Balabushkas
RWMCT
Balabushkas (every time I think of that nitwit twirling that cue I grind
another ten years of use off my dentation). They were already much sought
after before he died. Do you think, in the last years, he was keeping up with
demand? You got the cue and immediately started turning down offers to buy it
for more than you paid for it.
I would agree that bushkas were probably better known in the East than
elsewhere, though I am sure people all over the country got to buy them when
Easterners went broke or got into a slump while passing through.
But really. Even if that silly movie made bushkas more well known and led to
their value increasing, who cares? I mean, none of that is of any importance,
from a pool perspective. What counts is what they were in their heyday as pool
cues for real players and those of us who wanted to be real players. (And
since when does Forbes or whatever it wascount as a good primary source for
pool information?)
As to only players knowing about them, not the general public, who cares?
The general public cannot get out with ball in hand. Screw em.
And even if you were right that bushka's collectibility went up when that
movie was released, who cares? If, among the sins of that movie, you want to
add making cues riddiculously expensive, fine. But Balabushka made cues to
play with. Very few were made to sit in a case, and how they played was the
main thing.
Collectibility is a pain in the ass, if you ask me. Nowadays, you break a rack
with a boti or bushka and guys look at you like you lost your mind. "That cue
is worth blah blah blah." Spare me. What do I care if some guy who cant run 16
thinks they are worth a gazzillion dollars? Mizerak won most of his titles
with one, now that means something to me.
Only a handful of players played with them? Who cares? Only a handful of
players count.
And I do not think you have any idea how bushkas were prized around here in
the late 70s and early 80s. Not only did top pros play with them, but many of
the really good locals did too. Lisciotti. Both Guilbeaults. Hunt. Those
were the guys that exposed most of us to bushkas, and real pool, before we ever
went up to New London to see Mizerak, and Murphy, and Margo, and Martin, and
the rest. Playing with bushkas.
And that is the real reason why many of us prize bushkas today. If they
still played straight pool where you started playing pool in the late seventies
and early eighties, bushkas are a symbol of a golden age. Before bar leagues,
before one foul ball in hand, before handicapped tournaments, before they built
so called pool rooms where nobody has ever run a hundred. When nobody would
play you without some kind of bet, the air was full of cigarette smoke, and you
sucked down cheap coffee by the gallon.
If that movie ever did anything good for pool I never heard about it.
Deno J. Andrews
news:20031222225625...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> They were already much sought
> after before he died.
Is it possible for even just a minute that you guys can think outside the
little pool world of the time? His cues were sought after by such a small
number of people relative to who they appealed to after TCOM. Sure, they
were great cue sticks of the day...but there were hardly any players!!!!!
> But really. Even if that silly movie made bushkas more well known and
led to
> their value increasing, who cares?
I agree with this. But tie it into the voting and see my point. Balabushka
is a no brainer to be inducted. But Daly, who did WAY more to shape
billiards, which was way more popular than pool in his time, will be
virtually ignored because people voting don't know jack about the history of
the game.
> since when does Forbes or whatever it wascount as a good primary source
for
> pool information?)
Forbes is a business publication. And if cue buying and the Balabushka
mainstream craze was big enough to reach its pages, it furthers my point.
> And even if you were right that bushka's collectibility went up when
that
> movie was released, who cares? If, among the sins of that movie, you want
to
> add making cues riddiculously expensive, fine. But Balabushka made cues
to
> play with. Very few were made to sit in a case, and how they played was
the
> main thing.
I don't see where we are disagreeing. Can you show me how this differs from
anything I have said?
> And I do not think you have any idea how bushkas were prized around here
in
> the late 70s and early 80s. Not only did top pros play with them, but
many of
> the really good locals did too.
Don't you get it, there are more tennis players in a single average sized
city today than there were serious pool players of the time in the whole
country. You are saying they were sought after by this group, and I don't
disagree, but that the group was very very small. Hardly anyone outside the
pool world knew of the cues.
Deno
Ron Shepard
rw...@aol.com (RWMCT) wrote:
> Deno, you have got to be kiddin when you say that that silly movie made
> Balabushkas (every time I think of that nitwit twirling that cue I grind
> another ten years of use off my dentation). They were already much sought
> after before he died.
Does anyone know what the street price of a Balabushka was in 1985
(before TCOM) compared to 1987 (after TCOM)? I have heard that the
ratio was about 50. Is that right?
I read an article once about Steve Mizerak. This was in the 70's
about the time of his Miller Lite commercials on TV. That article
said that he used a Balabushka cue. I had never heard of one
before, and it didn't register with me at the time. Then, after
TCOM came out, I made the connection that the (fictional) cue in the
movie was the same that Mizerak used.
What other cue makers were popular among the good players in the
60's and early 70's? Rambow? Schrager? Helmstetter?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Joe Van
>His cues were sought after by such a small
>number of people relative to who they appealed to after TCOM. Sure, they
>were great cue sticks of the day...but there were hardly any players!!!!!<<
A- Why did they appeal to more people after TCOM? Why, because more people took
an interest in pool in general. This is part of the "boom" the movie caused.
Which is why every 20 year old cue shot up in value. Paradise, Palmer, Rambow
even Adam and Rich cues got a bump when the movie came out. This is why and
where the collectibility issue started. Alot of Bushkas were still being used
as they were intended when they were made, before the movie and before the
heavy dollar signs.
B- There were enough players that George had a tremendous backlog and as Rich
said, you could sell them for double as soon as you left his shop.
Joe
Joe Van
>Does anyone know what the street price of a Balabushka was in 1985
>(before TCOM) compared to 1987 (after TCOM)? I have heard that the
>ratio was about 50. Is that right?<<
In 1984 I passed on a plain Bushka for $ 1500.00 cause I thought the guy was a
nut case.
Right now the cue would be in the 6-7k neighborhood.
>What other cue makers were popular among the good players in the
>60's and early 70's? Rambow? Schrager? Helmstetter?<<
Paradise, Palmer, East coast, Martin, Tad, Gina on the west coast are just a
few.
FTR before the pool boom and before the internet I don't ever remember hearing
about
Tad or Martin anywhere here on the east coast.
Joe
lfigueroa
coveted cues were Gina, Tad, and Palmer. I think I saw one Szamboti.
Lou Figueroa
"Ron Shepard" <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ron-shepard-FE2C...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
Deno J. Andrews
news:20031223002647...@mb-m23.aol.com...
> In 1984 I passed on a plain Bushka for $ 1500.00 cause I thought the guy
was a
> nut case.
> Right now the cue would be in the 6-7k neighborhood.
If they were soooo sought after even before TCOM, why then did you think the
guy was a nutcase?
Deno
Martin
70's Eddie Laube cues (from Chicago)were considered to be the best
around among the few guys who could afford them. In 1970 I
accompanied a buddy of mine who wanted to buy a Laube from a Detroit
pool room owner who had about 2 dozen of them for sale(Nick at the
Carom Club on Warren Ave.). The Merry widow style Laube was priced at
150.00 and a 4 prong went for 250.00 one shaft.
A few of the older guys had Paradise and higher dollar Palmers.
Vikings were very popular then as were Rich and National Tournament
cues (which was my first decent cue $32.50). Minimum wage was about
$1.75 in 1970.
The seemingly few custom cuemakers around at that time used to
advertise in the monthly National Billiard News, the only pool
oriented publication known to me at that time.
Martin
"lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net> wrote in message news:<S6XFb.517419$0v4.21...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Gary Ives
Joss West (Bill Stroud), Joss East-Dan Janes, (before the production
line stuff), Tad, though not as well known on the east coast. Also
Gina, not well known on the east coast, Richard Black.
Gary
Remove NOSPAM to reply by email.
Gary Ives
<horus4...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>Joss West (Bill Stroud), Joss East-Dan Janes, (before the production
>line stuff), Tad, though not as well known on the east coast. Also
>Gina, not well known on the east coast, Richard Black.
>
>Gary
>Remove NOSPAM to reply by email.
Oops. According to the Blue Book, Richard Black didn't really get
started 'til 1980. Bill Stroud (JW) went on his own in 1972. Dan
Janes and Tad, late 60s'. Gina from 1961.
RWMCT
the movie, probably no one is disagreeing with you. It is the idea that the
movie is what turned bushkas into something special that bothers me. They
already were special.
I do think we disagree somewhere, however. Certainly I do not think that GB
owes his future entry into the hall to the lingering memory of the movie in the
minds of clueless execs. It is the nostalgia I was talking about that will get
him in. That, and the fact that the cue industry is important enough that it
is due another entry. Even if the movie had never been made, bushka would be
the logical candidate.
As for Daly the problem is simple. He lived a long time ago. Absent his
developing a quirky "Shoeless Joe" type constituency, nobody will care about
him.
Joe Van
>guy was a nutcase?
>Deno<<
Because back then it took me a long time to come up with that kind
of scratch... and I could get a new Szamboti for a hell of alot less.
Joe (----when you are 18 there are more important things than cues... :)
www.pooltablemagic.net / www.classiccues.com
ratchet
RWMCT wrote:
TCOM --- Before or after dont mean shit , the main thing is Balabushka's
contribution to the game is his cue and a beautifully constructed (for its time
it was ahead of its time ) one at that He along with many others
( past and present ) deserve the HOF nod , Hell, if say , Dufferin was
the cue mentioned or another K-Mart brand in TCOM it still don't take away
from what GB contributed .....IMO
> >>> Ratchet <<<<
Cuezilla
Quote
"Oops. According to the Blue Book, Richard Black didn't really get
started 'til 1980. "
That is not correct, he made me a cue in 1976. As far as Balabushkas
go I bought one in 1978 for $100 and another in 1983 for $600 I still
have those two. I have owned others but I sold them to Rick G. a few
years ago. I am glad I did not sell them all.
Sherm Adamson
anyone ever seen one of his accordions and was he as respected at that
occupation as he was at cuemaking? I figure someone has to be the
"Balabushka" of accordions, wonder if it was ole George? HMMMMM, LOL
--
just more hot air! 8^)
Sherm
aka "cuesmith" in yahoo
Sherm Custom Billiard Cues by,
Sherman Adamson
3352 Nine Mile Rd., Cincinnati Ohio 45255
Shop (513)553-2172, Cell (513)509-9152
http://www.shermcue.com Over 20 years experience
almost a decade in "The American Cuemakers Association"
Cuezilla
is common on accordions and found it's way onto his cues. Considering
how it was done at that time, the work was very good, as good as some
do today with cnc machines, although very limited. He made a lot more
cues then people think. He often made cues that were just ideas that
came into his head and may have never made another like it. He often
sold cues to guys in the pool room or put together cues for guys in a
week of two that had no real ear marks of what people would look for
today in identifying his work. The cue of his I mention in my other
post that I bought for a $100. I knew was a Balabushka. I sent it to
Gus Szamboti to certify what I already knew. I am sure there are quite
a few out there still.
"Sherm Adamson" <sh...@shermcue.com> wrote in message news:<LUlHb.2514$zC4.2...@news2.news.adelphia.net>...
Jimbo Ct
>cues then people think.
What does this mean?? How many cues do you think he made? How many do you think
"people" think he made?? He made somewhere around 1,150 cues, maybe 1,300 on
the high end. Right now I'd guess that maybe somewhere around 900 are still
around and I am also very fond of saying of those 850 about 1,500 are in Japan.
I'm sure there may be less then 850 known, I mean I am sure there must be about
125 hidden in attics, closets, or back rooms where people have no clue what
they are. I'm also pretty sure that due to floods, fires and bad tempers about
200-500 have been long gone. There may also be about 200 real good copies or
fakes that have such history that people really believe they ARE real Bushkas.
But my real question to you is how many do you think "people" think are out
there?
Jim <-------Wishes he were old enough to have met and ordered one from George
himself.
wayne crimi
the movie, probably no one is disagreeing with you. It is the idea that the
movie is what turned bushkas into something special that bothers me. They
already were special. >
I agree completely and then some. Without question pool players were
already paying huge prices for Buskas in the late 70s in NY. The reputation
for exellence among pool players was well established among anyone that
spent more than an occasional afternoon shooting pool . THAT's WHY IT WAS
SELECTED FOR THE MOVIE. Pool players would appreciate the fact that the
movie was an accurate reflection of the thinking about the cues. It wasn't
the other way around.
Certainly, the reputation might have been enhanced by the movie.
"RWMCT" <rw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031223222242...@mb-m06.aol.com...
wayne crimi
(before TCOM) compared to 1987 (after TCOM)? I have heard that the
ratio was about 50. Is that right?<
I can tell you for a 100% fact that I know players that paid $500 in the
late 70s for the simplest (almost no detailed work etc..) Buska around. If
it wasn't a Buska, a similar looking cue etc... would have cost about
$50-$75.
"Ron Shepard" <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ron-shepard-FE2C...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
Deno J. Andrews
news:ESAHb.74832$0P1....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> I agree completely and then some. Without question pool players were
> already paying huge prices for Buskas in the late 70s in NY. The
reputation
> for exellence among pool players was well established among anyone that
> spent more than an occasional afternoon shooting pool . THAT's WHY IT WAS
> SELECTED FOR THE MOVIE. Pool players would appreciate the fact that the
> movie was an accurate reflection of the thinking about the cues. It wasn't
> the other way around.
Balabushka was not as "famous" as you guys think he was in the 70s. There
were players right down the street from NY here in Chicago who had never
heard of him. There were other cue makers in other parts of the country
that were well known in their region, just like Balabushka was known well in
the east. Maybe the guys in NY were paying good prices for these cues...but
in the midwest they were virtually unheard of in the 70s, and a Laube cue
was one of the choice cues of the time.
Deno
JAM
70s."
Deno, KM had a Balabushka cue in the '70s when he hailed from California. He
loved that cue. He still talks about it to this day. It was stolen. He
thinks the cue would be worth $25,000 in today's market.
Many years ago, a local trick-shot guy named Chester Morris used to sell
cue-sticks out of his trunk. Coming from a bar pool background, when Chester
rolled up and displayed his cues, they were mighty pleasing.
He had cue sticks with names of players on them. I used to have a Jim
Rempe-signed cue stick and an Allen Hopkins-signed cue stick. He sold a friend
of mine one that had "Balabushka" written on it for big bucks. My friend later
found out that it wasn't a "real" Balabushka, but only an imprinted cue-stick
with the guy's name on it, but to be fair to Chester, he didn't represent it as
a "real" one.
I asked Allen Hopkins about that cue stick one day, and he remembered that line
of cues.
Years ago, in the Baltimore/D.C. area, the main man all the pros would go to
was none other than Tim Scruggs. To this day, you can still drive to his shop
and get personalized service. However, you may have quite a waiting list if
you desire a custom-made Scruggs. He enjoys a sterling reputation in the
Baltimore-D.C. area to this day and has gone international. They love his cues
over in Japan, the place where a McDonald's Big Mac costs 40 American dollars.
JAM
Ron Shepard
jama...@aol.comnojunk (JAM) wrote:
> Deno, KM had a Balabushka cue in the '70s when he hailed from California. He
> loved that cue. He still talks about it to this day. It was stolen. He
> thinks the cue would be worth $25,000 in today's market.
What did he pay for it at the time? I'm guessing less than $500.
The issue being discussed in this thread is the impact of the movie
TCOM on Balabushka cue prices in particular and on collector cue
prices in general. The ratio of after-movie to before-movie costs
for a particular cue seem to be about 50, sometimes less, sometimes
a little more, depending on the condition of the cue, the specific
history of that cue, and so on.
