billiardcue said:
Boy this thread only gets better and better , it's like a soap oprah , one thing after another , I love it!
Steven
Idcues on E-Bay, Leonard and David Wale
- Thread starter TATE
- Start date
Boy this thread only gets better and better , it's like a soap oprah , one thing after another , I love it!
Steven
No disrespect to Evan Clark who owns a company that has produced many excellent cues for the past 24 years. But I reiterate that the assumption that the cue was turned enough to remove an inlay from one side is absurd for the reasons I stated previously.TATE said:
You being a Palmer collector must have encountered more than one Palmer cue made from a Szamboti or Spain blank that the prongs were not of equal length. I can assure you that when Gus or Burton supplied the blank to Palmer the points were all of equal length. When Palmer attached the forearm to the handle and chucked the cue in their lathe it was slightly off center resulting in a cue with uneven points after the finish cuts were made.
.005" (5 one thousanths of an inch) off center in the lathe will produce prongs approximately 1/4" different in length from the longest to the shortest. This is not something I believe but something I know.
I deal with cuemakers on a daily basis that produce fewer cues in a year than Evan Clark produced before coffee break this morning and they cannot remember details of particular cues they made a year or so ago. To assume Evan can recall a cue made 20 years and probably 100,000 cues ago is definately a stretch. I could be wrong, but think about it.
Dick Abbott
www.billiardcue.com
540 772 7827
dick@billiardcue.com
billiardcue said:
Hi-Dick,what I can't understand why would anybody keep these pictures of this cue after all these years , we all know that sooner or later we all get rid of old stuff so why would you keep these!
Steven
I have photos of approximately 2000 cues that have passed through my hands over the past eight years that billiardcue.com has been in existence. Makes for great reference if I need to recall a cue, as in this case. I have three hard drives in my computer just for this purpose.justabrake said:Hi-Dick,what I can't understand why would anybody keep these pictures of this cue after all these years , we all know that sooner or later we all get rid of old stuff so why would you keep these!
Steven
Dick Abbott
www.billiardcue.com
540 772 7827
dick@billiardcue.com
billiardcue said:
Hi-as I realized it later after posting and one that visits your site daily I relized it afterwards why! ,
Steven
billiardcue said:
Well, Dick yes I collect Palmers and you may recall I bought one or two (and several cases), very satisfactorily I might add, from you a while back. I also, of course, respect the fact that you will take a cue back for a full refund for just about any reason if the buyer is disappointed, which is also my policy. And of course, you did not disappoint me.
I am confident we will get to the bottom of this sooner or later. While I have never seen a cue with an imbalance of design like this, I can see where now this information (or misinformation whichever is the case), about the cue may have originated. Appreciate your help. The problem is the cue has no provenance. Having re-read Evan's e-mail, he said the inlay was machined from one side.
It does not change the fact that the cue was not as advertised by Idcues or their refusal to refund under the circumstances.
Chris
Last edited:
Just one more question
Checking emails as usual this evening, I just had to see what it was, from the start, that he wrote in his email to rub me so wrong. And, Chris, I have a question for you that doesn't make sense when reading your posts... But I'll get to that later. First, the email from Bill Loucks;
"Leonard,
The Schon cue I bought from you is not as you advertised. The butt cap does not have a Schon logo and the forearm of the cue is missing inlays. The inlays are missing because they were machined out in an effort to straighten the cue. Evan Clarke, the owner of Schon cues, has confirmed this. He had the cue in his shop.
I do not know if you are aware of these issues or not. Either way, your listing of the cue was misleading and inaccurate and I would like a refund on the cue.
I have many friends, all over the country, who are cue collectors. We keep in touch via Email and buy and sell cues with one another and help each other find cues that we are looking for. If I am stuck with the cue you sold me, I will let every collector I know that I bought a lemon of a cue and I'll let them know where I bought it. Several people have told me that you are a "cue guy" and they could not believe that you would risk your reputation by running a dishonest ad. I hope this is true and that you will respond to this email and refund the purchase price of the cue. Otherwise, I will list the cue on Ebay with all the facts disclosed.
Regards,
Bill Loucks"
Another from Bill, where he names Evan Clark as the cue maker;
"Listen David..... Evan Clarke made the cue and he says that it originally
had inlays in two of the points. I can't believe you arguing against it.
