F
Fred Agnir
Guest
TannerPruess said:
Mine doesn't look like that, but it's close. Mine was an SC250. The one you're showing is it's newest evolution as an SLC250. I notice that they seem to keep the same model numbers, but change them slightly as the years go by.
That being said, the Blue Book II had it list for $750 for that year. I bought mine in 1997 from http://www.billiardwarehouse.com . It was on special for a about 15% less.
I also own an older Oak merrywidow Schuler (Ray's favorite playing wood) with an aluminum collar from the late 70's or early 80's, a plain maple and coco one from about 2001 or 2002, and a custom short-spliced SLC I bought in 2004.
There was an article on Ray Schuler in the November 2004 issue of InsidePOOL Magazine.
Fred
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
iconcue said:
I don't think either of these are reasons why certain people don't like design theft. There's a sense of uniqueness and originality that you can't put a number. People steal designs all the time in the custom world, from tattooing to machine fabrication. It sucks.
I have my own dumbass stories in my little world, and when it comes down to it, it plain sucks. A whacko at one of my customers got promotions and accolades by passing off one of my designs as his own. It wasn't patented, and had no reason to be. I had nothing to do with his company (apart from being a supplier), but for him to make a name for himself because he copied my work is a joke. Same goes for cue designs, etc.
Until you get burned by it, it may not be such a big deal.
Fred
iconcue said:i wish more people would post pics of their cues for others to enjoy w/o worrying wether or not somebody was going to have a copy made. people copy others all the time. it's just a fact of life. why worry about it? i dont see the original losing value because a copy was made. szamboti's are pretty dang expensive and i know there has been at least a couple copies made.
who knows how many times the mona lisa has been copied, heck there is even a copy on chalkers site with her holding a pool cue. (wonder if martyne has the proper authorization to display that?) but i dont see that devaluing the original. if anything i would think copies would increase the value of the original.
of course this is just my opinion but i think it's a shame that so many nice cues are hidden away in collections never to be seen. some people think i put my cues on the web just to show off. it never even occured to me that someone would think that until it was told to me. i put them on the web for others to enjoy and because i enjoy taking the pics. i just wish other collectors would be more open with their collections.
edit:i think the real problem is not copies but the inability to authenticate originals. toward this end cue makers should better document their production and make the documentation more readily available to the public. but again this is kept secret and only known to the makers themselves. they dont want to publish production numbers that might be to high and have an adverse effect on the values.
I think this post is much like the rest of your posts, it's made up uninformed BS. I don't even know where you come up with the crap you post. Who here has said they have a collection and won't put pictures up because of copies? This is all stuff in your head, sometimes I think you post just to read your name. Bruin today said he wouldn't post some pictures of his cues, but that was just some and I would love to post pictures of cues if I had any worth looking at, but please give me more examples of why you would go on for 3 paragraphs saying what you just did. I'd love to hear more about these people you are talking about. Or ignore this and we'll all know it's just more information from you.
Jim
JimBo said:
It's often been said that "imitation is the highest form of flattery". The world has always been that way....fact. And, Jimbo, ain't nothing you can do to change that.
Apparently for some reason you still can't grasp that concept and accept that a duck is a duck and a chicken a chicken....maybe it's a mental limitation. Agreed that when someone tries to sell you a duck as chicken, then there's a problem. There's also a problem if the duck's owner has a patent on the way the duck looks and then chicken's owner put's him in a exact duck suit. Absent of that being the case, is anyone else here tired of hearing Jimbo talk about this.
Yeah....we know where you stand. Why keep posting this??? Maybe we need to have AZB create a category where you can house your design rant threads.
cueaddicts said:It's often been said that "imitation is the highest form of flattery". The world has always been that way....fact. And, Jimbo, ain't nothing you can do to change that.
People who use that line are always the one's stealing, you've never heard it from the one's who have been robbed. But that being said I've never debated that it's been done for a long time, and I almost accept it from 20 years ago, but times are changing. Back in the day what cuemakers could do was limited the materials used were limited. Today with computer technology the designs can be unlimited and the ability to copy them is much easier, it no longer takes any skill to copy a design. Again all that being said I never said I think I can change it, but it is my opinion and I will continue to add it when it's necessary or appropriate.