I personally did not know of a single cue collector before the
movie. I knew a few people who had "expensive" cue sticks (anything
over $200 would have qualified), but they played with them, they did
not collect them. Now I know people who buy expensive cues, lock
them in vaults, seldom even take them out and look at them, and
would not even consider chalking the tip and actually playing with
them.
Right now, I know of only one person, Bob Jewett, who owns an
original Balabushka cue and actually plays with it.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Hudson
>Years ago, in the Baltimore/D.C. area, the main man all the pros would go to
>was none other than Tim Scruggs. To this day, you can still drive to his shop
>and get personalized service. However, you may have quite a waiting list if
>you desire a custom-made Scruggs. He enjoys a sterling reputation in the
>Baltimore-D.C. area to this day and has gone international. They love his cues
>over in Japan, the place where a McDonald's Big Mac costs 40 American dollars.
I think your figures are a little off. $40 would be a little over 5000 yen. A
Premium Mac (bigger than a big Mac) goes for about 270 yen. The cheapest
McDonald's Japan burger is 59 yen.
Ron
wayne crimi
the movie, but in NY they were an "item" years before the movie.
"Deno J. Andrews" <denoa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Y3DHb.4152$Yy2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
wayne crimi
for a particular cue seem to be about 50, sometimes less, sometimes
a little more, depending on the condition of the cue, the specific
history of that cue, and so on.<
I find 50 hard to believe as a result of the movie alone. Like I said in
another post, I know of cases of the simplest and plainest Bushka selling
for $500 in the late 70s. Similar "almost no detailed work" non-Bushka cues
were selling for $50-$75 at the same time. People in NY were hot for those
cues back then and not everyone played with them. Plus, there has obviously
been a huge increase in prices since the last 70s just via general
inflation.
I wouldn't doubt that the movie increased the popularity of pool and the
"name" Bushka, but I am less convinced that the movie itself created the
collectors market.
Perhaps simple observation that premier cues (especially with history)
tended to appreciate rather than depreciate over time caused players to act
quite rationally and consider them as potential investments. That is true
of all sort of other things that are collected these days that were not
collected in the past.
I don't want to underrate the impact of the movie on pool and the cue stick
market, but unless you were around NY in the late 70s you can't appreciate
that the name Bushka was in the movie because of what was already happening
to the prices of the cues and not the other way around. The prices were
going through the roof shortly after Bushka's death for years prior to the
movie. This is an absolute indisputable fact.
"Ron Shepard" <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ron-shepard-7F73...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
Barry
Hi, My pool playing days were from about 1966 to 1972/3. Since then
I probably haven't played 2 dozen times (major shift in time to career
objectives)....... but I just took my 14 year old son to Clifton
Billiards in NJ (1-st time I've played in about 2 years). I was quite
a good player, once running 100+ in 14.1 and many times running 5+
racks in 9 ball. I was friendly with George Balabushka, watched him
make many a cue in his gararge shop, and bought 3 new cues from him in
1969-70. I paid $95, $180, and $95, sold the first two (in 1970) for
what I paid (big mistake ... the 2-nd one was magnificant). I still
have the last one...very plain, but a magnificant playing cue (as were
the others). As much as will make you cringe, I still break (9-ball,
etc.) with it and know it will never be damaged by doing so ..... in
my playing days, I must heve done so 10,000 + times..... NEVER even
had a tip fall off. George was a real nice guy. Too bad he didn't
live to reap the financial benfits of his fine craftsmanship. I would
love to see him inducted into the hall of fame ... I just recently
heard of it and was very surprised George wasn't already in it. Barry
Tony DeAngelo
JAM wrote:
They love his cues
> over in Japan, the place where a McDonald's Big Mac costs 40 American dollars.
>
> JAM
I've seen melons sell for over $200 in the Ginza district but I am
afraid you have been misinformed about the cost of a Big Mac.
Donald Tees
Something that no one seems to be considering is that just about *every*
collectable went through the roof in price during the seventies. We had
20% inflation, and everyone was investing in everything from paintings
through china plates to comic books. That the movie came out just prior
to that time had something to do with it, but a lot of it was/is just a
sign of the times.
Donald
Ron Shepard
"wayne crimi" <wcr...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> The prices were
> going through the roof shortly after Bushka's death for years prior to the
> movie. This is an absolute indisputable fact.
I'm not disputing that, but it appears that the "roof" got somewhere
between 20 and 50 times higher because of the movie. That is, a
$200 cue before the movie might have gone for $5K to $10K after the
movie. I'm just trying to get people who were buying and selling
cues back then to comment on the prices, the demand, and when the
buyers started "collecting" rather than "playing" with the cues.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Tony DeAngelo
Donald Tees wrote:
> Something that no one seems to be considering is that just about *every*
> collectable went through the roof in price during the seventies. We had
> 20% inflation, and everyone was investing in everything from paintings
> through china plates to comic books. That the movie came out just prior
> to that time had something to do with it, but a lot of it was/is just a
> sign of the times.
Huh? The movie came out in the mid 80's.
Joe Van
>I'm not disputing that, but it appears that the "roof" got somewhere
>between 20 and 50 times higher because of the movie. That is, a
>$200 cue before the movie might have gone for $5K to $10K after the
>movie. I'm just trying to get people who were buying and selling
>cues back then to comment on the prices, the demand, and when the
>buyers started "collecting" rather than "playing" with the cues.
>
>$.02 -Ron Shepard<<
I don't think you can accurately state a set rate, but more probable is
a type of curve for value. A plain Bushka, lets say 1250-1500 before the movie.
Now its 5-6k. But a fancier Bushka maybe 2-3k before the movie is now 20k+.
Before the collecting boom, I can honestly say that no one ever distinguished
a Boti blank from a Spain / Davis blank that I can remember. A Bushka was a
Bushka. No one was aware that he made x amount fancy, x amount plain, x amount
with Szamboti points and so on. So now there are rareity issues, provenance
issues,
things that were not so much in the forefront in the 70's and 80's.
Same with Palmers, no one that I knew ever told me Szamboti made
blanks for Palmer. I don't think anyone knew. IMHO alot of the values stem
from research and more public information about the cues in general.
The movie spurred a large interest in pool, that subsequently caused a very
large
cue collection movement. This is where the increase in prices is generated. But
it generated higher prices across the board. We say Bushka because he was
mentioned in the movie, but it affected every cue up until that point.
Joe
Jim Wyant
ron-shepard-ECAA...@comcast.ash.giganews.com, "Ron Shepard"
<ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:
There is no roof. The more consumers, and the more with their squirreled
away collections, the higher the price for what comes on the market.
--Jim <== Watched Goldfinger again today....the law of supply and demand.
Deno J. Andrews
McDonald's to boost Japan prices, Big Mac up 26%
TOKYO, June 9 () - McDonald's Holdings Co Ltd (Japan) (JP:2702) , the
nation's biggest restaurant chain, said on Monday it would boost price of
its Big Mac hamburger by 26 percent to 250 yen ($2.11) from July 1 as part
of a general price rise.
JAM
All right, all right. I stand corrected on the price of a hamburger. But at
least you could get the name of the news service correct: REUTERS (no
apostrophe).
JAM (Will provide points and authorities next time)
Deno J. Andrews
think that if any statistical measure of cue prices before and after the
movie were to be done, that what would be found is that Bushka cues found
the biggest rise in prices. And sure, when a bunch of would be collectors
start collecting one thing, many are weeded out because of financial
barriers...so they start buying "other" cues that they can pick up cheaper,
and more of. So if a thousand collectors decide that they are going to try
and score Bushkas, obviously not all of them are going to get their hands on
them. Some will spend anything...some will do their homework and learn
about Spain and Szamboti, some will branch even further and pick up Palmers,
Laube, Martin, etc. It is a foregone conclusion that if one specific cue
maker who made limited supplies instantly becomes famous, that all those
around him will also benefit...that is called simple supply and demand. The
fact is that had there been ten thousand Bushkas readily available...other
"collectible" cues would not have had such a boost as well. You yourself,
while swearing that the movie had little to do with Bushka's fame (which BTW
is absurd) are quoting below that pre and post movie prices are much
different. If the movie didn't have anything to do with his fame, how then
would you explain the overnight prices changes of 10x (which is very low
IMO)?
Deno J. Andrews
"Joe Van" <class...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031228224621...@mb-m06.aol.com...
Deno J. Andrews
right...
Deno
"JAM" <jama...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20031228234441...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Patrick Johnson
> ... Japan, the place where a McDonald's Big Mac costs 40 American dollars.
LOL. Tell us you didn't really believe this.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
JAM
hamburger right..."
And you're right. I read this factoid recently from a poster on AzBilliards,
but now that I think about it, the poster was some guy they call "Fast Larry."
I should have checked out the post's veracity, but he said he just got back
from Japan and I thought it correct.
JAM
Patrick Johnson
> ... I was friendly with George Balabushka, watched him
> make many a cue in his gararge shop, and bought 3 new cues from him in
> 1969-70. I paid $95, $180, and $95
How famous was he?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
JAM
really believe this."
Only a Monkey Doctor could sniff this out so quickly and pounce.
JAM
Dan White
news:LUlHb.2514$zC4.2...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> I've read that George Balabushka built accordions before he made cues. Has
> anyone ever seen one of his accordions and was he as respected at that
> occupation as he was at cuemaking? I figure someone has to be the
> "Balabushka" of accordions, wonder if it was ole George? HMMMMM, LOL
> --
I thought I read in that Billiard Encyclopedia by Stein and Rubino (there
was a copy at a local supply store) that GB was a wood toy maker before he
made cues. He supposedly lost his middle finger in an accident, and made
himself a new one out of wood. It also said that he had very limited tools
and did everything by hand, so to speak. I wonder if someone has that book
and can check it to be sure??
dwhite
Joe Van
>You have made the argument that cue prices across the board increased. I
>think that if any statistical measure of cue prices before and after the
>movie were to be done, that what would be found is that Bushka cues found
>the biggest rise in prices.<<
Yes, and argueably because they are (were) the best cues. I am working on
getting my hands on an article done on Bushka in the late 60's early 70's in a
Billiard publication that reflects the degree his cues were sought after at
that time. Showing more that using the name Balabushka in the movie as "the"
cue, lent a certain authenticity to the movie.
>It is a foregone conclusion that if one specific cue maker who made limited
supplies instantly becomes famous, that all those around him will also
benefit...that is called simple supply and demand.<<
So if say, Joey Gold dies tomorrow, you think anyone elses cue will go up
because of it? I think if you say yes, you are just kidding yourself.
>The fact is that had there been ten thousand Bushkas readily available...other
>"collectible" cues would not have had such a boost as well.<<
Had there been that many available, A- it would never had had the prior
collectability, and B- there fore would not have been mentioned in the movie.
So then another cue would have been named, pool STILL would have had the "boom"
and there would STILL be cue collectors paying good money cues.
> If the movie didn't have anything to do with his fame, how then
>would you explain the overnight prices changes of 10x (which is very low
>IMO)?<<
You still don't get it... I am saying the movie did cause his cue prices to
skyrocket. But not just because of them using his name, but because of the boom
it created.
Joe
Frank Glenn
:|:I thought I read in that Billiard Encyclopedia by Stein and Rubino (there
:|:was a copy at a local supply store) that GB was a wood toy maker before he
:|:made cues. He supposedly lost his middle finger in an accident, and made
:|:himself a new one out of wood. It also said that he had very limited tools
:|:and did everything by hand, so to speak. I wonder if someone has that book
:|:and can check it to be sure??
and played and made accordions.
--
Frank Glenn
reply to rsb _at_ quick-clean.com (change _at_ to @)
Barry
Hi Pat, Around 1970..... "famous" wouldn't be the word I would use.
In pool circles (especially among better players .... and at least in
the metro NY-NJ area where I come from) he was well known as the
premier pool cue maker. It certainly helped to be a good player to
get his attention (in the sence of getting him to make you a cue) as
he was never w/o backorders. It gernerally took 1 to 2 years to get a
cue made for you. People would just send him money, he would post
their letter on a board, and eventually send them a cue. Some letters
were from other countries. Contrary to an earlier post, he did not do
everything by hand. He had an old metal lathe (a Logan or South Bend,
if I recall correctly) for turning the shafts to size, a drill press
and misc other equipment. He worked on about 6 - 10 cues a a time and
took about 3 weeks to complete them. All work was done in a 2 car
gararge ... clean enough to eat off the floor. Regards. Barry
ratchet
Ratchet ----- Waiting for the price of beef to drop !!! Porterhouse anyone ???
Deno J. Andrews
> Yes, and argueably because they are (were) the best cues.
Or because of the movie...arguably. I mean, the price of his cues before
the moview surely don't reflect the global fame few of you seem to think he
had before the movie. It's funny, but I think everyone who claims he was
famous back then was from the east coast...
> I am working on
> getting my hands on an article done on Bushka in the late 60's early 70's
in a
> Billiard publication that reflects the degree his cues were sought after
at
> that time.
A billiard publication in the late 60s or early 70s? Are you serious? Are
you going to try to make an argument of Bushka's fame by an article in a
billiards publication? Why don't you try finding something in the
mainstream press...prefereably something with credibility. I mean, if he
were so famous and sought after, there should be plenty of mainstream stuff
on him during that time.
> Showing more that using the name Balabushka in the movie as "the"
> cue, lent a certain authenticity to the movie.
First of all, the movie was not that authentic as a few dirty hustlers in
the Chicago area (where that scene was filmed) wouldn't know a Balabushka
from another hole in their head. AND, they talked about the cue in the
movie like it was a god, when in fact, it wasn't. What they said in the
movie made people believe that the cues were worth more than they were.
> So if say, Joey Gold dies tomorrow, you think anyone elses cue will go up
> because of it? I think if you say yes, you are just kidding yourself.
You really are out to lunch. Joey's cues are not generating new collectors
by any significant numbers. Joey sells cues to existing players and
collectors...and maybe one or two guys has started collecting because of his
cues. So no, if he were to ace out, the price of his cues would increase
and that's about it. You don't get my point. The point is that when
something like the movie inspires a large number of people to start
collecting something that is in very short supply, all those around that
make similar things will also benefit. Supply and demand. Joey makes a
great cue, but there is a virtually unlimited supply of great cues today. I
will say this though, if in the next mainstream movie they setup a cue maker
like Balabushka, let's say Cognoscenti, you can bet that his cues will
skyrocket just like George's, and that other great cue makers will catch the
overflow. Just look at the numbers Joe...Bushkas went up in price way way
more than "all the others." You seem to think that all cues experienced the
craze and it is simply not true. Maybe they went up some, but nothing like
how Bushkas increased in value. Even you have cited a few cues' prices
before and after the movie (bushkas that is)...and no other cue went up like
that, not even close!
> Had there been that many available, A- it would never had had the prior
> collectability, and B- there fore would not have been mentioned in the
movie.
Why don't you try to discover the truth about why it was in the movie
instead of spouting your own theory as to why it was named? I don't think
you have a clue.
> So then another cue would have been named, pool STILL would have had the
"boom"
> and there would STILL be cue collectors paying good money cues.
Granted...but the one that would have been mentioned would have
increased...just like Bushkas did...by 15x-50x, while others maybe double
over a period of time.
> You still don't get it... I am saying the movie did cause his cue prices
to
> skyrocket. But not just because of them using his name, but because of the
boom
> it created.
