Never have, never will.
Inlaying another makers cue upon customers request.
- Thread starter Michael Webb
- Start date
Never have, never will.
Thank you, John, Craig and Jack. Although to some, it might seem the thread is repetitive, based on the phone calls and emails this week, People are thinking about it.
There is a distinction between counterfeiting and modifying. They are not one in the same and it's too harsh to paint the people who modify with the same brush as the ones who counterfeit.
Counterfeiting is fraud. It's deceptive and thieving. It's illegal.
Modifying is not fraud, it's not illegal. It might be immoral or unethical but it's not theft, not deceptive and should not be thought of as such.
I can see Mike's point clearly but I am not to the point where I am ready to get out the pitchforks and start burning people at the stake. Let's tone it down a notch and realize that we are people here and this is not the end of the world for God's sake.
I am just glad I haven't yet seen anyone slap a whole bunch of stickers all over their JB Case. I might have to start killing people if that ever happens
There is a distinction between counterfeiting and modifying. They are not one in the same and it's too harsh to paint the people who modify with the same brush as the ones who counterfeit.
Counterfeiting is fraud. It's deceptive and thieving. It's illegal.
Modifying is not fraud, it's not illegal. It might be immoral or unethical but it's not theft, not deceptive and should not be thought of as such.
I can see Mike's point clearly but I am not to the point where I am ready to get out the pitchforks and start burning people at the stake. Let's tone it down a notch and realize that we are people here and this is not the end of the world for God's sake.
I am just glad I haven't yet seen anyone slap a whole bunch of stickers all over their JB Case. I might have to start killing people if that ever happens
Breathe Grasshopper, Breathe.
I think you know where the boundaries are in the real cue world and admit the dilemma.
You're certainly being very honest and my intention is not to attack or create an air of higher morality but rather bring up the repercussions of calling cues original art work.
The original cuemaker signed the cue and then sold it and now the new owner can do as he pleases.
The rest of us provide our service to the new owner, therefore, each of us has to create our own moral code.
Here again, what's more important respecting the design or the structural uniqueness, or both?
If we're going to strive to be artist in a perfect world then we have to respect the original artist and contact him about inlaying or changing pins or joints or anything else outside of maintenance items.
I'd be pretty pissed if a cue of mine sounded like rotten wood because somebody made structural changes...an extra inlay or two would cause me to bite my lip in silence.
Treat the art the way you would want yours to be treated.
BTW..In most cases the collectors would have to be cuemakers themselves to determine who did what. I don't see too many cues for sale with disclaimers of, ivory joint by Ryan,
Pin by Webb, five inlays by Hightower, ferrule by Mario
Sorry forgot who's cue this was originally. Mario
There is a distinction between counterfeiting and modifying. They are not one in the same and it's too harsh to paint the people who modify with the same brush as the ones who counterfeit.
Counterfeiting is fraud. It's deceptive and thieving. It's illegal.
Modifying is not fraud, it's not illegal. It might be immoral or unethical but it's not theft, not deceptive and should not be thought of as such.
I can see Mike's point clearly but I am not to the point where I am ready to get out the pitchforks and start burning people at the stake. Let's tone it down a notch and realize that we are people here and this is not the end of the world for God's sake.
I am just glad I haven't yet seen anyone slap a whole bunch of stickers all over their JB Case. I might have to start killing people if that ever happens
Changing the design on some ones cue is fraud in my opinion, and it really depends upon the intent whether counterfeiting is to harsh a word. Now like I said in my post you can't paint everyone who has or is doing it with the same brush. But there have been far to many cases in recent years of cues being modified and sold at much higher prices than they are worth because of modifications. Now whether the person who modified the cue intended this or not they are ultimately responsible because of their bad judgment and I suspect if something like that ever came down to legal action they may have a very hard time proving that they had no part in it except for the modification.
I mean this entire thread in my opinion should be viewed as food for thought, and hopefully it may help some understand or see the consequences that can be created by bad judgment even if what they are doing was with good intentions!!!!
So we can agree to disagree!!:smile:
Last edited:
The problem is in the wording, as soon as you use the word art you're tresspassing the artist original work..reversible applies to most additions or changes done to a cue .
