WARNING you may drool on your computer!!!!!

[JimBo]

First I want to apologize to Joe as I didnt know he was Giving JimBLOW a dig...Sorry Joe...Ok now back to cue design theft..LOL...If there is such a thing...If that is the case every cuemaker that made a plain 4 point 4 veneer cue at one time or another is guilty then right ? You can go on and on about this but guess what Jimblow ...GET A LIFE!

How come you can't just answer the question, the 3rd grade name calling is great and the attempt to change the topic is also great. You claim "if there is such a thing" and then LOL ?? Are you for real? LOL??? So then what you are saying is that you don't believe there is any skill in designing cues?
Please answer the question CosBlowcues (see I can do it to)

Is it ok for a cue maker to make a copy of a Ginacue 4oth anniversary cue, or Thomas Waynes Celtic Prince???

Jim

 

[JimBo]

I am a hypocrite? Hey buddy.. you sit hear on your soapbox preaching to stop cue design theft, but you have no problem padding the pockets of those stealing the designs to enhance your collection. You also don't call out cuemakers you are buddy-buddy with. I don't remember seeing you lambast Murray for making Mark a Szamboti style cue. Not only are you a hypocrite, you are a paper tiger. Tell you what, come back here when you are willing to put your money where your mouth is.. maybe you should sell your Schicks, and your Scruggs and all the other cues that were made by "copy cats" and stop being such a blowhard. Or shut the hell up, or go get some convictions.
Where do I draw the line? I don't draw the line, but if I did, bet your butt I would be towing it. I wouldn't care if someone copied Sea World, or the Celtic Prince or any other damn cue because there is only ONE original.

Joe

Joe lay off the vino, Murray is making a Szamboti "STYLE" cue, he didn't knock off a whole design (as far as I know) It also isn't his fault you guys have no originality or vision. You for example take a guy who does great point work and who has worked at coming up with his own look and make him change styles all in the name of sales. If you really believed the crap you spew then you'd let the guy make what he wants and sell them. Everyone out there takes little bits and pieces of things they see and like from other cue makers but we aren't talking about that. I can see how it makes this an easier fight for you to try and switch it to that, but it's not what we are talking about. I am talking about stealing a who design, not 4 points, not one inlay, a whole design. The problem is ca$h rules and cue makers will often do things to get that Ca$h, it's sad but true and I can understand business, but that doesn't make it right, and there is no way you can call me a paper tiger or a hypocrite, I always stand behind my words, and I kiss up to nobody. You on the other hand... Well, let's just say you like to think you are a salesman, and we all know about them.

Jim

 

[JimBo]

I wouldn't care if someone copied Sea World, or the Celtic Prince or any other damn cue because there is only ONE original.

Joe

BTW this may be one of the dumbest things you've ever said.

Jim

 

[JimBo]

Its one thing to do a cue with a simple design, and another to steal a design like the Sea World. To do a design like the Sea World, you'll have to go out of your way to even make it look remotely close to a Sea World Inspired cue. Just like some of the fancy designs McWorter makes. If a design that comes close to it is ever made again, its hard to say its a true original design. Both designs mostly don't use design components that would be considered normal designs. They're more like artistic designs. If a cuemaker makees a cue using a steel joint, 4 spliced points, and ebony butt with delrin buttcap, he's just utilizing designs that most people considered "classic" or normal designs. If he does a superb job with the cue and the cue plays nice, I think those are what's important. Not every cue maker go out of the way to design something that nobody has every seen. Jimbo said in another thread something like "if a cue maker doens't come up with a design that is truly original, he shouldn't be making cues at all". That's a load of crap. If that statement actually came from a cue artist who had invented something truly original, maybe it would deserve more weight. As it came from someone who's not a cue artist, its nothing to pay too much attention to. There are lots of good cuemakers that make oustanding playing cues, without designing something that's original.

First of all don't paraphrase me if you're going to miss the whole point of what I said, it's still there, feel free to copy and paste what I said in the context in which I said it and please leave your very misinformed biased slant off.
Next I'd like to commend you for at least answering the question and drawing the line somewhere. Now that I see that you may have a tiny bit of a clue we can debate the finer points. Of course nobody is saying a 4 point cue is a design that can never be copied, or a sneaky pete, but there is a very large gray area in between a basic 4 pointer and the seaworld cue. I've asked it many times now and you seem to be the only one to even attempt to answer the question, where do you draw the line???