The boom was about Bushka cues, and because they used his name and not some
other. Overflow helped the other cue makers...but not even a small fraction
of how it helped the Bushka cues.
Deno J. Andrews
Ron Shepard
I wonder what the price hike will be now that they aren't importing
US beef into Japan?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Frank Glenn
says...
:|:Porterhouse anyone
:|:
I'll take all I can get. You are much more likely to get salmonella
than mad cow, at least here in the US.
Frank Glenn
@comcast.ash.giganews.com>, ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net says...
:|:I wonder what the price hike will be now that they aren't importing
:|:US beef into Japan?
:|:
I'm sure the vast herds of steers on the Japanese cattle ranches are
trembling in anticipation of an early slaughter. LOL
Patrick Johnson
> Only a Monkey Doctor could sniff this out so quickly and pounce.
And the one who posted it? What should we call her?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Ron Hudson
>I'm sure the vast herds of steers on the Japanese cattle ranches are
>trembling in anticipation of an early slaughter. LOL
Well, the might be if they hadn't been slaughtered and burned after several
cases of mad cow disease there. It's probably the pigs and goats that should be
trembling.
Ron
Cuezilla
> QZ saz:
Quote
"He made somewhere around 1,150 cues, maybe 1,300 on
the high end"
You say that with such conviction, how do you know?
He often made cues from house cues like today's sneaky petes and he
made a lot of them. I would say he made no less then a few thousand
cues, they were all over the place at one time. You could go to his
shop and walk out with a cue of that type almost any time. Collectors
like to create a mystic around the guy. A cue being what it is and
since there was no big deal with having a Balabushka cue at one time.
I am sure that many, if not most of them were broken or got warped or
whatever and just discarded. I still have about a dozen Balabushka
shafts laying around that are no good but I kept. The fancier cues are
more rare like the ones from blanks from Szamboti and Spain and they
seem to be what people always point to when talking about Balabushkas.
There may have been fewer then a thousand of those produced, I don't
know. But as to total cues produced, he made lots. I remember when you
could have rounded up a couple of hundred or them, just in one area of
the city. Believe what you wish though, I won't argue.
Frank Glenn
R...@Intermediacorp.net says...
:|:Well, the might be if they hadn't been slaughtered and burned after several
:|:cases of mad cow disease there. It's probably the pigs and goats that should be
:|:trembling.
:|:
http://www.os-kaes.pref.kagoshima.jp/bokusou/English/cattle_dis.html
I'm shocked by just how many herds (and the size). I figured there we
very few. Just goes to show.
Fred Agnir
> So if a thousand collectors decide that they are going to try
> and score Bushkas, obviously not all of them are going to get their hands on
> them. Some will spend anything...some will do their homework and learn
> about Spain and Szamboti, some will branch even further and pick up Palmers,
> Laube, Martin, etc. It is a foregone conclusion that if one specific cue
> maker who made limited supplies instantly becomes famous, that all those
> around him will also benefit...that is called simple supply and demand. The
> fact is that had there been ten thousand Bushkas readily available...other
> "collectible" cues would not have had such a boost as well. You yourself,
> while swearing that the movie had little to do with Bushka's fame (which BTW
> is absurd) are quoting below that pre and post movie prices are much
> different. If the movie didn't have anything to do with his fame, how then
> would you explain the overnight prices changes of 10x (which is very low
> IMO)?
You're changing your original argument, which was:
Deno wrote:
>However, if Paul
>Newman had said Rambow instead of Balabushka in the movie, most
people today
>would still think a Balabushka was something eastern european women
wore on
>their heads.<<
I think the proof that you're wrong on this statement *is* the fact
that any number of collectible cues also elevated in their
collectibility, aside from Balabushka. Szambotis on the right coast.
Ginacue and Tad on the left coast. Most pool people do not think
Szamboti is a an ice maintenance machine, and his and Barry's have
probably increased the most in price. They weren't mentioned in the
movie. What made their prices increase? I'd say the overall boom in
the industry. Go ahead and hypothetically exchange Rambow for
Balabushka, and there is every indication that the most sought after
cues already would continue to be the most sought after cues after the
movie.
I really don't understand this "instantly famous" argument. That's
just plain wrong, and enough people have responded to that. Mizerak
wrote of Balabushka in the 70's. Of course we on the east coast knew
of him, because he was on the east coast. How do you think most other
people learned of Szambotis? Internet, magazines, and other media that
didn't exist a few decades ago. But they do now.
Fred
Cues Plus
for a better price. (they even have 'golden arches' out from of the
building).
Michael
--
http://www.cuesplus.com
http://www.cuesplusbilliards.com
http://www.stixplus.com
(remove SPAMBLOCK if replying by e-mail)
"Deno J. Andrews" <denoa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:0cOHb.1043$Xd5...@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
JAM
[Sung to The Ballad of Jed Clampett]
Come and listen to my story 'bout a little monkey man,
whose only goal in life, to attack the ones he can.
He calls himself Patrick, but what do we all see?
A snippy little ape who hangs out on RSB.
(Chump, that is, and insults are free.)
Well, the first thing you know, he meets a girl named JAM.
He tries to sucker-punch, but she don't really give a damn.
But then one day, he tried to get extreme,
He hasn't realized yet, JAM will be his bad dream.
(Nightmare, that is, and it will get worse.)
Well, now it's time to let him know, he isn't what he thinks.
His replies are getting bad, so I wonder if he drinks.
You're all invited back again to this locality,
to have a heaping helping of NG reality.
("Monkey Doctor," that's what they call him now, Chicago's chimp. Y'all come
back now, ya' hear?)
JAM
Deno J. Andrews
news:5447edcf.03122...@posting.google.com...
> I think the proof that you're wrong on this statement *is* the fact
> that any number of collectible cues also elevated in their
> collectibility, aside from Balabushka. Szambotis on the right coast.
> Ginacue and Tad on the left coast. Most pool people do not think
> Szamboti is a an ice maintenance machine, and his and Barry's have
> probably increased the most in price.
Fred, again, you guys are looking at this picture with a very focused
lens...and only on the world of serious pool room people. Walk outside the
pool room, walk downtown in any major city and start asking people if they
know what the heck a Szamboti is...and out of a thousand people, it may be a
miracle to find ONE who actually knows. Out of those same thousand, ask if
they know Palmer, Rambow, Laube, Martin, etc...and see what you get. But
then ask if they know the name Balabushka...and there is a very good chance
that several (still not many, but many more than the others) may recognize
the name. We are talking about something that needs to be looked at from
outside the little pool room world. No cue in the history of cue stick
making has had such an increase in value as the Balabushka after TCOM. It
is so obviously clear...and even the naysayers like Joe have given ample
proof in cue prices before and after the movie. Cue prices in general went
up because of the limited number of Bushkas available...and the abundant
supply of collectors and money going around after the movie.
> They weren't mentioned in the
> movie. What made their prices increase? I'd say the overall boom in
> the industry.
No other cue rose in price like the Bushka. Some may have doubled...but
Bushka prices skyrocketed by greater than 20x (conservative) and probably
much higher. You can't say the same for any other cue...and it is not
because he was already famous...as his cues were widely avaliable compared
to after the movie.
> Go ahead and hypothetically exchange Rambow for
> Balabushka, and there is every indication that the most sought after
> cues already would continue to be the most sought after cues after the
> movie.
You keep saying the cues were sought after, they were not. They were
popular...but sought after by such a small number of people is not really
sought after at all. The cues were sought after after the movie...because
at that point people who didn't have any idea what they were were instantly
interested.
> I really don't understand this "instantly famous" argument. That's
> just plain wrong, and enough people have responded to that. Mizerak
> wrote of Balabushka in the 70's.
Mizerak was a player...players mostly in the east knew of these cues back
then. Most people in real life haven't a clue who Mizerak is. Mizerak
couldn't make himself famous, how is he going to make Balabushka famous by
writing about it? Fred, there is an entire world outside the pool room that
doesn't give a rat's bottom about this little niche industry. And jsut
because someone is well known within a small industry, it has no meaning
whatsoever to anyone outside that industry. Balabushka is the only
collectible cue name that has been inserted into the mainstream. THat makes
the cue instantly more well known and sought after than any other cue in
existence.
Deno
Priveye
again?
Roscoe
--
R. L. Lesnick
Gamma Investigative Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 10981, Fairfield, NJ 07004
Licensed NJ/NY GMT (Hrs Zulu) -5
(973) 227-1415 (800) 878-9393 Fax: (973) 882-0960
Domain: http://www.priveye.com http://www.priveye.net
E-Mail: / ga...@priveye.net / r...@priveye.net ICQ: 22651043
PGP key available at public key server or upon request
"Crisis occurs when women and cattle get excited"...James Thurber
"Deno J. Andrews" <denoa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:er0Ib.2701$I23....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
Joe Van
>Deno wrote:
>
>>However, if Paul
>>Newman had said Rambow instead of Balabushka in the movie, most people today
>>would still think a Balabushka was something eastern european women
>wore on their heads.<<
Fred,
You brought something to my attention that I must have overlooked..
Lets look at a few basic facts..
the Hustler
Paul Newman: Cue: Rambow
The Color of Money
Paul Newman: Cue: Balabushka
What Deno needs to realize if Rambow made the cues for the first movie in which
Newman was in. Newman obviously had to know what kind of cue he was using. Why
oh why did they say Balabushka instead of Rambow? Wouldn't it have stuck if
they thought
Rambow was the cue to have in the mid 80's? Fact is people already knew Bushka
was way
ahead of Rambow in every sense of the word in both collectability and
notoriety. This is a no brainer, and proves even more that GB was known
pre-TCOM.
Joe
Sherm Adamson
collectors. I'll also agree that many people learned the name Balabushka
from the movie, BUT, I also believe that if they'd used the name "Rambow"
for the cue in the movie, Balabushka would still be the most sought after!
As we all know it was really a JOSS East production cue used and just called
a Balabushka. This was done because the Balabushka cue was already too
valuable and sought after to be used as a movie prop!
I'm afraid Deno's opinion is a little biased in this matter due to the
fact that he's well known as a collector of Rambow cues! Rambow cues were
and are collectable but by no stretch of the imagination would they have
reached Balabushkas popularity, even if they were the subject of a movie,
except maybe in the Chicago area, where they were more prominent! Where I
feel it could have made a difference, was if they'd used a Szamboti instead!
Gus was the real "man" IMHO! He build his own forearms (points), whereas
George purchased all of his! If George was alive today and still making
cues, he'd probably be using Prather Points!
--
just more hot air! 8^)
Sherm
aka "cuesmith" in yahoo
Sherm Custom Billiard Cues by,
Sherman Adamson
3352 Nine Mile Rd., Cincinnati Ohio 45255
Shop (513)553-2172, Cell (513)509-9152
http://www.shermcue.com Over 20 years experience
almost a decade in "The American Cuemakers Association"
"Joe Van" <class...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031229162742...@mb-m13.aol.com...
Joe Van
>I mean, the price of his cues before the moview surely don't reflect the
global fame few of you seem to think he had before the movie. It's funny, but
I think everyone who claims he was
>famous back then was from the east coast...<<
I don't think anyone here said global fame.
>A billiard publication in the late 60s or early 70s? Are you serious? Are
>you going to try to make an argument of Bushka's fame by an article in a
>billiards publication? Why don't you try finding something in the
>mainstream press...prefereably something with credibility. <<
Yeah I am real serious, since your arguement is about "fame" and all myself and
a few other are pointing out is all he needs to be in the HOF is billiard fame.
Which you argue he didn't have, but it can be proven emphatically otherwise.
Mainstream press didn't care about billiards till after TCOM and we all know
that. You think an article written by an unknown author, used as filler
material in Forbes qualifies as credible? Are you joking?
>What they said in the movie made people believe that the cues were worth more
than they were.<<
Really? So mention a Balabushka, which you argue was unknown at the time, and
you think that 9 of 10 people walking down the street today would know that it
was the cue mentioned in TCOM? Therefore making it famous to the masses?
> Joey sells cues to existing players and collectors<<
At the time Balabushka sold cues to existing players.. there were no
collectors. Remember this.. Why does JG have collectors to sell to? Thats
right.. he owes it to GB.. tough fact.
>Bushkas went up in price way way more than "all the others." You seem to
think that all cues experienced the craze and it is simply not true.<<
Its absolutely true. I can point out alot of cues that have skyrocketed.
Martins, Ginas, Palmer, Paradise, I can go on and on.. Palmers could have been
had for 50-100 dollars. This for model J's at any time. Now you aren't buying
one for less than 1200.00. Deno the boom caused the market. I believe that if
you remove Balabushka from TCOM, him and Szamboti would be 1 and 1a just as
they are now among collectors. Period. BTW I have a Szamboti that in 1977 was
175.00, now it is a 4-5k cue. Still think it was only Bushka that sky rocketed?
Szamboti wan't mentioned in TCOM.
>Why don't you try to discover the truth about why it was in the movie
>instead of spouting your own theory as to why it was named? I don't think
>you have a clue.<<
Everything I quoted about why, has been published extensively in articles about
TCOM..
but I feel a "top secret" RSB insight coming that NO ONE on the mainstream
level could
possibly know.. what now Deno.. were you a gaffboy for the movie? a catering
assistant that will share valueable insight? I think we are all waiting...
Joe
Deno J. Andrews
First of all, it was never said in the Hustler what kind of cue he had. My
only point about it was that Rambow made the cues for that movie. But since
you live in your own little world, you must have took that to mean that I
thought it should have been a Rambow cue mentioned in the movie. I do not,
and it was not my point.
Your credibility as a cue dealer was lost with me when I discovered you had
no problem stripping the real value of Balabushka cues and passing the
screwing on to your unsuspecting customers. I bet the finishes that have
been put on those cues aren't even consistent with the finish George used
for those same cues. What's worse is that you are telling people it is ok
and it doesn't detract from the collectibility or value of the cue. Just
another example of the superior pool room ethics displayed by all too many
people in this industry. So you go ahead and keep making up all your own
little facts and try to make people believe them. Anyone who can think for
himself already knows how far you will travel from the line for your own
self interest. You have no measurable credibility whatsoever because of
your cue practices. You are a cue dealer who will make up things just to
move a cue or two...without regard for a cue's long term collectibility or
your customers' long term interest. That's sad...really sad. You will not
even look into why the cue was mentioned in the movie, but will not hesitate
to make up a self serving story. Be gone dude, you are a disgrace to cue
collecting / dealing.
Deno J. Andrews
"Joe Van" <class...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031229162742...@mb-m13.aol.com...
Leonard Small
I think it would be a good idea to call Tascarella and see if he can
shed any light on this.
Joe Van
>You just keep up making up your own alternate reality...
>First of all, it was never said in the Hustler what kind of cue he had. My
>only point about it was that Rambow made the cues for that movie.<<
Do I need to speak slower for you? My comparison was to illustrate the fact
that
Rambow, the cuemaker of his time, was used in the first movie. This "select"
group
of people you contantly disrespect know that. But he was not mentioned in TCOM,
although it had already been used in the first.
