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

dom_poppa said:
You're not accused of copying yourself.

I am accusing you of being part of the problem you so adamantly hate. You call yourself a designer and you dislike imitations and copies but you allow two cue makers to pass off your designs as their own without a care in the world.

If you care about originality, would you not want the two cue builders to build their own style of cues? They are not only passing off your designs as their own but they are both doing it simultaneously. :rolleyes:

Clearly, you could have made an exclusive design for each but instead you didn't.

Who knows what other machine's you have programmed to produce this style.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh... YOU JUST SAID IT.... S T Y L E!!....BRAVO!!!!!

Just like changing veneer colors or even putting radius's on diamond shapes, what I do is a STYLE. It just happens to be one that some makers have gravitated to. I HAVE HELPED A FEW DELIVER. END OF STORY.

Now to address your comment of "Clearly, you could have made an exclusive design for each but instead you didn't."

What did I make that is the SAME for both OR any other makers?... ANSWER: NOTHING. Each is individual and different.

The fact that you can't tell the difference just makes my point of you being of ignorance royalty....
 
My cue design theft story.

I was selling cues to help my friend, Joe Porper and I saw a ring design on his series that was cool. It was simple dots and a ring but I really liked it, looked great. Anyway, I saw a Joss West cue from many years earlier with the exact same ring design, same spacing, etc. I said to Joe "Joe I saw that same ring design on an old Joss West." He looked at me and blurt out "He copied Ernie!".

We both laughed like hell.
 
I watch the show Ink Masters. Almost all of the tattoo artists use reference materials from art or other artists, photographs, statues or standards in their designs. These are not copies but patterns and art or styles that are then used to create or inspire individual designs. From there they create original art.

The similarities in this art form are much more accepted in this environment than cue makers and collectors seem to tolerate. They also do this to avoid mistakes in proportion, perspective and other details.

Often designs come from French, Italian, or Celtic patterns. They are inspired by other art. People have been decorating objects for centuries and very little is unique.

Reference material: Yes. Rip off copies: No.
 
Last edited:
TATE said:
My cue design theft story.

I was selling cues to help my friend, Joe Porper and I saw a ring design on his series that was cool. It was simple dots and a ring but I really liked it, looked great. Anyway, I saw a Joss West cue from many years earlier with the exact same ring design, same spacing, etc. I said to Joe "Joe I saw that same ring design on an old Joss West." He looked at me and blurt out "He copied Ernie!".

We both laughed like hell.
Click to expand...

Sure Chris, even Joe Gold goes through that same thing now that so many have "adopted" his silver dash ring design. It happens.

Great looking elements constructed with extraordinary simplicity in design are the hardest things to conjure. I mean, how do you improve on the circle? Unfortunately they're also the hardest elements to keep protected. Sometimes elements are so "simple" that they get endocrine'd into the benign category and used without indiscretion.

I mean if ya want to get picky, everyone who made an 8 point cue (4 high 4 low) copied Ernie... BUT to me it's not so much his 8 point orientation, which is an element based off a crown that has been in existence since crowns have been worn, but how he used it is what separates him from other makers.
 
I consider "Skins" a friend and I feel that he as a cnc designer in the "industry" may have access to insight the majority of us do not. If Tim says that he has knowledge of respected cue builders being disappointed that another cue builder is recreating their work, I totally understand why he has taken the torch to call it out. It's of no benefit to Tim, so don't get upset at him, he is protecting the integrity of many of the cue builders you respect and appreciate for what they have created. Just my two cents!
 
skins said:
Sure Chris, even Joe Gold goes through that same thing now that so many have "adopted" his silver dash ring design. It happens.

Great looking elements constructed with extraordinary simplicity in design are the hardest things to conjure. I mean, how do you improve on the circle? Unfortunately they're also the hardest elements to keep protected. Sometimes elements are so "simple" that they get endocrine'd into the benign category and used without indiscretion.

I mean if ya want to get picky, everyone who made an 8 point cue (4 high 4 low) copied Ernie... BUT to me it's not so much his 8 point orientation, which is an element based off a crown that has been in existence since crowns have been worn, but how he used it is what separates him from other makers.
Click to expand...

I think box cue designs were also Ernie. At least I haven't seen any cues older than the 1960's Gina's with them. Damn, Ernie's good!
 
I honestly believe that all of us on AZ need to take a step back and realize we are discussing pool cues, not life or death. We all love this game and truly need to come together to support it and new up and coming cue builders. If we don't we will only be shooting with production cues and LD shafts. I'm a reseller of production cues, several made in Wisconsin, but I love custom cues. Let's make sure we pay attention to the little guys too. They will grow into the big fish!
 
 
AtLarge said:
This general subject has been discussed on AzB many times, often under the rubric "cue design theft," or CDT.

