Would You Buy Cues?

[zeeder]

Here's a Picture Jimbo and to my knowledge i've never seen a Szamboti cue exactly like it. I've seen some close, but not with the exact inlay pattern in my cue. So I think that makes my cue a Szamboti styled cue.

SCCues


I agree and if have read what I've wrote on the topic then you'd know I have no problem with it since those facts wouldn't make it a design theft. But of course that would require you read what I wrote and not listen to others interpret what I've said, it’s much easier to listen to others though. Nice looking cue BTW.

Jim

Jim,

You've said that you don't agree with my Skip Weston which is a lot further from an exact copy of a Southwest than his cue is from an exact copy of a Szamboti.

 

[classiccues]

Jim,

You've said that you don't agree with my Skip Weston which is a lot further from an exact copy of a Southwest than his cue is from an exact copy of a Szamboti.

Well Skips MY friend so he is held to a higher standard by Jimmy boy. But lets look at SC's Mottey for a moment. No, its probably NOT a direct Szamboti copy. BUT every inlay in that cue was "designed" initially by Gus. The railroad track, (technically a relation to an inlay used first by Balabushka) the split diamond, the "S" rings, the necktie or peacock inlay. This is where Jim likes to be non-committal. This cue is closer in accuracy to a genuine Szamboti than the Ginacue inspired cue was to the "feathers" Gina. Just because the Gina appeared to have more thought and "artistic" flow, would not make the feathers cue MORE of a inspired cue vs the Szamboti inspired cue. One cannot penalize Gus for using the machinery he had available at the time. Going back to that Gina, the original Gina had an immense amount of silver work Pauls version had none. Both cues were in our booth and side by side, I am not going from pictures, I am going from holding the two cues in my hands at the same time. I will tell you, having them both side by side, it is very clear who made which cue.

No one chastized Gus for making a few cues that looked like Bushkas, no one cares that the model K Palmer is a Paradise inspired cue. You can claim a plethora of reasons for inspired cues, but the single biggest reason is they are what people want. Whether its Sean and I ordering a Bushkaesque cue, or Billybob from Alabama ordering a Szamboti inspired Jensen. It doesn't matter, its what the people want. Scruggs, Schick, Mottey they all make their share of inspired cues. Some of the biggest names.. OMG imagine that.

Joe (--- Jim,stop saying you love me, I don't want to be any part of your fantasies.. ok

 

[bruin70]

Well Skips MY friend so he is held to a higher standard by Jimmy boy. But lets look at SC's Mottey for a moment. No, its probably NOT a di,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Going back to that Gina, the original Gina had an immense amount of silver work Pauls version had none. Both cues were in our booth and side by side, I am not going from pictures, I am going from holding the two cues in my hands at the same time. I will tell you, having them both side by side, it is very clear who made which cue.



Joe (---stop saying you love me, I don't want to be any part of your fantasies.. ok

ahhhhh, it looks like you deleted something as i was replying, joe!!!!!

i cannot agree with you less with your reasoning of ernie making just the one cue. that he DID, made it a cue of singular significance, and that any copy of it can qualify as a rippoff, metalwork or not(and if paul had a better photo he would have done so too)_ more than a copy of a szam.

timing being everything,,,anyone using szam inspired inlays in this day and age is copying what has essentially become an iconic style in cuemaking, as szam style is now a classic in design and more or less "public domain:. none of this molifies the point that a copy is a copy,,,and with ernie being accustomed to everyone copying his designs, THIS copy certainly tweaked his noogies enough to confront paul about using it's image on his website. ultimately, THIS is the issue concerning the gina rippoff. because a mottey rippoff of a gina is still only a mottey,,,and a gina will always command more reverence and monies than paul's work,,,but the pirating of the cue design by placing the copy on his own website, as if to infer that it was his design, is a smack in ernie's face....AND THAT is what pissed gutierrez. because ernie singled out this incident,,,that is good enough for me.

 

[classiccues]

ahhhhh, it looks like you deleted something as i was replying, joe!!!!!

i cannot agree with you less with your reasoning of ernie making just the one cue. that he DID, made it a cue of singular significance, and that any copy of it can qualify as a rippoff, metalwork or not(and if paul had a better photo he would have done so too)_ more than a copy of a szam.

Sorry.. I had second thought and I will rephrase it, lol BTW if Paul wanted to add the metal work he could have. I think whats really impressive is that Paul figured out how Ernie executed it, and was able to replicate certain aspects of it.

timing being everything,,,anyone using szam inspired inlays in this day and age is copying what has essentially become an iconic style in cuemaking, as szam style is now a classic in design and more or less "public domain:.

