Thank you, Rick.
Cue inlay design
- Thread starter poolrod
- Start date
Thank you, Rick.
Your designs are striking but, keep in mind that not all things that you can draw are feasible to actually inlay in a cue.
Cutting tools are round and cannot cut a fine point. The cue is round and a flat inlay can only be so wide......
There are methods to work around some of the problems. It would to take some actual cutting to see what will and will not work....
Light colored inlays into dark work better than dark in to light..............
Kim
Cutting tools are round and cannot cut a fine point. The cue is round and a flat inlay can only be so wide......
There are methods to work around some of the problems. It would to take some actual cutting to see what will and will not work....
Light colored inlays into dark work better than dark in to light..............
Kim
The problem with what you're doing, Rod, is a fundamental one in cue design - you're designing a single inlay and then hoping to create an attractive cue from that one shape, perhaps (as seen above) by slathering that shape all over the surface of the cue from one end to the other.
That approach works for table clothes, flannel shirts, and paisley pajamas, but on a pool cue it fails - if for no other reason than sheer boredom on the part of the viewer.
A pool cue presents a difficult canvas for one simple reason - the shape of the canvas is unlike any other. A wrapped cue has two distinct sections (laid out "flat"); one is about 3 inches X 12 inches and the other is about 4 inches X 4 inches. Alternately, if the cue is wrapless (and inlaid full length) the canvas is a very long 29 inches X 2 1/2 - 4 inches (tapered).
Making sense of such a canvas takes a lot of thought as a designer, which is why you almost never see an "old school" cue with much inlay in it. Of course, the points do give us an excuse to step away from the 3 X 12 canvas and focus our inlay work on the much easier 4 X 4 section. This is one reason why you rarely see a Black Boar cue with much inlay work above the wrap. I know, I know... they say they don't inlay the fronts much because it "affects the play of the cue", but one must admit this also very conveniently avoids solving the artistic conflict of two drastically different canvases. Now, before all you Black Boar fans jump in to protest, let me just say that many of the buttsleeve inlays they've done over the years have been some of the most beautiful in the industry.
Here are two distinct examples of what I'm talking about,. The first exemplifies the idea of taking one basic inlay shape and simply dropping it in all over the cue - Rick "scdiveteam" Gershay's Scimitar Cue"
Buttsleeve:
Forearm
***************************************************************************************************************************
This second cue is one of my very favorite cues of all time - Richard Black's Visitation (I like this cue so much I almost bought it):
Now I'm sure Rick "scdiveteam" will consider this a dire criticism of his work, and will come back with all kinds of over-the-top personal attacks on me. But I'm willing to fade that unpleasantness because I think this is such an important lesson for budding cue designers to learn.
The Scimitar Cue has one basic design - its "scimitar" shape - and that design (or very slight variation) simply repeats all over the cue - in what can only be seen as an attempt to fill up space with ornamentation. Nothing especially wrong with that... but it's hardly "high art". In fact, I consider it the mark of a failed design - a failure I have made myself too many times to count.
Because of this, the Scimitar Cue can be seen and understood in its entirety at a single glance. Pick it up and rotate it in your hand - you're looking at the same repeat pattern over and over. Table clothes, flannel shirts, and paisley pajamas....
Black's Visitation, on the other hand, could be a master class in how to take a design idea and make it into a masterpiece. The photos you're seeing here represent only a small portion of the actual design work in the cue. I have personally held this cue several times and turned it around and around, following the intricate blend of symmetry and asymmetry with utter fascination. I've also been there when several others have held it and done the same thing - including cuemaker Jake Hulsey. Even after holding (and studying) the cue for a long time it's impossible to fully take it all in - most viewers return to it again and again for further study.
There's certainly room (and a market) for both approaches. But if you want viewers (and future cue historians) to sit up and take notice of your design efforts, Rod, you're going to have to put in a lot more work. None of the shapes you've posted here are "bad" by any means. They're just not complete, and by themselves will never make a cue truly beautiful. You can take that as an "insult" if you like, but you'll get a lot more value out of it if you think of it as a really good lesson.
TW
That approach works for table clothes, flannel shirts, and paisley pajamas, but on a pool cue it fails - if for no other reason than sheer boredom on the part of the viewer.
