Who Did What First?

[JB Cases]

Hi,

I agree with Jammie about designs and one should push their creative envelope at their own pace of evolution as a cue maker for sure. You can't argue the fact that new designs should be what one must strive for.

That being said, as a custom cue maker you get people all of the time who request certain classic design attributes on a cue ie. N Dimonds, Props, barbells, certain rings or whatever. Many of these fine cues shown above that are very similar to other cues may just be custom cues whereby the player requested these geometries.

A very wise cue maker of the highest prominence among collectors gave me some great advise. Custom Cue Maker / Customer. "Give your customer what he wants" he said. Lets face it, you have to make a living and what are you going to say, no forget it. I am not doing that for you.

If a cue maker can progress to a higher level whereby collectors seek their cues it will be from the execution of there own designs and talent. That goes without saying.

Di Vince made a few "Mona Plane Janes" before he did the "Mona Lisa" I would think!! LOL It's all about time and a natural progression for each individual CM.

JMO,

Rick

More than likely the Mona Lisa was a custom piece. A lot of the artists back then supported themselves with portrait work and fresco work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa

The way I think of it is in terms of style. Most makers gravitate towards a style that they like. If their work becomes popular then that style becomes "theirs" even if they didn't originate it. SouthWest didn't create the style that is their signature look now.

And it's entrenched as theirs so any cue maker after them is going to have a hard time not being seen as building in the SW style when they emulate that look. That's not to say that 100 years from now some other cue maker won't be known more for this style than SW is today.

Tad has a distinctive way to do the rings that really no one else does. So they are "Tad" rings and anyone else doing them is copying them. Now is that design "theft"? I don't think so. I don't think that ring arrangements elevate a cue to the level of art any more than I think a wavy seam elevates my case to art.

But for experts the Tad ring is distinctive and any cue shown with that ringwork will immediately be thought of as copying Tad on some level. That's just the way it is. When Toyota copies elements from Mercedes and vice versa then the car mags love to point it out.

I think when you deliberately use elements from other more well-known cue makers then you invite a certain level of criticism. It takes quite a composition to make people ignore the individual elements and take the piece as a whole and appreciate it for what it is. If that standard isn't met then people will tend to nitpick and criticize the design elements where they were copied from other cues.

All of this is one big grey area. Call it 50 shades of design. As I have said many times we are where we are as a species 100% because of copying. First we discover then we share/copy then we innovate/discover on that, then we copy/share, and so on. We are ourselves natural genetic copies of each other. It's in our DNA to copy and so we do. Those whom we consider to be original are only original in the sense that they are willing to distort what has come before into amazing ways that fascinate us. In short they work harder to amaze us and they do.

So copying has many levels from the basest reproductions to creations that one has to do some homework to find the genesis. But make no mistake, it's all sourced from somewhere else and, if lucky, itself becomes the basis for inspiring those that come after on some level.

 

[Worminator]

I doubt someone can show a Tad which is exactly like the cue I have had made because I chose two different cues to copy the butt design and forearm design.

I fixed this for you Lenny. :grin:

I supposed the question I would ask in regards to this cue is... did you call Tad and ask for his permission to copy his designs? I believe I know what his answer would be. JD also copies Gina designs, did he call Ernie and ask for permission? I'm positive I know what Ernie would tell him.

 

[Fast Lenny]

I fixed this for you Lenny. :grin:

I supposed the question I would ask in regards to this cue is... did you call Tad and ask for his permission to copy his designs? I believe I know what his answer would be. JD also copies Gina designs, did he call Ernie and ask for permission? I'm positive I know what Ernie would tell him.

I challenge you to post a picture of a Tad which is exactly like the JD shown, you can call it a copy, a tribute, whatever you like. As we went over before I highly doubt the Szam "tribute" on your site was done with permission either or any of the SW "style" cues you have probably sold in the past, you might not like it but you have no problem selling it and making a buck off of it. If I was so against it I would not sell it or send the royalty check to those cue makers.

