Sly / harris

[ShootingHank]

No.

If he puts his name on a cue, it should be HIS cue, period!

If he wants somebody else to build his cues, he should have a different name for those.
Jason

I get it and our sacred sticks shouldn’t be messed with but it happens a lot. Even in high end goods. Porsche makes engines for Audi. Same company actually. GM was supplying transmissions to many automakers.

Just part of the production process.

While it may be deceiving it’s common practice.

 

[raistlinsdragon]

I get it and our sacred sticks shouldn’t be messed with but it happens a lot. Even in high end goods. Porsche makes engines for Audi. Same company actually. GM was supplying transmissions to many automakers.

Just part of the production process.

While it may be deceiving it’s common practice.

The deception is acting like your a one man shop, and farming out work. Lots of people use John Davie blanks or forearms, but they state that in the build. This is the second time this maker has had problems. So I'm betting people either keep their cues or decide to have a fire sale. But who knows the used market can fool ya.

 

[xianmacx]

The deception is acting like your a one man shop, and farming out work. Lots of people use John Davie blanks or forearms, but they state that in the build. This is the second time this maker has had problems. So I'm betting people either keep their cues or decide to have a fire sale. But who knows the used market can fool ya.

What was the other incident with SLY? The searing logo stuff?

 

[jasonlaus]

I get it and our sacred sticks shouldn’t be messed with but it happens a lot. Even in high end goods. Porsche makes engines for Audi. Same company actually. GM was supplying transmissions to many automakers.

Just part of the production process.

While it may be deceiving it’s common practice.

We're not talking about cars, and everybody knows that's how cars are built.

Cues are like Art, do you want a Picasso that was actually painted by his neighbor? Bet you all you can carry that you don't.
Jason

 

[ShootingHank]

We're not talking about cars, and everybody knows that's how cars are built.

Cues are like Art, do you want a Picasso that was actually painted by his neighbor? Bet you all you can carry that you don't.
Jason

Cues are tools to me. I don’t mind because I’m trying to get a hold of Harris and others to do a private label for me. Put my name on it.

My Facebook and this account is a marketing account. I will post pics of cues in progress while holding a piece of sandpaper.

While it sucks it’s business.

The customer in the OP said he was very happy.

 

[jasonlaus]

Cues are tools to me. I don’t mind because I’m trying to get a hold of Harris and others to do a private label for me. Put my name on it.

My Facebook and this account is a marketing account. I will post pics of cues in progress while holding a piece of sandpaper.

While it sucks it’s business.

The customer in the OP said he was very happy.

I guess you will never understand.
Jason

 

[ShootingHank]

I guess you will never understand.
Jason

You should read the other thread where he has built cues for another well known maker. I was quite surprised.

 

[jimmyg]

I get it and our sacred sticks shouldn’t be messed with but it happens a lot. Even in high end goods. Porsche makes engines for Audi. Same company actually. GM was supplying transmissions to many automakers.

Just part of the production process.

While it may be deceiving it’s common practice.

When one buys an Audi, Porsche, or any other mass produced product he understands that he is buying an item that is "mass produced" and there will be many other items of identical appearance and quality being sold. When someone buys an original painting, sculpture, or other piece of one of a kind art, or even hires a particular person to do special work for him, he is paying extra for that particular person's work and/or expects a one-of-a-kind product fully made by that artist. Otherwise he is overpaying for something he is not getting and is a victim of misrepresentation and/or fraud. It's really pretty simple.

 

[Buster8001]

You should read the other thread where he has built cues for another well known maker. I was quite surprised.

No one is disputing the fact that Harris makes a great cue. It's the fraud that chaps our asses.

And fraud, to an extent, is also what you're proposing to do - sell "your" cues, claiming you make them (not disclosing differently). If you want to go private label, then at least tell people you do not build the cue, and they're build by a reputable builder for you. "Holding a piece of sandpaper" as you say, and claiming they're your cues, is fraud.

 

[RAMIII]

Misrepresentation....

I posted this in the other thread but it makes sense posting here too.

To me the biggest issue is any misrepresentation that may have occurred by Sly or Diviney. Sure other cue makers have helpers but we expect it to be overseen by the named cuemaker and for it to be completed by the named cuemaker so that the cue represents their brand/name and is consistent with work quality and playability. I don't believe production cues fall into the same category since we understand they are mass produced.

