Tribute cues....

[kvinbrwr]

Ariel made those cues at the request of one of his dealers, who happens to be a great guy, no offense to him!!!

If they were really TAD Tribute cues, they would have been made with BEM, green/white spec linen, ss joint.

These cues were made out of many different kinds of wood.

The only thing that makes them TAD'ish is the one fancy ring in the butt. Definately TAD design.

Ariel has said that no more of these will be made.........

Here's a question for you.... Are the "TAD" cues being made now really TAD's?

I say NO.

TAD KOHARA is no longer making cues.

They should be called FRED cues, no?

Or are Fred's cue's also Tribute Cues?



Russ

Russ

Here's may take. Fred learned from Tad, works in Tad's shop using Tad's designs, materials and equipment. If Tad wants to have his son inherit his name and business, I have no problem with that. That's seems far different to me from some guy just deciding to make copies of Tad's works and call them "tributes".

Hercek and Tasc don't count as even though they got the training, materials and equipment from their respective mentors, both decided, for whatever reason, to make their cues in their own name. If Hercek wants to make an exact replica of a Spain (signed Hercek), its good by me. He earned that right by sitting at Spain's side and learning his craft from the master. You can't apprentice "by proxy".

Barry decided to differentiate his cues from his dad's, but again. if Barry wants to use his father's designs I'm good with that.


Guys making tributes of living makers, hey, just get their permission. I think if you are making tributes to a dead maker, shame on you.

Tiffany still uses patterns, techniques, trademarks and materials from the reign of Louis Comfort Tiffany 100 years ago. As a corporation, they have always adhered to LCT's quality control and I have no problem with the company passing down and continuing to use the designs from their founder. It's a far different story in my opinion, than if Tiffany was purchased by some Chinese knock-off company that began producing low quality versions with the old patterns and trademarks (happens all the time). I see Southwest in the same light as Tiffany. I think you'd be hard pressed to say that Laurie doesn't build cues in the tradition and quality control as her husband did.

As far as Helmstetter buying the rights to Balabushka's name and slapping it on production replicas, they have the perfect business right and I would never own one or recommend one to anyone. Mottey making very precise and beautiful copies of Bushka rings? Sorry, that's a pass for me.

Crafts are about art, materials, design and function. If you can't innovate then you aren't a craftsman, if you aren't a craftsman, you aren't a cue maker.

One more thing while I'm up on the soapbox. Trademarks. I'm sorry but the only person that has the right to use a trademark on anything is the trademark holder. No matter of the intentions of the person building the item with a copied (whoops sorry, "tribute") trademarks, the trademark holder trademarks his items so that every buyer and owner into perpetuity can know that the item was built by the trademark holder.

Thanks

Kevin

 

[daniel]

When I started playing there were only a handful of cuemakers. My wildest dream was to get a Rambow but settled for a Willie Hoppe for 17.00. The titlist style cue is still very popular & Szamboti & Balabushka both came out of that school of design. As far as the term tribute cue, I would think it flattering to these masters if a contemporay cuemaker chose to honor them with a traditional style cue with similar embelishments as they used. I ordered my first Szamboti in early 70's & asked Gus to do Black/White veneers which he had never done previously. I recently had my friend Jeff Olney do a takeoff of the Black/White motiff & I'm sure Gus would have been pleased. Photo courtesy of my friend Joe Lolley(BAMA CUES)

 

[kvinbrwr]

When I started playing there were only a handful of cuemakers. My wildest dream was to get a Rambow but settled for a Willie Hoppe for 17.00. The titlist style cue is still very popular & Szamboti & Balabushka both came out of that school of design. As far as the term tribute cue, I would think it flattering to these masters if a contemporay cuemaker chose to honor them with a traditional style cue with similar embelishments as they used. I ordered my first Szamboti in early 70's & asked Gus to do Black/White veneers which he had never done previously. I recently had my friend Jeff Olney do a takeoff of the Black/White motiff & I'm sure Gus would have been pleased. Photo courtesy of my friend Joe Lolley(BAMA CUES)

That's a great cue. I'm curious how you can be "sure Gus would have been pleased"?