One thing that amazes me is that if a cue maker is from the US and has a good name it is okay for him to make these so called tributes but a Asian cue maker not so much. I think if a cue maker is alive then we should all call it a copy, if they are not then its a tribute, sound fair?

Here is another funny thing, look back to Richard Black when he was making Balabushka style cues that were being passed off as the real thing. It does not mean he cannot build unique cues but sometimes I think a cue maker appreciates another artist work and wants to see if they can do it and perhaps even do it better.

I would have to say Tascarella is more refined than George and Barry more so than Gus, this is just from what I have seen in the evolution of cue making and my opinion, might just be the equipment though. It all had to start somewhere and the thread John posted shows where many things started and much longer ago then I thought. Since John is in this thread, would I rather have my cue in an original Flowers case or a JB Flowers case?, I have had both and felt John's was better made even if it has come from China.

Is there a way for a cue maker to legally protect his design work?

 

[mia]

Tad has a distinctive way to do the rings that really no one else does. So they are "Tad" rings and anyone else doing them is copying them. Now is that design "theft"? I don't think so. I don't think that ring arrangements elevate a cue to the level of art any more than I think a wavy seam elevates my case to art.

But for experts the Tad ring is distinctive and any cue shown with that ringwork will immediately be thought of as copying Tad on some level. That's just the way it is. When Toyota copies elements from Mercedes and vice versa then the car mags love to point it out.

I think when you deliberately use elements from other more well-known cue makers then you invite a certain level of criticism. It takes quite a composition to make people ignore the individual elements and take the piece as a whole and appreciate it for what it is. If that standard isn't met then people will tend to nitpick and criticize the design elements where they were copied from other cues.

While I agree with what your saying, this point is lost on Rick (especially the part in red). Because, by his own admission, when he started cue making, his thoughts were "Which rings should I put on my cues?" So he chose the DPK box rings. Because hey! David wasn't doing them anymore. And why try to come up with something new. Right?! Who has time for that???

 

[Worminator]

I challenge you to post a picture of a Tad which is exactly like the JD shown, you can call it a copy, a tribute, whatever you like. As we went over before I highly doubt the Szam "tribute" on your site was done with permission either or any of the SW "style" cues you have probably sold in the past, you might not like it but you have no problem selling it and making a buck off of it. If I was so against it I would not sell it or send the royalty check to those cue makers.

They guys that are into copying someone else's designs always attempt to rationalization of their actions. Like... I stole the designs from two different cues from the original cuemaker to make a unique cue.

As I stated in an earlier post... the Szam copy belongs to my partner, I was against it when it was made and and I still am. Also, I have never sold a SW copy, so I do not understand why you keep bringing that up.

 

[CMD]

This is always an interesting topic. It is also a subject that usually ends with name calling and/or flame wars.

The reality of this subject has to do with the person ordering the cue. They try to justify a tribute/copy for whatever reason they see fit. Since the OP has thick skin, he won't mind being used as an example. In my opinion, has to do about cost. If the person ordering the cue could afford the original, this subject never comes up. If you want a Tad cue, call Tad or buy on the secondary market. If you want a Gus, you can wait for Barry or buy one on the secondary market. Knowingly asking for a copy/tribute is never an accident.

This part of it never comes up. It's no different than a cheap copy of a Rolex or a Coach handbag. In the end, it's still a copy because the buyer can't afford the original.

Personally, I'm not offended by it. A person buys what they can afford.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fast Lenny]

They guys that are into copying someone else's designs always attempt to rationalization of their actions. Like... I stole the designs from two different cues from the original cuemaker to make a unique cue.

As I stated in an earlier post... the Szam copy belongs to my partner, I was against it when it was made and and I still am. Also, I have never sold a SW copy, so I do not understand why you keep bringing that up.

I said probably because I am assuming as its very common and you are a cue dealer. Regardless of it all whether its your partners doing or not, its hypocritical to talk about how you are against something but have no problem selling it. I highly doubt that Szam copy is the only cue copy you have sold or something that has been heavily influenced because although you have many fine unique cues it is easy to see some that are not. I am enjoying this thread and the info posted by John was worth the price of admission alone.

