CUES, To Copy or Not to Copy...MY Clarification

skins

Likes to draw
Silver Member
Id like to clarify, for the record, MY position and beliefs as it pertains to "copying" cues since some members here on this forum have recently questioned them.

First let me preface by saying my beliefs on this subject have not changed since I've entered the cue manufacturing field over 25 years ago and any post(s) I may have made prior, if seemingly not reflective of this clarification (which I believe are none), are being taken out of context.

That said, I believe that cue makers AND those looking for a maker to build a cue, should ALWAYS refrain from directly copying another CURRENT cue makers work PERIOD. That includes not copying those makers who have purchased a prior business to eclusivley produce cues exactly as original like in the case of Schon OR those that are carying on the family business which has been passed down like in the case of Szamboti. Barry and his fathers work should be off limits unless Barry alows it.

This takes us to deceased makers such as George Balabushka. I have NO problem with those who want to produce or have other makers reproduce or copy his work since George is no longer with us and his cues are not being made anymore. Someone questioned this by saying that since "Balabushka" was sold to an Asian company they are the only ones who have the right to produce cues that look like Georges cues...WRONG IMO. They purchased the NAME only to have the sole right to put the NAME "Balabushka" on their cues and "call" their cues Balabushka's and thats it. They didn't purchase the business. For those who have had one in your hands, though not a horrible production cue, there is no comparison to the original.

Just as for George, the same goes for ALL other deceased makers whos legacy and design have not been "past along".. Those would include a maker such as Scruggs who among others left us too soon. YAY BAVA!

If you MUST have a specific cue "look" from a current maker and can't get them to make the cue, can't afford, or you just don't want to wait, at the least put enough "spin" on the design that takes the cue away from the original makers design. This goes to the makers taking the order for the cue as well.

I hope this puts a little clarity to what some may have otherwise thought.

"And that's all I have to say about that" (Forrest Gump)
 
I Agree

I basically agree with everything you stated.

Anyone copying the work of a living cuemaker is using their work without compensation.
 
Tim's thread lucidly expresses a neutral opinion that I do not harbor any principal disagreement with, as long as the design was original and exclusive to a cue-maker.
I'm really not sure how one goes about determining that and so there has to be some flexibility I suppose.........how many different variations can there be on a 4 point
cue design that's never been attempted by any cue-maker somewhere at some point in the last 50-60 years? Nonetheless, sweat equity deserves to be respected and
cues should not be any different. Unfortunately trademarks aren't being currently issued to cue designs which would seal the deal if the design had trademark protection.


Matt B.
 
Last edited:
huh?

Not copying a szamboti? What so no one can make a plain, four point four veneer cue without their permission? lol...

People can and should make whatever they want, so long as they don't try to pass it off as that cue maker's cue.

Jaden
 
Not copying a szamboti? What so no one can make a plain, four point four veneer cue without their permission? lol...

People can and should make whatever they want, so long as they don't try to pass it off as that cue maker's cue.

Jaden
Exactly...

Also there are 200 dollar copies of Balabuska, Southwest and Gina readily available, but guys still pay crazy money for the real thing.
 
Not copying a szamboti? What so no one can make a plain, four point four veneer cue without their permission? lol...

People can and should make whatever they want, so long as they don't try to pass it off as that cue maker's cue.

Jaden

I think maybe there's a slight communication error. Lol. I kinda read it as no exact copies, or stealing ringwork(think Haley) or BB's buttcap. Tad has a very unique design as does SW.

