Idcues on E-Bay, Leonard and David Wale

IDCUES is a new member Here ( since yesterday), Why doesn't he defend himself!

Please we would all love to here both sides of this! even billiardsdigest.com is waiting for this one

Please David Reply:PLEASEEEEE :p :p :p

Steven
 
Set it straight

Hello ,


My name is David Wale, and after receiving countless emails from; Cue makers, collectors, people we have done business with, individuals I would consider the upper echelon in this industry, a few people I have never met, and the majority of which are friends. A couple of people originally phoned and told me about some internet billiard forum where this guy was talkin' trash about my father and myself. Then, for the most part, friends were asking, "Why don't you defend yourself, why are you letting this person get away with this?!??"

From our point of view and what we knew to be the truth, it wasn't really something that we felt needed defending... or so it seemed. I mean when you read it, it's pretty much self explanatory. And it's extremely hard, (well maybe not extremely, we'll call it somewhat) somewhat hard to believe that seven or eight guys are buying in to his nonsense. So, I signed up to set the record straight, but a window appeared when I made an attempt to reply that read, "ldcues does not have permission to access this page". Then, I see some idiot writing about me not having balls! Now it's possible they're not as big as your #$@%^$#, but I guarantee they're bigger than yours! You certainly don't want to bet that game!
Now, as far as the cue story, and it is a story. Like I told a few people, "This guys' story has more holes than the backboard of a dartboard, owned by a blind guy that throws darts with his toes." (No offense anybody) Macguy laid a clue in black and white, for the world to see, but I guess you just ignored it. He wrote, " Even a cue that is only slightly crooked ends up really thin and it is very obvious it have been done no need even to speculate." And this Chris person is saying a whole inlay was sanded down! Do you have any clue what that end result would look like?
He also says "Evan Clark informed my friend (the buyer) that he thought (That he thought, mind you) that the cue had been turned in an effort to straighten it. But when he later shows the text that Evan Clark had supposedly written, it reads, "... the inlay on one side was machined out." And the reason I say "supposedly written" is because the text in his original email to me is not the same as the one he has posted here. Some of the words have been conveniently changed. Then he goes on that Evan Clarke said the cue originally had an inlay in each point, and then Evan Clarke said there was an inlay in two of the points. One sentence he says EC had this cue in his shop, the next he asks if I'm the original owner. Then, Mr. Honesty here, tells me how he aided me the sale of an Eddie Laube by not disclosing to the buyer (that he apparently knows, 'good friend') he thought the cue had been refinished by me and the wrap had been replaced. Well thanks for nothing, because neither of those things took place.
Now, should he have been refunded for the Schon? That is a tough one. I would have said yes, my father would have said no. And I don't care what anybody says, before all of this nonsense, without all of the commentators, had I asked one hundred cue dealers (not fly by night), I'm talkin' about "in the business for a while cue dealers"; knowing the history of the cue, and it's not what this guy is trying to tell you it is, "What would you do in this case?" Seventy or better would have declined a refund. But, when you throw in the all of the nonsense this guy was trying to say was wrong with the cue coupled with the threats he was throwing our way about telling all of his friends in the industry (I see he has about five), well... being the hardheaded fools we are, the equation changed. Now, the guy that would have been on this guys' side (me), is no longer. Instead of just my father saying no, we are both saying no.
In the auction, we did not write that the butt cap was not marked "Schon". That was not to intentionally mislead anybody, we are not about all that. The buyer offered us a deal that seemed reasonable, so we took it. The butt cap thing, which is the only thing he seems to be right about this cue, was brought to our attention with accusations of turning, sanding, machining, refinishing, straightening and people refusing to do work on it. And by the way, the points on this cue are perfect. Now, if he had simply asked, "Why does the butt cap not read Schon?" We would have told him. I would have gladly disclosed the year it was made, (which by the way is 1985) the maker, (which he was trying to tell me was Evan Clarke, wrong) when we bought the cue, the original owners name and so on. But, I feel like if I divulge the information now, he'll use it against me. I have asked him this same question from the very beginning, "When did Evan Clarke supposedly say that he had this cue in his possession?" He won't answer it, because he knows if he does, he's cornered. You see, you can play this little bully game on people that have no clue what they are talking about, but I'm afraid us Wales don't take to kindly to threats.
In closing, I'd like to thank the individuals that commented on there being another side to the story, Macguy for pointing out the obvious, and the thirty three people that emailed and the others that called and told me to put this guy in his proper place. Thank you. And to the other seven or eight that jumped on this guys' bandwagon, even after reading that we had 198 sales on eBay with 100% feedback... go buy a tabloid, I hear Marilyn Monroe, Bruce Lee and Elvis Presly are making a movie together.
This is one of the reasons we got out of the business. If somebody doesn't like what they buy, they throw a barrage of accusations your way, call you every name under the sun and cry to the masses. Not because there is something wrong, just because they don't like it.
And listen Chris... Do not insult me or my father again. I'm sure you had your little bit of fun throwin' our names and my email around like you thought it was okay because I informed you we were out of the business. I guess you figured it wouldn't get back to me, but now, IT'S OVER! DON'T DO IT AGAIN! THIS IS NO GAME, THESE ARE TWO NAMES YOU PROBABLY NEED NOT USE ANYMORE. Don't do it again.

