Large favor I owe cuemaker Chuck Starkey

[Dhakala]

He gave you all of your money back despite the fact that you were unreasonable - so I think you might be doing the opposite.

I would be profoundly amused to hear from anyone who buys a cue from an incompetent, fraudulent cuemaker just to spite me. If it was Zen to dwell upon the past or the future, I would wager that I can guess the names of three AZBers who would do so.

If anyone chooses to buy a Chuck Starkey cue, I recommend one that is nothing more than unembellished wooden dowels stuck together end to end. I've played with such a Starkey since last Thanksgiving. It's very Zen in its simplicity and the richness of its cocobolo and curly/birdseye maple. I get a lot of compliments on it. Since I had a Sniper tip installed, the cue's chi and mine flow strongly together.

But avoid anything Starkey with splices or inlays, no matter how simple. He can't do them right (else he would, instead of just refunding money and shopping for a more gullible customer), doesn't care to, and will castigate you when it's unsatisfactory.

It sounds like he was more than cooperative with you and in return you attempt to damage his livelihood. I think doing this makes you look bad, not the cuemaker (unless I'm missing something)

I'm beginning to see why message lengths here are limited to 1,500 characters, including white spaces.

The two "favors" I'm repaying to Chuck are:

1. Concealing the hideously flawed maple in his first eBay sale of this cue - that side of the cue was conveniently face-down in the photos and unnoted in the description. No competent cuemaker would let such a POS out of his shop; and

2. Lying to me about the Predator 314 shaft in the second sale, not once but three times. He didn't have to check any "book" to know that the shaft was not a Predator before he listed it or sent me his confirmation letter. He didn't claim to have checked his "book" until I nailed him red-handed with Predator's and Clay Etheridge's testimony.

He's also peddling degraded Predator and Tiger shafts to an unknown number of others "all the time", without telling them that he has replaced the vendor's low-mass ferrules with his own. I'm sure Predator and Tiger won't appreciate the harm to their reputations done by this fraud. It also shows that he is abysmally ignorant of low-squirt shafts.

As for Chuck's claim to have invested "more than $500" in the cue's materials ($620+ in the first go-around), my cuemaker says,

Amazing... that cue with an ivory butt and joint would still be only $200 worth of materials. As it was, to have paid $500 he would have had to screw up about 4 whole cues to get the one (semi) good one.

Chuck now claims to be scheming to gouge a "local player", presumably someone who knows and trusts him, a thousand dollars for a cue that is "an absolute P O S. (of) Very shoddy workmanship," as another of his eBay customers recently put it in feedback. My cuemaker's appraisal is,

I think he's probably full of shit, (again) and will be lucky to get $400 for that pile of crap. If his buddy really wants to throw $1000 bucks away, and is ignorant as to what constitutes a quality cue, (and actually exists) maybe old Chuck will get to unload it after all.

BTW, the similiar cue being built by a master cuemaker will cost me $825, and I have not the slightest doubt that it will be flawless. We're on our third piece of snakewood now, the first two having turned down to the maker's dissatisfaction.

 

[Dhakala]

You clearly state that this cuemaker bent over backward and not only tried to fix the problem but he refunded your money and offered to rebuy the cue !!!!

No. I clearly stated that Chuck does not attempt to fix any problems, but only accepts returns and seeks a more gullible buyer. Where is the nobility in "granting" refunds that one is compelled by law and credit card chargebacks to cough up anyhow?

 

[Dhakala]

That might be the Q in question.Looks good....based on pics.

Can't speak for (or as well) as DHAKALA but I speculate he took exception to being called a NUT or something to that effect by the builder. Although he is an enigma the builder's opinion about his mental health should have remained invisible.

Yes, I suppose I should have omitted that comment of Chuck's. It causes the easily-distracted to miss the valuable lessons of this thread.

 

[JCIN]

I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes.

Just so I get this straight, you buy a cue not once but TWICE, the SAME cue. You are unhappy for whatever reason TWICE. The cuemaker refunds your money TWICE, and you are still pissed off enough to write all this.

I sure hope your super secret squirel cumaker doesn't piss you off.

Seems to me you are ahead of the game Sir. Use that Zen outlook and just let it go.

Really.

 

[Pinocchio]

Wrong

Chuck sounds like a good guy to me. You complain an get instant refund. If you've got a cuemaker that can make you happy thats great. Give Chuck a break an pay him the large by not knocking.I'm sure that would make Chuck happy.


Have nice day
Pinocchio

 

[Dhakala]

You ordered a cued and returned it because you didn't like the wood marks in the handle...