>Your credibility as a cue dealer was lost with me when I discovered you had
>no problem stripping the real value of Balabushka cues and passing the
>screwing on to your unsuspecting customers. I bet the finishes that have
>been put on those cues aren't even consistent with the finish George used
>for those same cues. What's worse is that you are telling people it is ok
>and it doesn't detract from the collectibility or value of the cue. <<
My credibility as a cue dealer lost to a nit who has no clue to cues and cue
collecting,
nor any idea how a cue differs from a painting. Ouch I am hurt.. Did the part
where I mention
the fact that Bushka had already ecllipsed Rambow stike a nerve? To bad, the
truth is killing you. As far as a refinish stripping the value of a cue, shows
you can't hold the arguement where it belongs. Feel free to start a new thread
anytime you would like to debate this you clown. Never did I say it doesn't
detract, and you know that, I clearly place a higher value on an all original
cue than I do refinished work. So don't go putting words into my mouth you
little crybaby.
>You have no measurable credibility whatsoever because of your cue practices.
You are a cue dealer who will make up things just to move a cue or
two...without regard for a cue's long term collectibility or your customers'
long term interest. That's sad...really sad.<<
My cue practices are much more sound than any arguement you tried to make in
this thread. You need to get out of Chicago and live a little and maybe then
you will get a clue. Maybe its a good thing you give up cues and move to paint
by numbers and velvet Elvis; because you don't know a thing about cues. Maybe
its you who needs to realize that the country starts on the east coast and ends
on the west coast and there is more to cues than what happens in Chicago.
>You will not even look into why the cue was mentioned in the movie, but will
not hesitate
>to make up a self serving story. Be gone dude, you are a disgrace to cue
>collecting / dealing.<<
I already know why and have said so many times. It seems you are the one who
cannot back up your little claim to the contrary. The only disgrace here is
you, countless threads, people who witnessed you crybaby antics that you
denied, on and on and on. Do yourself and all of us a favor, as you are sitting
there admiring the painting of the dogs playing poker, the only thing you need
to wonder is which one is you.
Joe
wayne crimi
between 20 and 50 times higher because of the movie. That is, a
$200 cue before the movie might have gone for $5K to $10K after the
movie.<<
I can't comment on all types of collector cues or even the market value of
Bushkas these days, but I can comment on Bushkas during the late 70s in NY.
There were no Bushkas that I know of for less than $500 and that was quite a
long time before the movie came out. His top of the line cues (he made some
for specific pro players) were already selling for prices in the low
thousands.
Several people have commented that this may have been exclusively a NY
phenomenon and can't argue with them. However, I would remind everyone that
in the late 70s "the game" was 14.1 and the NY and NJ area was 14.1 heaven.
It was the capital of professional pool. Almost everyone that was anyone
either played regularly in the NY/NJ area or passed through. So among
"players" everyone knew who Bushka was and everyone knew about the cues.
My main point is that a Buska was in the movie because "players" already
knew about the cues and their value. The inclusion was a positive reflection
on the research that went into the movie. The movie at best enhanced the
reputation among non-players and casual players outside NY.
"Ron Shepard" <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ron-shepard-ECAA...@comcast.ash.giganews.com...
> In article <k5IHb.60202$4F2.5...@twister.nyc.rr.com>,
> "wayne crimi" <wcr...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > The prices were
> > going through the roof shortly after Bushka's death for years prior to
the
> > movie. This is an absolute indisputable fact.
>
> I'm not disputing that, but it appears that the "roof" got somewhere
> between 20 and 50 times higher because of the movie. That is, a
> $200 cue before the movie might have gone for $5K to $10K after the
> movie. I'm just trying to get people who were buying and selling
> cues back then to comment on the prices, the demand, and when the
> buyers started "collecting" rather than "playing" with the cues.
>
> $.02 -Ron Shepard
wayne crimi
supposedly bought all his equipment and started making cues. From what I
remember, they were also pretty high quality. I think Pete's last name
started with a "T" (an Italian name), but that was a long time and a lot of
alcohol ago. :-)
"Barry" <actu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:828cba6f.03122...@posting.google.com...
Fred Agnir
"Deno J. Andrews" <denoa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
> Fred, again, you guys are looking at this picture with a very focused
> lens...and only on the world of serious pool room people. Walk outside
the
> pool room, walk downtown in any major city and start asking people if they
> know what the heck a Szamboti is...and out of a thousand people, it may be
a
> miracle to find ONE who actually knows.
Don't you mean nobody out of a thousand would have a clue what a "Daly" is?
Same argument, isn't it? That is, that argument doesn't flush with your
previous assertion that if Balabushka hadn't been mentioned in the movie
that they wouldn't be as popular today as they are. Do you think that more
people know what a Balabushka is compared to a Szamboti? What world do you
live in?
>
> > They weren't mentioned in the
> > movie. What made their prices increase? I'd say the overall boom in
> > the industry.
>
> No other cue rose in price like the Bushka.
I would guess that Barry Szamboti's work has increased more than Balabushka.
He went from relative obscurity to nearly living legend status. And of
course, so has his father's. Why do you keep on saying it as if it's only
been Balabushka? It clearly has not. Even works like Spain has increased due
to the boom.
> Some may have doubled...but
> Bushka prices skyrocketed by greater than 20x (conservative) and probably
> much higher.
Some may have doubled? Are you insane? Doubled? Ernie Gutierrez turned down
well over six figures for one of his very first cues. Ask Lou Figueroa how
much his first Gina is worth today compared to when he first got it. You
think it's doubled? You can't buy a Tad Kohara anymore. Why? Because the one
collector that Joe was talking about is buying every cue Tad makes. None of
these were mentioned in TCOM.
>
> Mizerak was a player...players mostly in the east knew of these cues back
> then. Most people in real life haven't a clue who Mizerak is. Mizerak
> couldn't make himself famous, how is he going to make Balabushka famous by
> writing about it?
How do you think I ever knew about Mizerak? Does "Lite Beer from Miller"
ring any bells? Mizerak was the only name outside Minnesota Fats that anyone
ever heard of from pool.
> Fred, there is an entire world outside the pool room that
> doesn't give a rat's bottom about this little niche industry. And jsut
> because someone is well known within a small industry, it has no meaning
> whatsoever to anyone outside that industry. Balabushka is the only
> collectible cue name that has been inserted into the mainstream. THat
makes
> the cue instantly more well known and sought after than any other cue in
> existence.
I don't know what little world you're talking about. Outside of pool, nobody
of any significance knows who Balabushka is. The only people who collect
Balabushkas are cue collectors. Those people are within the confines of the
pool culture. Who cares what anyone "outside the industry" thinks. We're
talking about the Billiards Hall of Fame, aren't we? Did someone ever say
that people outside the industry and what they think are even considered?
Did you conveniently forget what your argument was? I'll remind you again:
Deno wrote:
>However, if Paul
>Newman had said Rambow instead of Balabushka in the movie, most
people today
>would still think a Balabushka was something eastern european women
wore on
>their heads.<<
Anyone outside the pool world *still* does believe that Balabushka is
Eastern European headwear. Of the people within the pool community, a scant
only a scant few ever think about the name Balabushka. The movie didn't do
what you claim it did. It didn't bring him more fame. Again, think about
Szamboti. How do you explain away how famous his cues have become? You can't
with your argument.
Fred
Frank Glenn
sh...@shermcue.com says...
:|:If George was alive today and still making
:|:cues, he'd probably be using Prather Points!
:|:
LOL, like so many others?
Jack Justis
>than mad cow, at least here in the US.
Hey, who would eat a Holstein anyway? They're pet milk cows according to my
midwestern better half.
Jack
Deno J. Andrews
news:1o1Ib.2953$zC4.3...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> I'm afraid Deno's opinion is a little biased in this matter due to the
> fact that he's well known as a collector of Rambow cues! Rambow cues were
> and are collectable but by no stretch of the imagination would they have
> reached Balabushkas popularity, even if they were the subject of a movie,
> except maybe in the Chicago area, where they were more prominent!
My point has nothing to do with Rambow cues. Rambows were most well known
by and for billiard players. Billiards in the US is not nearly a fraction
as popular, so of course Rambows are not going to be as widely collected.
Sure, I have a lot of Rambow pieces, but it doesn't change my point
whatsoever.
Deno
Dan White
>
> Your credibility as a cue dealer was lost with me when I discovered you
had
> no problem stripping the real value of Balabushka cues and passing the
> screwing on to your unsuspecting customers. I bet the finishes that have
> been put on those cues aren't even consistent with the finish George used
> for those same cues. What's worse is that you are telling people it is ok
> and it doesn't detract from the collectibility or value of the cue.
Deno, with all due respect, you are off base on this one. I have had
discussions with Joe about cue repair and finishes long before this thread
started, and believe me he knows that a refinished cue is not the same thing
as the original. If their website says a particular refinished cue is
"better than new," you can't read too much into that. You should also note
that they identify everything on each cue that has been reworked, be it just
a shaft cleaning or replaced wrap. As far as duping customers, I doubt
anyone is going to pay $15,000 for a $7500 cue. When that much money is
involved, people tend to do their homework.
There comes a point, as Joe has said, when a cue (or anything, for that
matter) is in such disrepair that restoring it will improve the
marketability and value of the cue. This is just common sense.
As far as destroying the value of something by refinishing it, here's what I
can add, FWIW. I have worked in the past, briefly, with some of the top
historians/collectors of early American furniture, such as Lannuier. Such
pieces can go for $500,000. Everyone knows that if you refinish a piece
like this, its value might be ruined by 90%. As you have said, the finish on
a piece is part of its history, which can often be measured in decades and
centuries, not merely years. Sanding down the surface of the piece
literally removes that part of the furniture that has weathered the decades,
and given that particular piece its charm, for lack of a better word. OTOH,
there are some repairs that can be made to the same piece that do NOT
detract at all from its value had the repairs not been made. If a hinge is
loose because the nail holes are rotting, it won't hurt the current value of
the piece to fix the internally rotted section.
This all leads me to pool cues. I am definitely NOT an expert, or even very
knowledgeable about cue value, so I am asking a few questions here. If an
otherwise in-tact classic cue is refinished by a known cue maker in the
proper way, does this really translate to the ruination in value as with
furniture? I can't believe it would have nearly the same impact since so
much of a cue's value stems from the playability of the cue, the design,
quality of construction and not just its looks or how much gold is put into
it. It would seem to me that the finish on furniture is so much more
integral to the history of the piece than the finish on a cue. After all,
we aren't talking about two, three, and four centuries-old pool cues. Of
course if the cue was owned by someone famous, then I think refinishing it
would and should have a big impact on the value.
Anyway, you've made a few good points, but when you make Joe out to be a
snake oil salesman traveling through town, you are off the mark.
dwhite
Deno J. Andrews
> Why does JG have collectors to sell to? Thats
> right.. he owes it to GB.. tough fact.
No, the tough and true fact is that he owes it to TCOM...for without it,
nobody knows or cares what a Balabushka is outside of a very small,
and...did I mention small, niche group of players only.
>Palmers could have been
> had for 50-100 dollars. This for model J's at any time. Now you aren't
buying
> one for less than 1200.00.
Now...twenty years after the movie release...but four years after the movie
Palmers were still very cheap. And even by your estimates now, twenty years
later, you are only talking about a 10x increase. Balabushkas went up way
way more than any other cue and the reason was TCOM.
Deno
Deno J. Andrews
> My credibility as a cue dealer lost to a nit who has no clue to cues and
cue
> collecting, nor any idea how a cue differs from a painting.
Well, I may have a small collection...but I don't buy stripped down junk
like what you are trying to pass off as multi-thousand dollar highly
collectible cues. What's sad is that there are plenty of unsuspecting would
be collectors that will be on the receiving end of your pitch that it is ok
to refinish these cues. Just do the world a favor and don't start dealing
things that matter like good stringed instruments or serious art. That's
all the world needs is someone of your moral fibre dealing things that
actually matter to more than just a few hundred people.
> where I mention
> the fact that Bushka had already ecllipsed Rambow stike a nerve?
Bushka does eclipse Rambow and it has no affect on me whatsoever. I mean,
Balabushka was mentioned in TCOM, not Rambow...and I don't care one way or
the other...it's just that I am not ignorant enough to ignore the impact of
the movie on the prices of Bushkas...and those overflow collectibles for
people who can't afford authentic Bushkas.
> To bad, the truth is killing you.
The truth is killing me...but the truth is that you are willing to take what
you think is the end-all be-all highest level collectible in cue
stick...send it to a cue maker to strip away most of the original's
worth...put a contemporary finish on it, clean it up, and call it "better
than new...." and then try to convince unsuspecting would be collectors that
it was the right thing to do. That's the truth, it is a disgrace to the
industry, and yes, it does hurt to see someone do that.
> As far as a refinish stripping the value of a cue, shows
> you can't hold the arguement where it belongs. Feel free to start a new
thread
> anytime you would like to debate this you clown.
Let's see, how do I get rid of the clown image??? Oh, ok, I'll take the
Rambows in my collection, send them to McDermott and have them all
refinished...No...Viking. Hey, if keeping cues original makes me a clown
than so be it. At least I am not going to have any really pissed off
customers knocking on my door because I screwed them into a refinished
abomination.
> My cue practices are much more sound than any arguement you tried to make
in
> this thread.
That's a joke.
> You need to get out of Chicago and live a little and maybe then
> you will get a clue.
I have probably traveled more in the last three years than you have in the
last ten. You are the one who should get around. Oh, there is an entire
world outside the pool room. I know that you don't know that or are not
able to deal with that fact...but you should try. I can recommend a good
therapist in your area to help you out.
> because you don't know a thing about cues.
And your expertise in the cue shop came from where?
> Do yourself and all of us a favor, as you are sitting
> there admiring the painting of the dogs playing poker, the only thing you
need
> to wonder is which one is you.
You are so clever. You must trip over your own intelligence on a daily
basis. I guess when you reach your level of intelligence you are allowed to
simply create your own alternate little reality...one of the perks I guess.
I bet you are loved in the pool room where you spend countless hours each
day...
Deno
Deno J. Andrews
news:3ff12c58$0$4739$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
> There comes a point, as Joe has said, when a cue (or anything, for that
> matter) is in such disrepair that restoring it will improve the
> marketability and value of the cue. This is just common sense.
A collectible cue's state should not be decided by a dealer...that should be
left for the collector to determine. I am sure he is buying cues from some
poor sap using the argument that the cue is crap and needs to be refinished.
meanwhile, sure, right now the refinished product may bring a few hundred
more than without...but in the end, he is taking from the market an
original, regardless of the shape it is still original, and taking much of
what is original away. So to make a few hundred more today, what is taken
from the cue is potentially thousands in the years to come. That is a
dealer making bad decisions based on his own self interest. If he was stand
up, he would not have these cues refinished, and he would let the purchasers
do what they wanted with them...all the while advising that it is a long
term bad idea to have a cue refinished. In twenty years, how do you know
that Balabushka cues wont for some reason be at the forefront of
collectibles in general...and not just within the pool industry? If that
happens for any reason, the refinished versions will suddenly become a much
bigger deal than Joe would have you think they are now. Serious collectors
already know that...but a dealer should do two things- 1. educate their
customers...and the education they are getting from him is that it is ok to
do this to cue sticks to make them look better now. and 2. let the buyers
decide that fate of the cue, even if it means not making that extra $300
today on what will ultimately be proven a very bad idea.
> This all leads me to pool cues. I am definitely NOT an expert, or even
very
> knowledgeable about cue value, so I am asking a few questions here. If an
> otherwise in-tact classic cue is refinished by a known cue maker in the
> proper way, does this really translate to the ruination in value as with
> furniture?
Yes. finishes today are different. There is no right way per se as there
are multiple finish options available.