This is the most asinine reasoning I have ever heard. IMHO this train of thought is hypocrisy at its best. If you want to say this, then you must also realize that maybe in a few years that Ernies cue designs will become iconic, actually many are now, and that they to will also fall into this public domain category. Again, you cannot penalize someone for designs that were limited by the tools he had at the time.

BTW looking at Ernies 1967 catalog, there are some cues that look shocking similar to other cues of the time period. Dare we say Ernie was a cue design thief?

Joe

 

[bruin70]

Sorry.. I had second thought and I will rephrase it, lol BTW if Paul wanted to add the metal work he could have. I think whats really impressive is that Paul figured out how Ernie executed it, and was able to replicate certain aspects of it.



This is the most asinine reasoning I have ever heard. IMHO this train of thought is hypocrisy at its best. If you want to say this, then you must also realize that maybe in a few years that Ernies cue designs will become iconic, actually many are now, and that they to will also fall into this public domain category. Again, you cannot penalize someone for designs that were limited by the tools he had at the time.

BTW looking at Ernies 1967 catalog, there are some cues that look shocking similar to other cues of the time period. Dare we say Ernie was a cue design thief?

Joe

not so asinine,,,,because the fact is, timing IS everything. however, you are not addressing my point and ernie's ire, which was paul's use of the image on his site.

i fully understand the machinations of "art/design movements" and that copying has always played a key role in their evolution. so don't get me wrong, i am not SOOO anti copying. nor am i placing ernie above reproach. however,,,i'm not going to copy a contemporary's painting, put it up on a website, or, GOD FORBID, sell it through another gallery AND BRAG ABOUT IT, which is akin to what paul did.

there are those who create and there are those who copy. that pretty much encompasses everybody.

 

[Voodoo Daddy]

If you didn't read these forums (AZ, CCB, etc.), would you still think you would be buying more cues?

Personally, I doubt I would have bought anything other than my Ray Schuler SC250. I had previously bought a handful of production cues, but I really had no reason to buy anything to replace the Schuler.

But, buying cues is like a sickness, and I certainly caught it from someone. And the more people come to these boards and see all the fine cues people seem to be buying up, the more they want to buy. In fact, my cue buying has flowed over to some of my fellow league players, players who represent the typical league players who would have never considered buying something other than there old McDermott or Mali with nylon or no wrap, hidden in their soft case or O'Neill hard case.

Fred

First horse trade I made ona cue was 22 years ago. I traded a Dan Wesson .357MAG in the box for a Gus Szamboti...since then I have owned over 200 cues. I have traded, sold, lost some inna hurricane, had a couple stolen outta pool rooms but it NEVER stopped me from doing it. Its a passion Fred and it dont matter if you collect BaseBall cards or pool cues. As far as rubbing off on your league buddies, could be worse...

 

[classiccues]

not so asinine,,,,because the fact is, timing IS everything. however, you are not addressing my point and ernie's ire, which was paul's use of the image on his site.

i fully understand the machinations of "art/design movements" and that copying has always played a key role in their evolution. so don't get me wrong, i am not SOOO anti copying. nor am i placing ernie above reproach. however,,,i'm not going to copy a contemporary's painting, put it up on a website, or, GOD FORBID, sell it through another gallery AND BRAG ABOUT IT, which is akin to what paul did.

there are those who create and there are those who copy. that pretty much encompasses everybody.

I am not addressing your point because there is more to it than just the use of the image on Pauls website. But I don't want to steal someone elses thunder as the "insider". Paul showed the work on his OWN gallery. He didn't sell it through another gallery. Do you know how many other cuemaker sites show "inspired" cues? Quite a few, I might add.

Timing is not everything.. like you stated a copy is a copy. But what is a copy? A copy by definition is an exact duplicate, is it not? Aren't we talking more a reasonable facsimile?

Craig Petersen I am sure made a Hoppe cue or two in his lifetime, we could persecute him for copying from Brunswick. I am also sure he made a traditional cue or two in his lifetime. I see on Wus site he used black, natural, black, natural veneers with ebony points, a combination first seen on Gus Szamboti cues. Does this make him any less a cuemaker?

Joe

 

[bruin70]

craig petersom was never and will never be known for his cue design. he was very conservative. what he was,,,,,was an extraordinary and perfect craftsman,,,,who made great hitting cues.

 

[classiccues]

craig petersom was never and will never be known for his cue design. he was very conservative. what he was,,,,,was an extraordinary and perfect craftsman,,,,who made great hitting cues.

So you are willing to look the other way when it involves your favorite cuemaker. This is all that needs to be said.

Joe

 

[bruin70]

So you are willing to look the other way when it involves your favorite cuemaker. This is all that needs to be said.

Joe

geez joe,,,don't be an ass. haven't you been reading my last three posts or do you just want the last word.

i'll give you that last word,,,,my treat.