Apparently for some reason you still can't grasp that concept and accept that a duck is a duck and a chicken a chicken....maybe it's a mental limitation.
I understand this more then you think, but you confuse the issue with someone trying to pass off things for something they aren’t. That isn't my hang up, I don't care why it's done, I just know it's wrong. Maybe we need to talk about that fact that since you are one of the people who support the practice that's why you condone it and maybe me talking about it might change some minds and hurt your business some day.
Agreed that when someone tries to sell you a duck as chicken, then there's a problem.
It's only a problem if you aren't educated enough to know, I can assure you that's not my problem. I would also point out that that's a problem for the buyer and not the maker and my concern has always been with the cuemakers
There's also a problem if the duck's owner has a patent on the way the duck looks and then chicken's owner put's him in a exact duck suit.
Again there doesn't need to be a patent, but you aren't educated to understand this or you haven't been paying attention. The fact is it's wrong and it's illegal and if it ever went to court it would be upheld. But there just isn't enough money in pool cues to make it worth anyone's while to pursue it in a court of law. Nobody in their right mind will spend 20K just to win a fraction of that and the right to say "told ya so". Again these are just common sense business facts something you can't understand.
Absent of that being the case, is anyone else here tired of hearing Jimbo talk about this.
I don't care who's tired, I'm sorry that my opinion differs from yours and I'm sorry that you'd like to silence anyone who doesn't agree with you 100%, but we do live in America and we do have a thing called freedom of speech. I would also point out that my post was in reply to Fred's I know you don't want that pointed out because it shoots the hell out of your whole post saying it's just me who thinks this way.
Yeah....we know where you stand. Why keep posting this??? Maybe we need to have AZB create a category where you can house your design rant threads.
Maybe you need to be smart enough to ignore me if you can't handle a differing opinion. I'm sorry if my opinion hurts you in your little venture to try and make money off of cue knockoffs. Maybe if it wasn't all about the bottom line and you talked to more then 4 cuemakers you'd be enlightened about this subject. I'd also like to point out that if you ever gave an opinion here that I didn't agree with I wouldn't cry that you should shut up about it.
Jim
JimBo said:
Jim, different opinions are great. What I am tired of is the incessant Jimbo-spin that you put on things and belittling people with your disparaging remarks. I'm sure that I'm not the only one. When someone disagrees with you, then you just try to belittle them.
Trust me, your opinion or what you say does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to hurt anything I have going on....you can bet your last dollar on that. You will never be privy to know how or why I buy, sell, and trade cues and that is just fine with me.
IMO, you are in the overwhelming minorty if you think it's wrong for a cuemaker to build something that is styled after something else....20 years ago or today. Example......if a player likes the look of a 4-point Szamboti with ivory diamonds in the butt, Bushka ring above the wrap, and maple stitching in the collars (classic Szamboti style) but cannot afford one, there is absolutely nothing wrong with him having a cuemaker make a similar looking cue for him for let's say $900, if that is what his budget allows. If he wants somebody like Andy Gilbert to build it, that's fine, too, because you know what....in the end it's an 4-point Gilbert with ivory diamonds in the butt, a Bushka ring above the wrap, and maple stitching.
Guess we will never see eye-to-eye on this. But that's all fine and good, too, because this is America. You are right about that.
iconcue said:
Absolutely it is flattery. It's also flattery when other people mimicked the layout of our cueaddicts website, but I have better things to do that to cry about it. To many other things going on in my life...
iconcue said:
you cannot make comparisons to the art world. a better comparison would be selling a chinatown rolex at the tourneau watch store. but we might be talking about two different things,,,fakes sold as authentic,,,,and honest copying of style. what becomes nebulus is that cues are merely machined instruments, and not "hand-made", so the notion of "copying a style"(as in art) becomes replicating without a sense of art.