I ordered a cue from Paul Drexler once and was wanting him to build me an ebony titlist. Paul explained he could convert an older titlist or have John Davis build a blank that he could then finish. I didn't realize it at the time but in comparison this was a very upstanding response because he was clear about the process and allowed me to make an informed decision. Had Paul not told me about using a blank from John, then I would have felt misinformed. Worse if Paul had told me he would build me the current and then used another's blank, I would have also felt that he misrepresented his work to me. Ultimately we are paying quite a bit of money for cues built by these makers and we certainly should be informed if they are using blanks from other cue makers.

I don't think there is anything wrong with cue makers using blanks or materials from other makers as long as they explain it to their customers. It is common within our industry but as a customer I would like to be informed about it so I can make the final decision. I have been fortunate that Paul Drexler and Jim Baxter have both been honest about suggesting previously made blanks for cues that I had been considering.

If Sly or Diveney have had Robert Harris build blanks or cues for them, then they should simply state the level of work that was done, be transparent with future customers, and move on with their cue building. They clearly are doing some high level work and have a strong following. I don't see any reason why this should derail their business unless they get defensive and try to defend their right to not disclose significant cue construction decisions to the customer.

I hope everyone moves through this mess as honorably as possible. The current makers involved and named are talented folks and hopefully will offer many more excellent cues in the future.

 

[jasonlaus]

I posted this in the other thread but it makes sense posting here too.

To me the biggest issue is any misrepresentation that may have occurred by Sly or Diviney. Sure other cue makers have helpers but we expect it to be overseen by the named cuemaker and for it to be completed by the named cuemaker so that the cue represents their brand/name and is consistent with work quality and playability. I don't believe production cues fall into the same category since we understand they are mass produced.

I ordered a cue from Paul Drexler once and was wanting him to build me an ebony titlist. Paul explained he could convert an older titlist or have John Davis build a blank that he could then finish. I didn't realize it at the time but in comparison this was a very upstanding response because he was clear about the process and allowed me to make an informed decision. Had Paul not told me about using a blank from John, then I would have felt misinformed. Worse if Paul had told me he would build me the current and then used another's blank, I would have also felt that he misrepresented his work to me. Ultimately we are paying quite a bit of money for cues built by these makers and we certainly should be informed if they are using blanks from other cue makers.

I don't think there is anything wrong with cue makers using blanks or materials from other makers as long as they explain it to their customers. It is common within our industry but as a customer I would like to be informed about it so I can make the final decision. I have been fortunate that Paul Drexler and Jim Baxter have both been honest about suggesting previously made blanks for cues that I had been considering.

If Sly or Diveney have had Robert Harris build blanks or cues for them, then they should simply state the level of work that was done, be transparent with future customers, and move on with their cue building. They clearly are doing some high level work and have a strong following. I don't see any reason why this should derail their business unless they get defensive and try to defend their right to not disclose significant cue construction decisions to the customer.

I hope everyone moves through this mess as honorably as possible. The current makers involved and named are talented folks and hopefully will offer many more excellent cues in the future.

What I didnt understand when you wrote this is why Drexler couldnt make an ebony titlist? It makes no sense at all.
Jason

 

[Buster8001]

What I didnt understand when you wrote this is why Drexler couldnt make an ebony titlist? It makes no sense at all.
Jason

What I gather from the post is that Drexler was being upfront and giving him options; and then, following through.

basically; honesty. A characteristic that is lacking these days.

 

[RAMIII]

Paul could but....

Paul could've built the ebony titlist tribute but he has a lot of respect for John's work and using one of John's blanks was quicker for turnaround time and cheaper in the long run. I just appreciated Paul's transparency and thoroughly enjoyed working with him.

 

[jasonlaus]

What I gather from the post is that Drexler was being upfront and giving him options; and then, following through.

basically; honesty. A characteristic that is lacking these days.

That's not the issue. The issue is why HE couldn't make a titlist and the reason for it.

I understand if the guy wanted a cue in a few weeks, but that doesnt seem to be the issue.

Btw, I have a few Davis blanks and they cannot be turned to finished size very fast either. They need to be turned down slowly to be straight, and to make the points even(as possible).

Something just doesnt add up.
Jason

 

[jasonlaus]

Paul could've built the ebony titlist tribute but he has a lot of respect for John's work and using one of John's blanks was quicker for turnaround time and cheaper in the long run. I just appreciated Paul's transparency and thoroughly enjoyed working with him.

