Cue Review Of A Hot Rod Varney Hustler

[ShootingArts]

Tried that myself

did the racing up of this cue help the hit?

I tried racing up a cue myself. Put a fifty horsepower nitrous kit on it. Unfortunately, I miscalculated where the exhaust would be dumping. A tip from one who knows, you can't shoot pool worth a hoot with a major case of the snickers!

Hu

 

[Irish634]

I would suspect that while I do not know everything(I am Learning) I have more knowledge on the subject than you.

Now, who believes what I say or doesn't is not really important here. I am not a Nut Hugger, and I am also not out to deceive anyone or to offer opinions unfairly. I have only stated what I believe (my opinion) and what I know to be true for a fact.

This thread has been nothing more than a cue review, not an attempt to discredit or take away from anyones popularity or status on this board. My intent has been to give a clear factual view, and nothing more.

No offense intended, and have a good night!!!!!!!!!!

1. Like I said, in the post... your review was well written and very informative. There's nothing wrong with it.
2. I merely addressed your statement that you said it was a converted house cue. You said it - I addressed it, nothing more. I also answered certain questions as to which I knew the answers to.
3. "I know more than you know" - sounds like third grade crap to me. Though you may have a more intimate knowledge about cue making, cues, etc, your statement that this is a house cue is flat out incorrect.
4. Attacking and degrading others with snide comments (posts following the initial review) just shows ones true character. Take it just as I said it, because the shoe does fit.

I've nothing more to say, but I am sure you'll get your last word in. Have at it, I'll not post anymore in this thread.

i'm surprised this thread isn't 4 or 5 pages by now. usually one word suggesting mr varney isn't the next coming (of cue making) the sayer gets hounded by everyone

Well, there's nothing negative about the review, even though he and everyone else are entitled to do so. He wrote an honest opinion about it. Again, it is well written and quite informative to those that read it.

Regardless, one is entitled to post what they dislike about anyone's cues. An example of this is stated about the personal preference about the taper. That is a very powerful statement. That tells me that if I am partial to "extended pro tapers," I may not like the taper that this particular cuemaker uses. That is very informative for someone looking for a cue, or looking to have one built.

There's a good bit of advice that someone said to me a while ago: "I take all reviews with a grain of salt, because all of them are biased." Stop and think about that for a minute and you may realize how true it is.

I only addressed the things I knew the answers to:

1. The statement about this being a house cue.
2. The question about the joint collars.
3. The question about the blanks.

Good luck to you.

 

[xianmacx]

i'm surprised this thread isn't 4 or 5 pages by now. usually one word suggesting mr varney isn't the next coming (of cue making) the sayer gets hounded by everyone

well put, I am still waiting for the return fire. I think they are planning a sneak attack.

REP to manwon for an excellent review.

 

[manwon]

1. Like I said, in the post... your review was well written and very informative. There's nothing wrong with it.
2. I merely addressed your statement that you said it was a converted house cue. You said it - I addressed it, nothing more. I also answered certain questions as to which I knew the answers to.
3. "I know more than you know" - sounds like third grade crap to me. Though you may have a more intimate knowledge about cue making, cues, etc, your statement that this is a house cue is flat out incorrect.
4. Attacking and degrading others with snide comments (posts following the initial review) just shows ones true character. Take it just as I said it, because the shoe does fit.

I've nothing more to say, but I am sure you'll get your last word in. Have at it, I'll not post anymore in this thread.




Well, there's nothing negative about the review, even though he and everyone else are entitled to do so. He wrote an honest opinion about it. Again, it is well written and quite informative to those that read it.

Regardless, one is entitled to post what they dislike about anyone's cues. An example of this is stated about the personal preference about the taper. That is a very powerful statement. That tells me that if I am partial to "extended pro tapers," I may not like the taper that this particular cuemaker uses. That is very informative for someone looking for a cue, or looking to have one built.

There's a good bit of advice that someone said to me a while ago: "I take all reviews with a grain of salt, because all of them are biased." Stop and think about that for a minute and you may realize how true it is.

I only addressed the things I knew the answers to:

1. The statement about this being a house cue.
2. The question about the joint collars.
3. The question about the blanks.

Good luck to you.

You are correct about one thing, I was incorrect about the cue being a house cue. What I meant to say is the cue was a purchased blank. The front of the cue was from one purchased blank, and the cues butt below the splice was a different purchased blank. This is why the bottom of the points can not be seen at the A-joint. Now if you want to dispute this please do. However, do so in a manner that can be very clearly understood, and that is not bias one way of the other. I have a very easy way for you to prove your point, contact Kevin and have him send you some photo's of points being milled, and points that are glued up.

This will answer my question completely.