Thanks

Kevin

 

[Hunter]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

 

[kvinbrwr]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

Try and tell that to Rolex, Tiffany, Luis Vuitton or Chanel. Companies that have built their reputations and fortunes on their own innovation, design, materials and craftsmanship for some reason just don't seem to find people making copies of their product to be flattering. They all fight like crazy to insure that people purchasing product that looks like their product get their product. First, the originating company has the right to the profits of their innovation and quality. Second, they have the right to not have someone who would have been their customer holding some POS copied product in their hands and saying, "wow this Rolex really isn't a very good watch". Thirdly, they have have a vested interest in insuring that the pool of historically collectible items of their manufacture is pure. If you don't think the market for Balabushkas has been harmed by all the so called Balabushka "tributes" that were made, then, to quote Jack Nicklaus, "you just aren't thinking right".

Thanks

Kevin

 

[bobroberts]

This is the first time I thought about this.I agree that a son or an apprentice can use the same design.Now stating that, a tribute is a copy even with different woods.I'm not sure if something is wrong with that if stated or not.
Most designs have been used by every CM in one way or the other.I do believe ring work should be different by each individual CM to show his brand.

 

[classiccues]

When I started playing there were only a handful of cuemakers. My wildest dream was to get a Rambow but settled for a Willie Hoppe for 17.00. The titlist style cue is still very popular & Szamboti & Balabushka both came out of that school of design. As far as the term tribute cue, I would think it flattering to these masters if a contemporay cuemaker chose to honor them with a traditional style cue with similar embelishments as they used. I ordered my first Szamboti in early 70's & asked Gus to do Black/White veneers which he had never done previously. I recently had my friend Jeff Olney do a takeoff of the Black/White motiff & I'm sure Gus would have been pleased. Photo courtesy of my friend Joe Lolley(BAMA CUES)

Daniel,
That is a nice cue and an example of a cuemaker using some past references and making his take on it. But I'd like to disect it a little deeper, if you don't mind.

The single diamonds in the points, Bushka or Paradise. True, thay MOP inlays were in guitar frets, but the use in cues originates with one of the names I listed. So in reality, this design was first executed by someone else. Rambow had used single dots in points, and I would think was the first to do so. All these gentlemen had to think this out, just as new guys and CNC think out their designs.

The pattern in the backend, 4 slotted diamonds, and 4 dots. Bushka, probably. So again it's his design, he thought it out, and was the first to exectute it. Would that not make it his "intellectual property"? Fact is, it is. So to say that copying a fancy Gina or Blackboar constitues design theft and that copying this pattern does not, hold no water. Yeah it's simple, I get it. However, he was the first to think it and do it, period.

The Bushka rings, same thing and any variation thereof.

So my position is very simple. If you are into this arguement, as I said before it's in for a penny in for a pound. That means you need to face the facts and almost every cuemaker has copied someone at some point. Especially when it comes to specific patterns. Simplicity, and age, have no bearing. The guys before used what they had, the guys now just use better tools.

But I can say this, if you put a list together of everyone that has made a cue with this theme, 95% of the cuemakers making cues today are on that list. Which would mean they are all GUILTY.

Some people may feel the practice is wrong, some may have no problem with it. But the line is very distinctive, a thief is a thief, if its a quarter or a dollar. Those that reject that notion are fooling themselves and possibly just not wanting to admit that their favorite cuemaker is the hamburglar.

JV

 

[hangemhigh]

I make Duck Calls, considered to be Folk Art, originated in the United States in the 1800's. Every custom call is linked to the originator of that style. There are probably 100 times as many call makers as cue makers, and no one has a problem attributing their call to it's roots and originator.

 

[TATE]

Russ

Here's may take. Fred learned from Tad, works in Tad's shop using Tad's designs, materials and equipment. If Tad wants to have his son inherit his name and business, I have no problem with that.