That makes a little more sense(the cheaper part) turn around time isn't going to be that much different if Paul makes the blank.
Jason

 

[ShootingHank]

No one is disputing the fact that Harris makes a great cue. It's the fraud that chaps our asses.

And fraud, to an extent, is also what you're proposing to do - sell "your" cues, claiming you make them (not disclosing differently). If you want to go private label, then at least tell people you do not build the cue, and they're build by a reputable builder for you. "Holding a piece of sandpaper" as you say, and claiming they're your cues, is fraud.

While it sucks not to know everything about how your cue is being built but its totally fine with me from the standpoint of business and making money. If I fully disclosed who made the cues or where I made the products then that would be spilling the beans on industry secrets and trade secrets.

Like any products being sold today you are not going to get full disclosure on how they make or produce it. It's what separates them from the competitors. Now if you want to buy my future line of cues and take it apart and saw it apart to see how it's constructed than by all means.

I love cues and wish I had the time to learn how to make it but I have a full time job and I want to bring the consumer an affordable custom cue. Perhaps 5 templates where they can customize from. From veneers to how many pieces of inlay. 5, 10, 15.....

As for me holding a sandpaper, it's marketing, I would rather start with myself before I hire models to dress up and pose with the products. T-shirt companies usually have the founder modeling the shirts before they hire models.

I can easily acquire ready to be finished parts and put it together, hence, I'm a cue builder not a cue maker. I can build it with the right right parts since I do have equipment at home to do such.

 

[jasonlaus]

While it sucks not to know everything about how your cue is being built but its totally fine with me from the standpoint of business and making money. If I fully disclosed who made the cues or where I made the products then that would be spilling the beans on industry secrets and trade secrets.

Like any products being sold today you are not going to get full disclosure on how they make or produce it. It's what separates them from the competitors. Now if you want to buy my future line of cues and take it apart and saw it apart to see how it's constructed than by all means.

I love cues and wish I had the time to learn how to make it but I have a full time job and I want to bring the consumer an affordable custom cue. Perhaps 5 templates where they can customize from. From veneers to how many pieces of inlay. 5, 10, 15.....

As for me holding a sandpaper, it's marketing, I would rather start with myself before I hire models to dress up and pose with the products. T-shirt companies usually have the founder modeling the shirts before they hire models.

I can easily acquire ready to be finished parts and put it together, hence, I'm a cue builder not a cue maker. I can build it with the right right parts since I do have equipment at home to do such.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and it cannot be explained to you. Many of us have tried
Jason

 

[Black-Balled]

I post...don't think there is anything wrong with cue makers using blanks or materials from other makers as long as they explain it to their customers. It is common within our industry but as a customer I would like to be informed about it so I can make the final decision.

At what time is it appropriate to share the work involves components of others?

I think it has been common knowledge for a long time that many cues are made with schmelke, prather, valley, dufferin parts.

 

[RAMIII]

Funny....

That same question also popped up in the other thread. Ultimately, I believe it's up to the customer to decide what is appropriate and I think it makes sense for a cuemaker to discuss the proposed process and materials to ensure everyone is on the same page. For me a forearm or butt sleeve coming from a blank builder are fine by me but I would like to know it. This also begs the question if I should ever resell a cue with mixed components, should the seller disclose this info to the seller? I believe the answer is "yes."
If a builder is transparent with the customer and a seller is transparent with the buyer, then I believe you will avoid a lot of headaches along the way.
Where it appears Sly, Diviney, and Harris COULD be in trouble is if they put their names on cues primarily or totally by others. And I say COULD only because we don't know the full extent of relationships and interactions in the cue building process. Although I believe it would be prudent for the cuemakers to explain their relationship with Harris for the benefit of their business and customers, otherwise to me their guilty silence speaks volumes.

 

[ShootingHank]

You have no idea what you're talking about, and it cannot be explained to you. Many of us have tried
Jason

I don't need explanation because the reality is not everything has to be made by one cue maker while I'm sure one does. You have this romanticism about cue making by believing that Cue Maker ABC makes all their parts.

- Grow their own wood
- Dry it
- Grow their own elephants (example)
- Mill their own pins....etc...etc...
- Press their leather tips

You need to step back with your emotion like some cue maker is doing all this when I basically stated all parts came from somewhere and I don't have a problem with private labeling or collaborations between cue makers.

Your comprehension of my response is obviously blinded by your romanticism of cue making.