 

[Fast Lenny]

This is always an interesting topic. It is also a subject that usually ends with name calling and/or flame wars.

The reality of this subject has to do with the person ordering the cue. They try to justify a tribute/copy for whatever reason they see fit. Since the OP has thick skin, he won't mind being used as an example. In my opinion, has to do about cost. If the person ordering the cue could afford the original, this subject never comes up. If you want a Tad cue, call Tad or buy on the secondary market. If you want a Gus, you can wait for Barry or buy one on the secondary market. Knowingly asking for a copy/tribute is never an accident.

This part of it never comes up. It's no different than a cheap copy of a Rolex or a Coach handbag. In the end, it's still a copy because the buyer can't afford the original.

Personally, I'm not offended by it. A person buys what they can afford.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is not so much that I cannot afford one, its that I am unwilling to pay that much for one. In the future for investment purposes if I got a good deal to resell down the road but in reality I like to play with the cues I own which makes owning some of these a bit impractical since I am not a collector. I have never owned a cue over $2000-$2500, I have owned over a 100 cues easily from various makers and have to say the best hitting cues I have had has been under $500.

My lady has designer handbags, I do not get paying all that money for them but its her thing just like how she does not get me paying the money I do for cues which is not a good deal of money at all in the big picture. I have showed her cues on here and when she sees some for sale for $10,000 or whatever she does not get it but I explain they are collectible, people pay for a name and some look at it as an investment.

I appreciate the collectors out there, they keep the cue dealers in business and cue builders with food on the table. I do like that I can own a cue I see on here that I like the look of for the fraction of the cost and the quality is still high, in the past the knock off cues we have seen have been laughable but now the quality is very good. I guess in some ways it might hurt cue dealers and builders because if someone wanted that style cue they had to pay good money for it from the original builder. Most lower end cue builders could not execute it and pull it off where the cue did not look like a joke or the work was very shoddy.

 

[Worminator]

I said probably because I am assuming as its very common and you are a cue dealer. Regardless of it all whether its your partners doing or not, its hypocritical to talk about how you are against something but have no problem selling it. I highly doubt that Szam copy is the only cue copy you have sold or something that has been heavily influenced because although you have many fine unique cues it is easy to see some that are not. I am enjoying this thread and the info posted by John was worth the price of admission alone.

I am not selling the cue, my partner is and the site is partially his. I am against it, I do not understand how that can be hypocritical.

If you like copying other cuemakers work that is fine. I may state an opinion about it, but that is it. I don't think you're a bad person for it, just someone who views the issue differently than me.

The JD guy is the one crossing the line IMO... the Gina copies even more so than your cues. Blatant copies of truly unique cues is just not right in my mind.

 

[Fast Lenny]

I would like to add one more thing also. I would not be thrilled if I had a unique cue made for say $5000 and a couple months down the road a copy of it popped up that cost $500. I do think from now on I will be a bit more sensitive to that and make changes to an original design so its really its own but has the influence of the original that I like. Thanks for taking part in this little thread and playing nice. :grin:

 

[Fast Lenny]

I am not selling the cue, my partner is and the site is partially his. I am against it, I do not understand how that can be hypocritical.

If you like copying other cuemakers work that is fine. I may state an opinion about it, but that is it. I don't think you're a bad person for it, just someone who views the issue differently than me.

The JD guy is the one crossing the line IMO... the Gina copies even more so than your cues. Blatant copies of truly unique cues is just not right in my mind.

I respect your opinion on it, no hard feelings at all. I think Joel builds what people ask him to do for money and does not see it as right or wrong. I would like to see him move away from that and do more of his own stuff which I have been seeing from time to time.

As stated earlier though, people who cannot afford or will not pay for a design will seek it elsewhere and its obvious the demand for it is there or they would not be made. Joel gets request for these cues, I am not sure whether he built the first one by his own choice or was asked to do it for a customer.