Kind Regards,
David Wale
 
Last edited:
ldcues said:
Hello ,


My name is David Wale, and after receiving countless emails from; Cue makers, collectors, people we have done business with, individuals I would consider the upper echelon in this industry, a few people I have never met, and the majority of which are friends. A couple of people originally phoned and told me about some internet billiard forum where this guy was talkin' trash about my father and myself. Then, for the most part, friends were asking, "Why don't you defend yourself, why are you letting this person get away with this?!??"

From our point of view and what we knew to be the truth, it wasn't really something that we felt needed defending... or so it seemed. I mean when you read it, it's pretty much self explanatory. And it's extremely hard, (well maybe not extremely, we'll call it somewhat) somewhat hard to believe that seven or eight guys are buying in to his nonsense. So, I signed up to set the record straight, but a window appeared when I made an attempt to reply that read, "ldcues does not have permission to access this page". Then, I see some idiot writing about me not having balls! Now it's possible they're not as big as your #$@%^$#, but I guarantee they're bigger than yours! You certainly don't want to bet that game!
Now, as far as the cue story, and it is a story. Like I told a few people, "This guys' story has more holes than the backboard of a dartboard, owned by a blind guy that throws darts with his toes." (No offense anybody) Macguy laid a clue in black and white, for the world to see, but I guess you just ignored it. He wrote, " Even a cue that is only slightly crooked ends up really thin and it is very obvious it have been done no need even to speculate." And this Chris person is saying a whole inlay was sanded down! Do you have any clue what that end result would look like?
He also says "Evan Clark informed my friend (the buyer) that he thought (That he thought, mind you) that the cue had been turned in an effort to straighten it. But when he later shows the text that Evan Clark had supposedly written, it reads, "... the inlay on one side was machined out." And the reason I say "supposedly written" is because the text in his original email to me is not the same as the one he has posted here. Some of the words have been conveniently changed. Then he goes on that Evan Clarke said the cue originally had an inlay in each point, and then Evan Clarke said there was an inlay in two of the points. One sentence he says EC had this cue in his shop, the next he asks if I'm the original owner. Then, Mr. Honesty here, tells me how he aided me the sale of an Eddie Laube by not disclosing to the buyer (that he apparently knows, 'good friend') he thought the cue had been refinished by me and the wrap had been replaced. Well thanks for nothing, because neither of those things took place.
Now, should he have been refunded for the Schon? That is a tough one. I would have said yes, my father would have said no. And I don't care what anybody says, before all of this nonsense, without all of the commentators, had I asked one hundred cue dealers (not fly by night), I'm talkin' about "in the business for a while cue dealers"; knowing the history of the cue, and it's not what this guy is trying to tell you it is, "What would you do in this case?" Seventy or better would have declined a refund. But, when you throw in the all of the nonsense this guy was trying to say was wrong with the cue coupled with the threats he was throwing our way about telling all of his friends in the industry (I see he has about five), well... being the hardheaded fools we are, the equation changed. Now, the guy that would have been on this guys' side (me), is no longer. Instead of just my father saying no, we are both saying no.
In the auction, we did not write that the butt cap was not marked "Schon". That was not to intentionally mislead anybody, we are not about all that. The buyer offered us a deal that seemed reasonable, so we took it. The butt cap thing, which is the only thing he seems to be right about this cue, was brought to our attention with accusations of turning, sanding, machining, refinishing, straightening and people refusing to do work on it. And by the way, the points on this cue are perfect. Now, if he had simply asked, "Why does the butt cap not read Schon?" We would have told him. I would have gladly disclosed the year it was made, (which by the way is 1985) the maker, (which he was trying to tell me was Evan Clarke, wrong) when we bought the cue, the original owners name and so on. But, I feel like if I divulge the information now, he'll use it against me. I have asked him this same question from the very beginning, "When did Evan Clarke supposedly say that he had this cue in his possession?" He won't answer it, because he knows if he does, he's cornered. You see, you can play this little bully game on people that have no clue what they are talking about, but I'm afraid us Wales don't take to kindly to threats.
In closing, I'd like to thank the individuals that commented on there being another side to the story, Macguy for pointing out the obvious, and the thirty three people that emailed and the others that called and told me to put this guy in his proper place. Thank you. And to the other seven or eight that jumped on this guys' bandwagon, even after reading that we had 198 sales on eBay with 100% feedback... go buy a tabloid, I hear Marilyn Monroe, Bruce Lee and Elvis Presly are making a movie together.
This is one of the reasons we got out of the business. If somebody doesn't like what they buy, they throw a barrage of accusations your way, call you every name under the sun and cry to the masses. Not because there is something wrong, just because they don't like it.
And listen Chris... Do not insult me or my father again. I'm sure you had your little bit of fun throwin' our names and my email around like you thought it was okay because I informed you we were out of the business. I guess you figured it wouldn't get back to me, but now, IT'S OVER! DON'T DO IT AGAIN! THIS IS NO GAME, THESE ARE TWO NAMES YOU PROBABLY NEED NOT USE ANYMORE. Don't do it again.

