unsigned cues.....your opinion please

[xidica]

I'll agree here. My steve klein has a signature on the butt that's *very* faint, and you really have to be looking for it which is a good thing IMHO.

 

[zeeder]

I prefer when the cue it not signed, it is much better if either a nice logo is used or there is an identifiable mark, on the joint pin, under the wrap or bumper. Some of the signatures just do not look very good. If it is signed it should be done tasteful, like a Skip Weston, small along the points or veneers.

I agree, I like the way Skip Weston and Andy Gilbert sign their cues. It's typically pretty small and you don't really notice it unless you're looking for it.

 

[Snapshot9]

Cuemakers

keep abreast of what their cues go for on the secondary market. That's why a lot of them raise their prices after awhile, it's called 'punitive profit'....lol

 

[UPlayLucky]

Yes, if a cue is signed it should not be noticeable; you should have to look for it. And if a cue maker does not have a nice signature instead resembling a child's crayon markings on a wall, should refrain from signing any cue.

 

[TATE]

I would like to add that the cuemaker should sign with removable ink.

Then, if he falls out of favor here on A-Z, you can always wipe off the name and sell it as a "Szamboti?/Balabuska?/Paradise?/Tad?".


Chris





ps. ever notice how there are never advertised as "Imperial?/Lishan?/K-Mart?/ Schmelke?".

 

[issycue]

I believe most cuemakers now a days either sign their cues or have a designated mark of some kind. This was not true in the past as very few, if any, cuemakers signed their cues and most had no markings.

Dick

Cue makers should do whatever they want... sign, don't sign, mark, don't mark... it's up to the maker, do whatever! The real question is what we (the buyer, player, collector, investor) will do as a result of what the maker does.

If I'm buying a cue for its resale potential, I'm gonna make sure it's either signed or has another branding mechanism (COA, provenance, discernable marking, etc) as it would be stupid of me otherwise. If I'm only concerned about the playablility, perhaps i'll only consider buying flat-faced or full-spliced cues, regardless of who made it and what it looks like. But I think for most, the cuemaker is an important factor.

The real question is, what does knowing the cuemaker mean to us? How important is the cuemaker when evaluating the value of a cue? For me, the maker of a cue is paramount. It's like art. Given the choice, would I buy a Picasso or simply buy soemthing that looks like it? Would I prefer a copy or the original? When I search eBay or AZ for cues, I'm searching for specific makers, nothing else.

So, I would like makers to continue signing/marking their cues. I know I will do my part to help the marketplace grow. Luckily we have these forums to offer our opinions, and hopfully that will further incentivize makers to take credit for their awesome, beautiful, creations.

 

[issycue]

like musicians...

My thoughts is this, a custom cue sold on the secondary market makes the custom maker no money. They only make a living off the initial sale of the cue. So if I purchased a cue off "Custom Maker A" for $1000 and sold it for $2500 a week later. Thats $1500 profit for me. "Custom Maker A" doesnt get part of that.

And I know that I can't speak for cue makers, since I am not one, but if you got on my list for a custom cue then it should be for your personal use or collection. Not for immediate resale. I wouldnt care much for the aftermarket price since I would get no profit from it.

So signing the cue will help out the secondary market. Of course thats not the sole purpose for signing a cue. Signing will also help spead the word of a cue makers work of course. But I can see why someone would not sign their cues to help the secondary market.

Very interesting perspective... I think rewarding cuemakers with ongoing royalties might be a good thing. And, in essence we have that system in place when cuemakers ask dealers to consign their products. The cuemakers assign a commision or sell their products at a wholesale discount to dealers, and the dealers mark them up to the general market. The cuemaker realizes 'royalties' from ongoing direct cue sales (no middle man).

Further, I think the cuemaker is the driver of price in the market, not the resellers. If I sold a cue today for $200, and then offered similar cues for $200, a reseller would probably not get more than $200 for a 'used' cue. Buyers would come directly to me for a new cue. That said, it's more likely that a cue would unfairly resell for more if it was unmarked, rather than marked.

Even in cases where there is limited supply for new cues (like long waiting lists), the value of the cue is not changed. The inflated price simply represents the additional value of not waiting or the risk of an order expiring... Pricing parity would come from evaluating the difference between the cost today of ordering a new cue vs. the cost in the future of ordering a new cue at the time when today's cue is delivered.

Just my thoughts...