 

[JimBo]

Well Skips MY friend so he is held to a higher standard by Jimmy boy.

LOL In Joe world I suppose this is true, but in reality it couldn't be further from the truth. I have meet Skip and like the guy, I love his point work and the truth is I own one of his cues, I believe it's one more then you Joe, but I could be wrong. How many Skip's do you own in your personal COLLECTION?? The real fact is I am consistent, I try not to let who the person is enter into my opinions, I have been as tough on Andy Gilbert as I have Coker and anyone else who makes copies, If I know them or not doesn't play into it. When Joe calls someone a friend it's only in a working relationship, sure he'll deny this but his friends seem to change depending on who he feels he can use at the time or even worse he loses friends depending on who his boss tells him is OK for that month.

But lets look at SC's Mottey for a moment. No, its probably NOT a direct Szamboti copy.

Probably not or it is?? I mean it's clear to tell Joe since if it were it would be one of the fanciest one's on record, I think we may have seen some pictures of it. Now if you have proof you would have already posted the pics since you have no life and you'd spend 100 hour finding the proof in an attempt to make me look wrong. I said I have never seen one like it.

BUT every inlay in that cue was "designed" initially by Gus. The railroad track, (technically a relation to an inlay used first by Balabushka) the split diamond, the "S" rings, the necktie or peacock inlay. This is where Jim likes to be non-committal.

This is where Joe likes to put words in my mouth. Joe from day 1 I've always said it's not up to me to be the judge, this somehow gets under your skin, you want your opinion to somehow be worth more then mine. The truth of the matter is you're opinion is biased and skewed based upon the fact that you work for someone who has in the past made a living on these knockoffs. The fact is I've never said once a person comes up with an inlay it can never be used, this is where you fail to pay attention. If this were the case then nobody would ever be able to use a diamond inlay again. I have said design theft not inlay theft, but of course it fits your agenda to try and paint me as some nut who thinks everything is a copy. When I do give an opinion that differs from what you *think* my opinion should be you cry that I am contradictory, you don't get it that way Joe, you can't give us your views and then tell us what mine are.

This cue is closer in accuracy to a genuine Szamboti than the Ginacue inspired cue was to the "feathers" Gina. Just because the Gina appeared to have more thought and "artistic" flow, would not make the feathers cue MORE of a inspired cue vs the Szamboti inspired cue.

This is where you are a complete fool, my tag line says Design, not inlay, the Mottey was an exact copy of the design, it wasn't perfect and it wasn't the same materials, but the design was copied and not only was it copied/ stolen, Paul admitted he made the cue from a picture. Just for that fact he should be ashamed, not proud at how well he can copy someone else’s design or let off the hook because he copy wasn't as good. BTW when called on it Paul apologized and promised that he would take care of the matter.

One cannot penalize Gus for using the machinery he had available at the time.

No, one can't and that's more the reason why it's wrong now, back then coming up with something original took skill, now anyone here can buy it and with a small amount of computer knowledge can copy anything Gus ever made.

Going back to that Gina, the original Gina had an immense amount of silver work Pauls version had none.

Again I am not saying once a guy uses ebony it's off limits, my tag line says DESIGN, not materials, try to pay attention, Paul stole the DESIGN (he copied it direct from a picture, trying to make that same cue, he never said I like Ernie's cue I want to make a tribute. There are more facts to this story that I know and I am not the one who should be talking about them, but trust me this is design theft to the fullest. the fact that Joe even wants to bring this up and try to debate it shows how he so stubborn that he can't see obvious things right in front of his face, he's rather try to make me look bad then to admit there are right and wrong and grey areas. I don't get blinded by obsessions like Joe and I can always look at things on their own merits, I try to judge each cue and maker on their own.

Both cues were in our booth and side by side, I am not going from pictures, I am going from holding the two cues in my hands at the same time. I will tell you, having them both side by side, it is very clear who made which cue.

I've had both cues in my hands also, I've held 4 of these cues, I also have pictures of these cues, if I had joe's time I would post them, but none of that really matters as I've already said who cares if Paul's copy wasn't as good, it was still a copy.

No one chastized Gus for making a few cues that looked like Bushkas, no one cares that the model K Palmer is a Paradise inspired cue.


Again you choose to ignore what I say, there is a huge difference in cues today and cues from back in the day 20+ years ago. You can try to put words in my mouth and push your agenda all you want but don't tell us all what my opinion is.

You can claim a plethora of reasons for inspired cues, but the single biggest reason is they are what people want.

Just because someone wants something doesn't make it ok. I think a line from one of my favorite movies said it best "Daddy I want a Goose that lays the golden eggs."