> I can't believe it would have nearly the same impact since so
> much of a cue's value stems from the playability of the cue, the design,
> quality of construction and not just its looks or how much gold is put
into
> it.
Actually, playability is relative and subjective and doesn't play much into
the value. Many highly collectible cues play worse than Dufferine house
cues of today.
> It would seem to me that the finish on furniture is so much more
> integral to the history of the piece than the finish on a cue.
Finishing cues is a highly personal and difficult thing to do. Today, cue
makers have spray booths and high tech methodologies available. Back then,
these guys were applying finishes without spray booths and even good spray
guns. It was way harder to apply a finish on a cue forty years ago...so
stripping a cue of that age of its original finish is literally robbing it
of so much of the cue maker's hand at work. And if you take a guy like
Balabushka, who used a very unique finishing technique, taking his original
finishes off will prove to be a long term devastating decision. It is the
cue maker's final touch...and in cases like Balabushka's, his finishing
technique was so much of what made his cues beautiful.
> After all,
> we aren't talking about two, three, and four centuries-old pool cues.
No, but in a couple of hundred years, we must think of posterity and what
our decisions will mean then. I know that is impossible for cue dealers to
do since they probably don't care...but if they were true collectors, they
would care about the pieces outside of their own personal self interest and
would protect the cues for generations to come. But pool is probably not the
sport to be trying to convince people of this principal.
> Of
> course if the cue was owned by someone famous, then I think refinishing it
> would and should have a big impact on the value.
Yes...but consider if it were "made" by someone famous as well?
> Anyway, you've made a few good points, but when you make Joe out to be a
> snake oil salesman traveling through town, you are off the mark.
Thanks for your opinion. As far as Joe goes, guys like him who for their
own self interest are willing to make bad decisions are a disgrace to
collecting...and worse, they call themselves dealers. It's sad. But I
respect your opinion and thanks for telling me what you think.
Deno
lfigueroa
Ask Lou Figueroa how
> much his first Gina is worth today compared to when he first got it. You
> think it's doubled?
Well, I got my first one -- a fancy eight-pointer, with three shafts and a
black Gina alligator case, off a guy for $150, though with that setup it was
probably worth closer to a $1000. This would have been around '74/'75.
I saw the same identical cue in Joe Salzar's display, no case, two shafts,
for a bit over $3K a couple of years ago.
Now you boys go right ahead with what you were doing.
Lou Figueroa
"Fred Agnir" <ohag...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8J3Ib.691580$Tr4.1723910@attbi_s03...
ratchet
> "Dan White" <dwh...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3ff12c58$0$4739$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
> > There comes a point, as Joe has said, when a cue (or anything, for that
> > matter) is in such disrepair that restoring it will improve the
> > marketability and value of the cue. This is just common sense.
I agree, I'll base my statement on something I do know about that being cars,
say for instance I find a rusted out 63 1/2 Chevy SS Impala Converible rotting
away in a junkyard( last time I checked the car restored was worth over
35,000.00) Do I just buy it for junk and drag it to car shows proudly exclaiming
its all original ??? Or should I restore it to its former glory or a reasonable
facsimile thereof and tell everyone it really isn't as I had to have the paints
mixed as close to original "as possible" and sell it for what I have in it ??? I
don't think so....
Beauty ( and value ) are at best comparable to what the artist is "able" to do
and what the customer is willing to spend !!
Then of course I may be wrong !!!
>>>> Ratchet <<<
Joe Van
>A collectible cue's state should not be decided by a dealer...that should be
>left for the collector to determine.<<
Actually it is determined by the cue. Not by me, not by the seller and not by
the buyer.
> I am sure he is buying cues from some
>poor sap using the argument that the cue is crap and needs to be refinished.
>meanwhile, sure, right now the refinished product may bring a few hundred
>more than without...but in the end, he is taking from the market an
>original, regardless of the shape it is still original, and taking much of
>what is original away.<<
Actually when dealing with Balabushkas and Botis you cannot call a cue crap.
(agian
showing how little experience you have in this area) The cue's market value is
pretty much
predetermined and I nor anyone else can say otherwise. See this is where you
have absolutely NO CLUE and really should refrain from such an arguement. Most
of the time cues come to us ALREADY refinished. But ones that are in need of
refinish get them. I understand your points about the loss or originality and
mostly I agree. But its not applicable to every cue. Cues get played, cues get
broken, they get USED. Now if you have ever tried to sell a cue that has an
astethic value of 3, on a scale of 1-10 10 being mint, then you would know why
you refinish certain cues. BTW don't jerk people around here, a few hundred, is
way off base.
>So to make a few hundred more today, what is taken
>from the cue is potentially thousands in the years to come. That is a
>dealer making bad decisions based on his own self interest.<<
This is entirely not true. Take a cue that maybe original but deteriorating, in
the years to come the value will decrease because the effort was not taken to
preserve the cue. Alot of times, most often this is the case. There is no self
interest involved. The only interset is in SAVING the piece for the FUTURE.
>If he was stand up, he would not have these cues refinished, and he would let
the purchasers
>do what they wanted with them...all the while advising that it is a long
>term bad idea to have a cue refinished.<<
Almost the biggest load of shit you typed yet. The only long term bad idea is
you staying in billiards.
>In twenty years, how do you know that Balabushka cues wont for some reason be
at the forefront of collectibles in general...and not just within the pool
industry? <<
How do you know they will be? What is your basis for such a remark besides your
billiard elitist attitude?
>If that happens for any reason, the refinished versions will suddenly become a
much
>bigger deal than Joe would have you think they are now. <<
No they won't. Again, you will pay a large premium for a mint all original cue,
and lesser for lesser grade cues. BUT a refinish is generally regarded as a
positive in this business granted it was done by someone reputable. Again, we
would all like a 63 Vette garage kept with 5,000 miles, but since we all know
thats almost impossible, we settle for the restored Vette. Plus I don't know to
many people that could afford the all original model. This is where cues are
going.
>but a dealer should do two things- 1. educate their
>customers...and the education they are getting from him is that it is ok to
>do this to cue sticks to make them look better now. and 2. let the buyers
>decide that fate of the cue, even if it means not making that extra $300
>today on what will ultimately be proven a very bad idea.<<
Again, clueless dribble. And who the fuck are you to decide what is right for a
cue
and what isn't? You know you don't know shit and I think what people really
need to know
is that the clown on the other side of this arguement has no clue, thinks he is
better than everyone else cause he is a "billiard" player and doesn't leave
chalk on the rail, plus the fact he has short man syndrome and needs to be
heard by everyone else as the loudest most arrogant person on the planet. Look
DribbleSmurf, go back under the mushroom and have a smurfy day.
BTW Stop saying 300 dollars.. most the time the restoration is more than that
and no dealer of anything in his right mind would invest 300 to make 300 you
clueless moron. Not only to lay the cue up for a freaking year.. oh you are
such a nit.. I cannot believe you are even trying to make an arguement...
>Actually, playability is relative and subjective and doesn't play much into
>the value. Many highly collectible cues play worse than Dufferine house
>cues of today.<<
Only a Rambow collector can say this.. hey you got one thing right, except for
the highly part..
>And if you take a guy like Balabushka, who used a very unique finishing
technique, taking his original finishes off will prove to be a long term
devastating decision.<<
By who's accord? This is strictly your opinion and I have news for you, the
market says otherwise, when the cue needs to be done.
>It is the cue maker's final touch...and in cases like Balabushka's, his
finishing
>technique was so much of what made his cues beautiful.<<
Yes, and if you have a decent original finish you should leave it. But if the
finish is gone and you still play with it, handle it, show it, then do the
refinish before something worse occurs. Christ, what the fuck don't you get?
>I know that is impossible for cue dealers to do since they probably don't
care...but if they were true collectors, they would care about the pieces
outside of their own personal self interest and would protect the cues for
generations to come.<<
The cues are protected for generations to come. Thats what its all about. Do
you have any idea what it would cost to fully protect an original piece from
the elements? This doesn't get done by a pool cue case in a closet. Most people
cannot create museum conditions in their homes.
>As far as Joe goes, guys like him who for their own self interest are willing
to make bad decisions are a disgrace to collecting...<<
The decisions that I, my collegues, and many collectors make in the relm of
cues are more sound than any arguement you can, and vainly tried to make here.
You are the most classless self serving person I have ever met. or debated.
I will say this.. I think you single-handedly jacked up the price of all
original cues though.. many collectors are going to thank you for stating your
opinions...
Joe
Joe Van
>No, the tough and true fact is that he owes it to TCOM..
How can you say that when you have said in this thread
that collecting came because Bushka's became so popular.
>Now...twenty years after the movie release...but four years after the movie
>Palmers were still very cheap. <<
No, they were cheaper than they are now, but they also went up. And went up
quickly. Four years after the movie Bushkas were also cheaper than they are
now.
>>And even by your estimates now, twenty years later, you are only talking
about a 10x increase. Balabushkas went up way way more than any other cue and
the reason was TCOM.<<
Thats right, and the boom it caused, and the fact that Bushka was the cue to
have before TCOM.
Joe
Joe Van
>What's sad is that there are plenty of unsuspecting would
>be collectors that will be on the receiving end of your pitch that it is ok
>to refinish these cues.<<
Lets give this a global looksie.. go see any one that is for sale right now
anywhere
and see that a- alot of cues from Szamboti, Bushka, Paradise, Palmer etc.. have
been refinished at some point and are strictly out of my control. But the fact
remains is that they get sold everyday. B- it is ok to refinish a cue if it
will enhance the value of said cue. You should never refinish a cue that
doesn't need it.
> Just do the world a favor and don't start dealing things that matter like
good stringed instruments or serious art.<<
And you think cues are a niche market?
> That's all the world needs is someone of your moral fibre dealing things that
>actually matter to more than just a few hundred people.<<
You would be so lucky to have my moral fibre..
>it's just that I am not ignorant enough to ignore the impact of
>the movie on the prices of Bushkas...and those overflow collectibles for
>people who can't afford authentic Bushkas.<<
No one has said the movie didn't impact the market.
>send it to a cue maker to strip away most of the original's worth..<<
This is horsecrap and I don't think I need to say where we are with this for
the zillionth
time.
>That's the truth, it is a disgrace to the industry, and yes, it does hurt to
see someone do that.<<
The disgrace to the industry is someone who would rather see history fall apart
and crumble then to save it.
>I guess when you reach your level of intelligence you are allowed to
>simply create your own alternate little reality.<<
You created your own little reality long ago...
Joe Van
>I agree, I'll base my statement on something I do know about that being
>cars, say for instance I find a rusted out 63 1/2 Chevy SS Impala Converible
>rotting away in a junkyard( last time I checked the car restored was worth
over
>35,000.00) Do I just buy it for junk and drag it to car shows proudly
>exclaiming its all original ???<<
This is exactly as Deno would love to say is the right thing to do. But we all
know
its a farce.
>Beauty ( and value ) are at best comparable to what the artist is "able" to
>do and what the customer is willing to spend !!
>
>Then of course I may be wrong !!!
Of course you and the other 10 people who argue with Deno.. we are all wrong.
Priveye
Then again, if I have an 18th century Philadelphia hiboy dresser in the
original finish ('in the black') it is worth somewhere around 250k-400k. If
I take that piece of furniture and refinish it, it is now worth about 85k.
I once bought an old divers helmet in a garage sale for 250 bucks. I
contacted Morse Dive Equip in MA and was told 'Don't take the dents out!'
'Don't polish it up!' 'You'll kill the value!'
Unless an object reaches a condition so poor as not to have value it is not
a candidate for restoration.
Roscoe
"Crisis occurs when women and cattle get excited"...James Thurber
"Joe Van" <class...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031230105338...@mb-m06.aol.com...
Murray Tucker, III
--
Murray Tucker, III~not famous
i...@tuckerbilt.com
www.tuckerbilt.com/iii
--
"wayne crimi" <wcr...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:el3Ib.32468$cM1.5...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Ray Fichthorn
-I see your point about finding an ORIGINAL cue- with an esthetically "acceptable" (key-word-here)
patina- being left alone. AND- this "acceptability" is in the eye of the beholder. It may not bother
you that the ferrule is split in half- and falls off your Rambow whenever it is taken from it's
display case.. But, what about those of us that believe a cue on "display-only" is just another
useless stick-under-glass? By the same token- to save a cue with any historical significance- that
looks like crap- (IE: pieces broken, cracked, finish excessively worn, wrap badly frayed)- and
saying you totally "destroy" it's value by doing "any" repair work ..is IMHO: Ludicrous!
Just what do the "art restorers" in museums all over the world- actually do to (very valuable)
Paintings? Bronzes, Tapestries, Rugs, Carvings, Sculptures, etc..etc??? By your reasoning- it would
hurt their value if not left in the condition they were found..
My grandparents have an old "Hudson Bay" painting (that's what my Father calls it).. it's supposed
to be by a "name artist" and quite valuable (~$100K)... but I know nothing further about it. It has
been appraised by several art historians(Hartford museum)- and they all say the same thing:
>Have it (professionally)cleaned- (done)
>Have the bullet-hole (yes, it's a real bullet hole)- repaired (not done)
This would involve adding some material, and obviously re-painting the area (~2" sq)
I don't think these recommendations would have been made if it was going to SIGNIFICANTLY "hurt" the
value of the painting.
I think- where you/we all get into trouble- is in the nomenclature. There is a HUGE difference in
the meaning of the words RENEWED and RESTORED. But, they are often mistakenly substitued for one
another. I run into this constantly in my business- and spend countless hours explaining the
differences to my customers.
Example:
>You have a Rambow- that currently is "worth" $2000, But could be worth $4000- if in better
condition. IE: the butt-sleeve is broken with an ivory inlay partially missing- and it has several
noticeable chips in the finish on the forearm. The wrap is leather- worn, cracked, and fragile
(general awful appearance). What do you do? You can't play with it as-is. It's a nice historic
example- but the finish and butt damage make it look like someone used it to kill the Bordens
(Lizzie- hope I don't have to explain it). Most of the public- couldn't give a rats-ass "what it
is".. or "who made it".. They just think it looks like firewood. YOU on the other hand- like it just
the way it is...
DO YOU:
1) Have the cue RENEWED: replace the butt-sleeve entirely with similar modern materials, inlays of
similar design- but not the original Ivory- because of it's recent ban, cost, availability, etc...
and then they use a high-quality modern finish like Auto-urethane...All work is professionally done,
by a qualified cuemaker.
2) Have the cue RESTORED: saving as much of the original butt-sleeve as possible, carefully
matching a (new) piece of identicle material- paying close attention to grain pattern, color, etc.
Replacing the missing inlay with the same material as originally used- cut and shaped in the same
manner. Carefully strip the original finish- removing as little as possible of the original cue's
material (but ALL of the old finish). Refinish the cue using "period" materials...
3) Leave it alone- and be happy that it's in YOUR collection, and that YOU like it!
Having the cue RENEWED may significantly hurt the historic value of the cue- but may INCREASE it's
intrinsic value over what it was when found. The cue would now be playable- and that might be just
what the OWNER wants to do with it. So "true value" can only be placed by the individual(s)
interested in the item.
However- as with most collectables, and historic pieces of art (and cue's do qualify in many
instances)... I (personally)see no problem with having them restored. IF said restoration is
accomplished in a manner- faithful to it's original creation.
I restore antique automobiles professionally... you should see some of the crap people bring me. But
it's the "best" they can find- and I have to do my best to return the piece to it's "original"
condition. There are modern materials and techniques that give much better results- than were
available at the time of manufacture. I often use these to "emulate" the original- as closely as
possible. Like it is often said "They ain't making 'em anymore"...
