IMHO here is the problem I have with the whole copying bull that is going on.
What copying bull is going on??
That any cuemaker that is going to cry foul better have never made a Hoppe cue,
A Hoppe cue? you mean an Ivory ring? What's a Hoppe cue?
not made a cue with any pattern resembling a Balabushka, Rambow or Boti.
Again Joe I'm talking about a cue design, try to think fancy, I know it doesn't fit into your argument and it doesn't help your side of the rant, but I'm not talking about basic cues.
I do not buy into Jimbo's arguement about materials available at the time,
That's because you are a fool, the cues of the day used what they had, the 1/2 circles of ivory were old broken ferrules cut by George because he hated to waste. The diamonds were bought from Gibson, George didn't invent them, his designs were just his layout patterns, yet still when talking about a unique fancy cue it can be ripped off, but not a plain 4 point cue with no inlays Joe.
or in current time. It took George, Gus, Herman trial and error,
Trial and error? What was the error, he cut the pocket to small to fit the piece he bought (not made) in? As I'm sure you know the pockets were cut to big by many people and that's why ebony is a common wood.
logically, to come up with certain patterns.
You being a palmer fan must know that lots of thought doesn't always go into where they put those inlays.
So technically what they did, has no less credence than the fancitest McWorter, Wayne or whoever.
I agree, on their fancy stuff, not on a plain 4 point cue.
I am sure whoever designed the ivory ring at Brunswick, deserves the same respect.
A solid ring? A ring made out of old cue balls that again had to be used because people hated to waste ivory. Would it matter how thick it was cut? But again Joe you are talking about 1 small aspect, 1 that no single person could ever take credit for, that's not a design, not even in it's most basic definition.
Also pantagraphs have been around a long, long time. I am sure that Boti, Bushka could have expanded their "artwork", had they had the interest in cues at the time they were at their creative peaks.
Again you always try to take things a bit to far, I don't think George and Gus were on the same plane when talking about creativity George put cues together, Gus pushed the limits and really created designs, he made his inlays and created some I think you'd be hard pressed to find many innovations in the way of inlays that George made. Also you have to consider the times, cues were meant to be played with not collected, most people didn't care much about fancy cues for collecting. Pantagraphs were very expensive machines and would never have been cost effective for a guy selling cues for under $200, not to mention he sold what he could make learning a new machine would only slow production and again would never have been cost effective.
In their time, they had no cue collectors show, or the amount of people that there are today willing to plunk down the money on cue art that exists today.
See you are smart enough to answer your last paragraph, why waste our time?
But the fact remains, you would be hard pressed to find a single current cuemaker that has never, ever crossed the line.
By crossed the line you mean made an exact copy or barrowed an element. Again Joe you are very black and white and I understand it helps your cause, I on the other hand see the grey areas and the 25+ years of offenders, but again that isn't a defense in my book.
Therefore, any cuemaker that cries foul should not be a hypocrite,
What cue makers are crying foul??
he should be free of this "sin".
Do you think every cop out there and every judge/lawyer has never driven over the speed limit? Again Joe it's never black and white, only when you are trying to make yourself look good. Right and Wrong have never been decided by someone without sin, and "he did it first" has never been a defense that has worked.
Therein lies the problem, its been a time honored tradition to borrow design elements in pool cues.
Nice twist, I just double checked the thread topic and I don't see the words barrow design elements anywhere, it's about stealing designs, not rings, not 1 inlay, not wood combos, whole designs Joe.
There are rare exceptions,
Please tell us about YOUR exceptions Joe. I can't wait to hear them.
but they are as rare as the Golden Balabushka.
You would believe that's a real Bushka.
As far as saying with the technology today, it should never happen..
I never said that in the way you represent it, the fact is many people have posted that there just isn't any new designs out there, also it's mentioned because this new technology lets even the biggest hack copy any design with ease.
yada yada, thats to bad. There are still cuemakers that use the time honored traditions, hell there are even a few that use water based glues. They do traditional cues, they don't care about technology.
Does that mean they can't come up with original designs? Because they don't use a computer they can't make a different inlay, I guess they must copy every detail of the traditional cues.
Not only that, there are customers for these cues, many, many customers.
So because something sells makes it Ok? Since when does that work? There is a large market around here for cheap (stolen) Plasma TV's do you think this makes stealing them ok?? By your words it does Joe.
So when Jimbo or his ilk
My Ilk?? Explain Joe.
says that no cues should be the same, or that the possibilities are endless because of CNC technology, he immediately asassinates the traditional cuemakers.
The same way Gus came up with original inlays and patterns 20 years ago with 1975 technology might want to push these guys with 2005 technology to do things their own ways, does that seem unreasonable to you? Not to mention I've been talking about design theft and not just traditional cues, but again Joe I know it helps your side when you paint me with your Black and White brush.
In the way he disrespectfully trashes the older cuemakers by saying their designs are now "public domain".
I have never said that, but since you have lots of time, I'm sure you'll post the many links to the many times I did. Joe I've posted over 200 posts on this topic, go back and show me 2 where I ever excused stealing a design because of public domain.
By saying because of their mundaness, they are less important than that of Thomas Waynes, or McWorters or Ginacues.
No Joe, again that's your words and your black and white ideals, I've said from day 1 the fancier the design the more aspects there are to steal. If someone designs a point for hours like Skins does it has way more impact then a slotted diamond that was bought from an outside source.
You cannot have it both ways, it is or it isn't.
Joe