A pool cue presents a difficult canvas for one simple reason - the shape of the canvas is unlike any other. A wrapped cue has two distinct sections (laid out "flat"); one is about 3 inches X 12 inches and the other is about 4 inches X 4 inches. Alternately, if the cue is wrapless (and inlaid full length) the canvas is a very long 29 inches X 2 1/2 - 4 inches (tapered).
Making sense of such a canvas takes a lot of thought as a designer, which is why you almost never see an "old school" cue with much inlay in it. Of course, the points do give us an excuse to step away from the 3 X 12 canvas and focus our inlay work on the much easier 4 X 4 section. This is one reason why you rarely see a Black Boar cue with much inlay work above the wrap. I know, I know... they say they don't inlay the fronts much because it "affects the play of the cue", but one must admit this also very conveniently avoids solving the artistic conflict of two drastically different canvases. Now, before all you Black Boar fans jump in to protest, let me just say that many of the buttsleeve inlays they've done over the years have been some of the most beautiful in the industry.
Here are two distinct examples of what I'm talking about,. The first exemplifies the idea of taking one basic inlay shape and simply dropping it in all over the cue - Rick "scdiveteam" Gershay's Scimitar Cue"
Buttsleeve:
Forearm
***************************************************************************************************************************
This second cue is one of my very favorite cues of all time - Richard Black's Visitation (I like this cue so much I almost bought it):
Now I'm sure Rick "scdiveteam" will consider this a dire criticism of his work, and will come back with all kinds of over-the-top personal attacks on me. But I'm willing to fade that unpleasantness because I think this is such an important lesson for budding cue designers to learn.
The Scimitar Cue has one basic design - its "scimitar" shape - and that design (or very slight variation) simply repeats all over the cue - in what can only be seen as an attempt to fill up space with ornamentation. Nothing especially wrong with that... but it's hardly "high art". In fact, I consider it the mark of a failed design - a failure I have made myself too many times to count.
Because of this, the Scimitar Cue can be seen and understood in its entirety at a single glance. Pick it up and rotate it in your hand - you're looking at the same repeat pattern over and over. Table clothes, flannel shirts, and paisley pajamas....
Black's Visitation, on the other hand, could be a master class in how to take a design idea and make it into a masterpiece. The photos you're seeing here represent only a small portion of the actual design work in the cue. I have personally held this cue several times and turned it around and around, following the intricate blend of symmetry and asymmetry with utter fascination. I've also been there when several others have held it and done the same thing - including cuemaker Jake Hulsey. Even after holding (and studying) the cue for a long time it's impossible to fully take it all in - most viewers return to it again and again for further study.
There's certainly room (and a market) for both approaches. But if you want viewers (and future cue historians) to sit up and take notice of your design efforts, Rod, you're going to have to put in a lot more work. None of the shapes you've posted here are "bad" by any means. They're just not complete, and by themselves will never make a cue truly beautiful. You can take that as an "insult" if you like, but you'll get a lot more value out of it if you think of it as a really good lesson.
TW
Last edited:
The problem with what you're doing, Rod, is a fundamental one in cue design - you're designing a single inlay and then hoping to create an attractive cue from that one shape, perhaps (as seen above) by slathering that shape all over the surface of the cue from one end to the other.
That approach works for table clothes, flannel shirts, and paisley pajamas, but on a pool cue it fails - if for no other reason than sheer boredom on the part of the viewer.
A pool cue presents a difficult canvas for one simple reason - the shape of the canvas is unlike any other. A wrapped cue has two distinct sections (laid out "flat"); one is about 3 inches X 12 inches and the other is about 4 inches X 4 inches. Alternately, if the cue is wrapless (and inlaid full length) the canvas is a very long 29 inches X 2 1/2 - 4 inches (tapered).
Making sense of such a canvas takes a lot of thought as a designer, which is why you almost never see an "old school" cue with much inlay in it. Of course, the points do give us an excuse to step away from the 3 X 12 canvas and focus our inlay work on the much easier 4 X 4 section. This is one reason why you rarely see a Black Boar cue with much inlay work above the wrap. I know, I know... they say they don't inlay the fronts much because it "affects the play of the cue", but one must admit this also very conveniently avoids solving the artistic conflict of two drastically different canvases. Now, before all you Black Boar fans jump in to protest, let me just say that many of the buttsleeve inlays they've done over the years have been some of the most beautiful in the industry.