Yep. Do you find these marks acceptable? If so, perhaps we can make a deal on a 1994 Subaru Impreza with a bashed-in trunk lid, missing side trim, and a breathtaking view of bare metal through the interior carpeting. My son doesn't seem to be making any progress on its restoration. I guess he doesn't want a car badly enough yet.

The cuemaker seems to have pissed you off by commenting that he was "doing you a favor" when he built the custom cue for you. WHILE refunding your money.

1) I still haven't gotten angry. 2.) Chuck Starkey did not build me a custom cue while refunding my money. He built a custom cue to my private order, then listed it on eBay so I could compete for it. He concealed the hideously flawed side of the handle in the photos. Then he took my money. Then he refunded it. Refunding a customer's money after significantly misrepresenting the item sold is obligatory, not a "favor".

THEN, he decides to cut his loss and sell the cue he made for you on ebay...without changing the handle. Where you, already angry at him and finding the handle to be unsatisfactory...BUY THE SAME CUE FROM THE SAME GUY AGAIN?!?!

Nope, still not angry. Back in April, I simply returned the cue, took my refund, and ordered a similar cue from a master cuemaker. I've long planned to buy a cue from him, and this incident provided the ideal occasion. I was happy to have a reason to order a cue from this master. I turned bad karma - Starkey's cue - into excellent karma.

So why did I buy the original cue when it appeared again?

I bought Starkey's crime a second time for the same reason that many people buy acid-scarred puppies from shelters. I just couldn't let the poor thing live out its life that way. Realizing that Starkey wasn't going to fix it, I acted because it is the nature of Zen Cueism to correct flaws when they are encountered.

Kyudo master Suhara Osho says, "When you see a weed, pick it." Zen promotes order in one's environment as well as one's mind. It is Correct Thinking to pick a weed, make one's bed, do the dishes, mow the lawn, etc. Zen advises one not to weigh the costs and benefits of doing the right thing; the interval between noting disorder and doing something about it is zero when one achieves Satori.

Chuck did not choose not to replace the handle; he doesn't know how to replace a handle, as evidenced by a) his preposterous claim that it takes his "special equipment" to replace the handle of a cue with his "special" wood pin, and b) his estimation that the cue's value increased to "a grand" once another cuemaker did what he can't do. If he knew how to make a $1000 cue, he would have done so instead of listing "an excess of" $500 (or $620) worth of materials for $1.00.

Then you have the cue worked on by another cue maker, ONLY THEN you find out that the shaft is not a predator so you notify him.

Yep. I didn't inspect the alleged "Predator 314" shaft in person until the cue was rehabilitated. The first sale did not claim that the shaft was a Predator. I re-boxed it immediately upon seeing the flawed maple.

He offers to replace it AFTER SOMEONE ELSE HAS WORKED ON IT and PAY FOR THE WORK YOU HAD DONE BY THAT PERSON.

Yep, as any judge in any court would have ordered him to do under these circumstances - in addition to paying my legal fees and court costs, my costs to travel to Missouri to testify, collection costs, interest, and any civil penalties applicable to fraudulent mail-order transactions. I decided to spend $270 on the cue, plus $150 for its rehabilitation, in reliance upon Chuck Starkey's deliberate misrepresentations of it. The legal remedy is to make the buyer whole, including money paid to others before the fraud is discovered. Chuck just took the expedient and least expensive way out when I caught him.

He is as good as his word and refunds your money and you proceed to badmouth him here.

Starkey was indeed as good as his word, which is worthless.

His word was that the cue was made of materials of quality commonly accepted in the cue industry, or he would have revealed the hideously flawed maple in the first sales' pictures and description.

His word was that the shaft was a Predator 314, not only in the second sale's description but in his letter of authenticity.

His word that he would refund my money upon return of the cue was conditional upon his demonstrably unqualified judgment that the cue had "not been screwed up" by a master cuemaker's efforts to correct his shortcomings.

Starkey did not keep his word to refund my money in order to uphold his honor, of which he has none. He refunded my money only because the alternative was much more expensive.

Is that about right?

It is now!

 

[Dhakala]

NAME the well-known cuemaker that wants to remain unnamed. If he criticizes another ones work, he should have his name on that criticism. Let us decide if he is creditable.

BTW, it is considered bad form to post negative remarks from "unnamed sources". And it's downright unfair of you to do it!

Actually, Chuck, anonymous sources of otherwise unavailable information are considered standard journalistic practice, taught in all j-schools. It's more than fair for the source to decide with whom he wishes to correspond about this matter. If you want his name, PM me with your true identity, contact info, and any question you may have for him. He will decide whether you deserve a response, not me.