He had the cue in his shop and turned it away. He will not replace the
butt cap he won't touch it!!! Have you owned this cue since it was new? If
not I think I'll take the opinion of the guy who made the cue rather than
yours.
I said before I am not interested in debating the history of this cue. Are
you going to refund my money or not? It's a simple question. If the answer
is no then just please be aware that I will share this experience with every
cue collector I know, and I know quite a few.
Regards,
Bill Loucks"
Chris states in his original post, "When the cue came in, it was missing inlays in other points." There is something about this that just doesn't sit well. But we'll get back to that later. Also in his original post he says that Evan Clark wrote, "Whoever did the work sanded the other inlays." (INLAYS plural)
Yet, in his response to Macguy he says, "...Looking over the materials, Evan Clark said there was another inlay (INLAY singular) on the other side of the cue to match the window." He even threw in, "...to match the window", for authentication purposes.
This one kills me. In his response to Pizza Boy;
"Truthfully, I had reservations about even bringing this up on the boards. Even now NONSENSENONSENSENONSENSENONSENSENONSENSE..."
I'm sending this one to givemeafreakin'break.com - In his respone to Bob Jewitt;
"Now, how I personally handle it if I am the seller is NONSENSENONSENSENONSENSENONSENSENONSENSE..."
And now, after all this nonsense, you're backing down because somebody else says the same thing I said in the first place!?!! "We'll get to the bottom of this sooner or later NONSENSENONSENSENONSENSE." And the balance of the cue is fine if you have the inlay facing top or bottom every time! There are players that actually draw sight lines or make a slight mark on the shaft to increase the consistency of the "hit". Hell, Bob Meucci capitalized on this with his "Red Dot Shaft" some years back.
Dick, although I appreciate your insight, not to mention the business and input you've given in the past, I wish you would have emailed before you posted. I've actually declined a few people from interjecting, two well known cuemakers in particular. Now, we won't be able to read anymore NONSENSENONSENSENONSENSE.
Now the question in which this whole post has been premised. With all of the accusations you have hurled our way, with all of the expert advice you have given Bill, with the references to how a cue is supposed to look and how this one doesn't, with the original stage you set to make it appear as though we had somebody throw this baby on the rotisserie and put the 220 to it, with all of the talk of inlays here but not there, with all of the NONSENSENONSENSENONSENSE... There is one thing that just keeps poking it's head out of this tangled web... You live in California... Bill Loucks lives in Washington. Chris... Did you ever even have this cue in your hand once!?!! The reason I ask is because I was speaking with my father earlier today and he told me that you said to him in a conversation on the phone, "I'm going to have to take my friends word over yours." Now, this is the friend that you have stated more than once, "Is an aspiring collector." Well I guess he got pretty damned good awful damned quick. Seeing as how you, the supposed veteran cue collector, are taking his word without inspecting the cue for yourself.
I was just wondering if you looked at it, that's all, no big deal...
Regards,
David Wale
Checking emails as usual this evening, I just had to see what it was, from the start, that he wrote in his email to rub me so wrong. And, Chris, I have a question for you that doesn't make sense when reading your posts... But I'll get to that later. First, the email from Bill Loucks;
"Leonard,
The Schon cue I bought from you is not as you advertised. The butt cap does not have a Schon logo and the forearm of the cue is missing inlays. The inlays are missing because they were machined out in an effort to straighten the cue. Evan Clarke, the owner of Schon cues, has confirmed this. He had the cue in his shop.
I do not know if you are aware of these issues or not. Either way, your listing of the cue was misleading and inaccurate and I would like a refund on the cue.
I have many friends, all over the country, who are cue collectors. We keep in touch via Email and buy and sell cues with one another and help each other find cues that we are looking for. If I am stuck with the cue you sold me, I will let every collector I know that I bought a lemon of a cue and I'll let them know where I bought it. Several people have told me that you are a "cue guy" and they could not believe that you would risk your reputation by running a dishonest ad. I hope this is true and that you will respond to this email and refund the purchase price of the cue. Otherwise, I will list the cue on Ebay with all the facts disclosed.
Regards,
Bill Loucks"
Another from Bill, where he names Evan Clark as the cue maker;
"Listen David..... Evan Clarke made the cue and he says that it originally
had inlays in two of the points. I can't believe you arguing against it.
He had the cue in his shop and turned it away. He will not replace the
butt cap he won't touch it!!! Have you owned this cue since it was new? If
not I think I'll take the opinion of the guy who made the cue rather than
yours.