Whether its Sean and I ordering a Bushkaesque cue, or Billybob from Alabama ordering a Szamboti inspired Jensen. It doesn't matter, its what the people want. Scruggs, Schick, Mottey they all make their share of inspired cues. Some of the biggest names.. OMG imagine that.

Imagine how you keep trying to change my opinion from design to inspired?? I have always said inspired cues are ok, but not when the inspiration is an exact copy of a design. I have also said that the more elaborate the design the worse the offense. Nobody can claim a 4 point 4 diamond cue, but it's clear who's design "feathers" is.

Joe (--- Jim,stop saying you love me, I don't want to be any part of your fantasies.. ok

Once again Joe you expose yourself as a fool and your attempts to change my beliefs is a joke. If you want to continue to stalk and bring up cases in which to try and make me look bad do some homework and stick on topic. As long as you want to compare apples with oranges it's not going to work. It's always been consistent joe.
Designs, not inlays, not woods, not materials, designs.
Maybe design is a vague term and I'll say it again I am not the last word on it, just a guy giving an opinion.
You stick to your opinion and I'll stick to mine, you look real dumb trying to tell us what I think. But I still love you joe, you're making mark proud.

Jim

 

[JimBo]

I am not addressing your point because there is more to it than just the use of the image on Pauls website. But I don't want to steal someone elses thunder as the "insider". Paul showed the work on his OWN gallery. He didn't sell it through another gallery. Do you know how many other cuemaker sites show "inspired" cues? Quite a few, I might add.

I think you're missing the point that Ernie called paul on it and Paul apologized and said he would do all he could to reverse the wrongs he did, thus admitting he did in fact do something he shouldn't have. I guess you'd do better for your stubborn self to ignore this.

Timing is not everything.. like you stated a copy is a copy. But what is a copy? A copy by definition is an exact duplicate, is it not? Aren't we talking more a reasonable facsimile?

I would say that a copy may be when a person brings a cue maker a picture of a cue (a fancy one at that) and says can you do this? When the guy goes from a photo to the wood, that may be considered a copy to most with 1/2 a brain. Again the fact that it's not a good copy doesn't excuse it for what it is.



Craig Petersen I am sure made a Hoppe cue or two in his lifetime, we could persecute him for copying from Brunswick. I am also sure he made a traditional cue or two in his lifetime. I see on Wus site he used black, natural, black, natural veneers with ebony points, a combination first seen on Gus Szamboti cues. Does this make him any less a cuemaker?

Joe

LOL typical Joe Van, he loves to try and twist an argument and then he tries to hit home. Of course knowing Bruin is a Petersen collector you tried everything in your powers to drag him in LOL. You are really grasping at straws joe and you really look like a fool. Must be bruin has no clue about design theft because he likes Craig's cues and he used veneers just like ... O never mind that's to dumb to even repeat. LOL

Jim

 

[classiccues]

geez joe,,,don't be an ass. haven't you been reading my last three posts or do you just want the last word.

i'll give you that last word,,,,my treat.

Of course I have been reading them.. but you ended abruptly when I used CP as an example. Which led me to believe that was a "sore" spot. I thought this was a good exchange of ideas.

Joe

 

[classiccues]

Once again Joe you expose yourself as a fool and your attempts to change my beliefs is a joke. If you want to continue to stalk and bring up cases in which to try and make me look bad do some homework and stick on topic. As long as you want to compare apples with oranges it's not going to work. It's always been consistent joe.
Designs, not inlays, not woods, not materials, designs.
Maybe design is a vague term and I'll say it again I am not the last word on it, just a guy giving an opinion.
You stick to your opinion and I'll stick to mine, you look real dumb trying to tell us what I think. But I still love you joe, you're making mark proud.

Jim

Well Jim, as usual you rant about the whole post when in reality there was only one line about you in the entire post. I know you are trying to feel like a somebody, but please do it somewhere else. I also know you wanna be somebody so bad, you interject your own babbling on something that doesn't even exist. No where did I try and implicate or rebutt anything you said, but I brandished my own opinion. Oh thats right, you already know my opinion before I state it. I forgot all about that.

But clear up some things for me.. you once said I didn't work for Mark, but now I do?

Are you saying an inlay cannot be a design? I think there are 200 cuemakers that would disagree with that statement.

Now define design.. or is that too complicated for you?

BTW I own one Skip and at times I may own up to 10-12 depending
upon what I feel like doing. My personal collection rotates, I know
you might need help in the explanation.

Do yourself a favor, never state anything about my friends. You have no idea about me, my friends or my business. So you would probably be better off leaving that stuff out.

Joe (--like you, giving an opinion

 

[classiccues]

I think you're missing the point that Ernie called paul on it and Paul apologized and said he would do all he could to reverse the wrongs he did, thus admitting he did in fact do something he shouldn't have. I guess you'd do better for your stubborn self to ignore this.