In the written world we have copyrights, inventors have patents, and painting, sculptures, etc. carry signatures or definite marks by the creator of the original work. Change anything and you destroy the authenticity of the work and its value. Of course, you can be an accomplice and enhace the value by adding to the original work an Ivory joint....this is called forgery in the art world.
Ok, back to the realities of the cue world where art and respect depend on price. Functional art needs upkeep and repairs therefore it becomes an individual decision as to where the boundaries are.
Now we have the last component, the owner of the work, who wants what he wants and doesn't particularly care about original art or is looking to enhance and get a better return on his investment. We cannot maintain a historical trail by going around willing to make any
changes in the original work.
The least we can do is call the original maker and hear his views before acting on the owners wishes. We can also take the other road which says it is not art but only a pretty and fuctional tool, like a nice coffe cup...so drink up and be merry.
I've spent my two cents
Mario
.
It doesn't matter what the original cue makers views are. It isn't his cue anymore. He recieved payment for his work and thats the end of it..The owner can do anything he wants to the cue and get anyone he chooses to do the work and thats that.Morality has nothing to do with this issue. If some cuemakers dont want to do that kind of work, fine, dont do it. Dont brow beat those who do. You have no right! (JMO)
You have ever right to your opinion and that we both agree on. But I completely disagree with your reasoning, I have actually seen some one pay some big money for a cue that had been modified. It isn't pretty trying to track down and find out who was the responsible party was.
In the end the guy lost his money because the cue was worthless,now I am certain that it was partially his fault because he may have felt like he was getting a great deal, but no ones deserves to get ripped off.
If it ever happens to you, which I hope it doesn't you may feel differently.
Also on another note if a cue has been modified, in most cases the original cue maker will never touch it again, so any warranty stated or implied would certainly be void.
Have a great night
You could not be more right and so very wrong at the same time. The individual who purchases the cue does have every right to do with it as they see fit. Any Cuemaker that would add inlays or do major modifications to a collectible cue is doing a disservice to their own potential customers. Collectors are a significant percentage of the cue buying public and assuming full disclosure would have no interest in a modified cue.
Can any Cuemaker know that the intent of the customer is not to defraud a future buyer.
Actually, myself and everyone else does have the right so I'm sorry if I disagree with you. You sound pretty firm on your opinion and I respect that for what it is. Just curious? What's your name? and who do you apprentice with? Answer, don't answer, That's your right.
Name is max mckee from charleston,sc and im learning on my own.Books, DVD's, This forum and anywhere else i an pick up tips. Its not rocket science..
I respect your opinion as well..I dont agree with you..i have sold several cues and dont care what the customers do with them..I have been paid and made my money..If the owner wants another cue maker to add inlays on one of my cues, great, i have no problem with that.
Thank you.
Great post, that is eactly what I was trying to say, but dude you hit the nail on the head.
Thanks
Examples?
Also we need to keep in mind that being offered for sale and actual sales taking place are two different things. And "worth" is also relative. As is so often said here something is only worth what someone else will pay for it.
Is a Bushka "worth" $10,000 when it sold for $150 new?
Here is an interesting story though that goes along with this topic somewhat.
Once upon a time I bought a cue from a famous cue maker. I was a young casemaker and I used to do this test where I put a cue in and would slam it to the ground to prove the cue would be fine inside. However back then the cue would only be fully secured from moving if inserted pin down. But I was cocky and did it pin up and I cracked the cue at the A-joint. This cue was purchased for another person in Germany so I was quite distraught. Naturally I was embarrased and didn't want to go back to the cue maker and tell him I broke his cue.
I ran into a friend who is also a cue maker and he agreed to try and fix it. He took it to the shop of someone else and dissected it. The cue was put together with a wooden tenon that had been compression fit. My friend then proceeded to drill out the hole, plug it, tap it, and install a bolt at the A-joint. When he was done no one could see any different on the exterior of the cue. And it hit great.
But word got back to the original cue maker and he showed up angry and wanted to have the cue back. His point was that I should have given him the opportunity to take care of it first and not allowed someone else to tinker with the way he builds cues. I gave him the cue back and months later he sent me a new one, no charge even though I should have had to buy a new one.
I did learn a valuable lesson that day to always give the original maker the heads up when doing something substantial to "his" cues. The original maker is an icon in this business and his cues play JAM UP. After he came to me I understood that it wasn't a question of whether the other guy did a good job or not, but instead that the cue was no longer an "xxx" cue and as such not really representative of the maker's own style.