I specifically asked Fred one day if he would continue to make Tad's once his dad retires. He said without hesitation "yes". So the odds are we can see their wonderful designs, and I am sure, many more new ones, for years to come.

Chris

 

[classiccues]

Well here is a Model J tribute I had James White make.. if anyone thinks that this cue lowered the value of any real Palmer J, then you have issues... or just don't know the cue market.

I even called it the Ivory J... and it's one of my favorite tribute cue, ever. It came out so much better than the pics....


JV

 

[TATE]

Daniel,
That is a nice cue and an example of a cuemaker using some past references and making his take on it. But I'd like to disect it a little deeper, if you don't mind.

The single diamonds in the points, Bushka or Paradise. True, thay MOP inlays were in guitar frets, but the use in cues originates with one of the names I listed. So in reality, this design was first executed by someone else. Rambow had used single dots in points, and I would think was the first to do so. All these gentlemen had to think this out, just as new guys and CNC think out their designs.

The pattern in the backend, 4 slotted diamonds, and 4 dots. Bushka, probably. So again it's his design, he thought it out, and was the first to exectute it. Would that not make it his "intellectual property"? Fact is, it is. So to say that copying a fancy Gina or Blackboar constitues design theft and that copying this pattern does not, hold no water. Yeah it's simple, I get it. However, he was the first to think it and do it, period.

The Bushka rings, same thing and any variation thereof.

So my position is very simple. If you are into this arguement, as I said before it's in for a penny in for a pound. That means you need to face the facts and almost every cuemaker has copied someone at some point. Especially when it comes to specific patterns. Simplicity, and age, have no bearing. The guys before used what they had, the guys now just use better tools.

But I can say this, if you put a list together of everyone that has made a cue with this theme, 95% of the cuemakers making cues today are on that list. Which would mean they are all GUILTY.

Some people may feel the practice is wrong, some may have no problem with it. But the line is very distinctive, a thief is a thief, if its a quarter or a dollar. Those that reject that notion are fooling themselves and possibly just not wanting to admit that their favorite cuemaker is the hamburglar.

JV

I was dealing with Joe Porper, a good friend of mine, who had a distinctive new ring pattern I liked - I commented on how classy it looked.

A few months later I saw an old Joss with the same rings. I said "Joe, I saw your new rings on an old Joss". He looked at me flabbergasted "they copied Ernie!".

I still chuckle about that. I think Ernie and Southwest are two of the most copied current cuemakers. Frank Paradise and Balabushka and Gus Szamboti seemed to have come up with a lot of the most original classic designs.

Chris

 

[TATE]

Well here is a Model J tribute I had James White make.. if anyone thinks that this cue lowered the value of any real Palmer J, then you have issues... or just don't know the cue market.

I even called it the Ivory J... and it's one of my favorite tribute cue, ever. It came out so much better than the pics....


JV

Now, that's a tribute cue.

Chris

 

[FAST_N_LOOSE]

Well here is a Model J tribute I had James White make.. if anyone thinks that this cue lowered the value of any real Palmer J, then you have issues... or just don't know the cue market.

I even called it the Ivory J... and it's one of my favorite tribute cue, ever. It came out so much better than the pics....


JV

YOU'RE PICS AT THAT TIME REALLY SUCKED....... THAT IVORY J, IS BY FAR MY FAVORITE "TRIBUTE CUE"

I ALSO AGREE WITH JOE, THAT NO MATTER HOW SMALL OF AN ELEMENT IS COPIED, IT'S IS STILL A COPY. I ALSO HAVE NO ISSUE WITH GUYS BUILDING CUES, SIMILAR TO CUES THAT WERE BUILT BY SOMEONE ELSE.