Last edited:
cueaddicts said:Jim,
IMO, you are in the overwhelming minorty if you think it's wrong for a cuemaker to build something that is styled after something else....20 years ago or today. Example......if a player likes the look of a 4-point Szamboti with ivory diamonds in the butt, Bushka ring above the wrap, and maple stitching in the collars (classic Szamboti style) but cannot afford one, there is absolutely nothing wrong with him having a cuemaker make a similar looking cue for him for let's say $900, if that is what his budget allows. If he wants somebody like Andy Gilbert to build it, that's fine, too, because you know what....in the end it's an 4-point Gilbert with ivory diamonds in the butt, a Bushka ring above the wrap, and maple stitching.
Guess we will never see eye-to-eye on this. But that's all fine and good, too, because this is America. You are right about that.
Well stated Sean. Why is it that I only read one individual complaining about cue design theft. I don't see a thing wrong with a cue maker building a Szamboti styled cue and I think it only makes Szamboti cues more desirable to own since others have built cues with that type of design. I own a Szamboti styled Mottey cue and I couldn't be happier with it.....I don't see a thing wrong with Paul building my cue the way I asked him to build it.
SCCues
I play with a 6 point Southwest (macassar ebony points into cocobola). People come up to me often and compare their Omega copy to mine...many of them really don't know what a Southwest is, but that is a different story. My point is, their cue is not a Southwest, even though it LOOKS like it. It goes much deeper than that.
The fact that someone has a lookalike is no big deal to me. I know the difference. I even had a cue salesman (who obviously doesn't know much about cues) telling me the other day that his $200 Omega cues were just as good as my Southwest....give me a break!!!
I guess the point I am trying to make is that the classic Southwest is simply a much copied classic style of cue, as are many others (like the reference Sean made to having Andy Gilbert make a cue similar to a Szamboti). It will still be a Gilbert, not a Szamboti and the cheap SW copies won't be a SW, but for the guys who want a cue like that, what is wrong with it?
The fact that someone has a lookalike is no big deal to me. I know the difference. I even had a cue salesman (who obviously doesn't know much about cues) telling me the other day that his $200 Omega cues were just as good as my Southwest....give me a break!!!
I guess the point I am trying to make is that the classic Southwest is simply a much copied classic style of cue, as are many others (like the reference Sean made to having Andy Gilbert make a cue similar to a Szamboti). It will still be a Gilbert, not a Szamboti and the cheap SW copies won't be a SW, but for the guys who want a cue like that, what is wrong with it?
cueaddicts said:Jim, different opinions are great. What I am tired of is the incessant Jimbo-spin that you put on things and belittling people with your disparaging remarks. I'm sure that I'm not the only one. When someone disagrees with you, then you just try to belittle them.
I disagree, but again I will let you hold tight to your opinion. I also don't care if you are tired of it or anyone else. I don't feel that if my opinion isn't all praise that it's belittling, when people say here's my cue what do you think? And you say I don't like it, then that's just an opinion, when people start buying cues because it's what *I* like they need some help. If they can only take remarks from people who say they love their cues then maybe they should only show the people they know are affraid to be honest and not here in a public forum.
Trust me, your opinion or what you say does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to hurt anything I have going on....you can bet your last dollar on that. You will never be privy to know how or why I buy, sell, and trade cues and that is just fine with me.
I don't really care what you do, I think I already know too much.
IMO, you are in the overwhelming minorty if you think it's wrong for a cuemaker to build something that is styled after something else....
LOL and you say I try to twist. First I have never said it's wrong to use a style, I have always said stealing a whole design. I also don't care what the majority thinks, I don't base or change my opinion on what the masses think, specially when the masses being polled are those who are buying or selling the cues in question. I base my opinions on how I feel from hours of talking to the artist being robbed, not the people stealing, or the ones profitting from the thefts. But none of this matter as much as your attempt to twist my opinion into cues made in a certain style LOL. Learn to read Sean, I said design theft, that's when someone makes an exact copy of a cue or a very very close copy, in other words changing 1 ring prolly isn't enough IMO.
20 years ago or today. Example......if a player likes the look of a 4-point Szamboti with ivory diamonds in the butt, Bushka ring above the wrap, and maple stitching in the collars (classic Szamboti style) but cannot afford one, there is absolutely nothing wrong with him having a cuemaker make a similar looking cue for him for let's say $900, if that is what his budget allows.
Again you try to twist, I am talking about exact copies and copies of 1 of a kind unique designs, not 4 point 4 diamond cues with a simple ring, but of course this helps your side so please do all you can to twist it.