I've nothing more to say, but I am sure you'll get your last word in. Have at it, I'll not post anymore in this thread

I do not know why you posted here in the first place, you really had nothing to add, because you already knew all the answers to the questions. Thanks but, personal bias on this subject is not needed, this is not an attack on your friend Mr. Varney.

Good Luck to you also!!!!!!!

 

[manwon]

1. Like I said, in the post... your review was well written and very informative. There's nothing wrong with it.
2. I merely addressed your statement that you said it was a converted house cue. You said it - I addressed it, nothing more. I also answered certain questions as to which I knew the answers to.
3. "I know more than you know" - sounds like third grade crap to me. Though you may have a more intimate knowledge about cue making, cues, etc, your statement that this is a house cue is flat out incorrect.
4. Attacking and degrading others with snide comments (posts following the initial review) just shows ones true character. Take it just as I said it, because the shoe does fit.

I've nothing more to say, but I am sure you'll get your last word in. Have at it, I'll not post anymore in this thread.




Well, there's nothing negative about the review, even though he and everyone else are entitled to do so. He wrote an honest opinion about it. Again, it is well written and quite informative to those that read it.

Regardless, one is entitled to post what they dislike about anyone's cues. An example of this is stated about the personal preference about the taper. That is a very powerful statement. That tells me that if I am partial to "extended pro tapers," I may not like the taper that this particular cuemaker uses. That is very informative for someone looking for a cue, or looking to have one built.

There's a good bit of advice that someone said to me a while ago: "I take all reviews with a grain of salt, because all of them are biased." Stop and think about that for a minute and you may realize how true it is.

I only addressed the things I knew the answers to:

1. The statement about this being a house cue.
2. The question about the joint collars.
3. The question about the blanks.

Good luck to you.

There's a good bit of advice that someone said to me a while ago: "I take all reviews with a grain of salt, because all of them are biased." Stop and think about that for a minute and you may realize how true it is.

The above is the only reason you have poster to this thread, which is your right. I totally agree you should stand up for your friend and I would do the same in your shoes. However, I would also make certain that what is presented as truth is truth and not false. Because in the long run if you are not certain what you are standing for is in fact the truth, even if you did not know that it was the case, your credibility is in question.

Have a nice day!!

 

[JoeyInCali]

Craig, might as well request the mod to delete the whole thread.
Can of worms.

 

[manwon]

Craig, might as well request the mod to delete the whole thread.
Can of worms.

Joey, I think to some extent you are on target, however, I also think that the questions asked are legitimate and they should be answered. I can take the heat for asking these questions, and I really think that the truth should be known, whether I am proven right or wrong. I can not help it, I have an inquiring mind, and I do not think that wanting to know the truth is a bad thing.

Kevin can and I am certain at some point will answer these questions, because even if this thread fades away the questions will not.

Have a great day Joey!!

 

[manwon]

well put, I am still waiting for the return fire. I think they are planning a sneak attack.

REP to manwon for an excellent review.

Thanks for understanding that I have attempted to be fair, as for an sneak attack, it hard to to attack the truth and not look foolish in the process. Some forum members have taken offense to the application and term Nut Hugger. In the post where this was used, I only made it clear that I was not one, and I did not apply that term to anyone else. But from the reaction to that term, the shoe must fit some members, because they certainly have no reason to let it effect them unless they harbor some guilt concerning its use.

Again, thanks very much, and have a great day!!!!!!!

 

[masonh]

I hope this clears things up, oh and by the way if some one finds one of my cues floating around and reviews it, I can only ask that they are also be honest. This way, I can learn something that will hopefully help me build a better cue in the future.

Have a nice night!!!

well said Craig,the comments good or bad can help if you let them.

on another note,i knew what you meant about the forearm blank being purchased.lots of cuemakers buy Prather blanks,i am not saying this is one,just that i knew what you were talking about.

 

[hoosier_cues]

Manwon,

I would be interested in you reviewing a newer version of Kevin's work. As you said this is a early cue. I am sure he has changed things somewhat.

I really enjoy your cue reviews. You give the facts. Nothing more. Nothing less IMO. It seems to me there is a lot of hype on some makers on Az. Its hard to know what is BS and what is not. I for one put a lot of stock in your reviews.

 

[manwon]

well said Craig,the comments good or bad can help if you let them.

on another note,i knew what you meant about the forearm blank being purchased.lots of cuemakers buy Prather blanks,i am not saying this is one,just that i knew what you were talking about.

Thanks Mason, it is kinda funny that certain people either are not able to understand or do not want to. This thread is an honest attempt to give a fair assement of the cue in question. Now when I did the same on the Deno Cue, Dean actually was glad that problems were brought to his attention. In fact we have become friends since that time, and we still talk on the phone on occasion.

Have a great night Mason

 

[manwon]

Manwon,

I would be interested in you reviewing a newer version of Kevin's work. As you said this is a early cue. I am sure he has changed things somewhat.

