talking code again, steve?
the buyer wanted the original cue . . .
the buyer ordered a similar cue . . .
the maker admits looking at the cue, because the buyer wanted something similar.
yet, you can't see any similarities!?
instead of making goofy insinuations, why don't you just spit it out, steve?
i don't drink alcohol or abuse drugs!?
maybe you need to get a some help with your vision?
course you post that you don't offer any input on your cue orders as far as design . . .
name is jeff, steve.Maybe I do need a little help with my vision.........
but then again maybe you need a little help with your split personality..
Oh well, I guess we all need something.
As per Jamie...the buyer wanted the Kikel?
which was very similar to a number of others, as are lots of cues
using some bits of designs that you have seen before in a cue on a building, in a book whats the difference as long as its not a direct exact copy.
This cue was nothing less than a great example of a beutifully designed cue...
Do us all a favor jeffy sell all your cues and disapear again...LOL
Maybe I do need a little help with my vision.........
but then again maybe you need a little help with your split personality..
Oh well, I guess we all need something.
As per Jamie...the buyer wanted the Kikel?
which was very similar to a number of others, as are lots of cues
using some bits of designs that you have seen before in a cue on a building, in a book whats the difference as long as its not a direct exact copy.
This cue was nothing less than a great example of a beutifully designed cue...
Do us all a favor jeffy sell all your cues and disapear again...LOL
name is jeff, steve.
you mean like you disappeared from the other forum?
that would be more your style.
dean & mr gracio please accept my apology for posting in this thread.
. . . not if you and deanoc keep commissioning knock offs, of other makers work.
there is a terrible lack of originality in cue design!
a lot of it can be traced back to the buyers, but the makers can't plead ignorance.
that is an attractive cue, but i personally wouldn't take much pride in something so similar in design, to another maker/buyers design efforts.
. . . as a maker, or a buyer.
You know what they say Jamie, imitation is the highest form of flattery. I think when a customer designs a cue for a cue builder to make it is not really up to the cue maker to decide if it is too similar to another cue makers design. However if a cue maker was building cues and then trying to sell them to anyone who will buy that are extremely similar to other cue maker designs it borders on design stealing. In Bryan's defense it is kind of hard to build a wrapless merry widow using beautiful woods and it not look similar to a Sugartree cue, aside from the micro ring work, I think most of Eric's cues are not really unique in design just beauitful woods masterfully crafted. A lot of people built wrapless cues very similar to the one's Eric built but he took it to the next level with the woods and playability.
I am currently having Randy Mobley build me a cue that I hope to be an exact copy of the below Joss West but I want the playability of a newer style cue rather than just buying a 30 year old cue, do you think that is out of line? However, I still might buy the cue like this that is currently for sale, just because I love that design and it is looking like a hell of a deal.
View attachment 106695
Just my .02 worth on the subject.
I'm not sure it is being denied. I just think that there are enough differences to set them apart from one another.
Like I said earlier... I happen to like the Gracio a bit better (JMO) as I'm sure Dean does. So what's wrong with the idea of taking someone else's design and improving on it? To me, that's called progress which I always thought was a positive thing.
but I wish he would have used some of that talant and come up with his own unique design as Dave did.