Kind Regards,
David Wale

So you believe that the cue came with one inlay in the "point" and you advertised it properly, despite Evan Clarke's opinion and the evidence I put forth about your ad.

David, is anyone going to believe you? You are in denial. You thought Bill would just quietly go away.

You may as well just pick someone's pocket or hold them up with a gun. You should be ashamed of yourself. You should take the cue back. Please do stay out of the business.

Chris
 
ldcues said:
Hello ,


My name is David Wale, and after receiving countless emails from; Cue makers, collectors, people we have done business with, individuals I would consider the upper echelon in this industry, a few people I have never met, and the majority of which are friends. A couple of people originally phoned and told me about some internet billiard forum where this guy was talkin' trash about my father and myself. Then, for the most part, friends were asking, "Why don't you defend yourself, why are you letting this person get away with this?!??"

From our point of view and what we knew to be the truth, it wasn't really something that we felt needed defending... or so it seemed. I mean when you read it, it's pretty much self explanatory. And it's extremely hard, (well maybe not extremely, we'll call it somewhat) somewhat hard to believe that seven or eight guys are buying in to his nonsense. So, I signed up to set the record straight, but a window appeared when I made an attempt to reply that read, "ldcues does not have permission to access this page". Then, I see some idiot writing about me not having balls! Now it's possible they're not as big as your #$@%^$#, but I guarantee they're bigger than yours! You certainly don't want to bet that game!
Now, as far as the cue story, and it is a story. Like I told a few people, "This guys' story has more holes than the backboard of a dartboard, owned by a blind guy that throws darts with his toes." (No offense anybody) Macguy laid a clue in black and white, for the world to see, but I guess you just ignored it. He wrote, " Even a cue that is only slightly crooked ends up really thin and it is very obvious it have been done no need even to speculate." And this Chris person is saying a whole inlay was sanded down! Do you have any clue what that end result would look like?
He also says "Evan Clark informed my friend (the buyer) that he thought (That he thought, mind you) that the cue had been turned in an effort to straighten it. But when he later shows the text that Evan Clark had supposedly written, it reads, "... the inlay on one side was machined out." And the reason I say "supposedly written" is because the text in his original email to me is not the same as the one he has posted here. Some of the words have been conveniently changed. Then he goes on that Evan Clarke said the cue originally had an inlay in each point, and then Evan Clarke said there was an inlay in two of the points. One sentence he says EC had this cue in his shop, the next he asks if I'm the original owner. Then, Mr. Honesty here, tells me how he aided me the sale of an Eddie Laube by not disclosing to the buyer (that he apparently knows, 'good friend') he thought the cue had been refinished by me and the wrap had been replaced. Well thanks for nothing, because neither of those things took place.
Now, should he have been refunded for the Schon? That is a tough one. I would have said yes, my father would have said no. And I don't care what anybody says, before all of this nonsense, without all of the commentators, had I asked one hundred cue dealers (not fly by night), I'm talkin' about "in the business for a while cue dealers"; knowing the history of the cue, and it's not what this guy is trying to tell you it is, "What would you do in this case?" Seventy or better would have declined a refund. But, when you throw in the all of the nonsense this guy was trying to say was wrong with the cue coupled with the threats he was throwing our way about telling all of his friends in the industry (I see he has about five), well... being the hardheaded fools we are, the equation changed. Now, the guy that would have been on this guys' side (me), is no longer. Instead of just my father saying no, we are both saying no.