I really enjoy your cue reviews. You give the facts. Nothing more. Nothing less IMO. It seems to me there is a lot of hype on some makers on Az. Its hard to know what is BS and what is not. I for one put a lot of stock in your reviews.

Thanks very much for the kind words. I hope this helps everyone concerned. I will continue to reveiw cues in the future, I would hope that others do the same, because there is no better way to find strengths and weakness for all of us.

Thanks again!!!!!

 

[Irish634]

You are correct about one thing, I was incorrect about the cue being a house cue. What I meant to say is the cue was a purchased blank.

Then why didn't you say it in the first place? Saying "this is converted from a house cue" is a bit different from saying "I think Kevin purchased the short splice blank in this cue." Since you are so adamant about stating facts and truths, I would have thought you would have been certain to clarify your statement, especially in your crusade to assist the newer members of the forum.

I do not know why you posted here in the first place, you really had nothing to add, because you already knew all the answers to the questions. Thanks but, personal bias on this subject is not needed, this is not an attack on your friend Mr. Varney.

I have exactly as much right to post in these threads as you do. You are not above anyone, neither am I. As you stated, I answered questions I knew about. You would have posted (and do post) in any thread to answer the questions you knew about.

I have no personal bias in your review. As I have said many times: IT WAS WELL WRITTEN AND VERY INFORMATIVE. I also said that you gave an honest opinion of it. I don't know why its that difficult to comprehend really.

I don't see at all where I said your post was an attack on anyone. Please enlighten me where I said it.

Thanks for understanding that I have attempted to be fair, as for an sneak attack, it hard to to attack the truth and not look foolish in the process.

No where in any posts did I say you were not fair. Did I? Again, reading comprehension goes a long way. For the umpteenth time, your review was well written, informative and fair.

As far as not attacking the truth and looking foolish? I am not the one who incorrectly identified the forearm as a house cue now am I? I called YOU on your incorrect statement and you went on the offensive about it, and changed it around to suit you. So who was foolish for what statement? It has nothing to do with who made it, or who purchased it. You always preach that people need to state facts and truths, I called you on it. For the record, search the phrase "house cue" and tell me what descriptions come back. Then tell me what a new member might think of your statement.

You said earlier that you can take the heat for the questions... and they were honest and fair questions. However, when called on your incorrect statement, it's twisted around to me "not being credible enough" to debate the topic.

You are correct about one thing, I was incorrect about the cue being a house cue.

Thank you for stating that I am correct.

Also, I believe I am correct in my other statements about A) why KV bevels the joint collars and B) that KV does not make his own full splice blanks and that he makes most (if not all) of his short splice blanks. I feel confident in my statements based on the lengthy discussions I have had with Kevin over the last couple of years.

I would have the same confidence in my statements about your cues, had you and I talked at length and with the same content.

Some forum members have taken offense to the application and term Nut Hugger. In the post where this was used, I only made it clear that I was not one, and I did not apply that term to anyone else. But from the reaction to that term, the shoe must fit some members, because they certainly have no reason to let it effect them unless they harbor some guilt concerning its use.

The only thing I take offense to is your condescending attitude toward anyone not in the industry that posts something. You seem to think that because people aren't in the industry, don't own a room, don't build cues, or spend a fortune on products, that they have no value to add to a post or have no knowledge of cues.

As far as my credibility being in question, that may be the case in your eyes due to my lowly position of "just being an end user" but I don't think so in this case.

Again: YOUR REVIEW IS WELL WRITTEN, INFORMATIVE, AND IN MY OPINION FAIR. I have not challenged your review, or your right to do so. Your conclusion that it was a converted house cue is what I challenged, and I believe rightly so from your latter correction.

Sorry for going back on my word not to post anymore in this thread. But I felt I needed to address what you said to me. Now, I really have nothing else to add therefore I will bow out of this thread. Please feel free to get in whatever you feel to need to in response, I will give you the courtesy of staying out of your thread. On that note, the only way I will add to it is if Kevin comes on to answer and states contrary to my statements, I will add 1 additional post apologizing to you and admitting I was wrong.

 

[poolplayer2093]

3 more pages and this'll be a typical varney thread

 

[JoeyInCali]

3 more pages and this'll be a typical varney thread

5 1/2 pages is the over and under.

 

[manwon]

First let me say I hope everyone has their Popcorn and drinks!!!! Because this is a great deal to answer!!!!!!!!

Then why didn't you say it in the first place? Saying "this is converted from a house cue" is a bit different from saying "I think Kevin purchased the short splice blank in this cue." Since you are so adamant about stating facts and truths, I would have thought you would have been certain to clarify your statement, especially in your crusade to assist the newer members of the forum.