I CAN GAURANTEE THAT MY CUES WOULD ALL LOOK LIKE CUES THAT HAD BEEN BUILT BEFORE. (IF I BUILT CUES) THERE ARE CLASSIC DESIGN TRAITS THAT TO ME ARE WHAT A CUE SHOULD LOOK LIKE, AND IF I WERE GOING TO BUILD CUES, THEY WOULD HAVE THOSE ATTRIBUTES. I WOULD ALSO ONLY BUILD CUES "MY" WAY, THE WAY I FELT THEY SHOULD BE BUILT.

WHO CARES IF SOMEONE BUILDS A "TRIBUTE" CUE? IF IT'S NOT TRYING TO BE SOLD AS THE ORIGINAL, DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

Marcus

 

[xianmacx]

Well here is a Model J tribute I had James White make.. if anyone thinks that this cue lowered the value of any real Palmer J, then you have issues... or just don't know the cue market.

I even called it the Ivory J... and it's one of my favorite tribute cue, ever. It came out so much better than the pics....


JV

Wow that is a sweet cue, I never saw it when you first posted it.

 

[Hunter]

Try and tell that to Rolex, Tiffany, Luis Vuitton or Chanel. Companies that have built their reputations and fortunes on their own innovation, design, materials and craftsmanship for some reason just don't seem to find people making copies of their product to be flattering. They all fight like crazy to insure that people purchasing product that looks like their product get their product. First, the originating company has the right to the profits of their innovation and quality. Second, they have the right to not have someone who would have been their customer holding some POS copied product in their hands and saying, "wow this Rolex really isn't a very good watch". Thirdly, they have have a vested interest in insuring that the pool of historically collectible items of their manufacture is pure. If you don't think the market for Balabushkas has been harmed by all the so called Balabushka "tributes" that were made, then, to quote Jack Nicklaus, "you just aren't thinking right".

Thanks

Kevin

Kevin,

Do you think that Rolex invented the watch? Was Vuitton the first purse? Did Coco Chanel invent perfume?

I think they all copied a little something along the line. I think it still smacks of economics. If you can't have the original, it's nice to have something as close as possible. Most people that own a Rolex knockoff simply can't afford the real deal. Rolex can be as righteously indignant as they want to be, but the folks that own a fake would usually never own a real one anyways.

If something is truly proprietary, I think royalties should be involved, but it needs to be something that is absolutely unique, and that is a rarity. If something is usually this unique, it will generally be pretty complex and must have a certain number of patentable features. A machine that does rotary die cutting is going to have more of these features than a stick with some screws and inlays, and they are still copied on a regular basis.

I'm also not talking about trying to sell fakes as the real thing like a lot of these folks that literally try to copy the trademark (Vuitton) or put the original manufacturer's name on their products like the fake Rolexes. As I said earlier, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, not trying to assume the identity of those being flattered. There is a difference.

Speaking of differences, do you really think that Bushka knockoffs have hurt the Bushka market? Do you think that folks that have settled on an Adam replica would have bought a real Balabushka if they hadn't been able to buy the replica? Do you think that the person that buys a cheap knockoff will actually equate the quality to the workmanship of the original maker? If so, it might be you and Jack Nicklaus that aren't thinking right...

I know where you are coming from and I do respect your opinion, Kevin. I just happen to have a different one.

Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year!

Steve

 

[ARROWCRUSHER]

I really have no issue's with any cuemakers that make a tribute cue. Or a cue that resembles another type of cuemakers cue's. I would only see a problem if when a cue was misrepresented as another makers cue when in fact it is not. I know myself I like certain parts of some cuemaker's design's and some parts of others. I see no problem with haveing a maker do someparts of your cue one way with another part another way. After all the first cue made with say veneers, then another maker came out and made another cue with the same amount of veneers long ago, were they copie's ??? I myself like a traditional style cue with points and veneer's and I will go to a cuemaker who will do that for me. I dont ask him to copy anyone elses work , but I just say what I like from seeing other cue's and say can you do this for me.. I know my opinion dont mean nothing but there are so many haters out there that try to nock everyones work and then when they cant find any flaws they come up with it's a copy of another cuemaker !! After all there are only so many designs that can set a cue off or that look good and most of them have been done in all of these years of cue's being built <<<<ED

 

[kvinbrwr]

Kevin,

Do you think that Rolex invented the watch? Was Vuitton the first purse? Did Coco Chanel invent perfume?