Here are two distinct examples of what I'm talking about,. The first exemplifies the idea of taking one basic inlay shape and simply dropping it in all over the cue - Rick "scdiveteam" Gershay's Scimitar Cue"
Buttsleeve:
Forearm
***************************************************************************************************************************
This second cue is one of my very favorite cues of all time - Richard Black's Visitation (I like this cue so much I almost bought it):
Now I'm sure Rick "scdiveteam" will consider this a dire criticism of his work, and will come back with all kinds of over-the-top personal attacks on me. But I'm willing to fade that unpleasantness because I think this is such an important lesson for budding cue designers to learn.
The Scimitar Cue has one basic design - its "scimitar" shape - and that design (or very slight variation) simply repeats all over the cue - in what can only be seen as an attempt to fill up space with ornamentation. Nothing especially wrong with that... but it's hardly "high art". In fact, I consider it the mark of a failed design - a failure I have made myself too many times to count.
Because of this, the Scimitar Cue can be seen and understood in its entirety at a single glance. Pick it up and rotate it in your hand - you're looking at the same repeat pattern over and over. Table clothes, flannel shirts, and paisley pajamas....
Black's Visitation, on the other hand, could be a master class in how to take a design idea and make it into a masterpiece. The photos you're seeing here represent only a small portion of the actual design work in the cue. I have personally held this cue several times and turned it around and around, following the intricate blend of symmetry and asymmetry with utter fascination. I've also been there when several others have held it and done the same thing - including cuemaker Jake Hulsey. Even after holding (and studying) the cue for a long time it's impossible to fully take it all in - most viewers return to it again and again for further study.
There's certainly room (and a market) for both approaches. But if you want viewers (and future cue historians) to sit up and take notice of your design efforts, Rod, you're going to have to put in a lot more work. None of the shapes you've posted here are "bad" by any means. They're just not complete, and by themselves will never make a cue truly beautiful. You can take that as an "insult" if you like, but you'll get a lot more value out of it if you think of it as a really good lesson.
TW
No insult taken, thank you, I agree. I need to put some real effort into this.
Your designs have improved greatly in the last five days. You have also attached the attenion of one of the greatest design guys in the business. Not bad for a weeks work! Can't wait to see what you do next week!
Larry
I'm sure you know the trick, to set two points and a line to contour half the radius of the end mill, so you don't cut both sides of the sharp point with one side of the end mill. Thank you, Kim.
The problem with what you're doing, Rod, is a fundamental one in cue design - you're designing a single inlay and then hoping to create an attractive cue from that one shape, perhaps (as seen above) by slathering that shape all over the surface of the cue from one end to the other.
That approach works for table clothes, flannel shirts, and paisley pajamas, but on a pool cue it fails - if for no other reason than sheer boredom on the part of the viewer.
A pool cue presents a difficult canvas for one simple reason - the shape of the canvas is unlike any other. A wrapped cue has two distinct sections (laid out "flat"); one is about 3 inches X 12 inches and the other is about 4 inches X 4 inches. Alternately, if the cue is wrapless (and inlaid full length) the canvas is a very long 29 inches X 2 1/2 - 4 inches (tapered).
Making sense of such a canvas takes a lot of thought as a designer, which is why you almost never see an "old school" cue with much inlay in it. Of course, the points do give us an excuse to step away from the 3 X 12 canvas and focus our inlay work on the much easier 4 X 4 section. This is one reason why you rarely see a Black Boar cue with much inlay work above the wrap. I know, I know... they say they don't inlay the fronts much because it "affects the play of the cue", but one must admit this also very conveniently avoids solving the artistic conflict of two drastically different canvases. Now, before all you Black Boar fans jump in to protest, let me just say that many of the buttsleeve inlays they've done over the years have been some of the most beautiful in the industry.