I would say that a copy may be when a person brings a cue maker a picture of a cue (a fancy one at that) and says can you do this? When the guy goes from a photo to the wood, that may be considered a copy to most with 1/2 a brain. Again the fact that it's not a good copy doesn't excuse it for what it is.

LOL typical Joe Van, he loves to try and twist an argument and then he tries to hit home. Of course knowing Bruin is a Petersen collector you tried everything in your powers to drag him in LOL. You are really grasping at straws joe and you really look like a fool. Must be bruin has no clue about design theft because he likes Craig's cues and he used veneers just like ... O never mind that's to dumb to even repeat. LOL

Jim

First off, were you on the other end of the phone with Ernie when paul called? How do you know what was said? Do you know exactly word for word what the conversation was? Can you prove it? This is worse than all the other times you want to come off like an insider. Whether its Mark and Scott, Paul / Ernie or whoever. Face the facts you loser, you don't know jack. Like all your other ramblings you get 10% of the story and make up the other 90%. I heard the big slap in the face wasn't the copy itself, but the price of the PM version.

Copy is to make a duplicate, which PM didn't do. Did he copy aspects of the cue, absolutely. Now using your own argument, is the silverwork not considered part of the overall design? Since leaving significant portions of the design out, didn't paul just copy inlays? Which by your own admission are just inlays, not part of the design? What if someone makes a cue utilizing just the ivory/pink ivory overlaying teardrops, are they design thiefs? After all its just inlays. Before you go out and look stupid by saying a series of inlays constitutes a design, better think back to 4 diamonds and 4 dot patterns.

As far as using Petersen, yes Bruin is more familiar with Petersens then he is with any other cuemaker. So using any other cuemaker would have been pointless, you nit.

Joe (--nice try, but you're still a moron

 

[JimBo]

Well Jim, as usual you rant about the whole post when in reality there was only one line about you in the entire post. I know you are trying to feel like a somebody, but please do it somewhere else. I also know you wanna be somebody so bad, you interject your own babbling on something that doesn't even exist. No where did I try and implicate or rebutt anything you said, but I brandished my own opinion. Oh thats right, you already know my opinion before I state it. I forgot all about that.

I believe you started your rant with "jimmy boy" thus dragging me in, isn't that what you hoped for? If not why mention my name? Maybe you meant another Jimmy Boy

But clear up some things for me.. you once said I didn't work for Mark, but now I do?

I've always known you were Mark's lackey, if you "work" as in get paid, well that's another issue. I do know you're so caught up in making people believe that you and mark are one in the same that it really stings when I point out you're just his personal assistant. But again nobody really cares, if you get off saying we and pretending to own nice cues you go right ahead. I know one thing he couldn't have picked a better man, you have plenty of time on your hands and you are loyal to a fault.

Are you saying an inlay cannot be a design? I think there are 200 cuemakers that would disagree with that statement.

I'm sorry where did I say that?? O never mind it's just you trying to put words in my mouth again. What I do remember saying was that I am not the end all on the topic and I have no problem voicing my opinion. And IMO what I comment on is a cue design, the entire cue all the inlays top to bottom in a certain pattern and layout. I also doubt that 200 cuemakers want you talking for them, but since you want to ask them who owns the diamond inlay design, Wait, maybe you better ask a guitar maker instead who owns it.

Now define design.. or is that too complicated for you?

Yes it is, I am not the one who needs to define it, it's not me against the world. It's me voicing an opinion that many share and you trying to turn this into a personal battle. I can also assure you that the definition of cue design theft is when a cue maker takes a picture and tries to duplicate the cue in the picture to the best of his ability, good or bad doesn't play into it.

BTW I own one Skip and at times I may own up to 10-12 depending
upon what I feel like doing. My personal collection rotates, I know
you might need help in the explanation.

Well which is it, because last time you posted about your collection you claimed you had 2 cues, now you have 12? Hmmm seems like you've been caught in a lie once more (see how easy it is to twist Joe?). I am not going to get into this dumb battle with you, but let me say it again I own as many cues from the man as you do in our personal collections.

Do yourself a favor, never state anything about my friends. You have no idea about me, my friends or my business. So you would probably be better off leaving that stuff out.

Joe (--like you, giving an opinion

I'm not sure who your friends may or may not be, but I'll continue to comment on whatever I see fit, you'll need to get over it. You also need to keep in mind many of your friends were my friends first, and many of your X friends are still my friends. I just find it sad when some of your X friends are only x's cause you are loyal to your boss, it's very sad when you pretend to have a friend when in fact you're a user and when you can no longer use a person you do away with the friendship, they call that fair-weather friends I think. But please Joe save the tough talk.