Take a look at Skins Gus 2000, Gus design but definitly not to be confused with a Gus. He took an old design and made it his.
Jason
 
I love the old balabushka look

I have had lots of great players make me something that looks close

Not phonies,just super similar

I consider myself an honest fella,and if someone could show me
that it was illegal or immoral I would stop doing it

This is written sincerely and not threateningly,I asked Barry for permission to tribute his cues or his dads when Evan was at Schon,they would be obviously Schon cues,In my opinion it would have been a compliment to szamboti

Barry didn't get mad or threaten legal action,he said he would not feel good about it.I passed on the project.Did friendship enter?Yes it did

I feel good about tributes to George,I feel bad about phonies

Feel free to correct my thinking
 
I remember the Barry Szamboti story because Dean and I discussed cue themes a couple of years ago. Right after the first Jerry R. Bushka project was launched.
Dean and I discussed what would make another interesting design project to attempt. My immediate reply was a Szamboti design cue like Barry makes and despite
that Dean thought it was a great idea, he shared with me Barry's feelings about doing something like that and I have high regard for Dean just like he has for Barry so
that project never got off the ground and won't........some things are meant to be and obviously, some aren't....a Szamboti cue design project falls into the latter....And
it's completely understandable and makes total sense to me.


Matt B.
 
Last edited:
Not copying a szamboti? What so no one can make a plain, four point four veneer cue without their permission? lol...

People can and should make whatever they want, so long as they don't try to pass it off as that cue maker's cue.

Jaden

Gus was not the first to make a plain "4 point 4 veneer" cue... So making one is not copying...
 
Exactly...

Also there are 200 dollar copies of Balabuska, Southwest and Gina readily available, but guys still pay crazy money for the real thing.

Well if there are $200 copies of those makers then I'm sure you get what you pay for. :rolleyes:
 
Tim's thread lucidly expresses a neutral opinion that I do not harbor any principal disagreement with, as long as the design was original and exclusive to a cue-maker.
I'm really not sure how one goes about determining that and so there has to be some flexibility I suppose.........how many different variations can there be on a 4 point
cue design that's never been attempted by any cue-maker somewhere at some point in the last 50-60 years? Nonetheless, sweat equity deserves to be respected and
cues should not be any different. Unfortunately trademarks aren't being currently issued to cue designs which would seal the deal if the design had trademark protection.


Matt B.

Sometimes it's not WHAT elements are used in a cue but HOW they're arranged. Look at your new cue from Jerry for instance. There are silver and Ivory rings, dots, and notched diamonds within your cue. No one holds the "copy protection" on any of those elements BUT up until Timmy passed away using those elements in an arrangement that he did would be a no no in my book. Not anymore.

As far as how many variations can there be on a four point design? LOTS
 
No problems with them copying another design. I will equate this to the watch world. A cue is like the modern day diving watch.

Most people say these two are the original....
5512-4-line.jpg

Blancpain-Fifty-Fathoms-for-Horbiter.jpg


Now many companies have reproduced this design with the bezel timer. Are they imitations? Some say yes. Are they any lesser of a watch? No. As a matter of fact, the 'imitation' watches are better at doing what the watch was intended than the original.
Carl-F-Bucherer-Patravi-ScubaTec-2.jpg

602x442_original34482.jpg

DOXA%20Mission%2031%20Watch.jpg
 
None of those, after the first, can be mistaken for a Rolex.....


No problems with them copying another design. I will equate this to the watch world. A cue is like the modern day diving watch.

Most people say these two are the original....
5512-4-line.jpg

Blancpain-Fifty-Fathoms-for-Horbiter.jpg


Now many companies have reproduced this design with the bezel timer. Are they imitations? Some say yes. Are they any lesser of a watch? No. As a matter of fact, the 'imitation' watches are better at doing what the watch was intended than the original.
Carl-F-Bucherer-Patravi-ScubaTec-2.jpg

602x442_original34482.jpg

DOXA%20Mission%2031%20Watch.jpg
 
Exactly...

Also there are 200 dollar copies of Balabuska, Southwest and Gina readily available, but guys still pay crazy money for the real thing.

Everyone ripped off someone's design, when they started making cues. Gus was making cues like George. Burton Spain was making cues like Gus. Etc. Etc.

Joe Gold could make a cue that looks exactly like a Josey/Lilek. It would still be a Cog. I find a lot of the floating cues look alike. Tim Scruggs and Andy Gilbert have a lot of cues that look similar.

