If I had cues made to my specs, then would it be fair to say that I made them?

[Cornerman]

Part of what I took from their conversation is that different industries may recognize terminology a little differently, what Fred and Bill call 4 axis machining may slightly vary.

.

This is a good analogy from my perspective. Bill was really arguing that Thomas was the initiator and pioneer of using 4 axis CNC to create what he called 4th axis work, and I was arguing that 4-axis and 5-axis machining has been around for longer and is common , and that -using 4-axes ought to be okay to call it 4-axis machining. Bill then asked me how long I"ve been making 4-axis cues or something like that!!!! We weren't talking the same language nor from aligned points of view.

I honestly don't know if Bill knew anything about 4-axis machining beyond cues. Maybe he did, but it didn't seem like he did, given his question. It's pretty common in my industry, so it didn't hurt me one iota if some other cue builder was saying he was doing 4-axis work. But I'm not Bill or Thomas. I get why they would be upset. Thomas is the pioneer, innovator, invento, etc. of what he calls 4th axis, which has specific implications to the cue making world and little to do with the 4-axis machining world outside of cues.

 

[Cornerman]

Freddie that is a very accurate statement. In the industry I am in, very few companies actually make their own products. They do the design and then farm the actuall construction/manufacturing out to a CM (Contract Manufacturer). And every company considers them them their products and they made them.

This is where I am, and probably why I never felt triggered about Jackpot cues not being touched by Jack Potter.

And if a fly on the wall would be at your company's meetings with customers, I'm sure a customer might be asking how you would do such and such, and your answer would be, "I'm going to do this, that and the other thing for you," even though you really mean, "I'm going to concept it, let the designer design it, supply chain will send it out for quotes, the purchasing team will have a 3rd party execute, I'll accept it, and my operations team will launch it." It's common language in our industries.

But say you come up with a design that uses a special material that you designed to core the cue, and you specified the exact method that the different pieces were mated together, or came up with a completely unique joint , something that got into the core mechanical design of the cue and then had Adams or McDermott make that cue for you then definitely you could call that you own cue design that you own. Simple example: if Mike Lambros went to a manufacturer and had them make mass production versions of his cues they would certainly be Lambros cues even if he never did any work on them.

Totally agree. From my point of view only, because the Jackpot cues don't hit like a Schmelke, the rest of the dissection of how they came to be is just noise to me. It's not up to me how much specifications Dean or Jack put into the design of these cues. I just know (today) that they wanted a certain feel/hit, contracted to Schmelke with their ideas, and they were satisfied with what schmelke had built in terms with matching up with their expectations.

They don't hit like any Schmelke I've shot with. I don't think this was as simple as "I'll take a dozen of that model, no rings, use your finest woods... and go." I think most posters think that's what happened, and a lot of posters haven't actually given it one thought other than "Deanoc is a crook."

 

[megatron69]

If I had a cue maker build me a line of cues, that I designed, and asked the cue maker to put my own unique custom logo on them, then would it be fair to market the cues as custom cues made by myself?

I keep hearing of people doing this, and it just does not seem right.

If you did not build the cue, then do not try to deceive people by saying that you were the cue maker.

For example, I have read that Adam / Helmstetter built a line of cues for this one guy, to his specs, and his designs, and he turned around, and marketed the cues as "custom cues" made by him.

There just seems to be so much deception in this sport, with dishonest marketing, and doing anything possible to get sales.

People need to start being honest about every aspect of the product that they are selling, and if they can't do that, or are unwilling to do that, then they should not be trying to sell that product.

A relatively new product in fishing is fluorocarbon fishing line. And there are literally dozens if not hundreds of companies that sell fluorocarbon line for various applications touting the technology they used to design and manufacture their lines.

However, there are only three factories that actually produce fluorocarbon fishing line.

What all of these companies do is send their specs for the line they want, its diameter, tensile strength, color, etc. to one of these manufacturers and then it is produced for them. Maybe 1 in 100 fishermen know the truth about where and how their favorite line is made. They just say "I like Seaguar" or "Berkeley" or whatever. But as each seller of their line has ordered a unique combination of specifications for their product, it is technically their line, even though they didn't physically make it.