Here are two distinct examples of what I'm talking about,. The first exemplifies the idea of taking one basic inlay shape and simply dropping it in all over the cue - Rick "scdiveteam" Gershay's Scimitar Cue"
Buttsleeve:
Forearm
***************************************************************************************************************************
This second cue is one of my very favorite cues of all time - Richard Black's Visitation (I like this cue so much I almost bought it):
Now I'm sure Rick "scdiveteam" will consider this a dire criticism of his work, and will come back with all kinds of over-the-top personal attacks on me. But I'm willing to fade that unpleasantness because I think this is such an important lesson for budding cue designers to learn.
The Scimitar Cue has one basic design - its "scimitar" shape - and that design (or very slight variation) simply repeats all over the cue - in what can only be seen as an attempt to fill up space with ornamentation. Nothing especially wrong with that... but it's hardly "high art". In fact, I consider it the mark of a failed design - a failure I have made myself too many times to count.
Because of this, the Scimitar Cue can be seen and understood in its entirety at a single glance. Pick it up and rotate it in your hand - you're looking at the same repeat pattern over and over. Table clothes, flannel shirts, and paisley pajamas....
Black's Visitation, on the other hand, could be a master class in how to take a design idea and make it into a masterpiece. The photos you're seeing here represent only a small portion of the actual design work in the cue. I have personally held this cue several times and turned it around and around, following the intricate blend of symmetry and asymmetry with utter fascination. I've also been there when several others have held it and done the same thing - including cuemaker Jake Hulsey. Even after holding (and studying) the cue for a long time it's impossible to fully take it all in - most viewers return to it again and again for further study.
There's certainly room (and a market) for both approaches. But if you want viewers (and future cue historians) to sit up and take notice of your design efforts, Rod, you're going to have to put in a lot more work. None of the shapes you've posted here are "bad" by any means. They're just not complete, and by themselves will never make a cue truly beautiful. You can take that as an "insult" if you like, but you'll get a lot more value out of it if you think of it as a really good lesson.
TW
Caution: This is commentary on art as such. Person you don't like long winded posts should be advised in advance.
TW,
I certainly don't take what you have described as an insult
By any means. All of us hear on the forum can gain by your words, direction and experience of over 30 years. What is the nuts is that we all get to gain from you sharing your thoughts as HOFer and it is free!
The functional art cue you show that Richard Black created is awesome indeed and very creative. I have no knowledge of Richard's clients that he builds cues like this for but if I were to guess I would think that cue's value is north of 20,000.00 to a collector of means. It may be double that or even higher? I highly doubt Mr. Black's cue will see much table time because it is an art object that should be displayed.
My Scimitar is not an art cue. It is a Fancy Player that has inlays that just adorn the cue with some symmetrical order. This is a 2500.00 cue built for someone who wants a playing cue and likes symmetry. These people do exist and are out there.
As an example to this discussion, Miles Davis was a young talented side man who was on the 1940s 50s New York Jazz scene during the evolution of Bebop and he played with the Giants or visionary monster players, Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie.
In the 1950s Miles developed his own jazz style that was known as Cool Sound. This style was based on minimalism where by he broke from his predecessors, Byrd, Diz and Armstrong. He played every note clean and straight up never using a slur, trill or glissando. This sound was the 4 phase of the evolution of Jazz music.
Later Miles broke away from the Cool Jazz sound and went Avant Guard in style and there were many persons who appreciated jazz that rejected the Avant Guard style. The musicians were not limited to Key Signatures, modes or constrains of a uniform tempo.
Richard Black has evolved into a style that could be likened to Miles' Avant Guard style of playing because of the free form unrestricted freedom it affords to the artist. He can create his art without the limits of symmetry and can also focus on shape created by the blind areas between his inlay geometries. Very cool indeed as was the case with Picasso's Cubism Art style.
My point is that there are many people who still like symmetry and only want to pay 2 to 3 grand for a fancy player. After all we got to be paid for our time.
I my minds eye I look a your work with amazement and would compare it to Miles' Cool Sound 4th Generation of the Jazz evolution category. Richard has taken his art to more of a free form and cerebral place in his personal evolution as a Cue Artist throwing symmetry to the wind. Very Cool. By doing this he like Miles has gone his own way and a few people who want what Richard has done in his past may be disappointed. They just don't understand that the artist needs to grow and not stand still.
