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

[JimBo]

Forget it.. Jimbo swings the way the wind blows. First its never ok to copy,

It's never OK to steal a cue design, never, I don't care who does it. You can't say someone designed 4 or 6 point cues or metal joints or even an inlay, but to take every aspect of a certain cue and make an exact copy is wrong. I can't say it any clearer for you Joe, I know it sounds good to say I sway with the wind and I can see from the election in Nov. that it worked for Bush, but it's not working for you. Keep trying to twist what I say though.

then its ok to take some elements,

Yup, it's ok to make cues inspired by someone, but that isn't stealing a whole design. It's also lame and shows a lack of talent, but yet it's not stealing a whole design.

then its ok if the owner says it is,

If the owner owns the design and allows it it would not be stealing, again shows a real lack of ability, yet not stealing. If I came up with my own design and had different cue makers make the same cue it would be fine since I own the design. But in this case we are talking about someone who's dead, George can't bitch or sue, but yet it's still not OK.

then its not ok to copy,

It's never ok to copy a whole cue Joe, how many different ways should I write it to make you understand it? This isn't to say people won't do it.

then it doesn't apply to people he likes.

Not true, IT'S NEVER OK TO STEAL A DESIGN< no matter who does it.

On and on.

No on and on, you just tried to double talk and you think you made a point. Not the case, from day 1 I said it's never ok and I am still saying it's not ok, there has never been a change in my opinion.

. he says dead knockoffs, but that wasn't what started this discussion.

Of course it was, but of course it's better for you to claim it wasn't, the cue was represented as such (a direct copy of a cue owned by some room owner in PA) "ever see the last buska made?? Remember that line Joe???

A cue similar to a Bushka, made from a picture, is what was. Surely it wasn't a dead knock off,

What were the differences?? The design of the cue was a copy, don't tell me it wasn't the same because he used a different butt plate or bumper or pin, get a clue Joe.

as anyone who ever picked up a cue could see,

I've picked up a cue and I could tell it was a copy, and even if I couldn't the guy trying to sell it admitted it.

. I don'tbut 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.

I've been consistant from day one, I don't care who does it, stealing a cue design is wrong. End of story, if my mom did it I'd tell her she was wrong.

Phillippi makes a few rasputin inspired cues, that aren't even good, and all of a sudden he is Charles Manson.

Not at all, I just gave an opinion to someone who asked a question, he wanted to know why they had bad resale and that is part of it. I'm not Charles manson and BTW I don't think they steal designs, just styles.

Then he rants about Mottey and the feathers Ginacue, yes there was some backlash, very minor,

Shows how little you know about the situation, but if it's ok to do then how come there was any backlash Joe??? I mean it's fine to do, how can anyone say or do anything???

but if you had the oppertunity to see both cues, you would know which is which without even straining your eyes.

Again just because it's a bad copy does not excuse the fact that it was still a copy.


One other thing that is evident is his inability to sidetrack people who stay on the issues.


You mean the way you want to change the issue and ignore what I've said over and over. The way you want to claim that I said copying cues is ok in some situations. I've said from day one it's wrong no matter WHO does it.

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.

What does one have to do with the other?? I never said I would never buy a cue from DZ or anyone, but I can tell you I would never by a cue that was a knockoff and that's all I've ever said.

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?

Nope we are talking about the whole cue design, not points or wrap or pin or bumper, the whole cue design. From below the joint to above the butt capp, the whole cue, colors, inlays and inlay pattern, a copy is a copy and I think most here understand me. Not 1 inlay a copy of the whole cue design.

Can't have it both ways Jimmie-boy...

Joe

I don't want it both ways, I don't even know what both ways are, all I am talking about is cue design theft. I know it won't stop as long as people like you think it's fine to do. Until people realize that it takes hard work to come up with new designs and they respect it as a major part of the construction of the cue. I have said it a hundred times it's wrong to copy another cue makers cue, no matter who does it, I'm not defending anyone because I happen to know or like them, it's wrong.

Jim

 

[JimBo]

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.

I said it's wrong to steal designs, bushka inspired cues is not stealing a design, show me a bushka and then post the pictures of the copy that Scruggs made and I will blast him right here in public. Until then this is a non-issue.

