Gus On Ebay Fake!!!!!
- Thread starter fourkingscues
- Start date
i can't beleive i just now stumbled across this thread.my question is,why will Barry not authenticate the cues?acc broguth this point up and i have head other serious collector say the same thing,so i think he is right.what it means is that there are Gus's out there that are real but will never be authenticated and that all of the collectors who have them and haven't already gotten LOA's are screwed.also if Barry can't say the cue is a Gus then he can't say the cue isn't a Gus IMO.while i agree with everyone here that it doesn't look like a Gus,smell like a Gus or quack like a Gus,how would wnyone ever know?i do know one thing,i would hate to be sitting on 5-10 uncertified Gus's right now.that is a sick thought.
monski said:
Assuming I have to money to buy real Szambotis..
You are probably correct. $100 tops. Maybe $200. Even if it's real, without Barry's LOA, it's pretty much worthless.. Why? Cause the only other guy who's got more knowledge than Barry is no longer with us. If I decided to buy it and then sell it later on, I would have a hell of a time trying to sell it to, because other people won't buy it without Barry authenticating it.
Szamboti LOA - Setting the Record
Just because Barry will not provide a Letter of Authenicticity should not guarentee the cue is a fake.
Gus built me a cue, of which I never received any receipt or shipping box. See, in April of 1986 Gus personally handed me my 'new' cue in his basement.
Five years ago I asked for and received a Letter of Authenicity from Barry.
I had to ensure Barry that I was not using the LOA for a quick sale. I only wanted it for my personal records and "will".
For a moment put yourself in Barry's shoes...
How would you feel that providing a Letter of Authenicity for one of his Dad's cue would greatly increase the value of the cue?
And maybe the seller's "only" motive for obtaining the LOA was to increase his/her "own" profits and shorten the amount of time it takes to sell the cue. Now, how would you feel?
Best Regards,
Hal
Just because Barry will not provide a Letter of Authenicticity should not guarentee the cue is a fake.
Gus built me a cue, of which I never received any receipt or shipping box. See, in April of 1986 Gus personally handed me my 'new' cue in his basement.
Five years ago I asked for and received a Letter of Authenicity from Barry.
I had to ensure Barry that I was not using the LOA for a quick sale. I only wanted it for my personal records and "will".
For a moment put yourself in Barry's shoes...
How would you feel that providing a Letter of Authenicity for one of his Dad's cue would greatly increase the value of the cue?
And maybe the seller's "only" motive for obtaining the LOA was to increase his/her "own" profits and shorten the amount of time it takes to sell the cue. Now, how would you feel?
Best Regards,
Hal
Last edited:
Is it possible that there are cues out there that Gus made differently? Yes.
Is it possible that these cues have no authentication papers? Yes.
Can these cues command a high price without authentication? I don't think so.
So even if these cues were made by Gus, the owners can only enjoy them as Gus cues due to their personal knowledge. And its too bad that they can't sell it for how much an authenticated Gus is worth.
Just my opinion.
Is it possible that these cues have no authentication papers? Yes.
Can these cues command a high price without authentication? I don't think so.
So even if these cues were made by Gus, the owners can only enjoy them as Gus cues due to their personal knowledge. And its too bad that they can't sell it for how much an authenticated Gus is worth.
Just my opinion.
1glibby1 said:From the beginning we have agreed on one thing.....I do "NOT" have the acceptance from Barry that this cue is authentic.
What you don't realize is you attacked a person who agree's that this authenticity does not exist. Instead of intelligantly relaying this message as a warning to all concerned......you start the thread with derogetory remarks and attacking my integrity as if I was scamming someone .