As a musician for over 50 years I had to woodshed for many many years learning different tunes, scales, cordial progressions, arpeggios, harmonies, modes and rhythms before I could play spontaneous improvisational jazz. Singing through your instrument. Building cues like the Scimitar Cue is the same as practicing scales and progressions ect. on my journey toward free form functional art cues someday in my future. I have a lot more wood shedding to do and many miles to walk in my journey.
I look forward to seeing what your next evolution in style has to offer and I am sure you have some stuff up your sleeve or in the works. At your age and experience I figure you have a few more major milestone style changes and growth still left in you gas tank before you hang it up. Those changes will have direct effect on all cue makers. I have no doubt that you will transcend Richard's offering as that's how these thing work generationally. We all can see over our own horizon when we can stand of the shoulders of visionaries.
We are all evolving one baby step at a time. It never stops even for industry leaders like you and Richard. It that respect we all are in the same boat, one oar stroke at a time.
Evolution is extremely incremental.
JMO,
Rick
Last edited:
So you basically admit you're not an artist, but you're charging artist prices for your work. Then on top of that you completely twist what TW was saying and spew a whole pile of shit out to 'justify' your work? C'mon man, just let it go.
The KEY thing you've said here is that you have no knowledge of what you then go on to make assumptive statements about. Let me help you out a little, Rick.
You are WRONG about the price.
You are WRONG about the buyer.
You are WRONG about the cue not being played with by the owner.
So you are pretty much WRONG about everything that you agree you have no knowledge about... but then pontificate about anyway.
This thread is not about jazz music or Miles Davis, and it is especially not about yet one more field you claim to have decades of experience in. This thread is about cue design, and specifically about what might or might not be deemed attractive. As I noted, that is a very subjective measure of an end result - not a process that one spends time honing in a "wood shed" (whatever the hell that means).
Most importantly, the thread is not about YOU. I could have put up any number of Richard's cues... or McWorter's, or Chudy's, or Stroud's, or even [gasp] mine to illustrate the idea of envisioning an entire cue as a single canvas, rather than taking a single inlay shape and just dropping it into the cue enough times to fill up the space and meet the price range. That's what this thread is about.
On a side note, when you write. "...shape created by the blind areas between his inlay geometries" you are, as you often do,"inventing" descriptive phrases for concepts that already have accepted "names". The geometry is referred to as "figure", and the background is referred to as "ground"; the relationship between the two is referred to as "figure–ground organization". And, finally, what you call "blind areas" are known far and wide in art as "negative space".
If you're going to attempt to discuss a subject such as art so as to appear knowledgeable about it you should at least make some effort to learn (and understand) the lingo correctly. That's just a suggestion for you to ponder when you back into the wood shed to continue your studies.
TW
Rick, I really like those four different inlays in your cue pictured above. If a client wanted that in his/her cue it looks great.
Poolrod, your inlays are different and someone might just take them and run with them.
Poolrod, your inlays are different and someone might just take them and run with them.
I wish I knew your Name,
No I am not and artist.
I don't have to justify my work as cues speak for themselves when you hold them in your hand.
No, I don't get art prices for my cues as you suggest.
When you put 100 perfect inlays on a cue, if you charged 10.00 an inlay that would be 1000.00 in labor without the cost of material. Now I don't know what you charge, but I figure 20.00 to 30.00 per inlay and discount for economies of scale and small dots and such I don't charge. If you think I am charging an absurd price for a cue like this then you better look at your business plan because I won't work for peanuts. Maybe you want to on your cues.
BTW, those ring billets took over 10 hours alone to build.
Twist words? I think not. Using my cue as what not to do as a counterpoint example to Blacks Art Cue is something I agree with 100%. I also thanked TW for sharing his comments. Only thing is my cue is not an art cue and was never represented as such, only a fancy player with some inlays.
You are entitled to you opinion and so am I.
Rick
TW,
I am always wrong in everything I do. Thats why I am such a failure, right?
Wrong on my price or Blacks?
I don't make claims that are not true my friend. What good comes of that. Yes I have been a musician for over fifty years and was an "On Call" Studio Bass Player in Chicago at 3 major studios who could sight read charts before I was 19 years old and owned my own small 4 track recording studio. I was writing jingles and making Radio Commercials for local advertisers in Chicago as a past time gig for about 4 years. "Claims". LOL
There are some in this industry that do refer to it as blind area, sorry if I offended you, but you understood what I was talking about as I believe most others do to.