Similarly- even a cue with significant provenance- would need to be in "reasonable" condition to
have any true value. And that value- will be dictated by INDIVIDUALS- not by any market. Markets may
influence the value of a group of items.. be they Cues, Pottery, Artworks.... but a single item's
true-value is determined by the individual(s) interested in THAT PARTICULAR piece- at THAT
PARTICULAR time.
Case in POINT: I have been "marketing" my friend's Cognoscenti. It's a beautiful cue in wonderful
condition. He paid around $4K for it in 1996. An e-mail from Joe Gold- suggests that to build a
"similar" cue today would be $5250- and the wait is 18 months... Coggy's can be considered
"collectable" cues I'm sure. We have had the cue for sale here, other pool related forums, and on
eBay. There has been very little response- due to the very narrow market. The bid on eBay came to
$2800... Does this mean the cue is only "worth" $2800? No.... what this means is- of the people that
peruse eBay, that saw the cue, were looking for a cue to buy, and at that point in time- were
willing to pay $2800 for it.
We believe it is worth more than that- and so, I still have it for sale...
Several years ago- a 1957 Chevy convertible came up for auction at Pate or Kruse International(don't
remember which)?? There were 2 interested parties... a Danish business executive, and a Saudi
Prince. They bid the car to $125,000. This was ~$100,000 MORE than any '57 Chevy Convertible had
EVER sold for. Did this automatically mean that EVERY '57 Chevy was suddenly worth $100K+??? Hell
NO!!! and many people (OK- idiots)... mistakenly thought that "all of a sudden" '57 Chevy Converts
were now worth HUGE $$$$. So they bought them up- paid major $$$$ to have them "restored"(I did 4
for the same guy) ... and were expecting huge $$$ returns... Guess what???? The market was flooded
with half-assed cars, converted 4-doors, and few nicely done cars... the "market" collapsed- and now
you can get them all day long for $25K-$35K... even when the owners have $40K+ in them.
Only YOU can decide what a cue (or anything for that matter)is worth TO YOU... Value can be
"influenced" by markets- but not absolutely "set" by them. True-value is set by the INDIVIDUAL.
Individuals- have differing OPINIONS on many levels. They may- or may not- be the same or similar to
your own...
Ray
ratchet
Deno J. Andrews
> Actually it is determined by the cue. Not by me, not by the seller and not
by
> the buyer.
I'm so happy that you speak cue...that is, to talk to the cue and figure out
what it wants to do! If you are sending cues to be refinished, even those
which have already been refinished...you are making a ling term decision for
the cue...not the buyer. That's wrong. I don't expect a pool player to
understand that...but it's true.
> Actually when dealing with Balabushkas and Botis you cannot call a cue
crap.
I can call it whatever I want to call it. And it is true...your all holy
Balabushka did not make 100% perfect cues...nobody does. There were cues
that came out of his garage that were crap...just like cues come out of
every shop that are crap. They were obviously mostly not that...but make
not the mistake that everything he turned out was the height of perfection.
> showing how little experience you have in this area) The cue's market
value is
> pretty much predetermined and I nor anyone else can say otherwise.
Otherwise.
See this is where you
> have absolutely NO CLUE and really should refrain from such an arguement.
Most
> of the time cues come to us ALREADY refinished.
Well, two of the three examples of Bushkas on your site, and we are talking
primarily about Balabushkas aren't we, claim that "we sent this..." You are
making decisions for cues that may be what you think is the right thing to
do...but you are wrong.
> But ones that are in need of
> refinish get them.
Again, I am glad you are not a dealer of very fine things, such as stringed
instruments. I think it is incredibly egocentric to think you are qualified
to make decisions based on what you think the cue needs. Again, you are
making the decisions to make these cues more marketable right now, for your
own benefit. A hundred years from now, cues that were on the receiving end
of your bad decisions will be far worse off as collectibles.
> Now if you have ever tried to sell a cue that has an
> astethic value of 3, on a scale of 1-10 10 being mint, then you would know
why
> you refinish certain cues.
No, I would know why YOU refinish certain cues. YOU refinish these cues to
raise the immediate price for YOUR benefit...believe me, you are doing these
cues no favors, only yourself.
> This is entirely not true. Take a cue that maybe original but
deteriorating, in
> the years to come the value will decrease because the effort was not taken
to
> preserve the cue.
Preserving a cue is far different than refinishing them and making them
"better than new." I don't think there are five cue makers in the world
doing any legitimate preservation work. There are plenty who will refinish
the cue, but they are preserving nothing at all. A cue can be refinished
anytime...preserving means preserving, not refinishing. If you can't
understand the difference...
>The only interset is in SAVING the piece for the FUTURE.
Pahleeeze. Great pitch...save it for someone who is not a collector.
> Almost the biggest load of shit you typed yet. The only long term bad idea
is
> you staying in billiards.
Oh, it hurts...god forbid someone with some moral fibre stays in the
billiard industry.
> How do you know they will be? What is your basis for such a remark besides
your
> billiard elitist attitude?
I don't, but it doesn't mean we should make bad decisions for cue just in
case they are never seriously collected- that's ignorant.
> No they won't. Again, you will pay a large premium for a mint all original
cue,
> and lesser for lesser grade cues. BUT a refinish is generally regarded as
a
> positive in this business granted it was done by someone reputable.
That is because it is mostly people who don't know any better doing the
collecting right now, and the refinishing. I think it's a shame that there
are so many cue makers ready and willing to destroy those cues.
> Again, we
> would all like a 63 Vette garage kept with 5,000 miles, but since we all
know
> thats almost impossible, we settle for the restored Vette. Plus I don't
know to
> many people that could afford the all original model. This is where cues
are
> going.
I see, since the real thing is so expensive, let's ruin a bunch of them so
that they can be affordable. Joe, you are doing this for your own
benefit...to turn an immediate profit on people who know no better.
> Again, clueless dribble. And who the fuck are you to decide what is right
for a
> cue and what isn't?
THAT'S THE POINT! You really are slow on the uptake.
> You know you don't know shit and I think what people really
> need to know is that the clown on the other side of this arguement has no
clue, thinks he is
> better than everyone else cause he is a "billiard" player and doesn't
leave
> chalk on the rail, plus the fact he has short man syndrome and needs to be
> heard by everyone else as the loudest most arrogant person on the planet.
Yes, I am a clown, ok. Yes, I take my chalk. And BTW, if you knew anything
you would know it is the Napolean Syndrome. And maybe I come across
arrogant because I realized long ago that this industry, most especially the
cue dealers, is one of the sickest, most disgusting things on earth. I have
never seen liars, cheaters, low-lifes, anywhere else in the world like the
ones I have met in the American billiard industry. You fit right in with
what you are doing to those cues...and then to your customers, who, one day
will educate themselves to collecting fine things and will come knocking on
your door wondering how you had the gall to do what you have done to some of
those cues. Hey, fine, call me names...it doesn't affect me in the
slightest. Since you think that I think I am better than anyone, what makes
you think I care if you call me names?
> Look
> DribbleSmurf, go back under the mushroom and have a smurfy day.
Oh, that's a good one. Think of that yourself? I bet you crack yourself
up.
> BTW Stop saying 300 dollars.. most the time the restoration is more than
that
> and no dealer of anything in his right mind would invest 300 to make 300
you
> clueless moron.
Sorry, how much is it then that you really screw your customers out of on
these ethical refinish jobs?
> Not only to lay the cue up for a freaking year.. oh you are
> such a nit.. I cannot believe you are even trying to make an arguement...
Hey, the cue wouldn't sell anyway right? I mean, if it is of such a low
asthetic quality, who would buy it right? Face it dude, you invest a little
now and convince an unsuspecting would be collector that it is ok to buy a
refinished cue...that it is ok in the industry to do that...so that you can
increase your end. Nice guy...really, you are really a stand up person for
doing that to people.
> >And if you take a guy like Balabushka, who used a very unique finishing
> technique,
> By who's accord? This is strictly your opinion and I have news for you,
the
> market says otherwise, when the cue needs to be done.
Do you even know what made George's finishes so unique? Do you know why he
chose the finishes he chose? Are you really that clueless to think that
putting on a finish that is different from his finishes is somehow ok? His
finishes were such a large part of the process, and were chosen for very
specific reasons...that to refinish a cue of his is an absolute abomination.
You obviously don't know that...and for that I hope that people will think
twice before letting you get your hands on any serious cues of theirs.
> Yes, and if you have a decent original finish you should leave it. But if
the
> finish is gone and you still play with it, handle it, show it, then do the
> refinish before something worse occurs. Christ, what the fuck don't you
get?
Such language Joe. We are not talking about Vikings, we are talking about
collectible cues.
> The cues are protected for generations to come. Thats what its all about.
Sure. Ok. Whatever. If you had any care for future generations and these
cues, you would never ever have them refinished to make them more marketable
right now.
> The decisions that I, my collegues, and many collectors make in the relm
of
> cues are more sound than any arguement you can, and vainly tried to make
here.
whatever you have to tell yourself dude. I know that you are wrong, and
anyone who collects anything seriously also knows it.
> You are the most classless self serving person I have ever met. or
debated.
Ooooooohh, that really hurts. I guess it takes one to know one.
> I will say this.. I think you single-handedly jacked up the price of all
> original cues though.. many collectors are going to thank you for stating
your
> opinions...
Yes, collectors will agree because it is right. Nothing that I say will
jack up anything. I am jsut hoping that people will think twice before
refinishing originals...and that they will think twice before buying
refinished originals.
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
over 3x the money. Thanks Lou...that should shed some light on the subject.
So if it is true that all cues went up like the Bushkas after the
movie...than a pre movie Bushka that was worth let's say $1000 then, should
only be worth about about what...$3500? Joe, sell any $3500 originals
recently...Balabushka that is?
Deno
"lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:CSeIb.258202$Ec1.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Deno J. Andrews
news:%JiIb.194445$dl.88...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> useless stick-under-glass? By the same token- to save a cue with any
historical significance- that
> looks like crap- (IE: pieces broken, cracked, finish excessively worn,
wrap badly frayed)- and
> saying you totally "destroy" it's value by doing "any" repair work ..is
IMHO: Ludicrous!
What I am saying is that a person who is in the business of buying and
selling these cues should not be making short term decisions to make a buck
that will / can / may affect the long term value of a cue stick. And if a
collector sees fit to have a cue restored, it should be restored to as near
original as possible. That means not using today's finish technology if it
were oils or lacquers back then...especially if the cue maker was particular
to one finish type for very specific reasons, like Balabushka. Repair work
does need to be done from time to time...and preservation work. These are
very much different than refinishing a cue stick.
> Just what do the "art restorers" in museums all over the world- actually
do to (very valuable)
> Paintings? Bronzes, Tapestries, Rugs, Carvings, Sculptures, etc..etc??? By
your reasoning- it would
> hurt their value if not left in the condition they were found.
Much of art restoring is taking away what is covering the work from the eye.
Many varnishes because of environmental stressors turn black and make
paintings impossible to see. So yes, they are cleaned...but not for the
sake of cleaning them, instead for the sake of seeing them. Museums are
also not dealers, as they are usually final resting places for these works.
Ask yourself this...are these restorations done by the decisions of dealers,
or curators?
> DO YOU:
> 1) Have the cue RENEWED: replace the butt-sleeve entirely with similar
modern materials, inlays of
> similar design- but not the original Ivory- because of it's recent ban,
cost, availability, etc...
> and then they use a high-quality modern finish like Auto-urethane...All
work is professionally done,
> by a qualified cuemaker.
No.
> 2) Have the cue RESTORED: saving as much of the original butt-sleeve as
possible, carefully
> matching a (new) piece of identicle material- paying close attention to
grain pattern, color, etc.
> Replacing the missing inlay with the same material as originally used- cut
and shaped in the same
> manner. Carefully strip the original finish- removing as little as
possible of the original cue's
> material (but ALL of the old finish). Refinish the cue using "period"
materials...
No
> 3) Leave it alone-
Yes. If I don't think that the cue belongs in my collection, get rid of it.
Collecting is not about making your pieces worth more money. It is about
collecting that which is, not which is not. And changing an original, even
if not in the best shape, means that it is no longer an original. If you
take a ruined Balabushka from a Burton Spain Blank, strip all the finish,
replace the joint, and make new shafts for it, and refinish the cue stick,
it is no longer a Balabushka. It is then a creation of someone else using a
Spain blank and what used to be a Balabushka cue. Ask youself what it was
that Balabushka did? He purchased premade blanks from other cue makers. He
made butt plates, joints, and shafts (although he had many shafts made by
other cue makers as well), he wrapped them, and HE FINSIHED THEM. Now, take
one of his cues with a broken joint and butt plate, with a bad finish- strip
the cue of the finish, replace the butt cap, replace the joint, replace the
wrap, make new shafts, and refinish the cue. How is this cue possibly still
a Balabushka? All that he did to the cue has been eliminated, and the new
cue maker simply did the same thing to the blank that Balabushka did. The
blank he was not responsible for...so refinishing one of his cues means that
it is no longer a Balabushka. It can't be...his hand is nowhere to be found
in these refinished cues. They are not Balabushkas...they are again the
creation of a cue maker out of what once was a Balabushka cue stick.
> Only YOU can decide what a cue (or anything for that matter)is worth TO
YOU... Value can be
> "influenced" by markets- but not absolutely "set" by them. True-value is
set by the INDIVIDUAL.
> Individuals- have differing OPINIONS on many levels. They may- or may not-
be the same or similar to
> your own...
I agree totally. My only remark about this is that if you strip all that
was the work of the cue maker who used other makers' blanks...refinish the
cue and do to it all that Balabushka did...what is left of his work? It is
no longer a Balabushka. It used to be a Balabushka. There are people who
are still willing to buy it, and that's great...but it doesn't mean that it
is right, or that they are buying real Balabushkas. If JG re- wraps,
joints, finishes, butt caps an original Balabushka, it is no longer a
Balabushka. It is wrong and unethical to call it such. A stand up dealer
would be forthcoming and sa it is a [insert cuemaker] that was once a
Balabushka made from a [whomever] blank. That is what the cues have become.
They are not originals.
Deno J. Andrews
Ray Fichthorn
> I agree totally. My only remark about this is that if you strip all that
> was the work of the cue maker who used other makers' blanks...refinish the
> cue and do to it all that Balabushka did...what is left of his work? It is
> no longer a Balabushka. It used to be a Balabushka. There are people who
> are still willing to buy it, and that's great...but it doesn't mean that it
> is right, or that they are buying real Balabushkas.
OK- you are saying- that if ANY of the work accomplished by the cuemaker- is changed in any way,
then the cue is no longer to be considered an "[insert cuemaker here]"- but instead a "'u-sta-bee" cue.
If not, - Just where do you propose to draw the line? A replaced tip (Did George ever have a
Moori,LaPro,Triangle???)? Ferrule? Refinishing a forearm (with period-materials) due to a deep
scratch (in the finish only- no damage to wood or other materials)? replacing a single lost/damaged
inlay (out of many)? Replacing a shaft with a vintage shaft (even the same maker- with a possible
joint-switch)? When does it stop being a cue made BY "Cuemaker B".. and becomes an abomination? (In
your eyes?)
What is considered an "acceptable" ratio? 5%? 10%? 50%?... of the original Cuemaker's total "work".
