Paul Rubino Cues

[JimBo]

Jim have you never heard of Troubetzkoy Ltd? They specialize in providing excellent copies of famous works of art to movies or private patrons. There are people out there who want 'real paintings' vs reproductions on their walls and are prepared to pay for a decent facsimile...

Yes Dave there are places that do that, But they are doing it legit and they pay for the rights to do it. They don't just steal them. Of course I could be wrong and I am sure you'll tell me if I am. :-D

Jim

 

[JimBo]

Jimbo: We all know where you stand the "copycat" issues. No point in me commenting there. Whatcha think of the nice purpleheart blank? The wood is really pretty, especially since it's gotta be 60 yrs. old. And I've always found that purpleheart makes for a SOLID hitting cue.

I'm a PH guy IMO there is no better wood for a cue.

Jim

 

[The Hamster]

Yes Dave there are places that do that, But they are doing it legit and they pay for the rights to do it. They don't just steal them.

True dat... not that it's unknown for artists to copy old masters to learn the techniques they used. I know when I was in art school we used to go to the Tate gallery in London and make copies of paintings. Nobody tried to throw us out and it was an accepted study methodology. I sold the completed paintings to people I knew and, so far, the bobbies haven't come after me.

Maybe emigrating to Canada threw them off the scent?

 

[skchengdds]

Purpleheart Shafts

Howz it worked out for you with purpleheart shafts?? Can they keep them under say 4.2oz?? I gotta think a PH shaft would hit really stiff......maybe lend itself to a more forward weighted cue??

sherwin

 

[JimBo]

Howz it worked out for you with purpleheart shafts?? Can they keep them under say 4.2oz?? I gotta think a PH shaft would hit really stiff......maybe lend itself to a more forward weighted cue??

sherwin

I own 2 PH shafts and 1 ebony shaft, they are tough to play with, the hit is very stiff and more suited for jumping and breaking. They also kinda look cheap like cuetechish if you know what I mean. I think they are cool in a novelty type of way, not so much for playing. When I said PH is my favorite wood I meant more along the lines of a front (forearm) then a shaft. Also I don't like it to be cored, even though many makers like the consistency they get from coring. I also like the color as well as the straight dense grain and solid hit it brings. Other woods look great like burls and stuff, but they just aren't consistent and without coring they can't be depended on.

Jim

 

[bruin70]

As a painter will you copy other artists paintings just because the buyer can afford you?? I'm very curious.

Jim

of course not. that is the integrity i have for my work. and i assume by copy,,,you mean COPY. i have not gone to the links others have posted about art copies,,,but i don't have to. those are hack factories, and beneath the radar in the art world. they probably have illegal aliens crammed in a garage, projecting artpieces on a canvas and copying them.

i think though, there's a difference. in art, that just isn't done unless one is a real hack. in cuemaking, i've seen a few successful cuemakers copy others for the very reason stated. for lack of a better explanation,,,it's accepted. maybe since cues are essentially precision instruments, they CAN be copied so easily.

cuemaking is really a very small world, growing in numbers but there aren't THAT many cuemakers. and with a limited format to work with, and everyone having the tools to duplicate everyone else, the whole copying issue becomes blurred. remember one thing jimbo,,,,,CUEMAKERS ARE NOT CREATIVE ARTISTS. (i'm speaking broadly now, so don't everyone start jumping on me for saying it) they are machinists. i will grant them that they can measure and cut.

peterson started out by copying rambow,,,to the point where craig said he was making better rambows than rambow,,,and he was sure there were rambows out there that were actually his.

 

[JimBo]

i think though, there's a difference. in art, that just isn't done unless one is a real hack. in cuemaking, i've seen a few successful cuemakers copy others for the very reason stated. for lack of a better explanation,,,it's accepted.

I agree but I think this needs to change with the new technology and the growing number of overnight cuemakers, the skill is no longer learned it's bought.

maybe since cues are essentially precision instruments, they CAN be copied so easily.

cuemaking is really a very small world, growing in numbers but there aren't THAT many cuemakers. and with a limited format to work with, and everyone having the tools to duplicate everyone else, the whole copying issue becomes blurred.

Agreed. See above.

remember one thing jimbo,,,,,CUEMAKERS ARE NOT CREATIVE ARTISTS. (i'm speaking broadly now, so don't everyone start jumping on me for saying it) they are machinists. i will grant them that they can measure and cut.

I won't jump on you but I couldn't disagree more. Sure anyone can put a cue together but the true artist, the guys who haved earned a right to charge lots of money have done so by design work and consistant work. If this were not the case they would all be making plane janes. Being good at your craft should be rewarded not punished. Talk to Stroud, McWorter or Ernie and ask these guys how hard it is to come up with designs, they will tell you it's about 100X harder then building the cue and they should be protected and compensated for this hard work, not stolen from, just because the new technology makes it so easy. I also think many others would be insulted to hear someone say they aren't artists.

peterson started out by copying rambow,,,to the point where craig said he was making better rambows than rambow,,,and he was sure there were rambows out there that were actually his.

]

Different times (IMO) back then there required some skill and know how to copy and the tools were such that it was hard to do the things that can be done today. Also 20-25 years ago nobody ever thought of cues as art, back then you bought the cue to play with it, now more then ever people are buying cues and never hitting a ball with them. Different times.

Jim

 

[bruin70]

]

Different times (IMO) back then there required some skill and know how to copy and the tools were such that it was hard to do the things that can be done today. Also 20-25 years ago nobody ever thought of cues as art, back then you bought the cue to play with it, now more then ever people are buying cues and never hitting a ball with them. Different times.

Jim

my point about this "remember one thing jimbo,,,,,CUEMAKERS ARE NOT CREATIVE ARTISTS. (i'm speaking broadly now, so don't everyone start jumping on me for saying it) they are machinists. i will grant them that they can measure and cut.",,,,,,is largely directed towards those lesser cuemakers who are turning out cues to make a buck. THEY don't have any artistic merit, and so are left with what they can copy.

in art, there are those who have the vision, and those who follow. the originals have their collectors, are known, and have built a reputation beyond reproach,,,,and beyond APproach too, i might add. they earned it, they charge a lot, and they get paid a lot. they have a discerning clientelle with the cash to afford them.

the followers, the copiers,,,don't have and won't have that reputation. their clientelle can't afford what the big boys create. and so they look to these lesser artists or cuemakers. the line is drawn between the two. so, you see, you have different levels of artists/cuemakers and the levels of client they serve.

if it's anything like the art world, i don't think the bigger cuemakers suffer from others copying what they do. in fact, their reputation is enhanced. they speak to a different income level. no one who appreciates AND CAN AFFORD stroud will settle for joe shmoe.

it is the way the art world is.

ernie has not suffered from EVERYONE copying him. he still drives his bmw. it does bother me on those rare occasions(like the mottey thing) because in my eyes, mottey was essentially passing off ernie's cue as his. but that's an moral dilema he must face on his own terms. enough people bring it up and he'll pull the image off his site. in fact, i just now visited his site, and the ripoff is not there. clearly the issue had been brought up. i actually remarked about this over at r.s.b. a year or three ago.

 

[JimBo]

my point about this "remember one thing jimbo,,,,,CUEMAKERS ARE NOT CREATIVE ARTISTS. (i'm speaking broadly now, so don't everyone start jumping on me for saying it) they are machinists. i will grant them that they can measure and cut.",,,,,,is largely directed towards those lesser cuemakers who are turning out cues to make a buck. THEY don't have any artistic merit, and so are left with what they can copy.

What gives them the right? I mean explaining it as you just did is sad and IMO still doesn't excuse them. It goes back to the "it's accepted, so it's ok" argument. let us not forget the main reason it hasn't been fought in court has more to do with the co$t to profit ratio and the fact that many of the ones being stolen from are dead. There is either nobody left to sue and there is no money if you did.

in art, there are those who have the vision, and those who follow. the originals have their collectors, are known, and have built a reputation beyond reproach,,,,and beyond APproach too, i might add. they earned it, they charge a lot, and they get paid a lot. they have a discerning clientelle with the cash to afford them.

Here i think is where people don't have all the facts. The cue business isn't what you are making it out to be. Many top cuemakers today aren't rich and most from the past died poor, these high prices come long after the people die and they don't receive any of the benefits. there are very few (I'd say less then 10) custom cuemakers making what would be considered a good living off of the cue market. I am not talking about production shops that pump out over 250 cues a year. Most of these people you speak of have other forms of income, pensions or spouses who work other jobs. I am not saying that more people would buy from these guys if all the knockoffs stopped tomorrow, but it sure couldn't hurt.

the followers, the copiers,,,don't have and won't have that reputation. their clientelle can't afford what the big boys create. and so they look to these lesser artists or cuemakers. the line is drawn between the two. so, you see, you have different levels of artists/cuemakers and the levels of client they serve.

This point works just fine in big business but with a limited market it doesn't fly. Also as long as some buyers aren't educated enough to know the difference between the real deal and the copy it hurts the originals. Sure many here know most of the players, but there is a large group of buyers that really wouldn't know the difference when handed 2 cues with the same design, shit there are some who couldn't tell the difference between inlays and decals.

if it's anything like the art world, i don't think the bigger cuemakers suffer from others copying what they do. in fact, their reputation is enhanced. they speak to a different income level. no one who appreciates AND CAN AFFORD stroud will settle for joe shmoe.

Again I don't believe the market is even close to the art market and I feel due to the lack of buyers this argument doesn't fly.

it is the way the art world is.

Only about 1/10,000 the size. Nobody in the world would flinch to hear someone paid 1 million for a Picaso, but tell someone you spent $5,000 on a cue and you'll need to help them off the floor, ask anyone outside a pool venue who Balabushka or Szamboti is and see the answer you get.

ernie has not suffered from EVERYONE copying him. he still drives his bmw. it does bother me on those rare occasions(like the mottey thing) because in my eyes, mottey was essentially passing off ernie's cue as his. but that's an moral dilema he must face on his own terms.

Call and ask Ernie what he thinks of the Mottey thing, you'll catch an earful, also Ernie drives a BMW because of his many other ventures, things that have made him wealthy, and cuemaking is far down the list. Ernie is a very smart man and has done many things outside of pool. I also believe Karma is not what we should rely on to make the world right.

Jim

 

[bruin70]

Call and ask Ernie what he thinks of the Mottey thing, you'll catch an earful, also Ernie drives a BMW because of his many other ventures, things that have made him wealthy, and cuemaking is far down the list. Ernie is a very smart man and has done many things outside of pool. I also believe Karma is not what we should rely on to make the world right.

Jim

ok...i guess i don't know about the business side of the cuemakers. i am so very glad to read what you just said about ernie's opinion of the mottey thing . i went and did a search on my tirade about it over at rsb. it was all the way back in 2002 that i brought up the issue.

now i'm sure he called mottey and read him the riot act. justice was served,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,boiling.

 

[pbat2751]

Paul I understand it happens, but does that really make it ok?

I never said it was ok. I was just making a point.

It happens more in the cue world and that's part of the reason I post about it so much, believe it or not many people here have told me that they never thought it was wrong till they read me here and many say they have changed their minds on the issue.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your position and I agree with the principles behind it.

Brings to mind the ole saying my Dad used to tell me "2 wrongs don't make a right"

Ah yes that saying..... I too know of these. OK heres one right back at you.
Sometimes, being right is not enough.

But I really do love to hear other's opinions. One thing that really bothers me is people believing that there isn't much new you can do to a cue, with the CNC computer programs out there nowthe designs are limitless. Of course IMO.

Jim

My point was this. A true artist will take an idea and do something different to it and make it their own. I think we can all agree that Da Vinci's Last Supper is what people think of when they look for that piece. Being the master artist that he was many people we're influenced by him, and as we can see many made their own versions of that piece. Now the difference between the hacks and the other artists who paid tribute to the piece are the differences that put their signature (not a literal signature) on it and the ones who basically did color by number. Do these hacks diminish the original, not in the slightest, because everyone knows whom the true master is.