I think my comparing Cue Art to Jazz music was a very keen comparative example.
Sorry you missed my point.
BTW, It is Geschrey not Gershay.
Rick
Wrong on the price of THAT particular Black, which you were specifically addressing when you put it at "north of 20,000.00 to a collector of means. It may be double that...". Of course, the reason you put such a gross exaggeration on the price (which was actually less than HALF of your initial "estimate") was to try to make your work seem like a bargain.
Read what I wrote again, Rick. I didn't say your claim of being a greatly skilled musician was "not true", simply that it was entirely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion. And yes, "claims". That's the technical term for stating something as a fact, but without offering any direct proof. It's nothing more than a word, and we know you are not very good with words, but you should try to understand that the word "claim" is not inherently negative.
Quote them, please. Give us one concrete example from anywhere in this forum where someone other than you has referred to negative space as "blind area" regarding cue inlay art.
You misunderstand, misuse, and even make up words and phrases, Rick... pretty much anybody who's read your posts knows this. If you don't like being called out on it then don't pose as if you know what you're pontificating about when you clearly don't.
You didn't offend me, Rick... I actually find it kind of funny. But it does grate on the ears (so to speak) when you make up words and/or phrases that you think seem right but are actually embarrassingly incorrect.
Perhaps... if your example actually applied in the slightest - which it doesn't. Your sole purpose in writing about jazz music was to try to make yourself seem educated, but you err in comparing Richard Black to Miles Davis on so many levels it's astonishing you would pretend to know what you're talking about.
Miles Davis came from a relatively wealthy family and was trained as a musician from a very early age. His parents provided him with music lessons as a youngster, and he learned his craft from well-regarded instructors such as Elwood Buchanan and Clark Terry. He was literally groomed to become who he became.
Richard Black came to cuemaking relatively late in life, is primarily self taught, and has acquired his remarkable level of success entirely by the sweat of his own brow. No one bought him cuemaking "lessons" or hired mentors to groom him. There were no videos or books for him to learn from, no parts suppliers to do most of the work for him. Comparing his rise to success with that of Mile Davis is utterly ridiculous - Bird maybe... Bill Broonzy for sure... but not Miles Davis.
I didn't "miss" your point. I got it, but it was poorly thought out and not at all on point.
Oh, Gerschrey... Gerschery. Thank you for that correction. You post under a pseudonym, so I have to try to remember your name when I want to use it, as I don't consider it important enough research each time. I suspect future cuemaking historians will feel similarly.
TW
Last edited:
Thank you. They are free for taking.:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
Last edited:
TW,
I have no idea what one of Richard Blacks cues sells for I was only giving a guess as of coarse it in none of my business. I am surprised however on your thoughts on the subject. I really missed the boat on that one if it is only worth $ 10,000.00. Seriously though, I did not try to make Richard's Cue value seem too high so that my cue would look like a bargain as you suggest or whatever you where saying. I am very specific and have a detailed pricing schedule for selling my cues and their attributes which has nothing to do with anyone else's offerings. I really try not to pay attention to others.
So let me get a handle on what is going on here:
1. You make a statement about how one of my cues is not an art cue because I just slathered some inlays on it to fill space and you post a pic of my cue that you lifted off the forum.
I see your post and state that I totally agree with you and express to you that my cue was never presented as an art cue and it is only a fancy player with some symmetrical inlays on it. That is a true statement.
I acknowledge Richard's Blacks work as awesome and then I go on to illustrate the similarities between the evolution of Jazz music and modern cue art, then compare you and Mr. Black to Miles Davis. Excuse me, but I don't think that kinda thing is provocative at all. Seems to me like I was paying you a big compliment.
2. I did not personally attack you only agreed with you. Then paid you a big compliment. After all you are my favorite Art Cue Designer and your work and execution of detail is incomparable.