Jim

 

[JimBo]

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

I don't think anything I've posted here would lead you to believe I collect cues at all. My point from day one on this debate was and still is the same, making a copy of a cue that someone else came up with is wrong. If I own the cue being copied or no cues has no bearing on the topic. What you need to see for yourselves is what I have already stated, feel free to agree or disagree with my words and opinions. As far as being critical of any cues goes again what would that have to do with if I owned a cue or not? You happen to have some very nice Motteys, hope that wasn't to critical for you

 

[monski]

Situations - to clarify my confusion

What if a rich client wanted to have his wife's face in the Monalisa... Assuming a celebrated artist is being commissioned to do it --- and did it. How should we look at this situation?

In the case of famous paintings, I'm sure copies have been made also. Then you see these paintings in houses of millionaires. These people say, I have the money to buy the original works but they are not for sale --- so I had a copy made.

Then you have things in the department store or bookstores which allow people to actually copy famous works of art by simply following instructions... I mean these styles were perfected over long periods of time. Then they are disected and copied over a few hours with the help of a manual.

Can art or cue art be copyrighted? Would people bother - specially if you're not even sure if you can sell the stuff (the original)? What if it got famous after the death of the original maker?

 

[SplicedPoints]

I said it's wrong to steal designs, bushka inspired cues is not stealing a design, show me a bushka and then post the pictures of the copy that Scruggs made and I will blast him right here in public. Until then this is a non-issue.

Jim

Well Jimbo. It is an issue if you would blast another cuemaker for the same reason. You blasted Coker for making a SW knockoff when its quite clear, if you put the two cues side by side, that there are clearly enough differences between the 2 cues. I'm not saying Coker never did make a cue using SW bands or SW rings, but those cues are probably in the great minority, probably less than many other respected cuemakers. If you would blast one cue maker for what you considered as making something that's too similar in looking to a traditional design, then what's the difference between that and what Scruggs did with the Bushka line of cues? Scruggs even called the line of cues the Balabushka line.

 

[larrynj1]

jimbo, i don't have time to read your last 50 posts on this subject. could you please summarize your position on this subject? tia.

 

[SplicedPoints]

I don't know what everybody look at when appreciating a cue. But there are basically 3 things I look at. The 1st thing is the Hit. This is very subjective, but there are some cues that obviously hit better than the others. There are lots of cuemakers making great playing cues and I appreciate their works accordingly. 2nd is the worksmanship. If the cue has flawless execution of points, inlays, rings, finish, and etc, I appreciate them. However, having a flawless cosmetic execution doesn't make great playing cues sometimes. Many cuemakers with great cosmetic execution don't make great playing cues. 3rd is the design. If it is something I've never seen before and is artistic, I appreciate it. If it is something that's unique, has flawless worksmanship, and plays great, than it is the pinnacle of cuemaking. From the reviews, discussions, , and the people I've talked to, not that many cues can have all 3 of the elements.

At this point in my life, I am not a real cue collector. I've owned some cues by some good cuemakers, but not enough to call a collection. If I was choosing what cues to buy, I would choose playability first. If the cue plays great, even if it has slight cosmetic defects or is a design that is similar to another cuemaker's design, I would buy it. There are lots of cuemakers that fall under this category. Like the old cliche goes: "inlays don't make balls go in pockets".

 

[spanky981]

warning

JimBo,

I have kept quiet long enough.. If a cuemaker thinks that their designs are being stolen or copied.... Hire an attorney..Get a patent.. Make a issue about it.. I believe its up to the artist to decide what is acceptable and what is a problem to them.. Not the consumer.. I know at lest one cuemaker who has patented their design..

Here is my biggest problem..You pick and choose.. Call out some big names... For instance.. Barry Szamboti cues are made like his dads.. He has copied several of his dads designs.. Is that a problem??.. He is not the original artist ..No, but you think it is , or do you?

Pete Tascarella.. Sure he bought George Balabushkas equipment but does that give him the right to copy Balabushka designs.. He has in the past.. Is that a problem.. No, but you think it is..or do you??

Southwest cues..Inspired by the work of David Kersenbrock.. Are you Ok with Southwest?

You can argue that these people were part of the companies, or were taught by these guys how to build cues..Thats right, but again...Its up to the cuemakers to decide what they are Ok with, not us..

Its a good debate but I feel until you patent a design or style of cue, or a certain cue, this is the USA with a free market..Maybe you dont like the USA.

By the way.. You shouldn't slight or put down great cuemakers like Paul Mottey.. He is a artist, and you know that.. Pauls ability to make cues is far more superior than most and any put down by you is unwarranted..