For example "kc"..... If i knew your mother had herpes, should I just state this in a way that she is humiliated in front of everyone.....the fact that I know she has herpes is information that, yes, I would like to warn all my friends that your mother may be a whore....with herpes, but to say it like this would not be fair...would it? There are ways of saying things that protect the integrity of this type of forum without attacking someone's charactor. In conclusion........just because your mother has herpes and may be of low moral charactor.....doesn't mean that I can't warn my friends, but i should try and do this without causing her any embarressment at the same time. Your real issue should be.....how do "i" know,... your mom has herpes.
I'm sure your mother is a nice person ......even though.
You attacked my charactor and my honesty in a manor that was uncalled for. You looked for support in your attack in the very next post.
This demanded a response. Otherwise I would look even guiltier.
If you look at all the other posts.....people are really interested in finding the information needed to make a decision that is intelligent and thought out. No one wants disception in our forums, including me.
I also agree, Plz do not call Barry's phone on this issue. He has ruled on it and doesn't need too again. I accept that he has ruled.....I simply do not accept his ruling. This is based on information that has been evaluated and reevaluated. I reccommend my cue and "kc's" mother, be left alone if it doesn't directly relate to you.
Beleive it or not.......I really am a nice guy.
Have a great day!!
"kc" i'll see you soon ..... I hope.)
greg
I don't know you Greg, but you got way out of line here. You owe Ken an apology big time.
GoTulane
Shizzle-rific
Hal2 said:
Well, it looks like here is where the problem is, IMO. Is Barry authenticating a cue, or is he making a personal decision? Motive should have no business in this, even though it probably does in most cue business situations. If I own the cue, and it is mine, then it is my right to sell it, and try to make the most of it. I bought the cue and supported the cuemaker, back in the day, and therefore any increase in value is mine. I invested in the cuemaker, and want to see my return. It doesn't matter what the SELLER"S MOTIVES are - This is business. But if the authority on my cuemaker's cue will not authenticate due to his own personal feelings and not the cue itself, then we have a BIG PROBLEM.
Like others have said, could there be a cue by Gus that Barry couldn't remember, or never saw and can't authenticate? I would say YES!!!
But, as in the post I have quoted above, if authentication is not being given due to monetary gain by the seller for a LOA, then that is just wrong. (Also, more of Gus' cues that come to be authenticated means there is more supply than originally thought and the value would be less on all of them collectively????) Then are LOA's only worth the money paid for them - give the authenticator a cut of the profits? That is just sad!!!
But that is if this post is true about being in "Barry's Shoes"
Just my 2 cents
Michael
Fatboy said:
Fatboy, this is your best post yet. You get rep points from me on this one. I didn't know you had it in ya. And about that Bank Pool game.......
Fatboy said:moral of the story never screw your sister
You're definitely getting better with age.
kvinbrwr said:
I have to agree with you there Kevin. He said a lot, but it amounted to little.
Nowhere do I see the magic words "Barry Szamboti did NOT authenticate this cue".
By the way, I have owned and actually played with several Szamboti cues. In my day we coveted them for their playability, not their value. This cue I see on here, does not look like any Szamboti I remember. Somehow it just ain't right. I can't put my finger on why (mostly the rings and around the joint), and I'm no expert by any means when it comes to cues.
I would love to hold it in my hands and hit a few balls with it. That would tell me a lot also. Gus' cues had a distinctive feel to them, that doesn't register on any machine. And I KNOW that feel. I just had the good fortune to hit with about a dozen Szambotis (thank you Fatboy), and they all had a very similar feel and hit.
What I do remember is when Verl Horn was making copies of the Szams and some people were taking them out of the country and selling them as authentic Szams. Dale Patten made a few nice copies also. In Dale's case, he made sure to tell people these were his version of a great cue. And they were also good cues. Actually, so were Verl Horn cues. Well made and played good.
If this cue is in fact, a Horn or a Patten, it is still a valuable cue. More in the line of one to two thousand though. I hope I don't make any enemies with this post, but you know me, always willing to add my two cents.
I know Big Ken and Little Ken also. Two very stand up guys in my opinion. Little Ken and I have a game next time I see him. You can tell him I said so.