For anyone who would like to delve into the past discussions, here's a short starter list of threads:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=394670

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=248201

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=238772

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=170199

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=155681

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=25744

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=8727
Click to expand...

Yep. There's a lot of CDT talks before but have you read through this entire thread? This WAS about how "I" feel for clarification, regarding a recent assumption by others towards myself BUT has turned into "others" sharing their ignorance... Good fun actually. :smile:
 
skins said:
Yep. There's a lot of CDT talks before but have you read through this entire thread? This WAS about how "I" feel for clarification, regarding a recent assumption by others towards myself BUT has turned into "others" sharing their ignorance... Good fun actually. :smile:
Click to expand...

Yes, I have read the entire thread, and I understand your reason for starting it. My list is just to make it easy for anyone who wants to read more on the general subject.
 
There are very few cue designs I find fugly......some I find kinda boring.......but the designs skins has been involved with are a far cry from what you call them. Those be some really creative and handsome designs IMO.

Personally, I think Sneaky Pete cues are cool, especially some of the fancier versions by Scruggs, Sly and a couple of others. Yet at the same time I find plain Merry Widows and all ebony cues kinda blah so go figure. What I'm saying is what one likes doesn't have to add up. It neither requires explanation nor justification because it is what it is. Beauty has always been in the eye of the beholder and pool cues excellently illustrate that thinking..

Skins and I are hardly chummy but you gotta give the man his due. He comes up with some amazingly creative designs.....IMO. I think occasionally a few Azers, which includes me, allow our feelings to wiggle its way into the comments we then post which do not fairly reflect how we otherwise feel about a cue design. And unfortunately one's written remarks can get off the thread's theme & become misdirected more toward the cue owner or the OP of a new thread and pretty much everyone has seen how things can go south pretty fast around these parts.

Anyway, until you or I walk in the shoes of the actual cue-maker, our opinions are presumptuously based which doesn't mean we are wrong if and when we disagree but it does mean we aren't duly considering this from a cue-maker's perspective. There's room for a middle ground but I just haven't come up with it but I think Tim's original thread post is a darn good starting point.... IMO.



Matt B.
 
Last edited:
skins said:
Sure, the the billiardly uneducated, and YOU, may see similarities but you similarities in ALL traditional cues as well. BUT no two cues Keith, I, and Joe make are alike. In fact there are more differences between those cues than MOST traditional cues.

Just because someone can't distinguish between the obvious doesn't make and indiscretion...

That's like saying a Porsche looks like Bugatti because it has two doors, a roof, and 4 wheels... pretty pathetic actually.
Click to expand...

That's an absolutely terrible comparison considering what were talking about here. I think that the person involved in the designs doesn't merit an opinion because there's no way to be objective.

The designs are so similar that even the educated may get confused when you tell them they're looking at two different designers... pretty pathetic actually.
 
I wouldn’t copy any design element that I thought provided a signature to another cuemaker. The way the market has evolved with waiting lists greater than 10 years, I can understand why people cross that line, particularly when many design elements have become close to generic. Lucky for me, I prefer simple.

From my perspective, copying a cue is usually short sighted. Buyers pay a lot extra for the work and many times the additional cost is not recovered on resale. Owners cannot overcome the fact that the cue is a copy.
 
My friend has an old black ebony cue he uses to break with. It's beat up bad, duck tape holding the wrap together,it has dings on its dings.

To dress it up he hand painted sperm all over it, it looks like its raining sperm, there must be 50 of them. He calls it The Spermanator,,,,lol.. he smashes the balls with it.

He calls himself a cue designer
I have yet to see a copy
 
skins said:
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)
Click to expand...

I think there is little new under the sun when it comes to cue designs. It is one thing to make a copy and try to pass it off as another cue in other words counterfeiting and just making a similar design. Cue makers are not innocents. They copy from each other what that was probably already copied from someone else. Little is original.

I had a well known cue maker make me a cue I designed totally original my ideas. Later he made copies of my cue for other customers. The whole point was to have something original, one of a kind. So much for the integrity of cue makers.
 
macguy said:
I think there is little new under the sun when it comes to cue designs. It is one thing to make a copy and try to pass it off as another cue in other words counterfeiting and just making a similar design. Cue makers are not innocents. They copy from each other what that was probably already copied from someone else. Little is original.

I had a well known cue maker make me a cue I designed totally original my ideas. Later he made copies of my cue for other customers. The whole point was to have something original, one of a kind. So much for the integrity of cue makers.
Click to expand...

Oh, your cue is probably a one of a kind according to them. If they change ONE element, it's a different cue. Let's say your cue is ebony, with ivory and turquoise inlays. If he/she changes the turquoise to malachite, it's a COMPLETELY different cue, now. Cue maker logic :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top