You are making it VERY difficult to pinpoint your standing... You argue about a total REBUILD of a
cue (that noone can disagree with you about- and I think you are overstating because you don't
really know your own limiting factors) ... when we are trying to find the point at which you believe
the cue has been "changed" significantly enough to warrant it's provenance invalid. We have a saying
around the restoration shop of .. "Jacking up the radiator cap and installing a new car underneath,
and calling it "all-original".
> If JG re- wraps,
>> joints, finishes, butt caps an original Balabushka, it is no longer a
>> Balabushka. It is wrong and unethical to call it such. A stand up dealer
>> would be forthcoming and sa it is a [insert cuemaker] that was once a
>> Balabushka made from a [whomever] blank. That is what the cues have become.
>> They are not originals.
IMO: Much of your argument is about "changing a cue from what the cuemaker "originally" intended.
Most cuemakers of the time- built their cues to be PLAYED. You are arguing that they need to be put
away for posterity... MY OPINION is that you are doing a disservice to the cuemaker. How many people
get to see your cue-collection? How many (of those visitors) actually have an interest? Now- take a
prized Rambow- to a (real)pool hall and play with it.. albeit carefully, What kind of response do
you think you will get from the general public? The token players? Bonified Pool Enthusiasts? Do you
think you will significantly DAMAGE it with occasional use?
To continue.....your proposed "changes"- and my opinion about them. (please read this section
entirely- before vilifying me- due to the "caveat" at the end).
Rewrap- if period correct, color, materials, etc- fine...
Joint- if correct in workmanship, design and materials- and original style to THAT CUE- Hey... s**t
happens.. if the cue REQUIRES a new joint- then replace the damned thing!
Refinishing- IF minimal collateral affect to the cue materials- it "may" enhance value- and very
dependent on what the original finish looked like. **Note -in your reply- you mention as an example-
that "curators" will remove aged varnishes that are hiding the "beauty of the work"...
> Much of art restoring is taking away what is covering the work from the eye.
> Many varnishes because of environmental stressors turn black and make
> paintings impossible to see. So yes, they are cleaned...but not for the
> sake of cleaning them, instead for the sake of seeing them.
What is your idea of what Joe would be doing to a cue- whose finish is yellowed, or damaged- to the
point that the "beauty" of the cue is severely compromised?
Buttcaps (or any other main cue-parts): This would HAVE to be judged solely on an individual
cue-by-cue basis... What is BAD enough to require total replacement, rather than repair? At what
point does significant damage change the provenance of the cue- if it's replaced? What parts are
included? Which are Taboo?
Caveat: ALL of these changes will have a definite affect on value. The amount of that affect rests
solely on the INDIVIDUAL interested in the item.
As long as the materials and workmanship- are on par with the original maker's... And IN TOTAL- the
repairs do not significantly change the work of the cuemaker... then the cue remains the domain of
the maker.
However- it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the person effecting any of these changes- that they make it
PERFECTLY CLEAR what changes were made, and to what degree. Documentation would be helpful- and in
some instances- invaluable.
Ray<----- Restorer of fine Studebakers.... But I'm not beyond building a Pro-Street from one :-)
Donald Tees
>
> Well, I may have a small collection...but I don't buy stripped down junk
> like what you are trying to pass off as multi-thousand dollar highly
> collectible cues. What's sad is that there are plenty of unsuspecting would
> be collectors that will be on the receiving end of your pitch that it is ok
> to refinish these cues. Just do the world a favor and don't start dealing
> things that matter like good stringed instruments or serious art. That's
> all the world needs is someone of your moral fibre dealing things that
> actually matter to more than just a few hundred people.
>
A stringed instrument that is unplayable is only worth something to a
fool. I don't know of any Stradivarious violins, for example, that have
not been fitted with a modern tailpiece. Mind you, I have only handled
a couple, but I see pictures of lots.
My roomie's strad has both a modern tailpiece, an inside tranducer, and
is probably on it's third or fourth finger board. Only two tuning pegs
are original. They wear out. It's due to have it's neck broken off, and
a new finger board installed right now, in fact. Mind you, it will not
be done by an amateur, but then I would not have a cue fixed by an
amateur either.
Of course, most violins are obtained by violinists, to play. I would
consider someone buying one to put on a shelf and admire as part of
their collection a sacrilege. Like buying a painting and hanging it face
to the wall.
Donald
Donald Tees
Top posted only ... very well said Ray, and I agree. I think one of the
big factors involved is usability ... paintings must be viewable,
instruments and cues should be playable, cars should be drivable, etc.
Any collectable that is so worn that it cannot be used for it's original
purpose is really nothing more than a form of currency to the holder.
Donald
Donald Tees
>
> Yes. If I don't think that the cue belongs in my collection, get rid of it.
> Collecting is not about making your pieces worth more money. It is about
> collecting that which is, not which is not. And changing an original, even
> if not in the best shape, means that it is no longer an original. If you
> take a ruined Balabushka from a Burton Spain Blank, strip all the finish,
> replace the joint, and make new shafts for it, and refinish the cue stick,
> it is no longer a Balabushka. It is then a creation of someone else using a
> Spain blank and what used to be a Balabushka cue. Ask youself what it was
> that Balabushka did? He purchased premade blanks from other cue makers. He
> made butt plates, joints, and shafts (although he had many shafts made by
> other cue makers as well), he wrapped them, and HE FINSIHED THEM. Now, take
> one of his cues with a broken joint and butt plate, with a bad finish- strip
> the cue of the finish, replace the butt cap, replace the joint, replace the
> wrap, make new shafts, and refinish the cue. How is this cue possibly still
> a Balabushka? All that he did to the cue has been eliminated, and the new
> cue maker simply did the same thing to the blank that Balabushka did. The
> blank he was not responsible for...so refinishing one of his cues means that
> it is no longer a Balabushka. It can't be...his hand is nowhere to be found
> in these refinished cues. They are not Balabushkas...they are again the
> creation of a cue maker out of what once was a Balabushka cue stick.
>
You make some interesting points. Not all collectables, howvever, are
similar. You put stringed instruments in the same perspective in a
previous post, and it ain't the same at all. I could record 30 seconds
of music on a strad, then on a $2000 factory violin, and there is not
person in the NG that could not hear the difference.
Would you repair a cue to the point it could be used to play pool? It
strikes me that if you would not, then it is not a cue anymore. It is
some wood pieces that a guy named (fill in the blank) once worked on.
I suppose, to an extent, every single instance is different.
Donald
Joe Van
>I'm so happy that you speak cue...that is, to talk to the cue and figure out
>what it wants to do! If you are sending cues to be refinished, even those
>which have already been refinished...you are making a ling term decision for
>the cue...not the buyer. That's wrong. <<
No, its right. I am making a long term decision to preserve the cue from
further damage in most cases. If a cue retains a fair portion of the original
finish, I will leave it. Its quite clear I don't care what you think.
Primarily because your thinking is wrong and makes absolutely no sense.
>Well, two of the three examples of Bushkas on your site, and we are talking
>primarily about Balabushkas aren't we, claim that "we sent this..." You are
>making decisions for cues that may be what you think is the right thing to
>do...but you are wrong.<<
Going to just the Bushka page, only one says "we sent.. see you embellish so
much
its really hard to know what truth you think you tell, or you think someone
will believe.
Anyways. .the cue we sent to Mottey had severe chipping and spiderwebbing in
the finish. We could have left it, but it was impossible to sell it that shape.
Mottey preserved the wrap and did a refinish and now the cue will be good for a
LIFETIME, or there abouts. The other cue, was done prior to us getting the cue.
But it went to one of the best in the business and he did a great job. The
shafts are not Balabushka, which we clearly define and its been refinished and
rewrapped. All of which are noted. But when we make a choice, its the right
thing to do. I really do not care if you agree or not.
> I think it is incredibly egocentric to think you are qualified
>to make decisions based on what you think the cue needs.<<
Really.. not as egocentric as you trying to say why they shouldn't be...
>Again, you are making the decisions to make these cues more marketable right
now, for your
>own benefit. A hundred years from now, cues that were on the receiving end
>of your bad decisions will be far worse off as collectibles.<<
Really? Are you into fortune telling? How do you know what the market will be
in 100
years.. talk about egocentric..
>No, I would know why YOU refinish certain cues. YOU refinish these cues to
>raise the immediate price for YOUR benefit...believe me, you are doing these
>cues no favors, only yourself.
Not a clue, and I already said why we send cues out for refinishing...
>There are plenty who will refinish
>the cue, but they are preserving nothing at all. A cue can be refinished
>anytime...preserving means preserving, not refinishing.<<
Sorry you feel that way.. but you are the one who is wrong...
>>The only interset is in SAVING the piece for the FUTURE.
>
>Pahleeeze. Great pitch...save it for someone who is not a collector.<<
I am talking to someone who is not a collector...
>That is because it is mostly people who don't know any better doing the
>collecting right now, and the refinishing. I think it's a shame that there
>are so many cue makers ready and willing to destroy those cues.<<
Oh ok.. so now lets see, so far Bushka made crap and doesn't belong in the
hall, dealers or collectors who get cues refinished are idiots, cuemakers that
refinish old cues don't know any better, and now cue collectors don't know the
difference.. you elitist piece of crap.. if there was ever an arguement for a
public stoning you would be it. Your friends list is getting awfully small..
> Joe, you are doing this for your own benefit...to turn an immediate profit on
people who know no better.<<
Again Deno, you have no ideal. I would much rather see a cue refinished,
preserved even rebuilt if it means that someone else can enjoy the piece. Not
for me, but for the legacy of the original builder. But you would have no
idea..
> I have never seen liars, cheaters, low-lifes, anywhere else in the world like
the
>ones I have met in the American billiard industry. <<
Well wait till you really get deep into art then.. at least you might have a
chance to survive because if for a second you don't think you can get taken,
maybe the best thing for you to do is collect dirt.
>You fit right in with
>what you are doing to those cues...and then to your customers, who, one day
>will educate themselves to collecting fine things and will come knocking on
>your door wondering how you had the gall to do what you have done to some of
>those cues.<<
Unlike you, I like to think my customers have educated themselves and have read
the materials they should be reading and can make decisions for themselves.
That is why I have a list of people who only want original pieces, I have lists
of people who want Bushkas, Botis, Franklin SW's and so on.. I give my
customers what they want. They are also realists and know that maybe they will
never have the oppertunity to own an all original cue, unplayed with original
tips and shipping carton. So they take what is available, which I understand
completely.
>Face it dude, you invest a little now and convince an unsuspecting would be
collector that it is ok to buy a refinished cue...that it is ok in the industry
to do that...so that you can
>increase your end. Nice guy...really, you are really a stand up person for
>doing that to people.<<
Doing what? I nowhere do I hide any work we are aware of on any cue. And it is
OK to buy a refinished cue.
> His finishes were such a large part of the process, and were chosen for very
>specific reasons...that to refinish a cue of his is an absolute abomination.
>You obviously don't know that...and for that I hope that people will think
>twice before letting you get your hands on any serious cues of theirs.
I do know that and there are times where it doesn't matter. As I said before if
the finish is gone, then that part has little to do in the decision. Again
Webster, it doesnt matter what you think, and sorry Deno, your little world is
not perfect.
>Sure. Ok. Whatever. If you had any care for future generations and these
>cues, you would never ever have them refinished to make them more marketable
>right now.<<
Oh yeah.. thats right and let them deteriorate, have the points fall out,
inlays pop, etc.. etc..
thats so much better than having them refinished. Woohoo glad the world has you
on the history preservation team!!!
>I know that you are wrong, and anyone who collects anything seriously also
knows it.<<
The only thing you know is you cannot get on half the rides at Navy Pier unless
they are flying farm animals.
Joe
Deno J. Andrews
> OK- you are saying- that if ANY of the work accomplished by the cuemaker-
is changed in any way,
> then the cue is no longer to be considered an "[insert cuemaker here]"-
but instead a "'u-sta-bee" cue.
No, that's not what I said at all. Let's take a Balabushka and figure out
exactly what Balabushka himself did:
Let's say he purchased a full splice blank from wherever. So he takes the
blank, turns it down, puts a joint on it, a butt plate, wraps the cue, makes
a couple of shafts, and finishes the cue with that special oil finish he
liked to use. The finish of the cue is a very substantial part of what he
did to a cue. It's not like he was making the blanks (the bulk of the time
goes into making these blanks). Basically, each of the few components makes
up a very substantial percentage of the original work of the original cue
maker. So with every cue, you must ask...what makes this cue a Balabushka?
What of this cue is original? So the cue starts out at 100%. Now let's say
an owner is playing with the cue for years after Balabushka dies. One year
he cracks the butt plate and has it fixed with a replacement. A couple
years later he puts a scratch in the joint and has it replaced by a good cue
maker. Then the wrap gets dirty beyond the point of cleaning and he has it
replaced. Since he likes to sand down his cue shafts from time to time, he
has new shafts made and discards the old ones...and finally, after years of
play, there are dings everywhere and he decides to have the cue stripped and
refinished. When all is said and done, what part of the cue stick is
actually a Balabushka? In this rare example, everything that made the cue a
Balabushka has been erased. At that point, what about it makes it a
Balabushka? At that point, it is still a blank by someone...and it used to
be a Balabushka cue...but there is nothing there of the hand of the cue
maker except for maybe the taper provided it is not changed, even slightly,
by refinishing...which is doubtful since it is hard to prepare the wood
without sanding. So with each repair by someone other than the original cue
maker, cues that are assembled from other makers' blanks become less and
less authentic...to the point they are no longer that cue maker's creation.
> joint-switch)? When does it stop being a cue made BY "Cuemaker B".. and
becomes an abomination? (In
> your eyes?) What is considered an "acceptable" ratio? 5%? 10%? 50%?... of
the original Cuemaker's total "work".
I would never consider buying a cue for my collection that wasn't at least
95% the cue maker's work. On cues like Balabushka that are assembled of
other cue makers' blanks, that would mean that a replaced joint, butt, or
wrap, by anyone other than Balabushka would disqualify the cue from being an
original. The finish on a Balabushka was a very important factor for him,
so any refinishing outside of his hand would mean that the cue is basically
no longer an original. Sure, there are still people who buy them because
they think they are still originals...but they are not.
> You are making it VERY difficult to pinpoint your standing...
I don't think I have confusing standards at all. In fact, I have probably
the strictest criteria for my collection of anyone alive. A criterian is
that the cue must be an original...and that means my standard of 95% of the
cue maker's hand must be the case. Anything less and I am not interested
because it is then a combination and not an original.
> IMO: Much of your argument is about "changing a cue from what the cuemaker
"originally" intended.
> Most cuemakers of the time- built their cues to be PLAYED. You are arguing
that they need to be put
> away for posterity... MY OPINION is that you are doing a disservice to the
cuemaker.
I agree. I rotate my collection and play with every cue in it at least
twice a year. Playing with a cue doesn't mean abusing the cue. My
tournament cue that I used for ten years, played in over 100 events in six
or seven countries, still looks like I took delivery last month. Why?
Because I don't abuse the cue.
> How many people
> get to see your cue-collection?
I collect for me, not others. The answer is very few.
>How many (of those visitors) actually have an interest?
None whatsoever. And 90% of the collection is in a bank vault...humidity
and temp controlled.
> Now- take a
> prized Rambow- to a (real)pool hall and play with it.. albeit carefully,
What kind of response do
> you think you will get from the general public? The token players?