Mike

 

[JimBo]

Instead of blaming others and calling other people "stupid", maybe you should do a better job writing and making your point.

You make an excellent point, I think I will try to do that.

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?

We've been over it, get over the Coker thing, I am not going to go back and forth with you. If you feel that I am the only one you've ever heard say this about them then I am sorry for that, it's just not my findings.

Jim

 

[JimBo]

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?????

Nope never said it was OK to do, it's wrong no matter who does it or who it's for. What I did say was I could see why someone would do it for him. There was also no proof ever posted that what was made for him were copies. I also made it a point to say that if the person owned the cue he *MAY* also own some rights to it's design, this may be something worth debating, I wonder if the cue were a one of a kind does that make any difference, I also wonder if the cue is a design made by a customer if it matters in the reverse? Can a cue maker make 4 or 5 exact cues from a design a customer draws up and sends to him. If you designed a cue (original concept) and sent it off to Tim Scruggs on a bar napkin and then 8 months later you saw him selling 3 just like it on his web-site how would you feel?? Point is I am open to debate certian parts of this issue, but I have never been wishy or washy about the fact that copying a whole cue design is wrong.

Jim

 

[JimBo]

What if a rich client wanted to have his wife's face in the Monalisa... Assuming a celebrated artist is being commissioned to do it --- and did it. How should we look at this situation?

I don't believe any *REAL* artist would do such a thing. But if it were a joke I'd say it wasn't really a copy, the point is you didn't say they paid for a copy you said they put their wife's face in it.

In the case of famous paintings, I'm sure copies have been made also. Then you see these paintings in houses of millionaires. These people say, I have the money to buy the original works but they are not for sale --- so I had a copy made.

If they can't own it then it's really to bad, Again there is no right to own anything. People with that type of money do not want COPIES they want the real thing and most times it's because of the status that comes along with owning it rather then the appreciation of the piece.

Then you have things in the department store or bookstores which allow people to actually copy famous works of art by simply following instructions... I mean these styles were perfected over long periods of time. Then they are disected and copied over a few hours with the help of a manual.

You are talking about everyday people, not artists, again we are talking about cue makers here. Not some guy in his garage with a book on how to copy a bushka. IMO not the same thing, you won't find a true artist buying a paint by numbers copy of the Monalisa down at the wal-Mart.

Can art or cue art be copyrighted? Would people bother - specially if you're not even sure if you can sell the stuff (the original)? What if it got famous after the death of the original maker?

Cues can be copywrighted and have been, I am not sure who would be willing to go through the fight in court and spend more money then the cue sold for in the first place. I am not sure they need to be either, do paintings or other art need to be Copywrighted? Isn't doing it and signing it enough??? Also the death thing seems very relivant because once the person dies (Bushka, Boti) who will be around to care or sue and how would they benifit from it?

Jim

 

[JimBo]

Scruggs even called the line of cues the Balabushka line.

At least he gave credit where credit was due. Also this was a traditional design that was made by everyone back then, Szamboti as well as others. But the main thing that pops out at me is that once more you are trying to beat the dead horse that is Coker, get over it. Sorry I was the first one you've ever heard say this about them.

Jim

 

[JimBo]

jimbo, i don't have time to read your last 50 posts on this subject. could you please summarize your position on this subject? tia.

I'm sorry that the topic doesn't interest you enough to read all the posts. I would reccomend you just skip this topic. I have been very clear from day one on my stance on the issue, there has never been one post from me that claims it's ok to copy a cue (no matter how many times Joe or anyone else claim I did). I suggest you have someone put the whole thread on tape for you and listen to it on the drive in to work, or just call Joe and ask him what he *thinks* I meant or said, then ask him how you should stand on the issues. I never said it was OK for some makers and not others.

IT'S WRONG TO STEAL CUE DESIGNS!

If you were serious (and I doubt it) that pretty much sums it up. Feel free to PM me or E-mail me with any serious questions you may have I would love to explain it to you in more detail.