3. I was using an example. Musicians call practicing "wood shedding". I have only been building cues for about 11 years and have been doing inlay work for only 3 years. Building a cue like the Scimitar Cue is me just practicing the art of making a playing cue with inlays on it. Maybe some day if I keep pushing the envelope and keep evolving and practicing these things, I may produce an art cue. I am not in much of a hurry because I love what I am doing and I enjoy each day of the journey and I am excited each and every time I go out to my cue shop. It is all about being happy in this thing called life.
4. Everyone has people in their life that mentor them. One of my best friends in life is a 91 year old Cue Designer and Pantograph Artist that spends a few hours a day in my shop four or five days a week. He is a very unique person and has a great understanding of the industry and personally knows a huge amount of cue makers and all of their stories. He is as sharp as a tack at 91 and lives independently and drives his car.
Ken "Stew" Mortson is the person who uses the phrase "Blind Area" to describe what you refer to as "Negative Space. I don't think I will change from blind area though because it is just semantics and as I said, " I am not an Art Cue Designer" at this time. I am only a student finding my way.
Stew is Richard Black's and your biggest fan and he refers to your work all the time as Top of the Heap.
There is no reason at all that we can't have a mutual respect. Life is too short anyway!
JMO,
Rick
Here is a Pic of Stew with Richard I have hanging in my shop. Stew is on the right. This pic was taken over 20 years ago and I think it was the year Richard won "Best in Show" for his Ambassador Cue. Do you remember that one?
I have no idea what one of Richard Blacks cues sells for I was only giving a guess as of coarse it in none of my business. I am surprised however on your thoughts on the subject. I really missed the boat on that one if it is only worth $ 10,000.00. Seriously though, I did not try to make Richard's Cue value seem too high so that my cue would look like a bargain as you suggest or whatever you where saying. I am very specific and have a detailed pricing schedule for selling my cues and their attributes which has nothing to do with anyone else's offerings. I really try not to pay attention to others.
So let me get a handle on what is going on here:
1. You make a statement about how one of my cues is not an art cue because I just slathered some inlays on it to fill space and you post a pic of my cue that you lifted off the forum.
I see your post and state that I totally agree with you and express to you that my cue was never presented as an art cue and it is only a fancy player with some symmetrical inlays on it. That is a true statement.
I acknowledge Richard's Blacks work as awesome and then I go on to illustrate the similarities between the evolution of Jazz music and modern cue art, then compare you and Mr. Black to Miles Davis. Excuse me, but I don't think that kinda thing is provocative at all. Seems to me like I was paying you a big compliment.
2. I did not personally attack you only agreed with you. Then paid you a big compliment. After all you are my favorite Art Cue Designer and your work and execution of detail is incomparable.
3. I was using an example. Musicians call practicing "wood shedding". I have only been building cues for about 11 years and have been doing inlay work for only 3 years. Building a cue like the Scimitar Cue is me just practicing the art of making a playing cue with inlays on it. Maybe some day if I keep pushing the envelope and keep evolving and practicing these things, I may produce an art cue. I am not in much of a hurry because I love what I am doing and I enjoy each day of the journey and I am excited each and every time I go out to my cue shop. It is all about being happy in this thing called life.
4. Everyone has people in their life that mentor them. One of my best friends in life is a 91 year old Cue Designer and Pantograph Artist that spends a few hours a day in my shop four or five days a week. He is a very unique person and has a great understanding of the industry and personally knows a huge amount of cue makers and all of their stories. He is as sharp as a tack at 91 and lives independently and drives his car.
Ken "Stew" Mortson is the person who uses the phrase "Blind Area" to describe what you refer to as "Negative Space. I don't think I will change from blind area though because it is just semantics and as I said, " I am not an Art Cue Designer" at this time. I am only a student finding my way.
Stew is Richard Black's and your biggest fan and he refers to your work all the time as Top of the Heap.
There is no reason at all that we can't have a mutual respect. Life is too short anyway!
JMO,
Rick
Here is a Pic of Stew with Richard I have hanging in my shop. Stew is on the right. This pic was taken over 20 years ago and I think it was the year Richard won "Best in Show" for his Ambassador Cue. Do you remember that one?
Last edited:
Rick
I love your cue, its not really my style but i like that you pushed yourself and this risk is what will afford you growth if you can be open to it.