And since you missed my point so bad in that quote let me try to help you out. If a person paints pictures but only paints copies of Picasso’s is he still considered an artist?? Now when you quote me you can say I said this person should never paint again.


Jim

 

[JimBo]

VERY WELL SAID.....
and you know what.. i do believe alot of cue makers do use inspiration from each other... and they all have made cues wich others are similiar.. but there are also alot of cues that they dont ever duplicate...

Similar and the same are 2 very different things. I don't have problems when people get ideas and get inspiration from other cues, we are and have been talking about exact copies of cue designs.
like.. the first person to make a cue with Boxed points.. man.. whoever that was.. he was a genious.. because they look amazing...

Again you are trying to blur the line, the box idea is great and it's been done by many people, but making a box cue and making a copy of a Szamboti box cue design are 2 very very different things.

or the first person to scrimshaw their ivory for design... man.. that adds a great touch to the art..

Again, Scrimshaw is great, but when you scrimshaw the same exact picture or design into the same inlay it's just wrong and it's stealing.
or even the first person to use Ring Lizard... i couldnt tell you who the first person ever to use it was.. i know Paul mottey uses it on almost every cue.. for the most part.. but who is to know who did it first...

Now you're into materials and out of the whole design thing completely, please try not to confuse the issue, please stay on topic, CUE DESIGN THEFT. I’m not now and have never said if one person uses Irish linen or metal joints or leather wraps that these things should never be done again, that's silly and just not even remotely close to cue design theft. It seems that many here have no idea what a cue design is or what goes into it, they seem to understand it a bit better when it comes to 1 of a kind famous cues, but lose all site of it when it's anything short of that. There is a whole world in the middle and that is what I am speaking of. Some here (spliced) seem to agree it's wrong when talking about seaworld or celtic prince, yet others (JoeV) seem to think it would be fine. Well it's not fine and Joe knows it, but being stubborn just won't let him admit it. Anyone who is reading this who has ever spent the money on a one of a kind cue would agree that it's not flattery if someone made an exact copy of their one of a kind work of art, and saying there's only one original is bullshit.
alot of these guys might as well stop making cues.. because there are so many other their now.. they all will be hard pressed for comming up with something completley new.. anything compltley revolutionary..

Nobody is saying every cue has to be totally different from all other cues, what I said was don't steal someone else's art (design) it's theft and it's wrong and not seeing this is ignorant and short sited.
i suppose its possible.. but untill then.. i will like what they all make...

chris

JIM STOP CUE DESIGN THEFT!!!!!

 

[ChrisOnline]

ok. so let me get this right... its ok to be similiar but to be exact..

i can understand that...

did anyone ever notice when high end cue makers make look alike's of the high end cues, they usually also come with a HIGH END PRICETAG..

and i dont think a cue maker wakes up in the morning and says.. maybe today i will copy that Richard black i saw today.. or that Lambros with the dragon on it.. i would imagine it takes alot of coaxing from the customer who wants that cue.. or loves the design of the cue.. but has his cuemaker loyalty..

i think maybe today i will call Paul mottey up and tell him, i want a cue.. with Szamboti points, Mottey Lizzard, Southwest Ring style butt with a HOPPE ivory ring under that.. and maybe Some ivory points in the shaft with some fish drawn on it.. hmmmm.. that would be original...

chris

 

[Fred Agnir]

"if a cue maker doens't come up with a design that is truly original, he shouldn't be making cues at all". That's a load of crap. If that statement actually came from a cue artist who had invented something truly original, maybe it would deserve more weight. As it came from someone who's not a cue artist, its nothing to pay too much attention to.

I think this is a blatanly incorrect statement. There isn't one other artistic field that agrees with it, so why would you think it would apply to cue making?

Do you think that you have to be a painter to appreciate and make judgements on artistic paintings? Of course not. And throughout history, those that educate others in art (Art History 101, etc.) are typically not great artists themselves.

