try to come up with your own look is a shame. There are a lot of cuemakers out there today that do great work, they make a cue that hits great and their execution is flawless, what sets apart the real artist is the designs. It's time that we start to appreciate the hard work that goes into a unique design and start to appreciate it as the ART that it is. It should not be COPIED. So far one person has shared his opinion and it was
it's ok to make a copy, everyone knows there is only one original
Everyone else wants to argue semantics and make false claims about me flip flopping on the issue. From day one I stated it's wrong to make copies no matter who does it. I've also said that I think it can be argued that there are some grey areas and that I wanted to hear opinions. I have yet to hear any opinions that I can believe are honest or informed, anyone who tries to tell me they don't believe the 2 phillippi's are design COPIES I can't take you serious. This is my opinion; I'll wait now for the next illiterate person to post how I said it was ok for Scruggs to make copies.
JIM