If he wants somebody like Andy Gilbert to build it, that's fine, too, because you know what....in the end it's an 4-point Gilbert with ivory diamonds in the butt, a Bushka ring above the wrap, and maple stitching.
Yup that sounds all well and good, what happens when a guy takes a picture of a very famous Ginacue design and brings it to Paul and asks him to do it?? Is that also ok, rght down to the same woods and the same exact colors? There happens to be a major difference between a 4 point 4 diamond cue and a unique design copied from a picture isn't there? Of course now I put you in a bad spot, cause now you have to lie to back up what you've been saying or take a stand and give an opinion.
Guess we will never see eye-to-eye on this. But that's all fine and good, too, because this is America. You are right about that.
I don't need to see eye to eye with you, it's clear to me why you have the opinion you do, it's clear that you want to twist my words and try to make it sound like I never want another plane 4 point cue made, but now that I used a cue that I am sure you know about let's see if we really disagree.
Jim
SCCues said:
Of course you don't you got what you wanted, you should be proud, I don't expect you to have any design talent, Paul is the one who should be ashamed. But of course all this needs to not be said if in fact your cue is Szamboti Style and not a copy of a Szamboti design, so which is it??? Let's see some pics, I love Paul’s execution, he makes great cues, to bad he doesn't have what it takes to have artistic integrity.
Jim
billiard_ball
Novice Player
I have an old Dufferin, think it's a DOT model from them. I would like to buy a few more cues, even though I have been using that one for about two years..... bought it from a friend. But I don't have any money right now, so I can't buy a variety of cues.
JimBo said:
Buddy, sure you are revelling in it but realize that you haven't put me in a bad spot.
If you think that I feel I need to lie or be afraid to state my opinion, you are wrong, sir. Here it is, so don't mis-read anything, and no spins with any follow-up comments. My opinion is clear and here it is:I have never commissioned or said that I think it is OK to commission a cuemaker to make an exact duplicate down to the specs, woods, rings, etc. are wrong. Tribute cues that are design spin-offs and incorporate certain design elements with the cuemaker's own standard methods which are different from the original's are OK in my book. I see these as artistic renditions of other maker's work and don't see a problem in this, especially if credit is given.
Also....I really appreciate it how you call some of our designs that we ask cuemakers to do "knock-offs" (implying cheap and uninspired) because they are not. Maybe the fact that you have never posted any pics of your cue or cues shows us that you are afraid of any public criticism ???
Jim, are the two cues you are referring to (G & M) in fact identical? If so, please produce some pics and a review of the spec as proof. Maybe we can ressurect the Cue Design Theft thread (which I just read through)??? Just kidding. It's funny how you and "committeemember" were asked many times to provide examples and they didn't materialize. What's also funny is that you will apparently also not bad-mouth someone you are friends with who have "stolen" designs in the past. "Stolen" based on your definition and prespective. To me that is hypocritical. You should call Bill Schick right now and tell him what a bad boy you think he has been.
My position may be wrong or may be right, depending on how someone else looks at this issue, but hey, it's America. And you know what's cool? I've been in this long enough to realize that over time styles of cues in general change. And my own personal tastes in what I like in cues changes (makers and styles). IMO, that's what keeps things fresh and exciting.
Ok now Jim, stew over this issue some more and try not to have a coronary. Just kidding......next time I see you (maybe DCC), I'm buying us a drink...what do you like?
cueaddicts said:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Jim, are the two cues you are referring to (G & M) in fact identical? If so, please produce some pics and a review of the spec as proof.
the mottey to which jimbo refers was an attempt by mottey to make an EXACT copy of a gina. i was rather taken aback by it. i knew it was a gina because i had the photo that ernie sends out to his inquirers. someone either asked paul to copy it or paul did it on his own.
what bothered me most was that paul posted the copy on his gallery site with no deference to ernie whatsoever. i brought it up over at rsb(about 2 years ago). in other words,,,one could have assumed the design was mottey's. as the story goes, ernie was very upset about the use of the copy and inference that it was a mottey inspired design, so he called paul and took him to task. paul pulled the image.
so it mattered to ernie.