The study of art is not mutually inclusive to the execution of art. Never has been.

Fred <~~~ not an artist

 

[merylane]

just got back from my trip, boy its good to see this kind of @%*&^%# still going on
and gee now jimbo doesnt seem to like being called names hmmmm....

 

[SCCues]

Mottey Custom cues

Cosmo,
I agree with you 100% on this subject. Paul Mottey is one of the best cue makers in business today and his cues sell for premium prices on the used cue market because of his reputation and quality.

In my opinion it's a compliment to a cue maker like Gus Szamboti for a living cue maker to build a cue similar to a design that Gus used. There aren't that many fancy Gus Szamboti cues around even if you had the money and wanted to buy one.

I ordered a cue from Paul Mottey last March and it's a Szamboti inlay pattern which I asked him to use for my cue. I sent him pictures of the inlays I wanted and asked him to build my cue with those designs. It happens to be my most favorite inlay pattern of all the cues i've ever seen and it's all I can do to afford to have Paul build it for me and I certainly can't afford the original Szamboti cue that has been priced into the stratosphere. If that's what I want and I can afford to pay Paul to build it for me then I don't see a problem. Paul certainly didn't steal anyone's design for my cue because he's building what I asked him to build for me and I know it will be built as well as any cue maker could do it!

SCCues

You guys have too much time on your hands I see....I ordered the Szamboti copy cue from Paul because I liked it and obviously cant get one from Szamboti or afford to buy the same one from CLASSICCUES with the asking price of $75,000 right JOE...So quit knocking Pauls work because he is definetely one of the best cuemakers on the planet....And by the way your thread with the cops nonsense about the cue is definetely GAY and you should be embarrased to have written it!

 

[JimBo]

just got back from my trip, boy its good to see this kind of @%*&^%# still going on
and gee now jimbo doesnt seem to like being called names hmmmm....

Don't mind being called anything, I just pointed out JimBlow was a 3rd grade attempt at it. I don't value many of the people who have weighed in on this topics opinions anyway, seems they either have no idea what we are talking about or are very misguided on where they should stand.

Jim <---AKA JimBlow

 

[JimBo]

Cosmo,


In my opinion it's a compliment to a cue maker like Gus Szamboti for a living cue maker to build a cue similar to a design that Gus used.

Sure it's a compliment if it's "similar" but not when it's a direct copy (knockoff)
There aren't that many fancy Gus Szamboti cues around even if you had the money and wanted to buy one.

That's why they are expensive and nice, because you are buying a piece of art a rare piece of art.

I ordered a cue from Paul Mottey last March and it's a Szamboti inlay pattern which I asked him to use for my cue.

Now it becomes clear why you stand on the side of this issue that you do.

I sent him pictures of the inlays I wanted and asked him to build my cue with those designs.

If you sent a picture of a cue and asked him to copy that cue it's stealing and it's wrong and Paul knows it and should have the balls as a decent human to tell you he won't do it. He should also as a true artist not want to do it, he should tell you that he will use that design to influence him and create his own design inspired by that cue.

It happens to be my most favorite inlay pattern of all the cues i've ever seen

I guess that really matters, I really love the Thomas Wayne Snake cue, do you feel since I can't buy it Paul would be in the right to make it for me if I send him a picture??

and it's all I can do to afford to have Paul build it for me and I certainly can't afford the original Szamboti cue that has been priced into the stratosphere.

Good you can't afford it, who says you have any right to own something you can't afford? Where in life does it work like this? Can you go steal a Ferrari because it's your favorite car of all time yet you can't afford it? Would you tell the judge that it's ok to steal it because you really like it?

If that's what I want and I can afford to pay Paul to build it for me then I don't see a problem.

LOL of coarse not, because you want to think it's ok to steal because you're the one doing it, jail is full of people who don't see anything wrong with what they did. You are stealing and you don't get it. The sad part is this is a forum that one would expect to find educated people in (when it comes to cues) yet everyone here seems to want to disregard the work that goes into designing a cue. You don't feel it's an art form and you don't feel it's hard work, if you knew the amount of time some cue makers put into designing a cue you would see how wrong stealing their hard work is. If you ever talked to a true artist about this you would see how mad they would be if someone made an exact copy of something they worked very hard to come up with. Talk to people like Jerry McWorter, Ernie Gutierrez, Thomas Wayne, Edwin Reyes, Mike Bender, or Paul Drexler, ask what they think of some other cue maker making a cue from a picture of one of their designs. O wait I forgot this is ok because Gus is dead and he can't complain. Also it's ok because you really really like it and can't afford the real one LOL.