I think they all copied a little something along the line. I think it still smacks of economics. If you can't have the original, it's nice to have something as close as possible. Most people that own a Rolex knockoff simply can't afford the real deal. Rolex can be as righteously indignant as they want to be, but the folks that own a fake would usually never own a real one anyways.

If something is truly proprietary, I think royalties should be involved, but it needs to be something that is absolutely unique, and that is a rarity. If something is usually this unique, it will generally be pretty complex and must have a certain number of patentable features. A machine that does rotary die cutting is going to have more of these features than a stick with some screws and inlays, and they are still copied on a regular basis.

I'm also not talking about trying to sell fakes as the real thing like a lot of these folks that literally try to copy the trademark (Vuitton) or put the original manufacturer's name on their products like the fake Rolexes. As I said earlier, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, not trying to assume the identity of those being flattered. There is a difference.

Speaking of differences, do you really think that Bushka knockoffs have hurt the Bushka market? Do you think that folks that have settled on an Adam replica would have bought a real Balabushka if they hadn't been able to buy the replica? Do you think that the person that buys a cheap knockoff will actually equate the quality to the workmanship of the original maker? If so, it might be you and Jack Nicklaus that aren't thinking right...

I know where you are coming from and I do respect your opinion, Kevin. I just happen to have a different one.

Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year!

Steve

Steve

No I don't think that all about the Adams although they do hurt the pool of collectibles (just by the fact that the group of things now called Balabushka isn't filled only with wondrous original works). Now if someone says Balabushka they might mean something far different that they would have meant in 1980 or before. The trademark name "Balabushka" no longer only indicates something treasured. In fact, most times it now refers to something quite common. I think that changes the collectibility and thus the value of the genuine article.

But what I meant was that all the fake Balabushkas that were built and sold as Balabushkas (in many cases by makers that later said they were making "tribute"s) has definitely cast a pall on that market and the fact that the market is filled with doubt does effect the number of investors willing to play as collectors. That effects value.

Steve and for me, I'd way prefer an original from a lesser maker than a copy of the "best". Can't afford a Chanel purse? I say, get a great Dooney Bourke rather than some cheap knock off. Can't afford a Balabushka original? Get an original Gina, too much still? Blackcreek, too much still? There's loads of quality originals out there in any price range and that's always were I want my money.

Kevin

 

[kvinbrwr]

I make Duck Calls, considered to be Folk Art, originated in the United States in the 1800's. Every custom call is linked to the originator of that style. There are probably 100 times as many call makers as cue makers, and no one has a problem attributing their call to it's roots and originator.

Duck calls is way way folk art. So you have a proprietary style?

Thanks

Kevin

 

[classiccues]

Steve

No I don't think that all about the Adams although they do hurt the pool (just by the fact that the pool of things now called Balabushka isn't filled with wondrous original works). Now if someone says Balabushka they might mean something far different that they would have meant in 1980 or before. The trademark name "Balabushka" no longer only indicates something treasured. In fact, most times it now refers to something quite common. I think that changes the collectibility and this value of the genuine article.

But what I meant was that all the fake Balabushkas that were built and sold as Balabushkas (in many cases by makers that later said they were making "tribute"s) has definitely cast a pall on that market and the fact that the market is filled with doubt does effect the number of investors willing to play as collectors. That effects value.

Kevin

I do agree that there has been oversaturation of the name due to the Adam lines of cues, chalk, etc.. But I don't think that will ever affect a real Bushka. Only the economy can do that.

JV

 

[hangemhigh]

Duck calls is way way folk art. So you have a proprietary style?

Thanks

Kevin

Nope, the style of Calls I make can be traced back to the original Maker.