Inlaying another makers cue upon customers request.
- Thread starter Michael Webb
- Start date
It has not been done to my cues that I know of, That's already been asked, sorry you didn't read the thread. Where was that? Ohhh , page 1. I defend cue making, no matter how well known the cue maker is. I'm really sorry that you of all people in your position doesn't understand something as important as another Cue makers rights, and what gives you or anyone else the right to change it. Your best answer so far was, it was a friend and it made his daughter smile. If you really wanted her to smile, you could have made her a cue and gave it to her. I did it and didn't even give it a second thought about my decision (6 times) and one of the kids, Grandfather is a Cue maker. He loved it.
Last edited:
Here are some photo's of a cue that is very very rare and collectible and has been altered, but in this case I am uncertain if the alteration doesn't make the cue more valuable, either way this cue will never be offered for sale.
Now, I am not making light of cue alteration by posting this cue, because I would never do it personally, but I also think this is a rare case that is documented that would increase the cue value because of the pedigree surrounding the alteration.
The cue was made by Frank Paradise and it was altered by Bill Schick for his road partner Cap Watson. Bill and Cap during the Mid-1960's were playing pool together on the road, and sometime during the Mid-1960's they both decided that they want a Paradise Cue so they went to Franks shop and they both placed an order for different Paradise cues. At this time Bill Schick was not a cue maker and had never done any cue work except replacing his own tip, which was common during that time frame for road players because there were few places to have cue work done.
Both their cues were finished a few months later so they went together to pick up their new cues from Franks shop. Bill had order a basic plain Jane model Paradise and Cap had ordered one of the fancy models that Frank was building at that time. Cap loved the cue that was built for him and played with that cue for the remainder of his life which was after the year 2000. Bill on the other hand received a cue that he personally told me sucked, and he quickly got rid of the cue, but the most amazing thing that came out of this was the fact that because of the way that cue played Bill decided that he could build a better cue himself and he has since proved this statement to be true.
Later after both men had stopped traveling the country playing pool Cap contacted Bill to have some modifications done to his Paradise Cue. By this time Bill was an established cue maker who was making a name for himself so he told his friend that he would be glad to do the modifications and the rest can be seen below in the photo's of the cue.
All information I have posted above came from Caps son who owns the cue, and directly from Mr. Schick who related much of it to me personally.
Here are the photo's:
The box's on the cue forearm near the joint were inlay-ed by Bill Schick along with the engraving within them, along with the slotted diamonds, Bill also refinished the cue after this work was completed.
I would think that it would be up to Evan to make that determination, not me.
Evan has to deal with his own conscience, I can only deal with mine.
I thought we were asked to leave names out of this discussion?
We could drag hypotheticals out of the woodwork `til the sun don't shine but I take this thread to be about principle and the practice at large.
This thread doesn't have a lot of pics for examples because it doesn't need them. It's not about the individual occurrences, it's about the practice.
My reputation is worth more than the money I could make adding inlays to another cue maker's cue. There are just some things I won't do. This is along the same lines, as already mentioned, building a cue with trademarked inlays, such as the Playboy bunny. I've had requests for that. Also, I draw the line when building cues when the customer says "can you make it look like this (cue maker's name)?" As soon as that is said, I tell them no.
Its fuzzy when unwritten rules are not written. We each have to draw the line and hope we are on the right side of it.
Its fuzzy when unwritten rules are not written. We each have to draw the line and hope we are on the right side of it.
Anyone can accomplish an average quality finish job, but a really good finish is one of the harder things to accomplish in cue making. Are the taboo and strong feelings limited only to installing inlays, or are refinishes included as well? If you consider yourself to be one who has put in the extensive time, research, and practice to attain a superior finish on your cues, how happy would you be to find that the "local repair guy" has refinished a few of your cues?
As long as he didn't put shaped holes in my cue, I'm ok.
Morning Mr. Hoppe:
I cannot answer for others so I won't. It is a standard for me to consider the original Cue maker on every cue I work on. It is also a normal situation for me to call the original maker if I have any doubts, what's in line and what's out of line.
The word "Rights" is really the only major problem I have with your argument. I could respect your opinion a little more if you thought cuemakers have "expectations" or that they consider their cue to be "sacred" but to say they have "rights" over something they sold really puzzles me. What is "right" and having "rights" can be two different things. The only thing that may in the future make it not "right" to put signed inlays in someone elses brand cue is the fact that it may upset them, and I would not want to upset them. But it would still be the other cuemakers "right" to put in signed inlays, because it is the customers property and he has the "right" to do with it as he pleases. It may make the cue worth less in the future, or it may make it worth more. As long as full disclosure is made they are within their "rights".
If you consider cues to be "sacred" are we now making idols, or are we making functional art as some have coined it.
Yes, I could have made the girl a cue and made her smile. But isn't it better that her dad made her smile?
I did read the thread, but my memory and retention is a little slow these days. I see you are mad at me for doing this twice in my life and thinking it was okay. Both times I signed the added art work. Three times if you count having someone else put inlays in a butt cap on a production cue I own. Are you mad at Bill now also for what was posted that he did to the Paradise?
My point with that question is that I do not feel Bill did anything he felt was immoral and that was probably how cuemakers felt for generations. It is only recently that I have heard of anyone being upset about this kind of thing when done with full disclosure.
I actually have a cue in my collection from a Hall of Fame cuemaker that you were given credit for replacing the butt cap on and doing away with the Logo. I do not know if you did the work or not, but that definitely devalued the cue by losing the original logo.
Have any of you who are so opposed to this ever replaced a broken forearm or busted butt sleeve, slotted joint rings or any other broken part that had any points, logos or artwork in it? Where do we draw the line if we head down this road of not adding to other's work?
Last edited:
"Do no harm" has been my position since I started working on cues. If the cue, or any part of the cue, is broken, harm has already been done. Anything I do to fix it adds value back to the cue.
I've also stated that I do think to is a definitive answer. Under full disclosure, I tell customers what I can and can't do AND what I will and will not do. Most are respectful. The others can go elsewhere.
Its not where "we" draw the line. Its where "you" draw the line. I don't know what's right or wrong for you, Mike, Bill, or anyone else. I only know where "I" draw it.
Here is a situation that is closely related to the topic of discussion. What are your feelings of one cuemaker having another cuemaker do inlay work for him, then offering the cue as his work?
Last edited:
Chris
You and I can agree to disagree on a lot of subjects, Neither one of us is going to bend. I'm good with that.