Paul certainly didn't steal anyone's design for my cue because he's building what I asked him to build for me and I know it will be built as well as any cue maker could do it!

SCCues

Once he saw the picture of the cue you sent him he knew full well he was stealing, what he chose to do after that was all his own doing. If you had drawn the design on a bar napkin and told him it was your own I would agree he wouldn't think he was stealing, but he knows what he's doing and has been in trouble in the past for doing the same thing. It's sad when someone who is such an artist has to stoop to doing this type of thing for a sale.

Jim

 

[classiccues]

Joe lay off the vino, Murray is making a Szamboti "STYLE" cue, he didn't knock off a whole design (as far as I know) It also isn't his fault you guys have no originality or vision. You for example take a guy who does great point work and who has worked at coming up with his own look and make him change styles all in the name of sales. If you really believed the crap you spew then you'd let the guy make what he wants and sell them. Everyone out there takes little bits and pieces of things they see and like from other cue makers but we aren't talking about that. I can see how it makes this an easier fight for you to try and switch it to that, but it's not what we are talking about. I am talking about stealing a who design, not 4 points, not one inlay, a whole design. The problem is ca$h rules and cue makers will often do things to get that Ca$h, it's sad but true and I can understand business, but that doesn't make it right, and there is no way you can call me a paper tiger or a hypocrite, I always stand behind my words, and I kiss up to nobody. You on the other hand... Well, let's just say you like to think you are a salesman, and we all know about them.

Jim

Again you're a paper tiger. The cue Tucker is building, if you had any balls to say something, is using inlays that are tied to Gus. The railroad tracks, the split diamonds, the peacock inlays, ALL GUS. Again, put your money where your mouth is. See I know alot of the cues you own and YOU PADDED THE POCKETS OF THE PEOPLE YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT. So its ok to fund thieves, in your opinion.. good move. Hypocrite. We do know about salesmen, they sell. But we also know about blowhards with no convictions, other than just wanting to make some noise. Again, sell the cues you own made by these so called "thieves". Of course you won't, I know it and you know it. In fact you are so much a paper tiger I think you should go around yelling "ThEEEEERRRRREEEE FAKE" and pour another bowl of Frosted Fakes, cause thats about what you are.. a frosted fake...

BTW the cuemaker you are refering to made cues that no one would buy. Its ok to have a style, as long as it sells. Does an artist make art he cannot sell? Sure, the ones that don't need money. Did we ask him to build cues that were more popular? Yes, not only for us, but for him. Now he incorporates those styles, with his, and does alot of mixing and matching using pieces of those designs. Again, something there is nothing wrong with. He also makes cues that are all his own. But even he realizes there is a large contingent of customers that like the traditional cues, and if they are paying, he is a custom cuemaker and after all, isn't that part of being custom? Its also funny that all the orders he receives are from people asking for those styles of cues.




Joe

 

[JimBo]

Again you're a paper tiger. The cue Tucker is building, if you had any balls to say something, is using inlays that are tied to Gus. The railroad tracks, the split diamonds, the peacock inlays, ALL GUS. Again, put your money where your mouth is. See I know alot of the cues you own and YOU PADDED THE POCKETS OF THE PEOPLE YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT. So its ok to fund thieves, in your opinion.. good move. Hypocrite. We do know about salesmen, they sell. But we also know about blowhards with no convictions, other than just wanting to make some noise. Again, sell the cues you own made by these so called "thieves". Of course you won't, I know it and you know it. In fact you are so much a paper tiger I think you should go around yelling "ThEEEEERRRRREEEE FAKE" and pour another bowl of Frosted Fakes, cause thats about what you are.. a frosted fake...