 

[Dhakala]

I did not realize this is the same guy that bragged about ripping off his friends with fake weed!

I did not realize your memory was so faulty.

I didn't brag about ripping off friends with fake weed. I bragged about turning an annoying pack of yapping yuppies into profitable customers for something that provided exactly what they demanded of me... a good high.

 

[cuetechasaurus]

the cue's chi and mine flow strongly together.

Will you just shut up and start taking your anti-psychotic meds again

 

[Dhakala]

That might be the Q in question.Looks good....based on pics.

Even that second set of pics, which shows the flaws only fuzzily, cannot be deemed "good". The bad side of the handle was deliberately placed face-down in the original listing's pics.

 

[Dhakala]

Will you just shut up and start taking your anti-psychotic meds again

No.

Since this benighted software requires a response of at least 10 characters, perhaps you can tell me if these have any meaning to you:

F. O.

 

[!Smorgass Bored]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Dhakala counts to ten with:
Since this benighted software requires a response of at least 10 characters, perhaps you can tell me if these have any meaning to you:

F. O.



F A O Schwarz

Doug
(know 10 letters when he sees them)

 

[Dhakala]

F A O Schwarz

Doug
(know 10 letters when he sees them)

Smorg, I am grateful that you're here, along with others of RSB's finest! This place needs more like you.

How are they falling for you these days?

 

[!Smorgass Bored]

Smorg, I am grateful that you're here, along with others of RSB's finest! This place needs more like you.

How are they falling for you these days?

Read Seacaucus Fats thread on weed for my current state....
Doug
(I had cereal with chocolate sauce for breakfast)

 

[Dhakala]

Read Seacaucus Fats thread on weed for my current state....

Been there, done that. Want some mashed, mustard-infused nightcrawlers now that you're out of your coma?

(I had cereal with chocolate sauce for breakfast)

Good thing you were still zonked out!

Back in high school, a friend woke up after a parents-out-town debauch and had coconut cake and beer for breakfast. He even offered me some. I never turned my back on him again.

 

[!Smorgass Bored]

Want some mashed, mustard-infused nightcrawlers now that you're out of your coma ?



No thanks, I'm using pinfish, pilchards, menhaden and greenbacks for bait now.....

Doug
(if you'd add some butter, salt & pepper, I might eat a bowl.... not yellow mustard I hope)

 

[Charlie Edwards]

Actually, Chuck, anonymous sources of otherwise unavailable information are considered standard journalistic practice, taught in all j-schools. It's more than fair for the source to decide with whom he wishes to correspond about this matter. If you want his name, PM me with your true identity, contact info, and any question you may have for him. He will decide whether you deserve a response, not me.

LOL...that's some really funny stuff. It looks like you are using a little side-step instead of your Zen. LMAO........

 

[Jeff]

Actually, Chuck, anonymous sources of otherwise unavailable information are considered standard journalistic practice,

So let me get this straight,

You quoted a source who had nasty things to say about Chuck Starkey to somehow make your accusations more believable.

And you say you are protecting the identity of this source I assume because it may damage or jeopardize his career and livelihood.

So you are protecting the identity of one cue maker to purposely damage the career and livelihood of another cue maker who you feel wronged you in some way.

Well I was contacted by someone who knows you and he said you were a "lowlife scumbag who does this kind of crap over multiple forums just to get attention". Of course I can not reveal the identity of the source.

 

[ScottR]

"zen", "karma", "insert-your-own-eastern-religion-jargon" ==>> BS frosting on top of troll cake.

 

[BrooklynJay]

I bought Starkey's crime a second time for the same reason that many people buy acid-scarred puppies from shelters. I just couldn't let the poor thing live out its life that way. Realizing that Starkey wasn't going to fix it, I acted because it is the nature of Zen Cueism to correct flaws when they are encountered.

And where's the cue today? In your posession? Nope. Returned to Starkey 'cause it's not a Predator shaft.

Where's the "I just couldn't let the poor thing live out it's life that way" in that?

And where's "good karma" in returning it to him so that he can sell it to "another more gullable customer" - shouldn't you keep it so he can't dupe people again? Shouldn't you take clear photos of the bad workmanship done by Starkey and post those photos rather than hearsay and testimony from an unnamed expert cuemaker?

All you've posted in terms of pics is a handle that has some markings on it. Where's the pics of all these other flaws you've mentioned?

And when in court - when you call an expert in as a witness they have to list thier credentials to show that thing called, you know, credibility. You can't hide the cuemakers identity and expect people to just take your word for it if he's your expert witness.