The only reason, in my opinion we have exchanges like this is because at least to me you come off like the biggest Dog at the food bowel, no one else gets to eat until you have had your fill. The tension involving cases started when Rusty's work started becoming popular on the forum. You took this as invasion of your territory, and had to attack any source because it was taking attention away from you. At first you said his work is not close to the top case makers on the forum, now in a matter of months you are equating his name with them. John, have you added Rusty to your website yet? I know that up until recently he was one of the few who was not listed, maybe you just did not realize that you had over looked it.
I also Like you John, because you also stand up for your beliefs even if I do not agree with them. That is one thing we both certainly have in common.
Take Care John!!
I didn't overlook it at all. I add anyone who has a web presence (website) whose work I feel merits a recommendation.
I don't understand why you spend so much time trying to ascribe motivation to what I do. Unless you are a psychologist you should really just stick to the discussion and the points that are made.
Look it up on the history, every comment I have made to Rusty about his cases has been highly complimentary from the first case until the last.
I took exception with your characterization of Rusty's work not with Rusty's because Rusty doesn't come out and say he is the greatest thing since Chas Clements.
Do you remember when Dean Campbell was promoting his new Deano sneakies that were made by an unknown cue maker? Remember how he said that they were the best hitting cues ever and better than all the custom cues he owned and so on.... or something close to that? What did you do? You were quite critical of this and sought to discredit Dean's characterization through talking about how it wasn't worth the money Dean was asking for it. Remember we had an argument over that?
How is this any different when you then come out and start touting a new case maker as being as good as one of the best who ever lived and you haven't even seen the work except in pictures? That's all I took exception to, the fact that you set yourself up as someone who is intimate with the work of both and is qualified to rank them as equals.
I never said Rusty's work isn't close to the top makers on this forum, who are they anyway? Are you going to make a list? I said that it is my opinion that if anyone is the heir apparent to Chas Clements then it is Marc Turcasso, MatCase on this forum. And that opinion is based on my first hand knowledge of Chas Clement's style and methods when compared to what I can see of Marc's cases.
Yes Craig I "come off" as highly opinionated about cue cases because in fact I am. I am very sensitive to keeping things factual and real when it comes to cases both in construction and design. This attitude has not changed since my first postings on the Rec.Sport.Billiard group in 1996ish and there are plenty of folks here who can verify that.
I also share a lot of what I know and try to help others get a good start in their case making. Other than Chas Clements in the distant past and a little advice on tooling that Jim Murnak gave me two years ago no other case maker has ever offered me any help to improve my product. Yet I do this all the time. Does it sometimes come off as bragging or egoistic? I am sure it does as I have never been the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to making everyone happy with my speeches. Still though the fact remains that you can find a lot of good information about how to build cases that I have shared over the years. Ask Rusty and he will tell you what he and I discussed in private concerning the way he makes cases.
But be that as it is, another good friend pointed out to me the futility of carrying on discussions like this on AZ or elsewhere. I promised him to stop and I will.
Craig, you can have the last word on this subject. You are absolutely correct in that the time I spent on this thread could have and should have been spent doing more work that creates.
As I said the subject is a good one and has a lot of merit. Here is an example that brings your point home.
When I was doing the pictures for the new Sterling cases I went to a local studio and talked with the owner who was also the main photographer. I ordered and paid for something around 600 images. When I went to review them they were horrible. I asked the owner if he did the work and he said that his assitants did it - then I asked him if he had checked it before I was summoned to view the images, he said no.
So I told him that I expected them to be done right and that I didn't care WHO did them but I wasn't accepting crap. So he did the new ones and they turned out fairly good. When I went there I had no reason to assume that the pictures would be anything less than great. As it turned out the first ones weren't and luckily this was something that could be redone.
If however the first ones had been right then I would never have known the difference unless I was very very very familiar with the owner's work.
The point of all this is as I said it's each person's preference as to what is important to them when getting something from someone. And it's their responsibility to do all the due diligence to insure as best they can that their wishes are respected.
It's unrealistic to expect all craftsmen to work alone all the time. It is realistic to expect them to be involved in the product before it is presented to the customer.
When I sign something then I am saying to my customer that I stand good for what I am giving them. I am saying to them that all that I am is invested in this case and I give it to you with pride in my and my team's accomplishment.