BTW the cuemaker you are refering to made cues that no one would buy. Its ok to have a style, as long as it sells. Does an artist make art he cannot sell? Sure, the ones that don't need money. Did we ask him to build cues that were more popular? Yes, not only for us, but for him. Now he incorporates those styles, with his, and does alot of mixing and matching using pieces of those designs. Again, something there is nothing wrong with. He also makes cues that are all his own. But even he realizes there is a large contingent of customers that like the traditional cues, and if they are paying, he is a custom cuemaker and after all, isn't that part of being custom? Its also funny that all the orders he receives are from people asking for those styles of cues.




Joe

Joe I know you're not dumb so why are you putting on the act? I have said it over and over and you chose to ignore it, here it is again. A cue that takes ideas and elements from other cues is not stealing a whole design. I never said nobody can ever make a 4 point cue ever again, I never said that cue makers shouldn't use slotted diamonds or boxes. What I did say was to steal a design is theft and it's wrong. I never said you making people change their cues was wrong, it's just sad. And for the record many people love the look that he used before you made him switch over. As far as Murray goes I have no problem speaking out against him if he were STEALING or COPYING other cues, he isn't. You also claim I pad these people's pockets, another lie. Stop trying to cloud the issue. How bout we speak more about how you really think that a cue maker is in the right if he wants to make an exact copy of another cue makers design, as you put it in your post there will only be 1 original. LOL You can't be serious. I have the conviction to say that stealing cue designs or making exact copies of other cues is wrong, NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. I would not buy a knockoff and have never, so whatever you think you're talking about is bullshit. I've said plenty here in this thread if you can't find something I've said that you disagree with then quiet down, making shit up that I never said won't cut it.

Jim

 

[SCCues]

I didn't send Paul a picture of a cue and ask him to copy it. I sent pictures of inlay patterns from cues he's built in the past to be used as a guide and they are not exact copies of any cue makers cues that i've ever seen. They are similar to a pattern that has been used on a Szamboti, but not exactly like the Szamboti pattern. I think Paul did a better job with his modified design. He added a few things to a much plainer design.

Do you fellows think any cue maker has exclusive rights on Ivory diamonds, Ivory lines, ivory rectangles, and Ivory dots? If Tim Scruggs built a birdseye maple custom cue does that mean no other cue maker can build a birdseye maple custom cue?

SCCues

Once he saw the picture of the cue you sent him he knew full well he was stealing, what he chose to do after that was all his own doing. If you had drawn the design on a bar napkin and told him it was your own I would agree he wouldn't think he was stealing, but he knows what he's doing and has been in trouble in the past for doing the same thing. It's sad when someone who is such an artist has to stoop to doing this type of thing for a sale.

Jim

 

[bandido]

Do you fellows think any cue maker has exclusive rights on Ivory diamonds, Ivory lines, ivory rectangles, and Ivory dots? If Tim Scruggs built a birdseye maple custom cue does that mean no other cue maker can build a birdseye maple custom cue?

SCCues

I think that this is where the confusion is. Any cuemaker can do these traditional inlays but to compose the whole cue to duplicate the original or "claim" to be the original, as what was implied by the title"last Balabushka made..",
is a no-no and considered a deception. There are a number of "elements" (mostly Balabushka era) in a cue where the original concept was duplicated but are not given much weight as they became so commonly seen like so and so rings, veneer points, diamond or dot inlays, butt cap ring, etc. Use of these elements were probably considered as "design theft" back then but due to their ease of manufacture, popularity during that era and sheer number of cues manufactured by cuemakers, from then to the present, the original protest now falls on deaf ears. But propeller inlays, one-sided veneer point, split points are just some examples that just don't seem right to be copied. Why? Why excert that much effort doing it when the effort should just have been excerted on something original instead. And knowing that making it will entail that much trouble then you know then how the originator will feel about the duplication of the element or sector composition.

Now with regards to "whole cue composition", I regard that any duplication is "design theft"! As for the "claim" part, I consider that as deception.

To the person who asked, "How much of a design variation (original composition) can a cuemaker do in such a limited canvas? A lot! Consciously staying away from closely inspecting some other cuemaker's cue, whether it be the actual cue or magazine/web photo, help bring out original creations.