I would love to hold it in my hands and hit a few balls with it. That would tell me a lot also. Gus' cues had a distinctive feel to them, that doesn't register on any machine. And I KNOW that feel. I just had the good fortune to hit with about a dozen Szambotis (thank you Fatboy), and they all had a very similar feel and hit.
What I do remember is when Verl Horn was making copies of the Szams and some people were taking them out of the country and selling them as authentic Szams. Dale Patten made a few nice copies also. In Dale's case, he made sure to tell people these were his version of a great cue. And they were also good cues. Actually, so were Verl Horn cues. Well made and played good.
If this cue is in fact, a Horn or a Patten, it is still a valuable cue. More in the line of one to two thousand though. I hope I don't make any enemies with this post, but you know me, always willing to add my two cents.
I know Big Ken and Little Ken also. Two very stand up guys in my opinion. Little Ken and I have a game next time I see him. You can tell him I said so.
Last edited:
Didn't one of the posts here mention that Barry said that the cue was not one of his dads?
He refused to authenticate is as a Gus cue because based on his personal knowedge and professional expertise, it wasn't a Gus... not his dad's.
What kind of authentication will he give if he doesn't think its a Gus? So upon seing and verifying (to the best of his ability) that it wasn't a Gus, he has no option but to refuse to authenticate it.
Is his refusal to authenticate mean that he wasn't sure about it being a Gus? If he wasn't sure, he would have said that he wasnt sure. But he said it wasn't his dads. So again based on what he knows and his expertise, it not a Gus, not his dad's work.
I don't think Barry will refuse to authenticate a cue based on subjective and personal reasons...
He refused to authenticate is as a Gus cue because based on his personal knowedge and professional expertise, it wasn't a Gus... not his dad's.
What kind of authentication will he give if he doesn't think its a Gus? So upon seing and verifying (to the best of his ability) that it wasn't a Gus, he has no option but to refuse to authenticate it.
Is his refusal to authenticate mean that he wasn't sure about it being a Gus? If he wasn't sure, he would have said that he wasnt sure. But he said it wasn't his dads. So again based on what he knows and his expertise, it not a Gus, not his dad's work.
I don't think Barry will refuse to authenticate a cue based on subjective and personal reasons...
Last edited:
You are right on all counts
If Barry looks at the cue and says anything other than to affirm it was made by his dad, then that cue is not a Gus, and that cue was "not authenticated by Barry"
What I'm saying is that there is a difference between that, Barry seeing the cue, and the circumstances where Barry has never seen the cue, it was never offered or shown to Barry, those cues are also "not authenticated by Barry".
Big difference.
Kevin
monski said:
If Barry looks at the cue and says anything other than to affirm it was made by his dad, then that cue is not a Gus, and that cue was "not authenticated by Barry"
What I'm saying is that there is a difference between that, Barry seeing the cue, and the circumstances where Barry has never seen the cue, it was never offered or shown to Barry, those cues are also "not authenticated by Barry".
Big difference.
Kevin
jay helfert said:
Jay,
He took your advice and it's right here:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=68764
Concerning authentication, from my discussions with him, Barry doesn't "authenticate" his dad's cues. He will give you his opinion on it, rarely (but occasionally) in writing when he deems it appropriate. For him to green light a cue that he didn't believe in 100% would be deterimental to the collecting community.
Chris
For reference only...
JV
Tokyo-dave said:
Dave,
You pose a very good question. IMO its very possible that a experimental technique could have been used by either Master Cue Maker that the experts would disregard as forgery. If you take the " fake Szamboti " in this forum for example. The cue was supposedly made in 1972. That is early in Gus Szamboti's career and about the same time he started making blanks instead of buying blanks. Could he have tried something experimental? Maybe? Let it be known, I am not siding with anyone on the authenticity of the cue in question. I know early in Danny Tibbitts career he used different techniques to find the "magic recipe".
Rik