In the auction, we did not write that the butt cap was not marked "Schon". That was not to intentionally mislead anybody, we are not about all that. The buyer offered us a deal that seemed reasonable, so we took it. The butt cap thing, which is the only thing he seems to be right about this cue, was brought to our attention with accusations of turning, sanding, machining, refinishing, straightening and people refusing to do work on it. And by the way, the points on this cue are perfect. Now, if he had simply asked, "Why does the butt cap not read Schon?" We would have told him. I would have gladly disclosed the year it was made, (which by the way is 1985) the maker, (which he was trying to tell me was Evan Clarke, wrong) when we bought the cue, the original owners name and so on. But, I feel like if I divulge the information now, he'll use it against me. I have asked him this same question from the very beginning, "When did Evan Clarke supposedly say that he had this cue in his possession?" He won't answer it, because he knows if he does, he's cornered. You see, you can play this little bully game on people that have no clue what they are talking about, but I'm afraid us Wales don't take to kindly to threats.
In closing, I'd like to thank the individuals that commented on there being another side to the story, Macguy for pointing out the obvious, and the thirty three people that emailed and the others that called and told me to put this guy in his proper place. Thank you. And to the other seven or eight that jumped on this guys' bandwagon, even after reading that we had 198 sales on eBay with 100% feedback... go buy a tabloid, I hear Marilyn Monroe, Bruce Lee and Elvis Presly are making a movie together.
This is one of the reasons we got out of the business. If somebody doesn't like what they buy, they throw a barrage of accusations your way, call you every name under the sun and cry to the masses. Not because there is something wrong, just because they don't like it.
And listen Chris... Do not insult me or my father again. I'm sure you had your little bit of fun throwin' our names and my email around like you thought it was okay because I informed you we were out of the business. I guess you figured it wouldn't get back to me, but now, IT'S OVER! DON'T DO IT AGAIN! THIS IS NO GAME, THESE ARE TWO NAMES YOU PROBABLY NEED NOT USE ANYMORE. Don't do it again.

Kind Regards,
David Wale

Hi. My name is Bill Loucks and I am the buyer of this Schon cue. The facts of this situation are as follows:

I saw this cue on Ebay and put up a good strong bid on it and was high bidder. I then conatced the Wale's via email and asked them to end the auction and sell me the cue and they did so. When I received the cue it took maybe five seconds to see the problems. There was no logo on the buttcap and the inlay work that was shown in the pictures in the listing was only inlayed in one of the points. Very odd. I sent the Wale's an email asking for any history on the cue and I sent picture to Evan Clarke and aked him if he knew the cue. Evan responded quickly and told me that he knew the cue and that the cue when made had the inlay work in two of the points. He went on to say that hen had seen the cue and that the the inlays were machined out in an effort to straighten the cue. I did not ask him to provide any further details such as the date when he saw it. I simply wrote the Wale's and asked for a refund.

It took several emails to get a response but I did then hear fron David Wale. He defended the cue, said the information I had was inncorrect and that there was no misrepresenation in the listing. No refund for me.

Those are the facts and I think (to put it nicely) I got the short end of the stick.

Now, I am a fairly new cue collector so I guess I will consider this part of my education, lesson learned! Just a note: my ebay screen name is Hersheybarbilliards and if you see a cue that I may be selling there will always be a refund available.

Thanks,
Bill Loucks
 
clarify

cueaddicts said:
This Schon looks very similar to one that Dick Abbott (billiardcue.com) had about 5 years ago. In fact, I'm thinking it's the same cue. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) I have a good memory when it comes to cues I've encountered. At the time that Dick showed it to me, the cue and inlays were fine so it's probably been messed with since that time. At any rate, I'm thinking there is more to this story....there usually is.


