It's a copy not a tribute ~ Can we be honest?
- Thread starter Ken_4fun
- Start date
How in the f' is is not imaginative?!!! Someone had to IMAGINE it in a cue...same goes for the reptile skeleton...it took TW's imagination to not only see it in a cue, but to then execute it flawlessly. It takes zero imagination to rehash the same ol' design over and over again......ZERO!
Honestly...you have veered so far beyond your initial argument to to stay on the side of 'right' for you...that you are coming off as a moron. Just admit that you lack the imagination to do something beyond the same ol' same ol' and be done with it. It's not like you're the only one....but it is far and beyond from doing something imaginative and innovative. They're copies, nothing more, nothing less.
Lisa ======> not even remotely an expert, but definitely knows the difference between imaginative and unimaginative.
Last edited:
And you totally forgot your own question. What "art" was he using when he created those cues. Do you think he was not using something? Ask him. Was he not the one that stated he gets ideas from other art? Certainly taking nothing away from Wayne or any of the others. I have certainly seen much more "imaginative" cues from him than those examples.
I certainly do not feel that if I seen a t-shirt with a design on it (that has only been done on a T-shirt and nothing else) and I paint it on canvas that I am being very imaginative. But maybe your level of imagination is much lower? If I did a cue like a painting by Pollock (that has never been done on a cue before that I know of), does not make me very imaginative either. It is simply another medium for Pollock's imagination to be "copied".
And why did you totally avoid the fact classiccues gave examples of some of your list having copied cues themselves?
LOL. I don't buy cues anymore Joe. I learned my lessons. And if I DID buy cues, I'd probably call Thomas Wayne or Bob Manzino and try to get something truly unique and original.
Yeah. I've owned a clone or two in the past. Some played like gems. Some were just tragic (I'm sure you know who I'm talking about). But my opinion evolved over time. That's what I was saying earlier. Sure McWorter did 6 pointers for a while. But eventually, he got tired of them. He wanted something different. So... he evolved. More cuemakers need to do that.
You and I both know Paul Fanelli did some incredible point work. He could have had a lengthy list of customers doing nothing but 4 pointers. But did he go that route?
Well that is one way to go about it. However there are thousands of people that prefer the "old" school cues. That's just the way it is. IMHO you can't pick and choose what is copying and what isn't.
Ernie made the first box cue and I think this is a widely accepted fact. Now IMHO every box cue that came after is a copy of Ernies design. Maybe the boxes are different, but the premise is not. I believe there is more to value in the design, than in the decoration aspect. Therefore IMHO how I would interpret "design" theft is theft of the invention. So all box cues after the fact should be called into question, if the "design" is what you're trying to protect. However, in doing so the plane crashes with A LOT of passengers, not just the pilot. So certain people will grant a pass because the "box" cue is now done a lot. BUT if people didn't copy it to begin with, it would not be common place.
So copying en masse has made Ernies very bold design, very "regular", but should it be? So if you pass that, than you better start passing lots more....
Paul didn't like 4 point cues as they were and it lead him to try butterflies and create the splicing that lead to his designs. Good for him, and I don't see anyone else calling out other butterfly makers... YOU Included. But why would you? The butterfly technique is very old, but what did Paul make that was non-traditional? Would you know it if you saw it? Because I have seen cues listed that mimic Pauls end results, but alas... no one knows what made Paul's designs special, so no one says anything.
JV
Ernie made the first box cue and I think this is a widely accepted fact. Now IMHO every box cue that came after is a copy of Ernies design. Maybe the boxes are different, but the premise is not. I believe there is more to value in the design, than in the decoration aspect. Therefore IMHO how I would interpret "design" theft is theft of the invention. So all box cues after the fact should be called into question, if the "design" is what you're trying to protect. However, in doing so the plane crashes with A LOT of passengers, not just the pilot. So certain people will grant a pass because the "box" cue is now done a lot. BUT if people didn't copy it to begin with, it would not be common place.