Jim

 

[JimBo]

I don't know what everybody look at when appreciating a cue. But there are basically 3 things I look at. The 1st thing is the Hit. This is very subjective, but there are some cues that obviously hit better than the others. There are lots of cuemakers making great playing cues and I appreciate their works accordingly. 2nd is the worksmanship. If the cue has flawless execution of points, inlays, rings, finish, and etc, I appreciate them. However, having a flawless cosmetic execution doesn't make great playing cues sometimes. Many cuemakers with great cosmetic execution don't make great playing cues. 3rd is the design. If it is something I've never seen before and is artistic, I appreciate it. If it is something that's unique, has flawless worksmanship, and plays great, than it is the pinnacle of cuemaking. From the reviews, discussions, , and the people I've talked to, not that many cues can have all 3 of the elements.

At this point in my life, I am not a real cue collector. I've owned some cues by some good cuemakers, but not enough to call a collection. If I was choosing what cues to buy, I would choose playability first. If the cue plays great, even if it has slight cosmetic defects or is a design that is similar to another cuemaker's design, I would buy it. There are lots of cuemakers that fall under this category. Like the old cliche goes: "inlays don't make balls go in pockets".

That is a great post and I agree with it 100%, yet it has nothing at all to do with what we are talking about. I'd also add that cues made by the same maker can and do hit totally different, that is yet another aspect (consistancy) to what makes a great cuemaker IMO.

Jim

 

[SplicedPoints]

We've been over it, get over the Coker thing, I am not going to go back and forth with you. If you feel that I am the only one you've ever heard say this about them then I am sorry for that, it's just not my findings.

Jim

Well. I will get over it if you provide a satisfactory answer. But you so far haven't. I have read many posts about how Cokers are SW style and how some people feel they play like SWs. But you're the only one I've read that has called them "knockoffs". The point here is also not who is the first one to call them that. If any of those people or even you can provide a convincing argument of how Coker has "knockedoff" SW so severely that it deserved to be labled as a knockoff, I would gladly accept it. But you have yet to provide anything that can be viewed as convincing evidence.

You also seem to have a double-standard when applying your cue-theft principals. If it is alright to make an inspired cue that exclusively uses design elements from other cuemakers (aka Scruggs Bushka line), than how is Coker wrong for making a cue that utilize a basic 6 point w2w design? You've repeatedly avoided answering that question.

You've also accused Coker of paddling their cues as SWs. Your "evidence" to support such a claim is that "if I searched Ebay for Coker cues I would see people comparing them to SW". That's a very big leap in assumption and a flawed logic. People compare them to SW's hit, but that's subjective and I have had SW users tell me they think Cokers hit somewhat like a SW. Again, You said in another thread that you won't comment on hit because that's a personal opinion. The other comparison would be that they have a SW lookish style. SW lookish contains a very broad category of cues by a more cuemakers than I can list accurately. You seems to be too willing to judge a cuemaker based on some Ebay sale descriptions. Doesn't common knowledge and the law of the land state that a man's innocent until proven guilty?

If you would state that its ok to do an inspired cue, than don't you find you contradicting yourself by calling Cokers knockoffs? According to your more recent posts, you need to make "exact" copies of a cue design to be labelled as "knockoffs". Since Cokers do not qualify as exact copies, then logically they are not knockoffs. Unless you have yet more points you haven't made, then you are contradicting your own statements.

 

[Jon]

ROFL, this is getting to be really funny...

Thanks for the Laughs...

Jon

 

[JimBo]

Well. I will get over it if you provide a satisfactory answer. But you so far haven't.

I'm not here to make you happy or to answer too you, sorry.

I have read many posts about how Cokers are SW style and how some people feel they play like SWs.

Only from people without a clue or trying to sell them.

But you're the only one I've read that has called them "knockoffs".

Really?? The only one? I'm the only one you've heard it from?? Now I think you're a liar.

The point here is also not who is the first one to call them that. If any of those people or even you can provide a convincing argument of how Coker has "knockedoff" SW so severely that it deserved to be labled as a knockoff, I would gladly accept it.

Who cares what you accept? You don't have to accept anything, you don't seem to get it, I can respect your opinion that they aren't, My OPINION is you're wrong and in the minority.

But you have yet to provide anything that can be viewed as convincing evidence.

Again I'll say I'm not on trial and you my friend are beating a dead horse.



You also seem to have a double-standard when applying your cue-theft principals. If it is alright to make an inspired cue that exclusively uses design elements from other cuemakers (aka Scruggs Bushka line), than how is Coker wrong for making a cue that utilize a basic 6 point w2w design?