Edwin Reyes

 

[SplicedPoints]

A cue that takes ideas and elements from other cues is not stealing a whole design. I never said nobody can ever make a 4 point cue ever again, I never said that cue makers shouldn't use slotted diamonds or boxes. What I did say was to steal a design is theft and it's wrong. t.

Jim

In most of your posts, you make it sound like you think nobody should be making anything that comes close to another cuemaker's design, be it classical or something extravagant like the Celtic Prince. Since I think most people seems to read your posts like that, its NOT other people's problem if they can't understand what you're trying to say. I am sure I can read just fine and I have no problem comprehending logic. I am also sure that most people here can do the same. Instead of blaming others and calling other people "stupid", maybe you should do a better job writing and making your point.

From the quote I just quoted you, you're saying that its OK if someone makes a cue utilizing some design elements that are similar to other cue maker's designs. If that's what you really believe, then what was real reason for bashing Coker cues? I can't understand that. Like what I already listed in the other thread. SW ring? Missing. SW band? Missing. SW Pin? Missing. Classic 6 pointed cue with pheloc joint? Present.

 

[merylane]

yeh hes kind of wishy washy, in one of his posts he said it was ok to do it for lucky cause hes hard to say no to?????

 

[classiccues]

In most of your posts, you make it sound like you think nobody should be making anything that comes close to another cuemaker's design, be it classical or something extravagant like the Celtic Prince. Since I think most people seems to read your posts like that, its NOT other people's problem if they can't understand what you're trying to say. I am sure I can read just fine and I have no problem comprehending logic. I am also sure that most people here can do the same. Instead of blaming others and calling other people "stupid", maybe you should do a better job writing and making your point.

From the quote I just quoted you, you're saying that its OK if someone makes a cue utilizing some design elements that are similar to other cue maker's designs. If that's what you really believe, then what was real reason for bashing Coker cues? I can't understand that. Like what I already listed in the other thread. SW ring? Missing. SW band? Missing. SW Pin? Missing. Classic 6 pointed cue with pheloc joint? Present.

Forget it.. Jimbo swings the way the wind blows. First its never ok to copy, then its ok to take some elements, then its ok if the owner says it is, then its not ok to copy, then it doesn't apply to people he likes. On and on.. he says dead knockoffs, but that wasn't what started this discussion. A cue similar to a Bushka, made from a picture, is what was. Surely it wasn't a dead knock off, as anyone who ever picked up a cue could see, but Jim has no problem going after little cuemakers like DZ. If this was about a 6 point TW that looked a little similar to a South West Jimbo would close his lips tighter than a clams butt. Phillippi makes a few rasputin inspired cues, that aren't even good, and all of a sudden he is Charles Manson. Then he rants about Mottey and the feathers Ginacue, yes there was some backlash, very minor, but if you had the oppertunity to see both cues, you would know which is which without even straining your eyes.
One other thing that is evident is his inability to sidetrack people who stay on the issues. I never claimed he bought a knockoff, but he owns cues made by people who have made cues that have borrowed other cuemakers trademark inlays, at some point in their careers. Those are the pockets he pads, so if I had to judge the non-copy convictions that he rants about here, I would expect to see those cues up for sale. I mean copying is copying right? Be it just a propeller, to a whole cue, theft is theft, right? Can't have it both ways Jimmie-boy...

Joe

 

[cosmocues]

Hey Jimbo why dont you post up pics of your collection so we can all see for ourselves what kind of cues you own...Your so critical of the cues posted on this website but I havent seen any of yours yet..Lets rock...Post them up!...Cosmo

 

[SplicedPoints]

yeh hes kind of wishy washy, in one of his posts he said it was ok to do it for lucky cause hes hard to say no to?????

In all fairness, I don't' think Jimbo explicitly stated that it was "ok" for Lucky to ask Mr. Scruggs to do a line of Balabushka inspired cues. However, Timbo convenietly sidestepped the landmine of having to blast Tim Scruggs for such "thievery" by gently tapping him on the hand with " I don't condone with such action" (or the equivalent or such a statement). Then he went on to blast other cuemakers for doing the same or even less explicit acts of borrowing cue design inspirations.