So copying en masse has made Ernies very bold design, very "regular", but should it be? So if you pass that, than you better start passing lots more....
Paul didn't like 4 point cues as they were and it lead him to try butterflies and create the splicing that lead to his designs. Good for him, and I don't see anyone else calling out other butterfly makers... YOU Included. But why would you? The butterfly technique is very old, but what did Paul make that was non-traditional? Would you know it if you saw it? Because I have seen cues listed that mimic Pauls end results, but alas... no one knows what made Paul's designs special, so no one says anything.
JV
I have made two "tribute" cues. Call them copies, fakes, whatever. I'm not apologizing for it. They have my signature and I feel good having made them. They were made in a general style specific to builders I have a lot of respect for. Aside from a couple design elements, the cues are very much my own. IMO, the difference between copies & tributes is intention & perception. If I build a cue as tribute but somebody sees it as a copy, then it's both. It's whatever you want it to be, and hardly worth the effort to argue about.
Gus tribute. The only thing I used was his boxes in the sleeve. Otherwise just a typical 4-point cue.
Martin tribute. I used his ivory joint with phenolic shaft collars, cork wrap, and fiber rings above cap. I gave this cue to TAR.
Gus tribute. The only thing I used was his boxes in the sleeve. Otherwise just a typical 4-point cue.
Martin tribute. I used his ivory joint with phenolic shaft collars, cork wrap, and fiber rings above cap. I gave this cue to TAR.
Devil's Advocate
Ken,
Just for the sake of argument, since you started this thread, shouldn't you be calling your Palmer Model 16 a Paradise Model D Black Zephyr copy?
Jay
Ken,
Just for the sake of argument, since you started this thread, shouldn't you be calling your Palmer Model 16 a Paradise Model D Black Zephyr copy?
Jay
Jay -
Maybe, but I didn't go to Palmer and commission it, with the instructions of copying it. I have never heard of Paradise Model D Black Zephyr. But it sounds like I should do a little more research on it. Thanks for the heads up!
My point is folks are going to various cue builders and commissioning, with the specific instructions of building an exact copy of a cue. Once it is built, it is called a tribute, not a copy.
On the exact opposite of this point, is the titlist conversions. On those, IMO, each cuemaker makes it their own take on it. So for me, none of them are copies or tributes. They seem to be more individualized, starting from a common starting point.
Not trying to pi$$ anyone off, but I think we can have a discussion, with different viewpoints and maybe see more than just one side. Jay's excellent example above is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Long time ago, I said that everyone using the "Southwest" pin should give Kersenbrock a percentage or fee, but have had other say that Kersenbrock got it from Martin before him!
Ken
Jay -
After doing a little research, I found this on a thread on AZ. It appears that Balner (Palmer) made the forearm.
So if he made it while in partnership with Paradise, what would be the issue of making one, or commissioning Szamboti to make it for Palmer. IMO, there is no issue here.
Ken
Ok Joe. You win. Even if you do contradict yourself without even realizing it.
B <-------- has called out a number of butterfly cuemakers in the past. On many occasions.
What do you think happens when someone calls SW and asks for a "GUS Tribute" I mean it's the customer asking so they have to do it right??? There are lots of things in this world I would like that I just can't afford, that's life. You can't just get what you want sometimes and I do get that customers are asking for them, but makers can easily say NO.
Amazingly enuff, I have found that many of the Generic No Name brands of food are just as tasty or even better than the brand names.
Same goes with many other items with the exception of tools, and even then, I found a brand that can rival Snap On.
I was at my Buddies place last week for a few games of pool. I walked into his bathroom
and instantly knew that I was going to re paint my bath room in the same color.
I am sure he will be happy to know that I will soon have a Tribute bath room.
How many makers use Bushka rings, Titlist color veneers etc.
Cue makers home made tools, jigs and doo dads have been copied for some time now.