I can agree with you Craig that the cue maker who does substantial work on another maker's cue can't know what the customer will do with it. And I suppose that in some way if the customer did perpetrate fraud then the maker who did the work would have made it possible. But I still don't hold them as frauds or thieves just for doing the work.
If so then I guess we need to start holding people accountable for selling copies of other people's work and branding them as thieves. Such as when company X copy's company Y's designs and retailer Z sells them. As long as we are talking what's ethical and moral let's address that topic as well.
(Don't)
I was just making an example - you don't have to go down that road in this thread.
I see your point and our opinions still differ, but there is nothing wrong with that.
BLASPHEMY!
Why didn't he replicate the wood tenon?
That's ANOTHER thread altogether.
The question Mike asked was to cuemakers doing the inlaying of someone else's work.
How would you feel if someone laser-etched your custom cases ( the one YOU personally built and took pride in. The one you made sure had the FLOW) ?
BLASPHEMY!
Why didn't he replicate the wood tenon?
That's ANOTHER thread altogether.
The question Mike asked was to cuemakers doing the inlaying of someone else's work.
How would you feel if someone laser-etched your custom cases ( the one YOU personally built and took pride in. The one you made sure had the FLOW) ?
Thank you Joey, He's already answered that.
With the exception of about 10 shafts which I'll finish up on tomorrow, I'm caught up on my quality time of watching paint dry for a while. Thank you all for helping in an interesting thread. I'm sure there will be a few backdoor Wizards that will pop up and a couple who just want to throw coal into a fire. For the most part, tomorrow I go back to being a Hermit for a while and start cutting more forearms for points and hopefully finish up some cues in the works already. I leave this thread in your capable hands.
Thank you all very much.
Thank you all very much.
BLASPHEMY!
Why didn't he replicate the wood tenon?
That's ANOTHER thread altogether.
The question Mike asked was to cuemakers doing the inlaying of someone else's work.
How would you feel if someone laser-etched your custom cases ( the one YOU personally built and took pride in. The one you made sure had the FLOW) ?
I understand the feeling exactly. When the thread started I thought to myself so what, if someone came to me with a Justis, Murnak, Whitten, etc and said "modify this" then I probably would have looked at it as a "challenge" to modify it so that the changes flowed with the existing case.
However upon deeper thought I have decided that I will not accept that kind of work outside of modifying the interior if asked BECAUSE I have no real right to disturb another person's painting. It's kind of like back in the day, way back in the day, when I did some graffiti. The last thing you wanted to see was that someone else had sprayed over your work.
I think about the only time I might accept a job to mod the exterior of a case would be in a situation where the original maker is no longer making cases and it's a repair/restoration type deal. If someone came to me and said change these two short pockets (useless for modern needs) for one long one and the original maker was no longer around then I'd probably say yes to the work if they accepted my price. If they said they wanted to add decoration like two Sheridan tooled pockets then I'd probably send them to leatherworker.net to find someone willing to do that.
When it comes to the interior of a case THAT is utilitarian and if someone wants to put it back in the original condition then they can.
As for myself, if someone had our case modified then honestly I'd be disappointed if they didn't ask me first, I might be disturbed by what they did, but it wouldn't be the end of the world for me.
I do spend a lot of time playing "what if" head games. What if a customer were to see this......my reputation would be shot..........it would be all over the net in minutes..............but at the end of the day you realize it's not any single piece that defines you, it's your body of work and anyone who has even an ounce of sense doesn't make a forever decision based on any one single piece.
So my answer is that if Jack Justis were to modify a John Barton case then I'd say so what? I'd highlight it on my website and show the original and that would be that. And if the mod were awesome then I'd probably steal the idea and build it into future cases.
I would just not want the case represented as a "Justis" and would want it represented as a JB case with some work by Justis. Like I said, gray area. I wouldn't do it now but before the thread started I would have. And not for the money, but because I would want to "prove" I could take something someone else did and make it "better". Now, after thinking about it I feel like that it's better to leave it alone and not create a "monster" (monster in a bad way).
Again, thanks Mike for bringing up a sensitive subject. One that I think all makers need to look at and decide where they want to be on.
If I was a Cuemake if the other Cuemaker was out of the business, deceased, I would conside it on a case by case basis.