Jim

 

[JimBo]

First off, were you on the other end of the phone with Ernie when paul called? How do you know what was said? Do you know exactly word for word what the conversation was? Can you prove it?

I don't need to prove anything to you, I know 2 of three sides of the story, you may know one, but you ain't even claiming that. If Jim White wants to show this to Paul and post on his behalf or tell his side he's here and can do so, I don't need to get into it with you. It's not up to you to worry where I get my info, trust me Joe I'm a nobody, I would never pretend to be as powerful as you LOL.

This is worse than all the other times you want to come off like an insider. Whether its Mark and Scott,

I happen to have been there for most of this, as a matter of fact I was there for more of it then you and I have the proof, but who cares about that, I was also friends with both people and got both versions of the story. The honest part of it is I think they both handled it like babies and both should be embarrassed. Of course you'd like us all to believe you were there for all these conversations and while the cops where there and everything and I let you play pretend since I happen to know you weren't for a fact. The funny part is you somehow feel important cause you were a part of this petty bullshit, way to go Joe, you're a somebody LOL.

Paul / Ernie or whoever. Face the facts you loser, you don't know jack.

Yes I know nothing, I'm a loser LOL, you know it all you're very important

Like all your other ramblings you get 10% of the story and make up the other 90%. I heard the big slap in the face wasn't the copy itself, but the price of the PM version.

Yes you know this is the problem, you know it all, you are a big time insider, you must have been on the phone for this. LOL the funny part is you want to say I know nothing of the story because I wasn't on the phone, but then you want us to believe your version like you were. Then you dig your own grave, why would anyone care what Paul sold the cue for? Would Ernie be mad at prices Paul gets for his cues if they weren't copies?? I don't think so, so you just admitted that the real issue is the cue design was stolen.



Copy is to make a duplicate, which PM didn't do.

He took a photo of a cue from a customer who asked if he could duplicate the cue, that is the definition of copy if I've ever heard it, yet you are trying to debate that?? LOL This is classic.

Did he copy aspects of the cue, absolutely.

No he took a photo of the cue and tried to make a copy Joe, please pay attention, the person didn't ask him to make something like it, he asked if he could make the cue. BTW I know the person who asked him, maybe you can ask him how he ordered the cue in the first place, I also know the person who ended up with one of the copies and I know the offer paul made to get the cue back so he could stick to his agreement with Ernie.

Now using your own argument, is the silverwork not considered part of the overall design? Since leaving significant portions of the design out, didn't paul just copy inlays?

He took a photo of a cue and tried to copy it, if nothing else I ever say here means a thing this is the definition of COPY.

Which by your own admission are just inlays, not part of the design?

Have you really seen the cues?

What if someone makes a cue utilizing just the ivory/pink ivory overlaying teardrops, are they design thiefs?

If they take a picture of someone else's cue and tries to duplicate it.

After all its just inlays. Before you go out and look stupid by saying a series of inlays constitutes a design, better think back to 4 diamonds and 4 dot patterns.

It's really sad that I have to continue to explain to you that the more complex the design the more prevalent my argument is. It's also sad that someone who wants more then anything else to be considered a cue expert can't tell the difference between the Feathers cue and 4 dots and 4 diamonds. Are you an expert Joe?? Can I draw a conclusion from your words above that you feel the 4 dots/4 diamonds layout is the same as the Feathers cue?? I mean cause that is what you just said.

As far as using Petersen, yes Bruin is more familiar with Petersens then he is with any other cuemaker. So using any other cuemaker would have been pointless, you nit.

Joe (--nice try, but you're still a moron

Not pointless you tried to drag in Petersen where there was no place. Only to use your line "you seem to shut up when I talked about your man." It's one of the things you always try. As a matter of fact it was such a stretch that all you could come up with was veneer colors, taking into consideration the time period and styles a far cry from design theft. but of course it wasn't about that it was all just to drag in Bruin's guy. You are transparent Joe.

Jim

 

[classiccues]

I believe you started your rant with "jimmy boy" thus dragging me in, isn't that what you hoped for? If not why mention my name? Maybe you meant another Jimmy Boy
Jim

Absolutely. But only in regards to Skip. Your need to be an attention whore confiscated the whole post. But this is what you do, right? Make it out like I was attacking your point of view when in reality it was only my opinion.

I've always known you were Mark's lackey, if you "work" as in get paid, well that's another issue. I do know you're so caught up in making people believe that you and mark are one in the same that it really stings when I point out you're just his personal assistant. But again nobody really cares, if you get off saying we and pretending to own nice cues you go right ahead. I know one thing he couldn't have picked a better man, you have plenty of time on your hands and you are loyal to a fault.