As long as the maker presents his wares properly, in an honest fashion, and not trying to get away with any foolishness, its Much Ado About Nothing in the long run.
Maybe its not as much not having any imagination as a challenge to himself to reproduce one of the Great Cue Makers cues.
Same goes with many other items with the exception of tools, and even then, I found a brand that can rival Snap On.
I was at my Buddies place last week for a few games of pool. I walked into his bathroom
and instantly knew that I was going to re paint my bath room in the same color.
I am sure he will be happy to know that I will soon have a Tribute bath room.
How many makers use Bushka rings, Titlist color veneers etc.
Cue makers home made tools, jigs and doo dads have been copied for some time now.
As long as the maker presents his wares properly, in an honest fashion, and not trying to get away with any foolishness, its Much Ado About Nothing in the long run.
Maybe its not as much not having any imagination as a challenge to himself to reproduce one of the Great Cue Makers cues.
I can't contradict myself because it doesn't matter to me. I just point out the hypocrisy shown when people point out what is and what isn't a copy. Do I care that all box cues are copies of Enries design, no, do I care if someone uses a Bushka pattern in a cue, no. My point is you can find something copied in almost anything if you want to.
Plus in for a penny, in for a pound if you're going to take up the cause. My beef is that people who have issues with it, have owned, or do owned, or flipped, cues that have clear stolen elements in them. Kind of like a member if PETA going to a fur rally in a raccoon hat, and deerskin gloves....
JV
Plus in for a penny, in for a pound if you're going to take up the cause. My beef is that people who have issues with it, have owned, or do owned, or flipped, cues that have clear stolen elements in them. Kind of like a member if PETA going to a fur rally in a raccoon hat, and deerskin gloves....
JV
Still, what is the point? Ok, so Tascarella made a copy of Mosconi's cue. Jerry made a copy of Mosconi's cue. Copy or Tribute, what does it matter? George is not making a living on his cues anymore, or said makers were not passing them off as one of George's cues.
Most simply see it as a customer really liking George's design in Mosconi's cue, and asked to have one made. Only one real cue and 200 people wanting one. Willie's cue would certainly be impracticable to go to a pool room comfortably with to play pool. Since George is unavailable to do this, you have to ask someone.
This also does not show a lack of imagination in a cue maker. It just shows a customer wanted a certain cue.
Now if you wanted a cue styled after Ernie, Thomas, etc... then you certainly should go to them, as they still make a living making those style cues.
Art by its very nature builds on the foundation of the past.
However there is a fine line between using principles established previously and flat out copying what went before. I get that some guys are great machinists and don't have the eye for design and other guys have great imagination and maybe lack the making capabilities, and some guys have both.
Interesting thing about Ernie Gutierrez, who has pioneered many design components, is that he really doesn't want to look at other people's cues much, because he doesn't want the subconscious influence on his craft. Which is a far cry from setting out to copy someone.
Like any discussion here at AZ, we often forget that there are degrees to everything and every situation is unique. Lets say you build a cue for the Smithsonian Exhibition, come up with a completely unique design, and then like it so much you begin to offer that design as part of your catalog. Later you decide (rightly) that the Smithsonian thing is not going to happen and sell the cue to a collector. There are 3 cues of your unique design out there which you are selling for 12-18K. Here's the Smithsonian:
Nice cue, unique design. Lets say that a year after your Smithsonian cues are out there, these cues show up, being marketed without a mention of your name and, of course, with no royalties offered or permission asked?
This to me is a far cry different than TAD making cues that look much like the cues he made while apprenticing with Martin, or a guy looking at Ernie's first box cue and thinking, "great idea, I'm going to make my own unique variation"
I'll leave out the value judgements regarding the second cue, but it did come after the first cue. If you can look at the second cue in comparison to the first, and use any word other than "copy" to describe the relationship of the two cues, you are either being dishonest or spinning like a MFer. Again, all value judgements aside, if you can look at the two cues here and not see the relationship as "original" and "copy" then you are not seeing correctly or you are choosing your words "carefully" for one reason or another.