 

[classiccues]

I would like to add one more thing also. I would not be thrilled if I had a unique cue made for say $5000 and a couple months down the road a copy of it popped up that cost $500. I do think from now on I will be a bit more sensitive to that and make changes to an original design so its really its own but has the influence of the original that I like. Thanks for taking part in this little thread and playing nice. :grin:

Well I will agree with Jamie and that lately the off shore Pinoy cuemakers have been making copies with little regard or acknowledgement to the original maker. Gina, Sugartree, your two cues, and they do it for under 500.00.

What I don't get is someone who says I don't like copies but has cues with propellors (Gus), Razor windows (Gus) three piece diamonds (Gus), patterns by Balabushka, in cues, and they say I don't like copying. Really? To me this has always been an all in debate. In for a penny, in for a pound and if you have done it as a cuemaker early on, and now because you have become technically advanced, you cannot cry foul now. I see a lot of leeway given by people who are against copies until they buy one, or their friendly cuemaker does it.

JV

 

[JB Cases]

While I agree with what your saying, this point is lost on Rick (especially the part in red). Because, by his own admission, when he started cue making, his thoughts were "Which rings should I put on my cues?" So he chose the DPK box rings. Because hey! David wasn't doing them anymore. And why try to come up with something new. Right?! Who has time for that???

I wasn't really directing that at Rick. I am aware of the thread at JA about the rings but that comment was more of a general statement than directed at any maker.

Personally my feeling is that IF a cue maker has ever in their life "taken" any element from any other person's work then they can't really complain when someone riffs on their work at some point.

As an aside I have not seen very many DPK cues and I can't recall that any of the ones I have seen had that ring work. And before Rick started doing it I can't recall that anyone else had been doing it either and don't remember any conversations over them. So my feeling on this is that Rick is preserving a type of ring that may well have been lost if he didn't start doing it.

I am not the type of person who thinks that once a person has done something then it's completely off limits to others. I promise you that if I see something done by another casemaker that I like then I will do it, especially if it's a better way to build the case than what I currently do. Decorative stuff I am not so keen on copying though but occasionally I see something that inspires me to want to try to do my own version.

About the only thing I don't condone is flat out copying and I particularly can't stand it when people copy or "borrow" elements of style and don't have enough class to give attribution. At the very least credit should be given.

Now, in situations where design is protected by copyright, trademark, design patent, or utility patent I certainly feel that the creator should be asked for a license to use that work. But I also know that in today's world this is also a grey area. I mean if someone asks me to put a logo on a case I feel that this is free advertisement for the brand and will generally do it. I don't see it as being any different than if the customer had bought a patch and sewn it on themselves.

If another living case maker does something very distinctive, such as Jack Justis' arrows then I avoid that out of both professional courtesy and professional pride. Unless an element is part of leatherwork in general such as straight guidelines for stamping tools I will try to avoid doing the same elements that others do. Now that said I will freely borrow from leather workers who don't make cue cases and give them credit, such as when we did finger cuts on the inside of the rim of a case, similar to how Peter Main tools the inside of his belts.

But that is not much different than say Richard Black taking the elements of a classic Parker Pen and putting those into a cue.

Like I said, 50 shades of design.

 

[cueaddicts]

Still waitin' here for some royalties........ :wink:

 

[scdiveteam]

While I agree with what your saying, this point is lost on Rick (especially the part in red). Because, by his own admission, when he started cue making, his thoughts were "Which rings should I put on my cues?" So he chose the DPK box rings. Because hey! David wasn't doing them anymore. And why try to come up with something new. Right?! Who has time for that???

Mia,

I was trained to make cues by the last cue maker at Omega DPK and that is where I fall on the cue makers tree. Making those rings I use was part of my education. When I look at all of the other stitch rings being used , I decided to use the classic box veneer rings because they are very cool and different in my opinion and they stand apart. SW rings or other take offs of same for example are very easy to make and do not compare at all in the design IMO, not even close. I like things that are a little more complex.