Not much difference, yet the truth is thousands of cues were made in the (as you call it) Bushka style, SW was the first to innovate their look and has been getting knocked off ever since people found out it sells. Coker IS NOT the only ones, they are just one of the biggest offenders, I hope in the future they will try to stand on their own and make a name on their own.

You've repeatedly avoided answering that question.

You've also accused Coker of paddling their cues as SWs. Your "evidence" to support such a claim is that "if I searched Ebay for Coker cues I would see people comparing them to SW". That's a very big leap in assumption and a flawed logic.

Just a theory, I don't need to prove it, just threw it out there when you made the claim that they didn't do it (without proof BTW).

People compare them to SW's hit,

Only those trying to sell them.

but that's subjective and I have had SW users tell me they think Cokers hit somewhat like a SW.

Very doubtful, and if so they really have no clue (BTW I won't be posting any proof to back this up either).

Again, You said in another thread that you won't comment on hit because that's a personal opinion.

True, but that's about good or bad hit, in this case I can comment and say they don't hit alike, that's not an opinion on good or bad, just different.

The other comparison would be that they have a SW lookish style.

How dare you make that claim!!!! I am outragged, what proof do you have to make this claim?? They have different tips and tapers and they use a slightly different ring. The bumpers are totally different they have a C on them, I can't believe you can even type this knowing all of the differences!

SW lookish contains a very broad category of cues by a more cuemakers than I can list accurately.

True many people knocked off that "LOOK" and it was wrong every time, I've already said Gilbert and Thomas Wayne has also, as well as Ohman (Omen) and others. I don't like any of them and I wouldn't buy them, but I don't mind sharing my opinion about them.

You seems to be too willing to judge a cuemaker based on some Ebay sale descriptions.

Nope in this case I am judging them on poor artistic execution and a lack of creativity, again I am not making any comments on the quality or hit of the cue, quite the opposite, I've heard nothing but good about Coker cues (except for resale).

Doesn't common knowledge and the law of the land state that a man's innocent until proven guilty?

Nope it states everyone is entitled to their own OPINION, you seem to not want anyone who doesn't share yours to speak about it. Last I heard we can disagree here in America.

If you would state that its ok to do an inspired cue, than don't you find you contradicting yourself by calling Cokers knockoffs?

You are trying to pull a Joe V here, I said they made knockoffs that is different then complete copies, yes I think they are close and I think they are wrong for doing it. I don't believe a judge would put them in jail for it, yet it's very close. Coker is using the SW style to sell cues you have yet to give any other reason why they make them so close to SW, if these guys are as good as you think they are why don't they come up with a "Coker Look"? My guess is kinda like how Joe MAKES Skip knockoff tradition looking cues , they just couldn't sell based on their own name.

According to your more recent posts, you need to make "exact" copies of a cue design to be labelled as "knockoffs".

Nope go back and read, my recent posts have no mention of "knockoffs" it says stealing cue designs, that had to do with inlays and layouts and composition, I also said recently that points and the such can't be claimed so it's very hard to judge in those cases. Early on you tried to say that Gina did 6 point cues prior to SW, well if you can't tell the difference between a SW 6 point look and a Gina or Szamboti then I guess you need more education. The difference is much bigger then the difference between the SW and Coker rings.

Since Cokers do not qualify as exact copies, then logically they are not knockoffs. Unless you have yet more points you haven't made, then you are contradicting your own statements.

I'll agree they are not 100% copies of SW cues, but they are knockoffs and you're to proud or stupid to even admit that. Even though I ask you every time if this is the first time you heard this. I have also pointed to the many many other people who draw the same comparisons, it's not just me, sorry.

In any event we can disagree on the topic, I know I'll never convince you that Coker cues look an awful lot like SW's and you'll never convince me that they are not even close to looking anything like a Southwest. I agree to disagree with you. I will also take pride in knowing that a hell of a lot more people agree with me then you. Have a great day.

Jim

 

[larrynj1]

can anyone guess the highest number of consecutive posts jimbo has made on this thread before getting someone to respond?

 

[JimBo]

can anyone guess the highest number of consecutive posts jimbo has made on this thread before getting someone to respond?

Can anyone guess why Larry seems obsessed? I reply to posts that are directed towards me, sorry that bothers you, I've already suggested that you skip over my posts would you like some help in how to do it? Just ignore me Larry, I am sure there is nothing that I have posted that has educated or amused you.

Jim

 

[larrynj1]

there was a few moments there a few days back that i was amused.