Jensen
I was really hoping to get a chance to buy that cue. But authentification was a big issue. Speculation on a cue that can stir this much dissection and controversy, and an ultimate lack of certainty on a board with this much knowledge, is a big risk.
I would have gladly paid $5,000 for that cue if it WAS indeed a Bushka. Wouldn't any of us? And I was ready to.
But I'm an independent filmmaker, and I truly am the hip hillbilly in the old Hollywood Hills. (Translation: I can't really afford to live here anymore...but I also can't afford to sell!) So, that was too much of a gamble. At least for me.
If the seller was in a place or circumstance that he could have allowed the sale of the cue to be contingent on authentication, I would have sent him that much. So, I can certainly understand someone with more money than I being willing to take that chance. 5,000 dead presidents is not as much to some as it is to me.
So...we can't always get what we want (thank you Rolling Stones), and some people CAN take a chance on not getting what they want, even if they have to pay a great deal for that disappointment.
If the final deal was contingent on autheification...then good for the seller, who I'm sure could use the $, and good for the buyer if it proves to be a Bushka. If it's not...that will mean no hurt no foul.
As I said earlier in this thread, for my own very specific reasons, even if it wasn't a Bushka, I wanted this cue badly. But in the end, there was a limit to how far my uncertainty would take me, or I guess allow myself to go, in pursuit of that desire. I had to remind myself that it is just a pool cue.
I know - that's practically blasphemy on this site.
But the biggest reason why I reduced my offer considerably and apparently lost out to the Big Apple, is because I was called the day that the auction was pulled, and told by someone who is a trusted and very knowledgle ally, that the cue in question was definitively an early Jensen copy of a Balabushka.
And since they would know way better than I would, that was enough to tip my uncertainty meter way over the edge.
By the time I sent this new information I had gleaned to the seller, so that I could retract and adjust my offer, the item had already been pulled from eBay.
The irony is that early on in this thread, someone asked, "early Jensen?"
And whether you agree or not, I trust my source inherently.
I don't know much, but from the very get go, the MOP diamonds bothered me. At least in context to it being a possible Bushka. I told the seller as much, because so many people had told him that they thought it was a Bushka. He said that some SWORE with dead certainly that it was a Bushka. He also said others had great doubts. But the shape and style of the diamonds did not seem consistent with Bushka. And they were not lustrous, like his were. Rather dull. Maybe not MOP at all.
So, I was really intriqued when someone here suggested that all the answers sleep with the fishes...I mean...lie with the diamonds.
I'd love for them to expound on that. It was a delightfully cryptic consideration on a theme.
So, last I will say about the seller is that in all of my correspondences with him, he never said with any confidence that it was ANYTHING BUT an old cue that his dad had gotten as collateral on a debt, which had been sitting in his dad's closet for 30 years.
In fact, he seemed genuinely surprised and kind of amazed by the ruckus his cue had caused. But I'm sure that he was also pleased. Because of some of the offers he was getting, it must have been quite a revelation when he realized that he was sitting on more "old cue" than he knew.
He was nothing less than a gentleman in how he handled the circus his cue brought to town with it, at least with me. And I therefore wish him and the buyer well, whoever that is.
But, man...I really wanted that cue!
Maybe I can get Jensen to make me a copy of it.
Goodnight all.
Cain
I was really hoping to get a chance to buy that cue. But authentification was a big issue. Speculation on a cue that can stir this much dissection and controversy, and an ultimate lack of certainty on a board with this much knowledge, is a big risk.
I would have gladly paid $5,000 for that cue if it WAS indeed a Bushka. Wouldn't any of us? And I was ready to.
But I'm an independent filmmaker, and I truly am the hip hillbilly in the old Hollywood Hills. (Translation: I can't really afford to live here anymore...but I also can't afford to sell!) So, that was too much of a gamble. At least for me.
If the seller was in a place or circumstance that he could have allowed the sale of the cue to be contingent on authentication, I would have sent him that much. So, I can certainly understand someone with more money than I being willing to take that chance. 5,000 dead presidents is not as much to some as it is to me.
So...we can't always get what we want (thank you Rolling Stones), and some people CAN take a chance on not getting what they want, even if they have to pay a great deal for that disappointment.
If the final deal was contingent on autheification...then good for the seller, who I'm sure could use the $, and good for the buyer if it proves to be a Bushka. If it's not...that will mean no hurt no foul.
As I said earlier in this thread, for my own very specific reasons, even if it wasn't a Bushka, I wanted this cue badly. But in the end, there was a limit to how far my uncertainty would take me, or I guess allow myself to go, in pursuit of that desire. I had to remind myself that it is just a pool cue.
I know - that's practically blasphemy on this site.
But the biggest reason why I reduced my offer considerably and apparently lost out to the Big Apple, is because I was called the day that the auction was pulled, and told by someone who is a trusted and very knowledgle ally, that the cue in question was definitively an early Jensen copy of a Balabushka.
And since they would know way better than I would, that was enough to tip my uncertainty meter way over the edge.
By the time I sent this new information I had gleaned to the seller, so that I could retract and adjust my offer, the item had already been pulled from eBay.
The irony is that early on in this thread, someone asked, "early Jensen?"
And whether you agree or not, I trust my source inherently.
I don't know much, but from the very get go, the MOP diamonds bothered me. At least in context to it being a possible Bushka. I told the seller as much, because so many people had told him that they thought it was a Bushka. He said that some SWORE with dead certainly that it was a Bushka. He also said others had great doubts. But the shape and style of the diamonds did not seem consistent with Bushka. And they were not lustrous, like his were. Rather dull. Maybe not MOP at all.
So, I was really intriqued when someone here suggested that all the answers sleep with the fishes...I mean...lie with the diamonds.
I'd love for them to expound on that. It was a delightfully cryptic consideration on a theme.
So, last I will say about the seller is that in all of my correspondences with him, he never said with any confidence that it was ANYTHING BUT an old cue that his dad had gotten as collateral on a debt, which had been sitting in his dad's closet for 30 years.
In fact, he seemed genuinely surprised and kind of amazed by the ruckus his cue had caused. But I'm sure that he was also pleased. Because of some of the offers he was getting, it must have been quite a revelation when he realized that he was sitting on more "old cue" than he knew.
He was nothing less than a gentleman in how he handled the circus his cue brought to town with it, at least with me. And I therefore wish him and the buyer well, whoever that is.
But, man...I really wanted that cue!
Maybe I can get Jensen to make me a copy of it.
Goodnight all.
Cain
Last edited:
