Shafts should be signed as well,,,,,,,!!

P

putt-putt44

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Any reason why cuemakers don't sign their shafts ??

This often comes up with trying to identify original shafts,,

Reasons,,Comments ??

Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,

Alan ,,,,,,,
 
I am very surprised how often shafts come up from some pretty hefty names. People will say things like they had it left over after selling a cue or just forgot they had an extra shaft when they sold the cue.

How do these shafts so easily and commonly get separated from big name cues? I am always astounded by that.

Then sometimes the origins of the shaft get questioned and people need to see close-ups of the pilot or something....which can be a shaky way to ID a shaft IMHO. Yes, experts can sometimes nail it based on that...and I think sometimes it is too easy to get it wrong actually. And it can make a huge difference in the value of the shaft.



.
 
When I make a shaft for a customer supplied cue I logo it
I was thinking about initializing the shafts I make for my cues
 
Shafts,,,,,,,,,,

Yup,,,,at the 2010 SBE, Tony from ''Black Boar'' mentioned to me that owners will often replace his shafts with production shafts and then sell the shafts on the ''QT''....

I asked some of the ''big name'' cuemakers if they could identify their shafts in a line up and most said they could not,,,,,

For that reason, I tend to stay away from purchasing shafts ,,,,I don't think it would be too difficult for a cuemaker to sign a shaft in some way,,,,,

Perhaps we could get futher input from cuemakers,,,,,,,,

Thanks in advance,,,,,,,,,,,Alan Ende,,,,,,,
 
Chopdoc said:
Then sometimes the origins of the shaft get questioned and people need to see close-ups of the pilot or something....which can be a shaky way to ID a shaft IMHO. Yes, experts can sometimes nail it based on that...and I think sometimes it is too easy to get it wrong actually. And it can make a huge difference in the value of the shaft. .
Click to expand...

When dealing with say a very high end cue, shaft inserts are a machinable part and any good machinist could duplicate any shaft insert with ease, so it is truly not a viable way to identify a shaft. Even though there are some who might like to think so.
 
Personally, I find shafts with visible logos/engraving/signatures to be unattractive and can even become very annoying (ala Schon). Not to mention sometimes can provide a surface area where the finish can start to peel off.

It's interesting to me that some of the bigger name CMs can't tell their own shaft from others. Obviously, this can become more confusing when people have their brass insert areas machined down in order to fit other cues.

I agree it would be a good idea for CMs to begin to do this, however I would like to see it done in a way that's aesthetically pleasing....perhaps micro-engraving. Surely there's some new technology that might also be incorporated for ID purposes.

Also, a lot of CMs nowadays seem to be developing their 'signature' ring work. Not to say that can't be copied.
 
I don't mind this
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1368106191.385446.jpg
 
This is exactly the reason for 'signature' ring-work.
Why does a signature have to be in written form?
If the CM is clever, he can design his ring-work where it's next to impossible to copy.
You'll spend years trying to copy David Barenbrugge's ring-work and for what?
One of my specialties is duplicating ring-work and I'm damn good at it.
I won't even attempt David's. Not just for the degree of difficulty but out of respect.
A signature is much easier to copy than a well conceived design.
A logo? Surely you jest.

KJ
 
And another thing....

As frequently as cues get refinished, wouldn't a lot of these signatures or transfers easily be lost.

Then you're back to square one.
 
Another good way (better than anything put on the wood) would be to engrave/stamp very small initials on the shaft inserts themselves. Kinda like what SW does with pins, but on the inserts. If it is that important.

This might already be done by some cue maker, dunno.
 
KJ Cues said:
This is exactly the reason for 'signature' ring-work.
Why does a signature have to be in written form?
If the CM is clever, he can design his ring-work where it's next to impossible to copy.
You'll spend years trying to copy David Barenbrugge's ring-work and for what?
One of my specialties is duplicating ring-work and I'm damn good at it.
I won't even attempt David's. Not just for the degree of difficulty but out of respect.
A signature is much easier to copy than a well conceived design.
A logo? Surely you jest.

KJ
Click to expand...

How many cuemakers are there? David seems to have at least 4 different styles of rings. Samara? And a couple hundred other guys are supposed to have individualized trim rings? At what cost to the consumer compared to a little ink? And how difficult before you decide to use your talents, or any one else decides, to copy the ring work when making a replacement shaft? SW seems to have distinctive ringwork, enough so that cues can be recognized by them... and most have logo or signature.
 
Certainly food for thought on several levels.
At last count, to my recollection, there were over two thousand in this country that call themselves cue-makers.
Very few of those will go on to design and develop a ring-stack that will be known as belonging to that builder.
It takes vision, innovation and the ability to see what hasn't yet been seen.
This is a trademark or 'signature' if you will, of the masters.
It's an element that has given them rise and distinction.

Builder recognition via design is not exclusive to ring-work. Most times it's the whole package.
You mentioned SouthWest. No one at SW signs the cue; they don't have to.
This is an example of 'the whole package'. Copied ad infinitum but never duplicated.

See, when you mention Dave B. and Samsara, my mental Rolodex immediately brings up visions of their work.
That's builder recognition, to me anyway. Thanx for the memories.

"At what cost to the consumer compared to a little ink?"

I'm not sure of your mindset with this question so I'll reply as I interpret it.
The price of ink is squat compared to the talent embodied in the cue and the buyer understands this.
Let's ponder for a moment on to whom the signature matters most. Is it the buyer or the builder?
Or is it the parties of the secondary market?

Another way that I interpret your question is, why create the additional expense of unique ring-work
when a traditional silver ring and a signature will do just fine? It has and it will.
Particularly if 'off the rack' will suffice. Not everyone buys off the rack.
Is there justification for charging more for the cue because it has signature ring-work?
Absolutely, I bank on it. That one element can set the cue apart from the rest.
Gus knew this. Tad & many others know this. I'm not 'pushing' the practice, I'm acknowledging it.

I'll be honest to tell you, I copy ring-work. It's part of my job and I do it every day.
I won't touch ivory and I don't do CNC.
Other than that, I can copy it, though sourcing certain mtrls. can be difficult at times.
Many years ago I questioned myself as to ethics of the issue. It's a very fine line.
Several times I was told that the builder refuses to adapt an aftermarket shaft to one of their cues.
If the buyer wanted say an L/D shaft, he was free to have it done but the orig. builder wasn't going to do it.
The builder has in a sense given me permission. That's where I avail my services and I've stopped asking.
Like I said, it's part of my job. I pay homage to the builder by doing the absolute best work that I can.
To do anything less would be disrespectful.

Something that disturbs me is to see innovation and talent in design stolen.
I know, we've been up to our knees in this can of worms numerous times.
My rationale and this was the fine-line I was speaking of, is that some will copy, knowing that they're stealing.
They didn't create the design but they will take credit for it as if they did. That sucks and it's wrong.
When I copy, I'm well aware of the difference.

KJ
 
Anything can be copied with enough effort. Anything.

It's nice when a cue maker has a way to mark his shafts. Personally I don't like transfers on shafts though.

When an additional shaft is being made for a cue I see nothing wrong with copying ring work.

The matter of markings is most often a matter of value. If a shaft is well built, suits the player, and plays great for him, it matters not who made it or if it is original to the cue. However, in the secondary market confusions arise, and that has more to do with value I think.

I am still surprised that so many shafts get separated from their butts. What's really amazing is that they so often have very specific ring work and wouldn't match many (any?) other cues.


It's not necessary, but I like the idea of an an inconspicuous marking to ID a shaft's maker. I don't think it's really about protection from copying though.


.
 
KJ Cues said:
Certainly food for thought on several levels.
At last count, to my recollection, there were over two thousand in this country that call themselves cue-makers.
Very few of those will go on to design and develop a ring-stack that will be known as belonging to that builder.
It takes vision, innovation and the ability to see what hasn't yet been seen.
This is a trademark or 'signature' if you will, of the masters.
It's an element that has given them rise and distinction.

Builder recognition via design is not exclusive to ring-work. Most times it's the whole package.
You mentioned SouthWest. No one at SW signs the cue; they don't have to.
This is an example of 'the whole package'. Copied ad infinitum but never duplicated.

See, when you mention Dave B. and Samsara, my mental Rolodex immediately brings up visions of their work.
That's builder recognition, to me anyway. Thanx for the memories.

"At what cost to the consumer compared to a little ink?"

I'm not sure of your mindset with this question so I'll reply as I interpret it.
The price of ink is squat compared to the talent embodied in the cue and the buyer understands this.
Let's ponder for a moment on to whom the signature matters most. Is it the buyer or the builder?
Or is it the parties of the secondary market?

Another way that I interpret your question is, why create the additional expense of unique ring-work
when a traditional silver ring and a signature will do just fine? It has and it will.
Particularly if 'off the rack' will suffice. Not everyone buys off the rack.
Is there justification for charging more for the cue because it has signature ring-work?
Absolutely, I bank on it. That one element can set the cue apart from the rest.
Gus knew this. Tad & many others know this. I'm not 'pushing' the practice, I'm acknowledging it.

I'll be honest to tell you, I copy ring-work. It's part of my job and I do it every day.
I won't touch ivory and I don't do CNC.
Other than that, I can copy it, though sourcing certain mtrls. can be difficult at times.
Many years ago I questioned myself as to ethics of the issue. It's a very fine line.
Several times I was told that the builder refuses to adapt an aftermarket shaft to one of their cues.
If the buyer wanted say an L/D shaft, he was free to have it done but the orig. builder wasn't going to do it.
The builder has in a sense given me permission. That's where I avail my services and I've stopped asking.
Like I said, it's part of my job. I pay homage to the builder by doing the absolute best work that I can.
To do anything less would be disrespectful.

Something that disturbs me is to see innovation and talent in design stolen.
I know, we've been up to our knees in this can of worms numerous times.
My rationale and this was the fine-line I was speaking of, is that some will copy, knowing that they're stealing.
They didn't create the design but they will take credit for it as if they did. That sucks and it's wrong.
When I copy, I'm well aware of the difference.

KJ
Click to expand...

FANTASTICALLY well said KJ.

Jim Notestine
 
KJ Cues said:
Thanx much, but really, I just get lucky sometimes. Lol

KJ
Click to expand...

Thanks KJ. My point was that not everyone can/does get paid the big bucks so spending a lot of time coming up with and producing ring work unlike any one elses is not always cost effective. Would it be nice to be able to put a great ring set on every cue... of course. Could we find/develope 2000 different rings identifiable to different cue makers? Kind of tough probably. When there were only an handful of cue makers even a simple design was identifiable, times have changed.

And no, I don't have a problem with you matching ring sets. I would be a hypocrite if I did as it is a service I offer being an aftermarket shaft maker. Do I take credit for the design... no, I am just trying to match the original to the best of my ability.

Personally I don't like signing my cues although I do. I understand the reason for it but still it seems somewhat like having a logo on a dress shirt at times.

Hope all is well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top