Yeah another issue as in, " I don't know anything about Mark and Joe so I will make up the 90% as I usually do." No, it doesn't sting, cause its just another Jimbo lie and attempt to sound like you know something. BTW I own nice cues. Buts thats another story.

Yes it is, I am not the one who needs to define it, it's not me against the world. It's me voicing an opinion that many share and you trying to turn this into a personal battle. I can also assure you that the definition of cue design theft is when a cue maker takes a picture and tries to duplicate the cue in the picture to the best of his ability, good or bad doesn't play into it.

You know then if this is the case, you shouldn't defend something you don't comprehend. BTW if Paul wanted to do the silverwork, I think he would have.

Well which is it, because last time you posted about your collection you claimed you had 2 cues, now you have 12? Hmmm seems like you've been caught in a lie once more (see how easy it is to twist Joe?). I am not going to get into this dumb battle with you, but let me say it again I own as many cues from the man as you do in our personal collections

How easy it is to twist what? I said I could have 10-12 depending upon what I feel like doing. Actually if you bothered to post what I said, it couldn't be twisted. You have no idea of my personal collection, or if I have one, or even if I consider my stock to be part of my collection. So again, you comment on something you know little or nothing about.

I'm not sure who your friends may or may not be, but I'll continue to comment on whatever I see fit, you'll need to get over it. You also need to keep in mind many of your friends were my friends first, and many of your X friends are still my friends. I just find it sad when some of your X friends are only x's cause you are loyal to your boss, it's very sad when you pretend to have a friend when in fact you're a user and when you can no longer use a person you do away with the friendship, they call that fair-weather friends I think. But please Joe save the tough talk.

Now I will call you out. Prove any one of these things in your last paragraph are true. Prove any one. Cause its all BS. Your friends first is laughable and who really cares who's firend it was first? I want you to post who is my ex- friend and show any example stating your case. Furthermore who out of your list I used? You know what, this is just purely an attempt, and a poor one, to sling mud that is not even part of the thread. So please here you go big boy, post away. Now you either know something or you don't.

Joe

 

[classiccues]

I don't need to prove anything to you, I know 2 of three sides of the story, you may know one, but you ain't even claiming that. If Jim White wants to show this to Paul and post on his behalf or tell his side he's here and can do so, I don't need to get into it with you. It's not up to you to worry where I get my info, trust me Joe I'm a nobody, I would never pretend to be as powerful as you LOL.

You cannot prove anything because you cannot. You "pretend" way more than you should.

I happen to have been there for most of this, as a matter of fact I was there for more of it then you and I have the proof, but who cares about that, I was also friends with both people and got both versions of the story. The honest part of it is I think they both handled it like babies and both should be embarrassed. Of course you'd like us all to believe you were there for all these conversations and while the cops where there and everything and I let you play pretend since I happen to know you weren't for a fact. The funny part is you somehow feel important cause you were a part of this petty bullshit, way to go Joe, you're a somebody LOL.

First off this is way more of a lie than I thought you would try and pull off. I was there for more than you and thats an undisputable fact. But I didn't try and eavesdrop when the two people tried to get away from the crowd, like you did. But since I called Mark when the cop showed up is proof I was there when they showed up. Unless then you want to say that you called Mark which is something I wouldn't put past you.

the funny part is you want to say I know nothing of the story because I wasn't on the phone, but then you want us to believe your version like you were. Then you dig your own grave, why would anyone care what Paul sold the cue for? Would Ernie be mad at prices Paul gets for his cues if they weren't copies?? I don't think so, so you just admitted that the real issue is the cue design was stolen.

All I said was what I heard, no where did I ever say it was the definitive events that happened. Why would Ernie be mad? Jeez are you that thick. You build a cue and charge over 12k and a guy makes a reasonable facsimile and charges 5.5k or so and that doesn't cheapen what you did? But then again it was missing major components in the design.

He took a photo of a cue from a customer who asked if he could duplicate the cue, that is the definition of copy if I've ever heard it, yet you are trying to debate that?? LOL This is classic.

Really.. but the cue is not a duplicate or copy by definition. So you're right its classic. Now "almost" not only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades it also counts in cue design theft. You're right.. classic.

It's really sad that I have to continue to explain to you that the more complex the design the more prevalent my argument is. It's also sad that someone who wants more then anything else to be considered a cue expert can't tell the difference between the Feathers cue and 4 dots and 4 diamonds. Are you an expert Joe?? Can I draw a conclusion from your words above that you feel the 4 dots/4 diamonds layout is the same as the Feathers cue?? I mean cause that is what you just said.