I said before I am not interested in debating the history of this cue. Are
you going to refund my money or not? It's a simple question. If the answer
is no then just please be aware that I will share this experience with every
cue collector I know, and I know quite a few.
Regards,
Bill Loucks"
Chris states in his original post, "When the cue came in, it was missing inlays in other points." There is something about this that just doesn't sit well. But we'll get back to that later. Also in his original post he says that Evan Clark wrote, "Whoever did the work sanded the other inlays." (INLAYS plural)
Yet, in his response to Macguy he says, "...Looking over the materials, Evan Clark said there was another inlay (INLAY singular) on the other side of the cue to match the window." He even threw in, "...to match the window", for authentication purposes.
This one kills me. In his response to Pizza Boy;
"Truthfully, I had reservations about even bringing this up on the boards. Even now NONSENSENONSENSENONSENSENONSENSENONSENSE..."
I'm sending this one to givemeafreakin'break.com - In his respone to Bob Jewitt;
"Now, how I personally handle it if I am the seller is NONSENSENONSENSENONSENSENONSENSENONSENSE..."
And now, after all this nonsense, you're backing down because somebody else says the same thing I said in the first place!?!! "We'll get to the bottom of this sooner or later NONSENSENONSENSENONSENSE." And the balance of the cue is fine if you have the inlay facing top or bottom every time! There are players that actually draw sight lines or make a slight mark on the shaft to increase the consistency of the "hit". Hell, Bob Meucci capitalized on this with his "Red Dot Shaft" some years back.
Dick, although I appreciate your insight, not to mention the business and input you've given in the past, I wish you would have emailed before you posted. I've actually declined a few people from interjecting, two well known cuemakers in particular. Now, we won't be able to read anymore NONSENSENONSENSENONSENSE.
Now the question in which this whole post has been premised. With all of the accusations you have hurled our way, with all of the expert advice you have given Bill, with the references to how a cue is supposed to look and how this one doesn't, with the original stage you set to make it appear as though we had somebody throw this baby on the rotisserie and put the 220 to it, with all of the talk of inlays here but not there, with all of the NONSENSENONSENSENONSENSE... There is one thing that just keeps poking it's head out of this tangled web... You live in California... Bill Loucks lives in Washington. Chris... Did you ever even have this cue in your hand once!?!! The reason I ask is because I was speaking with my father earlier today and he told me that you said to him in a conversation on the phone, "I'm going to have to take my friends word over yours." Now, this is the friend that you have stated more than once, "Is an aspiring collector." Well I guess he got pretty damned good awful damned quick. Seeing as how you, the supposed veteran cue collector, are taking his word without inspecting the cue for yourself.
I was just wondering if you looked at it, that's all, no big deal...
Regards,
David Wale
billiardcue said:
I have a question here when you sold the cue how did you advertise this cue on your website did you say it only had 1 inlay in one prong as you said here , did you say there was no schon logo on the cue , you must have shown the pictures you posted here for the sale of the cue ? , Mr. Wells, Didn't in his auction and he misreprsented this cue to any bidder and I beleive when he got an offer(off ebay) that he new to take it so there wouldn't be any repercusions on ebays feedback he took advantage of this opportunity and got rid of it , if your a seller of cues as Mr. Wells is you should know it should be advertised as legit as possible especially a 1 inlayed sided cue with NO LOGO AND INLAYS MISSING he in my opion misreprsented the cue , furthurmore he made a mistake not thinking that maybe a collector wanted it and that this wouldn't be brought up in a public forum as it is now , I think Mr. Wells should refund the money and take the cue back, IMO
OH-please correct me if i'm wrong.
Steven
billiardcue said:
Dick,
You are to be commended for stepping up and providing this information to help settle this matter once and for all. I have known Leonard and Dave Wales for the past 15 years and they are an honest, hard working family who in my opinion would never deceive or intentionally tell someone something they did not believe was the truth. Anyone making 200 sales on ebay without any negative feedback should tell you something about their character. They deserve an apology on this one.
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
justabrake said:Hi-Dick,what I can't understand why would anybody keep these pictures of this cue after all these years , we all know that sooner or later we all get rid of old stuff so why would you keep these!
Steven
FYI, Dick Abbot, billiardcue.com is a highly regarded cue broker, a great guy, and is the PREMIER cue photographer in the industry. I think you need to check his site out.