I dont think your properly using the term "art cue" as nobody is saying your cue is not art. By definition its as much art as anything.
Now, if you can get past the fact that your cue was used as an example "be it snooty or not" then theres a huge free lesson in it.
The biggest question that i'm wondering if you've asked yourself is what could i have done different? Bringing the buttsleeve elements into the front with proportion and integration could really make this cue a hit.
I also dont think negative space is always negative, just depends on flow and if the eye is pleased/intrigued or confused.
I love your cue, its not really my style but i like that you pushed yourself and this risk is what will afford you growth if you can be open to it.
I dont think your properly using the term "art cue" as nobody is saying your cue is not art. By definition its as much art as anything.
Now, if you can get past the fact that your cue was used as an example "be it snooty or not" then theres a huge free lesson in it.
The biggest question that i'm wondering if you've asked yourself is what could i have done different? Bringing the buttsleeve elements into the front with proportion and integration could really make this cue a hit.
I also dont think negative space is always negative, just depends on flow and if the eye is pleased/intrigued or confused.
Pretty good advice. Rick your cue doesn't even approach the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the familiar practice of being overdone. Thomas knows this probably better than most, and he happens to be right. I'm not an art critic or knowledgeable in specific art terms, so, a little allowance would be nice. Relativity, balance, flow are hard to execute in that canvas of ours. McWorter's work defines those, for me.
Mind you, there are better designers, and more intricate works by them. Black, Wayne, etc. etc. I respect their talents and efforts tremendously but their intricate work it's beyond what i can ever construct. Would love to display them.
It's McWorter's designs I carefully try to study at every show. Consistent canvas balance without unnecessary add-ons, that, i can study and hopefully introduce to my meager offerings one day. Right after I'm somewhat happy with their intended function, and find the $ for the necessary machines and jump into the CNC river
or die whichever comes first.May life guide all of us well.
Mario
Quote me, Rick. You can't, because I never said that cue "is not an art cue".
As for your term "lifted" [regarding those cue pics] - I merely linked to photos which became public domain [within this forum] the very second you published them here. No "lifting" involved.
I figure the only way to keep a reasonable check on the massive amount of bullshit you spew out around here is to challenge it whenever it gets too deep. When you first published those photos I considered responding with my opinion of that approach to cue design. I held off because I was concerned it might look like I was just taking a shot at you.
But when 'poolrod' stared posting designs and soliciting opinions I felt it was a good time to present a different, more creative way to look at the art of inlay in pool cues. Your "Scimitar Cue" seemed like the perfect poster child for that discussion, and those pics were readily available. Nothing more to it than that; nothing less either. The idea of taking cue design to a level above that of clip-art and wallpaper is something I care about, and hope I can inspire future cuemakers to embrace. If my presentation of those ideas bothers you... well, I really don't give a shit.
TW
(PS: On a side note, you can keep your "compliments" to yourself, Rick - they reek of insincerity. You've posted some nasty lies about me in recent past, and I guess you think I failed to notice or maybe have forgotten. To be clear, I did notice and I didn't forget.)
.
Last edited:
I think TW would agree that cue design isn't something that just happens. It takes
lots of hard work and study. I would recommend that any serious cuemaker get some books on perspective and composition. Things in art, just don't happen.
At Cuestock Richard Helmstetter mentioned to me that he loved one of my designs, but that you had to get close to it to enjoy it. At a distance, it just didn't do anything.
I went around and looked at Black,TW,Pfd and Jakes cues.
Bingo, they drew you from across the room and when you got up close, they rewarded you for looking.
This is the great thing about building cues. You can always do something better, and you can always learn.
lots of hard work and study. I would recommend that any serious cuemaker get some books on perspective and composition. Things in art, just don't happen.
At Cuestock Richard Helmstetter mentioned to me that he loved one of my designs, but that you had to get close to it to enjoy it. At a distance, it just didn't do anything.
I went around and looked at Black,TW,Pfd and Jakes cues.
Bingo, they drew you from across the room and when you got up close, they rewarded you for looking.
This is the great thing about building cues. You can always do something better, and you can always learn.
Some of my favorite pantograph and milled inlayed cues .
Judd and Trudy sure made them pretty .
Judd and Trudy sure made them pretty .