Apparently my memory failed me. If the cue had only one or two inlays then it's doubtful this is the cue that I saw 5 years ago. That cue had inlays in all 4 points. But.....as I figured there is more to this story.
 
As I see it...

Well, I was one of those that wanted to hear the other side of this story, and frankly, I have to say that I’m still waiting. The seller’s post is very long, but says very little. A lot of obfuscation and irrelevant speculation, but few facts.

Who has ever seen a cue designed with an inlay in only ONE point? And if you had such a cue and were selling it, don’t you think that that fact would be worthy of mention? Especially in light of the fact that the representative photograph only showed the point with the inlay.

The seller admits they omitted the fact that the butt cap was unmarked and says that if they had been asked, they would have disclosed that fact and the reason. How would the buyer know to ask? Obviously we have a selective perspective vis-à-vis the inlay – how would the buyer know that the trademark “Schon” wasn’t on the side he couldn’t see? And what exactly is the reason for the missing logo? The seller says he would have disclosed that also, but fails to do so in his post. The only bona fide reasons for the missing logo would be either, A) The cue was built/manufactured that way – which calls into question the provenance and authenticity of the cue; or B) It was sanded off, which would certainly lead one to believe it was refinished, or more, at some point in its life.

I want to remind the seller that the purchaser did not originally post about the problems with this cue – a friend of the seller posted the problems out of concern for a new collector. When the buyer finally did post, it was, apparently, a straight forward posting of the facts. At no point are we led to believe that the initial negative post by Chris was done at Bill’s instigation, but he seems to be the one the Wales’ seem bent on punishing. Chris is a very passionate person and it was difficult for him to see someone take advantage of a friend. He sought remedy here in this forum. If the Wales’ (or one of them anyway) were previously inclined to grant the refund, but have now changed their mind(s) because of the actions of a third party – a well-intentioned third party – what does this say about their business ethics?

We may never know all the facts in this case, but it’s obvious the cue was misrepresented – whether intentionally or otherwise we’ll never know. It’s also clear that because of this misrepresentation the purchaser was not satisfied with his purchase. That should be enough. Case closed. Send the cue back, get your money back. And it seems that was the course originally pursued by the purchaser. When he got no response, his friend sought other remedies. Unfortunately, it seems that, as the cliché goes, “No good deed goes unpunished.” So Chris’ efforts, on behalf of his friend, has now caused the Wales’ to engage in a vendetta, by digging in their heels and refusing to do the “right thing.”

That’s how I see it, given the two sides presented, and we now have them from the parties involved. Sorry for the longwinded response, but I really had to put this in the proper perspective.

Adios,

Pizza Bob
 
ldcues said:
Hello ,


My name is David Wale, and after receiving countless emails from; Cue makers, collectors, people we have done business with, individuals I would consider the upper echelon in this industry, a few people I have never met, and the majority of which are friends. A couple of people originally phoned and told me about some internet billiard forum where this guy was talkin' trash about my father and myself. Then, for the most part, friends were asking, "Why don't you defend yourself, why are you letting this person get away with this?!??"