I make playing cues and my number one goal is playability and have put years of my life into the engineering and pursuit of a great playing cue. The rings I put on 70 % of my cues are classic box veneer rings and they are much more difficult to create than a standard stitch ring because the 2 rings are only .100 to .150 apart and was glued into the billet. Any deviation to those faced ring dimensions would be seen by the eye pronto and the box illusion would vanish if it is just a few thou off. It is not like just building a billet and tossing some rings on either side to attain the symmetry.

What is funny to me is that every cue maker out there has done Gus maple stitch rings and many other rings that are classic and are offered on cues. Same is true with inlay designs. What I do is absolutely no different except for that fact that I make no bones about it and am being an honest man.

So I guess my point is that I am making straight up playing cues in this portion of my evolution as a cue maker. The problem is that almost every player that orders a cue from me wants and requests these rings because they like them and there is no way that I am going to tell them no. You see the customer is King in my book and is always right and is the boss on a custom order. Shit, if they want pink poke a dots, you damn well better believe I will give them what they want with as much panache as I can conjure to make it look great. That's my job.

For the last few years I have been increasing my CNC skills and in the future I will be putting out specific art cues with original designs and I would not do a box veneer ring in that case as the rings would need to flow with the design of the cue.

I am only 9 years in this business and only 1.5 years selling to national and international players as I only sold locally in the Chicago area exclusively. I find it quite amusing that some people would call me out on my decisions on what or what not to decorate my cues with. I look at some of the best artistic cue makers work from just 10 years ago and it is replete with SW, Gus, Bushka rings, and many other classic designs in rings as well as inlays.

Any cue maker's work is only a snap shot of where they are at any moment in time. I am no different.

Rick

 

[mia]

What I find odd Rick is that you say things like "I like to do things that are a little more complex" but yet the idea of creating something new is lost on you. I guess its just a bit too complex???

I don't care if you learned from someone in the Omega DPK shop or David himself. You didn't take a "classic design element" and adopt it as your own. You took a design that was "classic DPK design element". There is a VERY big difference between those two statements. And the fact that you 'justify' it by saying "Everyone else does it" is a pretty weak defense.

 

[scdiveteam]

What I find odd Rick is that you say things like "I like to do things that are a little more complex" but yet the idea of creating something new is lost on you. I guess its just a bit too complex???

I don't care if you learned from someone in the Omega DPK shop or David himself. You didn't take a "classic design element" and adopt it as your own. You took a design that was "classic DPK design element". There is a VERY big difference between those two statements. And the fact that you 'justify' it by saying "Everyone else does it" is a pretty weak defense.

Mia,

You know what I noticed, there are many top tier cue makers using the same silver railroad track rings a lot for example and out of respect I won't mention any names. Why, because they are very cool looking and please the eye. I should feel guilty for using a cool classic design feature as well? Fred Astair introduced many of the greatest songs of his day but it was Franks Sinatra who made them huge hits. Does this make Frank less of an artist because he was not the first to interpret a song to the public. So I should be held to some higher standard because I choose to make the rings I like on playing cues? Now, if these were some fancy one off cues like TW makes, I would see your point and would totally agree with you. Don't hold me to that kind of standard as it is not fair, I am only a baby in this cue industry!

Geometry or pure symmetry is not pure art per se and most rings are geometrical and symmetrical. The universe is made up of many complex structures and many common geometries. No one owns the nature of things that are mathematical. Real "Art" is seen when the asymmetrical nature of things are expressed through the eyes and hand of an artist. What is pleasing to ones eye is why there is all the fuss about fancy cues in the first place and these rings please my eye and others too. Can you think of a better reason to use something as a feature on your cue? It's kinda like the golden proportion formula, it feels right, at least to me it does and I am secure with that and can live with any consequences it brings me. You know what they say, if it makes you feel happy, do it! The defense rests, your honor!

My full featured playing cues with inlays, rings, point work ect. sell in the neighborhood of only $ 2,000.00 and I have had them go as high as $ 2,500.00 with a lot of Ivory inlays and a lot of time spent on the projects. You act like I am some long time established CM and your trying to guilt me because I am giving my customer what they are asking for.