If you can execute the design, there is no "intellectual property" in art. A street painter can copy the Mona Lisa. It won't command nearly the pricetag of the original.

Also, a lot of those designs were the idea of the customer that created the design. To say that they belong to the cuemaker instead of the commissioner is a grey area.
 
None of those, after the first, can be mistaken for a Rolex.....

They get mistaken all the time.

As for Balabushka cues...the new, Adams version and 'imitations' are far superior than Balabushka's. We tend to look at the originals as nostalgia.

I get it. It's a Balabushka cue but if we were to put an original Balabushka and an imitation side-by-side....I guarantee people will say the imitation is the real thing. The materials used back then do not seem to look as good as today's. Modern techniques allow for a much more better looking cue. An unimpressive Bushka veneer gets beat all day by someone like a Searing veneer or even Tascarella's veneer.
 
Joe Gold could make a cue that looks exactly like a Josey/Lilek. It would still be a Cog.

You can blame the OP for this.

He has been adamant about 'original design' and the reason why Josey and Cog look alike is because they are 'his designs.'

Is it safe to say Josey and Gold are imitators? They are passing this design as their own.:rolleyes: They have full blown design lines that look exactly the same.
 
Everyone ripped off someone's design, when they started making cues. Gus was making cues like George. Burton Spain was making cues like Gus. Etc. Etc.

Joe Gold could make a cue that looks exactly like a Josey/Lilek. It would still be a Cog. I find a lot of the floating cues look alike. Tim Scruggs and Andy Gilbert have a lot of cues that look similar.

If you can execute the design, there is no "intellectual property" in art. A street painter can copy the Mona Lisa. It won't command nearly the pricetag of the original.

Also, a lot of those designs were the idea of the customer that created the design. To say that they belong to the cuemaker instead of the commissioner is a grey area.

Gus didn't "copy" George, I don't know of any Gus cue that can be mistaken for a cue made by George. Burtons cues looked nothing like Gus or George and Joe's cues look like his because of the designs he uses are one of a kind AND his sig ringwork which IS copied. FYI Cog IS Joe AND "Lilek" just as Josey IS Keith AND "Lilek" as well.. No copying as no exact designs are shared between the two.

If ALL floating point cues look the same to you them you for sure must feel the same about all 6 or 8 or 4 point cues
 
OP likes to talk about imitation and rules of the game but only if it doesn't involve the game he's playing.

One easy google search....

Josey Cues...this is a full blown line
677.jpg

DSCF0182.jpg


Cognoscenti Cues
10-18-05-New-Designs-.jpg


Now many have accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about or that I am ignorant to pool cues.

Please explain to this ignorant member which is the originator of the two? Cog copied Josey -or- Josey copied Cog.

Or even worst...they both copied someone at the same time.
 
Show me the cues that are copied... with the exception of two cues in the Cog picture that Joe designed himself, the other 3 AND all those Josey cues are MY work AND none are the same... I design intricate floating point cues for BOTH makers. No designs are shared between the two so how in the heck is this copying???

Me thinks you need to stop smokin' whatever you're smokin' buddy...

Who's the "ignorant" one now?



OP likes to talk about imitation and rules of the game but only if it doesn't involve the game he's playing.

One easy google search....

Josey Cues...this is a full blown line
677.jpg

DSCF0182.jpg


Cognoscenti Cues
10-18-05-New-Designs-.jpg


Now many have accused me of not knowing what I'm talking about or that I am ignorant to pool cues.

Please explain to this ignorant member which is the originator of the two? Cog copied Josey -or- Josey copied Cog.
 
You can blame the OP for this.

He has been adamant about 'original design' and the reason why Josey and Cog look alike is because they are 'his designs.'

Is it safe to say Josey and Gold are imitators? They are passing this design as their own.:rolleyes: They have full blown design lines that look exactly the same.

If you think the designs in Cogs and Josey's "look exactly the same" you need glasses and an education above 3rd grade...LOL

That's like saying every portrait painting looks the same... Other peoples children..LOL
 
Back
Top