First to answer you clearly, unless the forearm of a none veneered blank is highly figured with perfectly even points which this cue did not have, there really is no difference between a purchased blank and a buying a house cue to convert. Both are purchased blanks are they not? however you are missing the point. If the blanks are purchased say they are, do not claim to be making them. This is what you have avoided in your posts, maybe you feel up selling is OK and that is your right. However, when most people purchase something they do care about what they are buying, and this should be something they do not have guess about.

I have exactly as much right to post in these threads as you do. You are not above anyone, neither am I. As you stated, I answered questions I knew about. You would have posted (and do post) in any thread to answer the questions you knew about.

I have no personal bias in your review. As I have said many times: IT WAS WELL WRITTEN AND VERY INFORMATIVE. I also said that you gave an honest opinion of it. I don't know why its that difficult to comprehend really.

Your only purpose posting in this thread was Bias, you also became offended when I used the term Nut Hugger even thought it was used in a general statement not directed against you personally. You are certainly right that anyone can post to any thread on this forum, and I have never placed myself above anyone. For those who know me the above statement is truly funny, in fact in reality it only shows that you do not know me or anything about me at all.

The only thing I take offense to is your condescending attitude toward anyone not in the industry that posts something. You seem to think that because people aren't in the industry, don't own a room, don't build cues, or spend a fortune on products, that they have no value to add to a post or have no knowledge of cues.
As far as my credibility being in question, that may be the case in your eyes due to my lowly position of "just being an end user" but I don't think so in this case.

It really has nothing to do with being in the industry or not, however it has everything to do with passing information you do not know is correct. The only person who can clearly answer these questions would be Kevin. He can simply do this by posting some photo's of points glued up and forearms being milled, it is really that easy. My attitude is not condescending to anyone who posts that is not part of the industry, it is only condescending to those who for reasons I do not understand pass information without knowledge that it is factual. I think everyone has value that can be added to any thread, but to give an opinion is one thing and to offer information as fact is another entirely. Concerning your creditability, the above explains why I find your Post not credible, and it has nothing to do with you being an end user.

As far as not attacking the truth and looking foolish? I am not the one who incorrectly identified the forearm as a house cue now am I? I called YOU on your incorrect statement and you went on the offensive about it, and changed it around to suit you. So who was foolish for what statement? It has nothing to do with who made it, or who purchased it. You always preach that people need to state facts and truths, I called you on it. For the record, search the phrase "house cue" and tell me what descriptions come back. Then tell me what a new member might think of your statement.

It certainly matters who made it or who bought it if they are perpetuating a fabrication designed to make themselves something more than in fact they really are. This is what you fail to realize, you make comments and statements based on a conversation with some one, now maybe this makes something factual to you. The point here is being foolish can both be a mental and a physical state to make comments based upon a conversation to the world to me is very foolish. Especially if you do not have the knowledge to look at something and truly and completely understand what techniques and methods were used in the its construction. The main point being I think it better for you to say that in my opinion these blanks are not purchased, not from a house cue, and they are made by Mr. Varney, completely in his shop. By offering your statements as opinion which you did not, to me is the main difference between making foolish comments and being a fool for saying things you do not know for certain are factual.


Sorry for going back on my word not to post anymore in this thread. But I felt I needed to address what you said to me. Now, I really have nothing else to add therefore I will bow out of this thread. Please feel free to get in whatever you feel to need to in response, I will give you the courtesy of staying out of your thread. On that note, the only way I will add to it is if Kevin comes on to answer and states contrary to my statements, I will add 1 additional post apologizing to you and admitting I was wrong.[/QUOTE]


Your statements above about having the right to post are certainly correct, and there is know reason you should be sorry for posting again. There is certainly no reason for an apology, in any event. I only hope Kevin comes on here and sets things right, because he is the only one who can do that, not you or anyone else. The original questions were directed to Kevin, and by answering them for him, the questions still remain. I am sorry for my snide remarks, however, I did and I still do think that the information you offered was only hear say, not based upon facts.

One thing I can certainly say, is that you are truly the embodied spirit of the Fighting Irish and that I can completely respect!!!!!!!!!

Have a good day Craig!!!!!

 

[Pinocchio]

Dam!!!! Dam!!!!!! Dam!!!!!!!

Now you guys have done it. I've burnt my popcorn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pinocchio

 

[ShootingArts]

popping popcorn

Now you guys have done it. I've burnt my popcorn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pinocchio

Working in the nuclear plant one of the priorities was popping popcorn without making something closely resembling a mushroom cloud when you opened the microwave door. Through intense effort and dedication to the cause I was known as one of the foremost poppers if not the foremost popcorn popper in Design Engineering.

Hu

 

[Pinocchio]

Hu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hu you are truly a man to be envied an admired!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pinocchio

 

[SPINDOKTOR]

where is varney?


Surely he will chime in........

SPINDOKTOR