BTW, I am from Chicago and DPK is my absolute favorite CM and I would never talk bad about him whatsoever. My question to you is, can you show me any evidence that DPK was the first to use these Box Style Rings? I myself like to do my homework, have you?

My last 9 cue customers have completely designed their own cues from stem to stern and I love to interface with them personally as the CM during their experience. Many of my customers come to my shop and assist in the building of their own cue and they get a lot of personal satisfaction from that experience also. As long as I personally build custom cues for people, I will continue to give the customers what they want. The funny thing is that the last 6 out of 9 people asked for the box rings specifically, the other 3 wanted simple Hoppe rings. If they wanted a Bushka or a Gus stitch ring in there, that's what they would have gotten also.

You see Mia, cue making is my full time job and not my hobby or just something to pass time. Esoteric Cue is a business who's mission statement is to give the customer what they want with a guarantee of satisfaction.

The cues I sell are what they are no more no less. It seems to me like what I do bothers you and for what reason I can't fathom. It is your right to express yourself on a public forum and there is nothing I can do about that. But when you call me or my business out by name I see it as something I must address and state my point of view. I am not mad because you are passionate about cues and your opinion as it is something that we both share, I just completely disagree with you, that's all.

After all, these are only pool cues we are talking about my friend.

Learning all of the skill sets it takes to build a cue to a high quality standard, acquiring and modifying the specialized & customized equipment to set up a complete cue shop has been a big part of my life over the last 8 to 9 years and when I started building box rings it was about less than 1% of my attention span. Like I said, I like the way they look and don't claim to be the designer. I guess that I might have made the right decision because of all the fuss. Or maybe I am just going through a phase. Stay Tuned, LOL

Thanks for taking the time to post your opinion, I'll surely take it under advisement.

Rick

PS: I guess I better take this big cue I am building to the band saw because it has inlays in boxes in the butt sleeve and someone put a box in a cue before me and they might get mad.:bash:

 

[JB Cases]

I want to say one more thing about this and I hope some people get it.

The thing with design is that when someone spends hours or days, weeks or months and sometimes years laboring for a certain look, a certain arrangement, making the design just so then it truly hurts when someone else copies you.

Because they then get all the accolades that you got without the sweat investment. When someone else treats your work as their personal design studio it's frustrating. it just is.

Right now in China there is a guy who copies everything we make. He takes my images and puts them on his website, blurs out my logo, and takes orders for the cases shown. When someone orders he makes a shitty copy. Short of breaking his hands there isn't much I can do about it.

I have seen my friends copy my work, I have seen my friend copy my friend's work. When that happens mixed emotions come up. The first emotion is a bit of surprise, the next is a twinge of pride, and the third is a bit of anger.

Surprise because of professional courtesy, depending on how it was done professional courtesy is to pretty much stop short of outright copying. Pride because everyone wants to be thought of as a leader and nothing says leader than having followers. Anger because somewhere down the road that guy will get praise for my work, for my many days of prototypes and failed attempts, he will get praise for the fruit of my brain. And I am 99% certain he won't make any attempt to give credit, not on his site and not in person. So that makes me a little angry.

But at the end of the day there is no salvation and no satisfaction in being upset about people who take your designs. Once you unleash it to the world you are saying to the world, here this is what love looks like made real, don't kill it.

You can't look back. No one cares how much effort went into making things. They really don't. Oh sure some people say they do but in the end they really don't. The only real criteria is does it please me and does it serve me? If so then the origin really doesn't matter. It matters to collectors only because the "story" is part of the hunt. things which have a better story are more desirable. Otherwise for the rest of the world the only things that matter are pleasure and service.

So as a designer of sorts, I guess I can call myself that in a limited fashion, I know what it feels like to have a part of you represented in the world in tangible form. And I know what it feels like to feel slightly molested when someone copies something I have dreamed up and made real.

But as with real molestation you either move on or die living in the past. The real winners in design simply accept that copying happens and move on to bigger and better things. Unless of course you have the ability and desire to punish those who copy. If so then you extract your measure of blood and then move on.