From our point of view and what we knew to be the truth, it wasn't really something that we felt needed defending... or so it seemed. I mean when you read it, it's pretty much self explanatory. And it's extremely hard, (well maybe not extremely, we'll call it somewhat) somewhat hard to believe that seven or eight guys are buying in to his nonsense. So, I signed up to set the record straight, but a window appeared when I made an attempt to reply that read, "ldcues does not have permission to access this page". Then, I see some idiot writing about me not having balls! Now it's possible they're not as big as your #$@%^$#, but I guarantee they're bigger than yours! You certainly don't want to bet that game!
Now, as far as the cue story, and it is a story. Like I told a few people, "This guys' story has more holes than the backboard of a dartboard, owned by a blind guy that throws darts with his toes." (No offense anybody) Macguy laid a clue in black and white, for the world to see, but I guess you just ignored it. He wrote, " Even a cue that is only slightly crooked ends up really thin and it is very obvious it have been done no need even to speculate." And this Chris person is saying a whole inlay was sanded down! Do you have any clue what that end result would look like?
He also says "Evan Clark informed my friend (the buyer) that he thought (That he thought, mind you) that the cue had been turned in an effort to straighten it. But when he later shows the text that Evan Clark had supposedly written, it reads, "... the inlay on one side was machined out." And the reason I say "supposedly written" is because the text in his original email to me is not the same as the one he has posted here. Some of the words have been conveniently changed. Then he goes on that Evan Clarke said the cue originally had an inlay in each point, and then Evan Clarke said there was an inlay in two of the points. One sentence he says EC had this cue in his shop, the next he asks if I'm the original owner. Then, Mr. Honesty here, tells me how he aided me the sale of an Eddie Laube by not disclosing to the buyer (that he apparently knows, 'good friend') he thought the cue had been refinished by me and the wrap had been replaced. Well thanks for nothing, because neither of those things took place.
Now, should he have been refunded for the Schon? That is a tough one. I would have said yes, my father would have said no. And I don't care what anybody says, before all of this nonsense, without all of the commentators, had I asked one hundred cue dealers (not fly by night), I'm talkin' about "in the business for a while cue dealers"; knowing the history of the cue, and it's not what this guy is trying to tell you it is, "What would you do in this case?" Seventy or better would have declined a refund. But, when you throw in the all of the nonsense this guy was trying to say was wrong with the cue coupled with the threats he was throwing our way about telling all of his friends in the industry (I see he has about five), well... being the hardheaded fools we are, the equation changed. Now, the guy that would have been on this guys' side (me), is no longer. Instead of just my father saying no, we are both saying no.
In the auction, we did not write that the butt cap was not marked "Schon". That was not to intentionally mislead anybody, we are not about all that. The buyer offered us a deal that seemed reasonable, so we took it. The butt cap thing, which is the only thing he seems to be right about this cue, was brought to our attention with accusations of turning, sanding, machining, refinishing, straightening and people refusing to do work on it. And by the way, the points on this cue are perfect. Now, if he had simply asked, "Why does the butt cap not read Schon?" We would have told him. I would have gladly disclosed the year it was made, (which by the way is 1985) the maker, (which he was trying to tell me was Evan Clarke, wrong) when we bought the cue, the original owners name and so on. But, I feel like if I divulge the information now, he'll use it against me. I have asked him this same question from the very beginning, "When did Evan Clarke supposedly say that he had this cue in his possession?" He won't answer it, because he knows if he does, he's cornered. You see, you can play this little bully game on people that have no clue what they are talking about, but I'm afraid us Wales don't take to kindly to threats.
In closing, I'd like to thank the individuals that commented on there being another side to the story, Macguy for pointing out the obvious, and the thirty three people that emailed and the others that called and told me to put this guy in his proper place. Thank you. And to the other seven or eight that jumped on this guys' bandwagon, even after reading that we had 198 sales on eBay with 100% feedback... go buy a tabloid, I hear Marilyn Monroe, Bruce Lee and Elvis Presly are making a movie together.
This is one of the reasons we got out of the business. If somebody doesn't like what they buy, they throw a barrage of accusations your way, call you every name under the sun and cry to the masses. Not because there is something wrong, just because they don't like it.
And listen Chris... Do not insult me or my father again. I'm sure you had your little bit of fun throwin' our names and my email around like you thought it was okay because I informed you we were out of the business. I guess you figured it wouldn't get back to me, but now, IT'S OVER! DON'T DO IT AGAIN! THIS IS NO GAME, THESE ARE TWO NAMES YOU PROBABLY NEED NOT USE ANYMORE. Don't do it again.

Kind Regards,
David Wale

LOL nowhere did Chris insult you or your father. All he did was show a sour business deal on YOUR BEHALF to the public, and you are pissed about it. Believe me, you leaving the business is GOOD for the business in general! There is concrete evidence that you ripped the guy off, face it. You scammed the guy and now you are facing the consequences, so deal with it.
 
Hersheybarbilli said:
Hi. My name is Bill Loucks and I am the buyer of this Schon cue. The facts of this situation are as follows:

I saw this cue on Ebay and put up a good strong bid on it and was high bidder. I then conatced the Wale's via email and asked them to end the auction and sell me the cue and they did so. When I received the cue it took maybe five seconds to see the problems. There was no logo on the buttcap and the inlay work that was shown in the pictures in the listing was only inlayed in one of the points. Very odd. I sent the Wale's an email asking for any history on the cue and I sent picture to Evan Clarke and aked him if he knew the cue. Evan responded quickly and told me that he knew the cue and that the cue when made had the inlay work in two of the points. He went on to say that hen had seen the cue and that the the inlays were machined out in an effort to straighten the cue. I did not ask him to provide any further details such as the date when he saw it. I simply wrote the Wale's and asked for a refund.