It's not like he's some hack who has for some odd reason continued to keep photos for no particular reason.
Fred <~~~ some hack who continues to keep photos for no particular reason
Now, if you want to get technical and need a valid reason to return the cue, all you need to do is say, "It's not a full splice, as advertised". It clearly has a ring above the wrap, negating any possibility of a full splice cue. It is very doubtful Runde / Clark would have split the ring and that would be very visible on a steel ring if it was.
Has anyone called Runde to see if he remembers the cue?
Joe (--- knows experience cannot be bought
Has anyone called Runde to see if he remembers the cue?
Joe (--- knows experience cannot be bought
ldcues said:
David,
This cue at best is an oddity (like Dick thinks) and it was not properly advertised by you. At worst it is a butchered mess (like Evan thinks).
The whole point is this - Every cue buyer looking at your cue ad would believe that the cue had inlays all the way around. This was negligent of you at best and fruadulent at worst.
The fact that you do not recognize this deception and your refusal to take the cue back is what inspired this whole mess.
Bill is probably going to list the cue on E-Bay. When he does he will accurately describe it, and take his lumps.
Bill has integrity.
Chris
I certainly don't doubt Dick's word, and his photo's speak for themselves. But, as I said in a previous post and was reiterated by Guru, don't you think the fact that it only had one inlay was noteworthy? Shouldn't this have been disclosed in the original Ebay description, along with the fact that there was no logo on the butt cap? This whole thread would be moot if that had been the case. Those things didn't happen and the buyer was dissatisfied as a result. The buyer's money should have been refunded due to those omissions - simple.
Adios,
Pizza Bob
Adios,
Pizza Bob
Jack Justis said:
Jack,
It's nice of you to come forward to say something positive about your friends.
This is not about whether or not they are good people, although I do feel a little better that they have been good people in the past.
I don't know if you looked at the ad, but you should. If you were the victim of their misleading ad, and you were out about a grand, I think you would be a little upset too.
Any cue buyer would expect the cue to be the same all the way around and they only showed one view. The way the photos are arranged, since almost all cues of this design are exactly the same all the way around, you would nt know which side you were viewing.
David has not been forthcoming in dealing with this. It was obviously a big mistake for Bill to go through with the sale outside of E-Bay.
Sorry, Jack - the apology should come from Idcues.
Chris
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
I know this is all moot, and only our vulturistic attitudes makes this continue, but... does anyone have the ad available? I want to see it before I make comments on it.Pizza Bob said:
Fred
classiccues said:
Thanks for the help. I had been planning on calling Bob today after reading Dick's post. As far as Idcues goes, I don't think it will matter but it would be nice if we had something on the cue when Bill goes to sell it.
By the way, this cue is now an infamous conversation piece.
We are going to call it the "One Eyed Bandit" - the first $3,000 takes it.
Chris
Last edited:
Fred Agnir said:
Fred,
It was in the first post. This thread is actually worth reading mainly because of the timeline. It is like a bad plot in a grade "b" movie! You have twists and turns, intrigue, guest appearances, comedy and a big ass mystery!
Here it is:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7170224836&category=95100&rd=1
Chris
Fred Agnir said:
True, but the problem is without researching this cue properly, there is no provenance. When someone credible steps up and says "I think this cue is (add whatever you want)", people tend to take that as an "is" instead of an "I think".
I have gotten screwed this way. I bought a butchered up Meucci/Palmer hybrid from a good friend that someone said they thought was an original Palmer. I should have known better, but the story was coming from four or five very credible sources, and of course I wanted to believe I had something special, not a screwed up piece of shit. In order to find out, I tracked down each owner of the cue. It took me a year but with the help of some posters here and two dealers, I actually tracked it down to the cue maker. Some asshole actually took a Meucci butt and put it on a Palmer "M", and took a Palmer M butt and put it on the Meucci! Well it passed through the hands of some very knowledgeable people who believed, quite erroneously, that the cue was real. My friend who sold me the cue felt horrible - he really didn't know - and I just said "forget it, it happens". A few weeks later he sent me a $2000 cue and asked me to pay him $500 just because he was a good friend.
It takes a lot of work to research a cue properly. To summaraily discount or reject the opinion of someone like Evan Clarke who is the definite source on all things Schon , which Idcues and Dick Abbott are doing, is just not the way to do things.
Chris