I honestly think that it's only people who build and create that can understand this from the gut level. There is more to it but essentially this is how I see from my perspective in the narrow area of design that I work in.

 

[scdiveteam]

I want to say one more thing about this and I hope some people get it.

The thing with design is that when someone spends hours or days, weeks or months and sometimes years laboring for a certain look, a certain arrangement, making the design just so then it truly hurts when someone else copies you.

Because they then get all the accolades that you got without the sweat investment. When someone else treats your work as their personal design studio it's frustrating. it just is.

Right now in China there is a guy who copies everything we make. He takes my images and puts them on his website, blurs out my logo, and takes orders for the cases shown. When someone orders he makes a shitty copy. Short of breaking his hands there isn't much I can do about it.

I have seen my friends copy my work, I have seen my friend copy my friend's work. When that happens mixed emotions come up. The first emotion is a bit of surprise, the next is a twinge of pride, and the third is a bit of anger.

Surprise because of professional courtesy, depending on how it was done professional courtesy is to pretty much stop short of outright copying. Pride because everyone wants to be thought of as a leader and nothing says leader than having followers. Anger because somewhere down the road that guy will get praise for my work, for my many days of prototypes and failed attempts, he will get praise for the fruit of my brain. And I am 99% certain he won't make any attempt to give credit, not on his site and not in person. So that makes me a little angry.

But at the end of the day there is no salvation and no satisfaction in being upset about people who take your designs. Once you unleash it to the world you are saying to the world, here this is what love looks like made real, don't kill it.

You can't look back. No one cares how much effort went into making things. They really don't. Oh sure some people say they do but in the end they really don't. The only real criteria is does it please me and does it serve me? If so then the origin really doesn't matter. It matters to collectors only because the "story" is part of the hunt. things which have a better story are more desirable. Otherwise for the rest of the world the only things that matter are pleasure and service.

So as a designer of sorts, I guess I can call myself that in a limited fashion, I know what it feels like to have a part of you represented in the world in tangible form. And I know what it feels like to feel slightly molested when someone copies something I have dreamed up and made real.

But as with real molestation you either move on or die living in the past. The real winners in design simply accept that copying happens and move on to bigger and better things. Unless of course you have the ability and desire to punish those who copy. If so then you extract your measure of blood and then move on.

I honestly think that it's only people who build and create that can understand this from the gut level. There is more to it but essentially this is how I see from my perspective in the narrow area of design that I work in.

Hey John,

I get it.

Your cases and leather work are awesome and I can see your point about how what you do to create your designs requires a big effort intellectually. It is like the fashion industry coming out with a new line and the competition is like vultures stealing your new creative work to sell to KMART.

My point and my disagreement with Mia is we are talking about rings that are over 40 years old and are in my mind very classic like Gus and Bushka rings. There are no statutes or rules of the road for cue makers so in the end one must satisfy their own likes concerning rings. Yeah, I could be clever and do a stitch ring with some dash or dot pattern that is a little different than the pack. I don't see that as some huge creative effort. I see a lot of CMs make rings that look like each other's and complain about the fact that someone is copying someone else's ring like it is some big creative effort. It's not, it's just a adjustment of an indexing head, a slot size pattern and how thick you cut them off. Not heady at all but very elementary stuff. Now Dave Barenbrugge's rings for example are a horse of a different color for sure, IMO.

I am sure that forty years from now you would not be upset to see a feature of your creative work in play. I would see that as a big compliment to your contribution to the art of Case Making.

JMO,

Rick

 

[lenoxmjs]

Im the guilty party that owns the rosewood / on rosewood szam tribute that I commissioned Travis to do .

It's not exact, as the original has a steel joint.

I promise if I win the lottery and I can afford to buy the real deal we'll all get together bandsaw the bastard cue and have a bon fire and a few beers.

Until then I think its a pretty great cue and Travis's execution was perfect as usual.

As an aside I would never again ever have a cue commissioned to mimick an original.