It took several emails to get a response but I did then hear fron David Wale. He defended the cue, said the information I had was inncorrect and that there was no misrepresenation in the listing. No refund for me.

Those are the facts and I think (to put it nicely) I got the short end of the stick.

Now, I am a fairly new cue collector so I guess I will consider this part of my education, lesson learned! Just a note: my ebay screen name is Hersheybarbilliards and if you see a cue that I may be selling there will always be a refund available.

Thanks,
Bill Loucks

Bill,

Not only are you a credit to collectors everywhere, you are a great person and a terrific family man. I hate to see you get burned. I am truly glad you are not discouraged by this incident.

I've seen people walk away from collecting for less than this.

Welcome to A-Z Billiards, my friend. Great post.

Chris
 
Last edited:
Pizza Bob said:
“No good deed goes unpunished.” So Chris’ efforts, on behalf of his friend, has now caused the Wales’ to engage in a vendetta, by digging in their heels and refusing to do the “right thing.”

That’s how I see it, given the two sides presented, and we now have them from the parties involved. Sorry for the longwinded response, but I really had to put this in the proper perspective.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

Bob,


It's just an excuse, Bob. Just David once again trying to weasel out of it.
Even in his post, he blames me for not refunding (he had already said "no" before I posted), he blames his dad (who was not inclined to refund), and on and on.

When I called and spoke to Leonard (his dad), Leonard said the cue business was David's. He said he handled the shipping and took the photos. Leonard actually denied noticing the cue had one inlay in the points, and speculated that Bill might have had "something done to it".

Then David said the cue was not his, it was Leonard's.

See what I'm getting at!

Even now, I wonder if Leonard even knows about all of this. He didn't seem like the type of man to allow this thing to happen. I am pretty good at sizing up people - Leonard seemed to have a sense of pride in his own character and concern for Bill. In fact, he called David and asked David to contact Bill.

I think David Wale is the culprit here. I welcome his vendetta. I can be a formidable opponent.

Chris
 
cueaddicts said:
Apparently my memory failed me. If the cue had only one or two inlays then it's doubtful this is the cue that I saw 5 years ago. That cue had inlays in all 4 points. But.....as I figured there is more to this story.

Thanks, Sean - if you hear anything please let us know.

Chris
 
In my opinion, David just tried the old "best defense is a good offense" routine. Lots of hot temper and accusations instead of trying to sort things out in a business like fashion. Let's trivialize the fact that we KNOW there were problems with the cue and make it the buyer's fault for not being happy with his purchase? What kind of logic is that?

Steve
 
Why you picking on Idcues?

I am jumping in here to 'save the Wale'. Who wants a piece of the Jellybean? Come on sucka.

I kind of like it, this here Schon. It's kind of a Picasso, cubist thing, you know what I mean?

It makes you think. It made me think (which hurts, that's why I remember it). Like, did ol Runde have too much lacquer fumes that day and just forgot to slap that last little doo-dab on it? Maybe the customer was a liuttle short of cash and ol' Bob said, "I have a great idea!" and just handed him the cue.

Here's my playing cue, both sides.

Jellybean
 

Attachments

  • CuetecMorph.JPG
    CuetecMorph.JPG
    11.6 KB · Views: 340
What's in a name?

That is remarkably profound, Jello-bean. I suppose rebutting with a more grammitically correct rendition would have better suited an intellect such as yourself. Perhaps then, self appoint an alluring alias indicative of my personality. Such as; Pizza boy, Jello-pop or Last five. And not a single reader would know my actual name or family given name. Ingenious!

You were right about a few things, Runde made the cue. There was only one inlay when it was custom made in 1985. (fyi - most handmade cues are custom made to the specifics of the individual ordering the cue) I am not aware of any doo dabs being slapped.

Guys, this was entertaining enough, but I doubt I will responding further. The whole... family, career, home, life - thing does not cease to exist when entertaining on the PC. Just remember, 100% feedback with 200 sales is not given, it is earned.