Kevin
However there is a fine line between using principles established previously and flat out copying what went before. I get that some guys are great machinists and don't have the eye for design and other guys have great imagination and maybe lack the making capabilities, and some guys have both.
Interesting thing about Ernie Gutierrez, who has pioneered many design components, is that he really doesn't want to look at other people's cues much, because he doesn't want the subconscious influence on his craft. Which is a far cry from setting out to copy someone.
Like any discussion here at AZ, we often forget that there are degrees to everything and every situation is unique. Lets say you build a cue for the Smithsonian Exhibition, come up with a completely unique design, and then like it so much you begin to offer that design as part of your catalog. Later you decide (rightly) that the Smithsonian thing is not going to happen and sell the cue to a collector. There are 3 cues of your unique design out there which you are selling for 12-18K. Here's the Smithsonian:
Nice cue, unique design. Lets say that a year after your Smithsonian cues are out there, these cues show up, being marketed without a mention of your name and, of course, with no royalties offered or permission asked?
This to me is a far cry different than TAD making cues that look much like the cues he made while apprenticing with Martin, or a guy looking at Ernie's first box cue and thinking, "great idea, I'm going to make my own unique variation"
I'll leave out the value judgements regarding the second cue, but it did come after the first cue. If you can look at the second cue in comparison to the first, and use any word other than "copy" to describe the relationship of the two cues, you are either being dishonest or spinning like a MFer. Again, all value judgements aside, if you can look at the two cues here and not see the relationship as "original" and "copy" then you are not seeing correctly or you are choosing your words "carefully" for one reason or another.
Kevin
Last edited:
In the clothing industry, as well as others, when another manufacturer tries to capitalize on a better known designer's/manufacturer's designs/styles by copying them, it's called a "knock off", sometimes exact, sometimes not, sometimes made better, sometimes not, almost always cheaper, but never original, always a "knock off", and they always sell.
J
J
Art by its very nature builds on the foundation of the past.
However there is a fine line between using principles established previously and flat out copying what went before. I get that some guys are great machinists and don't have the eye for design and other guys have great imagination and maybe lack the making capabilities, and some guys have both.
Interesting thing about Ernie Gutierrez, who has pioneered many design components, is that he really doesn't want to look at other people's cues much, because he doesn't want the subconscious influence on his craft. Which is a far cry from setting out to copy someone.
Like any discussion here at AZ, we often forget that there are degrees to everything and every situation is unique. Lets say you build a cue for the Smithsonian Exhibition, come up with a completely unique design, and then like it so much you begin to offer that design as part of your catalog. Later you decide (rightly) that the Smithsonian thing is not going to happen and sell the cue to a collector. There are 3 cues of your unique design out there which you are selling for 12-18K. Here's the Smithsonian:
Nice cue, unique design. Lets say that a year after your Smithsonian cues are out there, these cues show up, being marketed without a mention of your name and, of course, with no royalties offered or permission asked?
This to me is a far cry different than TAD making cues that look much like the cues he made while apprenticing with Martin, or a guy looking at Ernie's first box cue and thinking, "great idea, I'm going to make my own unique variation"
I'll leave out the value judgements regarding the second cue, but it did come after the first cue. If you can look at the second cue in comparison to the first, and use any word other than "copy" to describe the relationship of the two cues, you are either being dishonest or spinning like a MFer. Again, all value judgements aside, if you can look at the two cues here and not see the relationship as "original" and "copy" then you are not seeing correctly or you are choosing your words "carefully" for one reason or another.
Kevin
Kevin -
Ernies, Silver cue, should never be copied or "tribute" EVER.
I don't like the Smithonian cues as well as some of Ernies other cues.
But I do remember his cues being copied.
THATS the point for me.
Ken