Bonified Pool Enthusiasts? Do you
> think you will significantly DAMAGE it with occasional use?
I do do this. And no, there will be no damage with occasional use.
> What is your idea of what Joe would be doing to a cue- whose finish is
yellowed, or damaged- to the
> point that the "beauty" of the cue is severely compromised?
It depends on the kind of cue it is and how much refinishing will erase the
hand of the cue maker. If it is a Schuler cue with a laquer finish, which
is completely makde of components built by Schuler (splice, inlay, etc,)
refinishing is not a big deal like it is refinishing a cue by someone who
chose very specific finishes for very specific reasons, like Balabushka.
> Buttcaps (or any other main cue-parts): This would HAVE to be judged
solely on an individual
> cue-by-cue basis... What is BAD enough to require total replacement,
rather than repair? At what
> point does significant damage change the provenance of the cue- if it's
replaced? What parts are
> included? Which are Taboo?
All good questions that have to be asked for each cue stick. But once
enough is replaced by other cue makers, it changes the cue from an original
to a cue that used to be so and so cue. Which components are taboo depends
on the original work of the cue maker.
> Caveat: ALL of these changes will have a definite affect on value. The
amount of that affect rests
> solely on the INDIVIDUAL interested in the item.
I agree 100%. What is not true is that a cue remains an original no matter
what. It is possible to take a Balabushka and do enough to it to make it no
longer a Balabushka. Refinishing a Balabushka is the quickest way to strip
it of its originality. Does that mean that nobody will buy it? Hell no.
What it does mean is that collectors who know no better will buy it. There
will still be value, but only because a large number of cue collectors don't
understand that you can strip a cue of its originality.
> As long as the materials and workmanship- are on par with the original
maker's... And IN TOTAL- the
> repairs do not significantly change the work of the cuemaker... then the
cue remains the domain of
> the maker.
Not true. You take a cue like Balabushka and replace the butt, wrap, joint,
and refinish the cue...there is nothing left of that cue that means it is a
Balabushka. A blank is a blank, and Spain, Szamboti, and Brunswick turned
out so many of them that without all the other identifiable components, what
makes it a bushka?
> However- it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the person effecting any of these
changes- that they make it
> PERFECTLY CLEAR what changes were made, and to what degree. Documentation
would be helpful- and in
> some instances- invaluable.
Hey, I just call a spade a spade...and a refinished...new butt, new wrap
Bushka can not be considered an original. Claiming it is is a fraud. One
day collecting will catch up to cue sticks and there are going to be a lot
of disappointed people out there with originals that are not originals.
Deno J. Andrews
Dan White
news:KwjIb.4478$rB....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Do you even know what made George's finishes so unique? Do you know why
he
> chose the finishes he chose? Are you really that clueless to think that
> putting on a finish that is different from his finishes is somehow ok?
His
> finishes were such a large part of the process, and were chosen for very
> specific reasons...that to refinish a cue of his is an absolute
abomination.
OK, Deno, I'll bite. I'd be very interested to know the answer to these
questions.
dwhite
Deno J. Andrews
> No, its right. I am making a long term decision to preserve the cue from
> further damage in most cases. If a cue retains a fair portion of the
original
> finish, I will leave it. Its quite clear I don't care what you think.
> Primarily because your thinking is wrong and makes absolutely no sense.
How can it make sense to someone who thinks it's fine to destroy the work of
others? I don't expect you to understand as I have said before. You are a
cue dealer. Your business is to turn a profit at whatever cost. It is
clear you are willing to do that...and that's too bad for the collector.
> Anyways. .the cue we sent to Mottey had severe chipping and spiderwebbing
in
> the finish. We could have left it, but it was impossible to sell it that
shape.
Impossible to sell an orignal Bushka with chipping and spiderwebbing? So
instead you turned it into a Bushka/Mottey, diminished the long term
collectibility of the cue...basically so that you could then "sell" it.
Well, good luck selling it. I doubt anyone in their right mind would pay
such a price for it...but then again, I am sure you will get someone on the
line and reel them in.
> Mottey preserved the wrap and did a refinish and now the cue will be good
for a
> LIFETIME, or there abouts.
Why don't you nominate him for a Nobel prize? I think he had his part in
destroying a portion of a highly collectible cue.
> But it went to one of the best in the business and he did a great job. The
> shafts are not Balabushka, which we clearly define and its been refinished
and
> rewrapped. All of which are noted. But when we make a choice, its the
right
> thing to do. I really do not care if you agree or not.
Hey, whatever...my beef is that you still call it a Balabushka; it is not.
> Really? Are you into fortune telling? How do you know what the market will
be
> in 100
> years.. talk about egocentric..
I have no idea, that's the point. But you shouldn't make stupid decisions
just because you are not going to be around to see what the consequences are
going to be.
> Not a clue, and I already said why we send cues out for refinishing...
You mean originality stripping...
> A cue can be refinished
> >anytime...preserving means preserving, not refinishing.<<
> Sorry you feel that way.. but you are the one who is wrong...
Really? When does a cue reach the point it can no longer be refinished?
> I am talking to someone who is not a collector...
of junk...yes. You are talking to someone who collects only originals. I
know that they are hard to get in stock, so that it would be near impossible
for you to make a living dealing originals...but you are in the business of
calling cues that are no longer Balabushkas...Balabushkas. That's a shame.
> Oh ok.. so now lets see, so far Bushka made crap and doesn't belong in the
> hall,
I'd like you to show me where I said this? I said he turned out some crap,
just like everyone else. SOME.
> dealers or collectors who get cues refinished are idiots,
now you are starting to get it...
> cuemakers that
> refinish old cues don't know any better, and now cue collectors don't know
the
> difference..
Yes, you have it now...
> you elitist piece of crap.. if there was ever an arguement for a
> public stoning you would be it.
Is that a threat?
> Your friends list is getting awfully small..
ouch...I am not here to make friends. I know the truth hurts. And I don't
care whether you are my friend or not. In fact, I find it quite childish
that you even bring it up...I would never be the friend of a person who
spends his life screwing people out of their money selling Balabushkas that
aren't really Balabushkas.
> Again Deno, you have no ideal. I would much rather see a cue refinished,
> preserved even rebuilt if it means that someone else can enjoy the piece.
Not
> for me, but for the legacy of the original builder. But you would have no
> idea..
This is a load if I ever heard one. You don't care about the cues- you care
about selling the cues. Anyone foolish enough not to see past your facade
probably deserves what you give them...but it's sad that despite their lack
of knowledge, that there are people out there like you who are willing to
take advantage of them.
> Unlike you, I like to think my customers have educated themselves and have
read
> the materials they should be reading and can make decisions for
themselves.
Yes, they read themselves silly on your site: "it hits a ton" that's some
real academic language...
> That is why I have a list of people who only want original pieces, I have
lists
> of people who want Bushkas, Botis, Franklin SW's and so on.. I give my
> customers what they want.
So did capone.
> The only thing you know is you cannot get on half the rides at Navy Pier
unless
> they are flying farm animals.
Ouch. Really hurts dude. Why not bring on the yo mama jokes next? Oh,
because you learn those senior year in high school- you still have a few
years.
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
be happy to paraphrase for you...let me know.
Deno
"Dan White" <dwh...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3ff21018$0$4757$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
Smorgass Bored
The only thing you know is you cannot get on half the rides at Navy
Pier unless they are flying farm animals.
Joe
(*<~ Ok, that does it. It's hard enough following this thread with
Bushkas, Paintings, Violins, Antiques and whatever else you feel like
dropping in, but what in the hell does the above mean ? Are you saying
that Deno has sex with farm animals ? Refinished farm animals ?
OY-VEY ! imo
Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~
Dan White
> > You are making it VERY difficult to pinpoint your standing...
>
> I don't think I have confusing standards at all. In fact, I have probably
> the strictest criteria for my collection of anyone alive. A criterian is
> that the cue must be an original...and that means my standard of 95% of
the
> cue maker's hand must be the case. Anything less and I am not interested
> because it is then a combination and not an original.
>
I also like the idea of a 100% pure cue. You have strict standards, and
maybe that will make your collection more valuable than another, but it
doesn't mean that your standard is the only valid one. Anyone could say
that a 95% cue is crap and you are a charlatan for passing your cues off as
originals. Who is right? Only the buying market can tell.
dwhite
Dan White
> The billiard encyclopedia is a good start. If you don't have a copy, I
will
> be happy to paraphrase for you...let me know.
No I don't have one. I did read something out of it a couple of years ago,
but I must have missed the part about the finish. Don't worry about
verbatim. What's the jist in 5 lines or less? :)
dwhite
Ray Fichthorn
>> I would never consider buying a cue for my collection that wasn't at least
>> 95% the cue maker's work.
BINGO.... Now we know where YOU stand. IF I happen to believe that FOR ME... it's 85%.. does that
make me a non-purist, non-collector, and all-round idiot when it comes to pool cues? (I really know
very little.. and couldn't afford to collect house sticks)
> On cues like Balabushka that are assembled of
>> other cue makers' blanks, that would mean that a replaced joint, butt, or
>> wrap, by anyone other than Balabushka would disqualify the cue from being an
>> original. The finish on a Balabushka was a very important factor for him,
>> so any refinishing outside of his hand would mean that the cue is basically
>> no longer an original. Sure, there are still people who buy them because
>> they think they are still originals...but they are not.
BUT- if they know exactly what they are getting- isn't it their choice? You keep pointing out that
Buska used "other maker's" blanks... By your logic- these aren't even Buska cues... They are
"Conglomerations"... (which isn't a very pleasant name for a cue.. doesn't roll off the toungue and
would be bad for marketing)
>>>You are making it VERY difficult to pinpoint your standing...
>>
>>
>> I don't think I have confusing standards at all. In fact, I have probably
>> the strictest criteria for my collection of anyone alive. A criterian is
>> that the cue must be an original...and that means my standard of 95% of the
>> cue maker's hand must be the case. Anything less and I am not interested
>> because it is then a combination and not an original.
REVELATION #2: I see your extensive use of the word "I" here.... Glad YOU have decided that the rest
of us simply don't aspire to your standards... and cannot make a judgement of "originality" for
ourselves. I guess I'll have to sell my 93% Palmer for $1.95... interested?
>
>>IMO: Much of your argument is about "changing a cue from what the cuemaker
>
> "originally" intended.
>
>>Most cuemakers of the time- built their cues to be PLAYED. You are arguing
>
> that they need to be put
>
>>away for posterity... MY OPINION is that you are doing a disservice to the
>
> cuemaker.
>
> I agree. I rotate my collection and play with every cue in it at least
> twice a year. Playing with a cue doesn't mean abusing the cue. My
> tournament cue that I used for ten years, played in over 100 events in six
> or seven countries, still looks like I took delivery last month. Why?
> Because I don't abuse the cue.
And... your assumption about the rest of us is???? I saw no mention of the word "abuse" anywhere in
our posts. What about cues that were "abused" prior to someone like me "rescuing them"???
I have been playing my Cognoscenti for 4 years as my exclusive cue. I don't have a jump/break cue,
and I don't use house cues. I will break with my wife's Huebler.. If I happen to have it with me...
but I've broken and played jump-shots innumerable times with the Cog... Is that abuse? The cue has
no nicks, chips, and still looks like new. How often do I have to break with it before it becomes a
Meucci? (sorry guys- it's "beat up Meucci" Day)
>>How many people
>>get to see your cue-collection?
> I collect for me, not others. The answer is very few.
How very thoughtful- and I'm sure the maker of the cue is pleased that his work is so coveted.
> It depends on the kind of cue it is and how much refinishing will erase the
> hand of the cue maker. If it is a Schuler cue with a laquer finish, which
> is completely makde of components built by Schuler (splice, inlay, etc,)
> refinishing is not a big deal like it is refinishing a cue by someone who
> chose very specific finishes for very specific reasons, like Balabushka.
Even if George's "original" formula is emulated? What about every other cuemaker- that is using
materials that are readily available? Will refinishing them change their provenance significantly?
Why is Shuler's choice of finish any different than George's? The "choice"- not the finish chemistry
itself?
> What is BAD enough to require total replacement,rather than repair? At what point does
significant damage change the provenance of the cue- if it's replaced?
YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION..... It's seems to be a very important one.
What parts are
>
>>included? Which are Taboo?
>
>
> All good questions that have to be asked for each cue stick.
REVELATION #3: I'm glad you agree that the variables are many, and pertain only to particular
damage- to a particular cue- at a particular time.
> But once
>> enough is replaced by other cue makers, it changes the cue from an original
>> to a cue that used to be so and so cue. Which components are taboo depends
>> on the original work of the cue maker.
Your use of the word "enough" means you are starting to "get it!"... but you won't say what is/isn't
"enough....". Is it determined by weight? Specific Gravity? Gamma Radiation?
>
>>Caveat: ALL of these changes will have a definite affect on value. The
>
> amount of that affect rests
>
>>solely on the INDIVIDUAL interested in the item.
>
>
> I agree 100%. What is not true is that a cue remains an original no matter
> what.
Noone has ever claimed this...
It is possible to take a Balabushka and do enough to it to make it no
> longer a Balabushka. Refinishing a Balabushka is the quickest way to strip
> it of its originality.
Is the finish alone more than 5%? How bout if it's just repaired- not stripped? Just the forarm???
It seems to me that replacing a damaged butt inlay- is a bit more drastic "change" than just a
refinish... even IF it's a Bushka finish...
Does that mean that nobody will buy it? Hell no.
> What it does mean is that collectors who know no better will buy it. There
> will still be value, but only because a large number of cue collectors don't
> understand that you can strip a cue of its originality.
Addressed in my response below.. SPECIFIED by the words "IN TOTAL" and "significantly"...
>
>>As long as the materials and workmanship- are on par with the original
>
> maker's... And IN TOTAL- the
>
>>repairs do not significantly change the work of the cuemaker... then the
>
> cue remains the domain of
>
>>the maker.
>
>
> Not true. You take a cue like Balabushka and replace the butt, wrap, joint,
> and refinish the cue...there is nothing left of that cue that means it is a
> Balabushka. A blank is a blank, and Spain, Szamboti, and Brunswick turned
> out so many of them that without all the other identifiable components, what
> makes it a bushka?
In the above diatribe- you are WAAAY past the point of "significant change".. no one will argue
that... I believe that "refinishing alone" does NOT constitute "significant change"... This is my
opinion, and I have an ass**** too.... Gee, now that I've had a look around- everyone does!!! fancy
that!!
Substitute "Cognoscenti" for "Balabushka" in your above argument... what if I severely stain my
Cog's forearm with some spilled solvent- to the point I hate playing with it? Joe Gold is too
backlogged to get to it anytime soon... so I send it to Layani (Thierry..you're welcome for the free
plug!) and have him watersand and recoat it with BASF urethane clear. (Joe uses Dupont I
believe)This can be done with absolutely NO intrusion to the base materials... Is it still a
Cognoscenti? If so- why is the Buska finish so remarkably different?
>
> Hey, I just call a spade a spade...and a refinished...new butt, new wrap
> Bushka can not be considered an original. Claiming it is is a fraud. One
> day collecting will catch up to cue sticks and there are going to be a lot
> of disappointed people out there with originals that are not originals.
SHOW me the website... where a Bushka with the above noted changes- is being listed as an
"original"??? You reference this "highly modified Buska" many times in your argument... I'd like to
see where it comes from....
Ray.... <--- getting to know Deno, but he's fighting me at every turn....