David Wale
 
ldcues said:
That is remarkably profound, Jello-bean. I suppose rebutting with a more grammitically correct rendition would have better suited an intellect such as yourself. Perhaps then, self appoint an alluring alias indicative of my personality. Such as; Pizza boy, Jello-pop or Last five. And not a single reader would know my actual name or family given name. Ingenious!

You were right about a few things, Runde made the cue. There was only one inlay when it was custom made in 1985. (fyi - most handmade cues are custom made to the specifics of the individual ordering the cue) I am not aware of any doo dabs being slapped.

Guys, this was entertaining enough, but I doubt I will responding further. The whole... family, career, home, life - thing does not cease to exist when entertaining on the PC. Just remember, 100% feedback with 200 sales is not given, it is earned.

David Wale

Bye Davey,

I hope it was as good for you as it was for us! Come back again soon, ya'hear?

Jellybean
 
ldcues said:
Guys, this was entertaining enough, but I doubt I will responding further. The whole... family, career, home, life - thing does not cease to exist when entertaining on the PC. Just remember, 100% feedback with 200 sales is not given, it is earned.

David Wale
......buh bye
 
ldcues said:
That is remarkably profound, Jello-bean. I suppose rebutting with a more grammitically correct rendition would have better suited an intellect such as yourself. Perhaps then, self appoint an alluring alias indicative of my personality. Such as; Pizza boy, Jello-pop or Last five. And not a single reader would know my actual name or family given name. Ingenious!

You were right about a few things, Runde made the cue. There was only one inlay when it was custom made in 1985. (fyi - most handmade cues are custom made to the specifics of the individual ordering the cue) I am not aware of any doo dabs being slapped.

Guys, this was entertaining enough, but I doubt I will responding further. The whole... family, career, home, life - thing does not cease to exist when entertaining on the PC. Just remember, 100% feedback with 200 sales is not given, it is earned.

David Wale


David. Are you now saying that you know how this cue was ordered from Schon cues in 1985? Funny that I am the buyer of the cue and and you never gave me that information even after I was begging for a refund on the cue. I would greatly appreciate you sending the proof from Schon. Otherwise, I'll take the word of Evan Clarke.

I will not write again either unless you provide the proof, in which case I will publicly apologize or if I get a refund in which case I will just say that David made good. Otherwise I got the shaft and your record of 100% feedback with 200 sales is bogus, your 201st sale will be your legacy.


Bill Loucks
 
ldcues said:
.

Guys, this was entertaining enough, but I doubt I will responding further. The whole... family, career, home, life - thing does not cease to exist when entertaining on the PC. Just remember, 100% feedback with 200 sales is not given, it is earned.

David Wale

I forgot Davey. Let me know how your mom likes this - I mailed it to her in Margate.

Jellybean
 
cueaddicts said:
This Schon looks very similar to one that Dick Abbott (billiardcue.com) had about 5 years ago. In fact, I'm thinking it's the same cue. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) I have a good memory when it comes to cues I've encountered. At the time that Dick showed it to me, the cue and inlays were fine so it's probably been messed with since that time. At any rate, I'm thinking there is more to this story....there usually is.
I believe I did own this cue a few years ago, photo is attached, the cue had only one inlay in one prong.
I do not often buy or take Schon cues in trade but I purchased this cue because I felt it was a nice example of an older Schon that was very eye appealing and unique in the fact that had only one inlay.
Just my opinion but I think that the cue was made as it is, the assumption that is was turned to straighten it and thereby eliminating the the 'other' inlays is absurd.
If you turned a cue enough to remove inlays from three of the four prongs two things would occur - 1. The cue would be obviously very thin. 2. The prongs would now stagger about an inch or so from the longest to the shortest.
Anyone wanting to speak to me about this cue and my reasoning please feel free to do so.

Dick Abbott
billiardcue.com
540 772 7827
dick@billiardcue.com
 

Attachments

  • schon1609.jpg
    schon1609.jpg
    89.4 KB · Views: 307
Caveat emptor or false advertising?

billiardcue said:
Just my opinion but I think that the cue was made as it is, the assumption that is was turned to straighten it and thereby eliminating the the 'other' inlays is absurd.
Those are great pics, and it's certainly a sharp looking cue. I'd sure enjoy its uniquness and appears to be crafted with older schon's typical fine workmanship. I think it's neat and original if it only came with one inlay, but don't you think that'd be SLIGHTLY NOTEWORTHY in the ebay ad?
 
Back
Top