Well there you go. I am saying that you cannot exclude a less elaborate / more archaic cue design than a newer CNC design. You cannot hold one in higher esteem than the other. It took someone whether it be Gus / Bushka / Rambow / Guiterrez / Black / Stroud or whoever time to design a particular inlay / design. Do I feel the two designs are the same, yes. Based on when they were created and the machiner of the time. There is no grey area, its either theft or it isn't.

Not pointless you tried to drag in Petersen where there was no place. Only to use your line "you seem to shut up when I talked about your man." It's one of the things you always try. As a matter of fact it was such a stretch that all you could come up with was veneer colors, taking into consideration the time period and styles a far cry from design theft. but of course it wasn't about that it was all just to drag in Bruin's guy. You are transparent Joe.

Jim

You can try and spin it any way you would like. (its still not accurate, no matter how you spin it) Its still design theft, whether its feathers OR the black/green/orange/ natural veneer pattern. Someone spent time and thought of both. Petersen was a perfect example because of the other debaters familiarity with him and the fact it fit the discussion.

Joe (---nice try again, but you still don't know anything

 

[JimBo]

You cannot prove anything because you cannot. You "pretend" way more than you should.

Sorry I missed your point here, what do I need to prove? the only one trying to dispute it was a copy and it was intended as such is you.



First off this is way more of a lie than I thought you would try and pull off. I was there for more than you and thats an undisputable fact. But I didn't try and eavesdrop when the two people tried to get away from the crowd, like you did. But since I called Mark when the cop showed up is proof I was there when they showed up. Unless then you want to say that you called Mark which is something I wouldn't put past you.

No lie, I just happened to be there, I also happen to know and was friends with both sides, unlike you who has a biased towards one side. There are 3 sides to every story Joe, M K's, S L's and the truth, I heard 2 of the three direct from the horses mouth. I was also at Mark's the day that cue came in from Ernie's shop. I will add I'm sorry to have part in it, it's a black eye for a few people and nothing to be happy about, but I guess you're just happy with the spotlight on you.



All I said was what I heard, no where did I ever say it was the definitive events that happened. Why would Ernie be mad? Jeez are you that thick. You build a cue and charge over 12k and a guy makes a reasonable facsimile and charges 5.5k or so and that doesn't cheapen what you did? But then again it was missing major components in the design.

You said it as fact, "you heard" LOL from who? I know ernie didn't say that. and the fact is Ernie charges more then Paul for all of his cues, take a plain 4 point basic cue, Ernie's costs more. Ernie has a bigger name and demands a higher price, that's just the market. It's common sense that his cue sold for more, and it sold for more a few times. But the reality of it is his cue should cost more he spent hours on the design, something Paul didn't have to do LOL, once again your ignorance proves why cue design theft matters. It's always easier to copy then to be the originator. Guess what, we were standing next to each other when Skip (your pal) looked at the cue and said it was easy and he could do it. I'm sure he may be able to but I can bet you know his version of the copy won't sell for as much as Paul's, should this shock us?? Should it hurt the value of the original?? I doubt it, the same way that Paul's didn't.



Really.. but the cue is not a duplicate or copy by definition. So you're right its classic. Now "almost" not only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades it also counts in cue design theft. You're right.. classic.

When you take a photo of a cue and ask the maker to "copy it" it then becomes a copy joe, Have someone with more grey matter explain that to you.



Well there you go. I am saying that you cannot exclude a less elaborate / more archaic cue design than a newer CNC design. You cannot hold one in higher esteem than the other. It took someone whether it be Gus / Bushka / Rambow / Guiterrez / Black / Stroud or whoever time to design a particular inlay / design. Do I feel the two designs are the same, yes. Based on when they were created and the machiner of the time. There is no grey area, its either theft or it isn't.

You keep bringing up the machinery of the time, please explain what that has to do with our debate here? Also please stop ignoring the fact that I have said from day 1 more elaborate designs play a major role in this



You can try and spin it any way you would like. (its still not accurate, no matter how you spin it) Its still design theft, whether its feathers OR the black/green/orange/ natural veneer pattern. Someone spent time and thought of both. Petersen was a perfect example because of the other debaters familiarity with him and the fact it fit the discussion.

Joe (---nice try again, but you still don't know anything

Which is it Joe you are flip flopping, first you claim if a guy changed a ring or didn't add some silver work it's not a copy, now you claim if it's the same veneer colors it is. Make up your mind Joe what do you consider a design theft? I've explained myself very clear, even though you continue to try and put words in my mouth. I am not spinning anything, that's your job, I just give my own personal opinions, take them or leave them, but stop trying to recreate them. Also in your last paragraph you said it was design theft, so now you are jumping ship? I mean early on you claimed it wasn't shit in this post you claim it wasn't (your 4th paragraph). Joe it's hard to follow you with all your flips and flops. I still love ya though ya lil fishy, I do wish you didn't take it so personal though;-)

Jim