A Strange refinishing question
Tom Bellhouse
newsgroup about refinishing collectable pool cues.
Most of the sought-after cues are less than 50
years old, so I'm bending newsgroup rules ... but
here goes:
A cue made by George Balabushka in the '60's might
now sell for $10K or more in excellent condition.
However, cues get used during their lifetimes, and
get dirty, dinged up and tired-looking. Suppose a
friend had a Balabushka cue in that state, and
took it to a competent craftsman and had it
restored to its original glory. Back it comes,
spiffy. But another friend says that now it's not
a "Balabushka" any more due to the cleaning and
refinishing, and that calling it a Balabushka *now
would be mis-representation.* That is the most
contentious part -- a charge of fraudulent
business practice is pretty serious. The debate
is nearing the fisticuff level, as Smorg knows.
I'm not sure if there are any analogous situations
with other collectables. Any opinions on this,
just for fun? If any wisdom emerges, I'll share
it with the combatants.
Tom
Gerald Clough
> A cue made by George Balabushka in the '60's might
> now sell for $10K or more<snip> Suppose a
> friend had a Balabushka cue in that state, and
> took it to a competent craftsman and had it
> restored to its original glory.
> But another friend says that now it's not
> a "Balabushka" any more due to the cleaning and
> refinishing, and that calling it a Balabushka *now
> would be mis-representation.
> I'm not sure if there are any analogous situations
> with other collectables. Any opinions on this,
> just for fun? If any wisdom emerges, I'll share
> it with the combatants.
If I heard two people arguing over that, I would assume that at least
one of them new little about the market for fine old cues. What does the
market say? I don't know, but I could easily imagine that if cues are
routinely renewed from time to time, you would expect an old, well used
one to have been refinished. The tips certainly are replaced.
I would expect that a pristine, never-used classic cue would be more
valuable than the same one in used condition, but that's not the
discussion.
I would expect that the most valuable cues might well be those owned and
used by famous experts. Those wouldn't likely be much used for playing
by their collecting owners, and I think they would be expected to be
left as the famous owners left them.
Every field has unique criteria for conditions, for what "excellent"
means. Antique gun collectors consider that most of the collectible
value is destroyed by even the finest refinishing. That might be
somewhat analogous, since guns, too, suffer wear to the original
finishes and are not uncommonly refinished and have such things as
barrels replaced, expecially by those who carry them in their work.
Maybe there's no agreement about pool cues. A quick search suggests it's
not a big collecting field. It might, therefore, be a case of one guy
saying he wouldn't pay that much for a refinished cue and the other guy
saying he would. In that case, they're both right. Or both wrong.
--
Gerald Clough
"Nothing has any value, unless you know you can give it up."
Andy Dingley
wrote:
>There has been an ongoing debate on a billiards
>newsgroup about refinishing collectable pool cues.
What are they finished with ?
Some finishes (shellac based) can be refinished with original
materials, in a way that preserves as much of the original finish as
possible. Others, such as nitro- or pre-catalysed lacquers, require
considerable destructive stripping before you can do much with them.
I'd (as a woodworker) be much more open to competent refinishing on
the first being regarded as reasonable, compared to the other.
Why are such cues so valued ? Are they particularly good tools for
playing billiards, are they aesthetically outstanding, or did they
gain their association from the players who used them ?
--
Smert' spamionam
Smorgass Bored
expensive cues and then selling them (for up to $50,000) as 'original
George Balabushka cues' (Mr. Balabushka is DEAD). The argument has gone
far afield and the 'refinished cues' side has even brought violins
(Strads), classic cars, paintings (fine art), comic books, the Statue of
Liberty, musicalinstruments etc. into the fray.
Here is a post (with snippage) to give you an idea of the argument
(they have also reached the stage of personal insults (including the
size & height of one antagonist and spelling and punctuation of the
other, not to mention Hitler and the killing of Jews).... Oy-Vey !
This excerpt is taken from the middle of the longest thread (time
wise and number of posts) in this group's history:
Re: Balabushkas- LONG response
Date: Tue, Dec 30, 2003, 11:52pm (EST+5) From: (Deno J. Andrews)
"Ray Fichthorn" wrote in message:
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.
Deno replies:
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.
>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 made 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.
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.
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?
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
wade in at your own risk.... imo
Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~
Smorgass Bored
descriptions from the website of one of the main combatants:
Address:http://www.classiccues.com/cues/balabushka.htm
mk...@sc.tds.net
Wasn't there a simular argument or discussion (maybe not here) about a
wooden sailing boat that over the years had various parts replaced?
First a mast, then a rudder, then some planking etc. At what point
did it cease to be the original boat? 10 per cent, 50 per cent....?
At some point all of it had been replaced but it still sailed under
the same name and registration. This is making my head ache! Sort of
like trying to picture infinity.
>
>
>
>
Maryann
"Anything can be anywhere!"
Ed S
I've followed this debate. I've been lurking here for quite a while
but I
thought I give a few opinions. First I think Joe wants all his cues to
look
pristine which is something you just can't have if your selling used
and
antique cues. The patina is something that gives old cues the appeal
and
attraction that antiques have. I don't think he refinishes the
Balabushka's with the original
materials that George used at least it dosn't look like it but he may.
Terrible pictures. I also agree that the value has been greatly
reduced if any of the major
components have been replaced just as it would be in furniture. You
could
compare butt caps to original pulls or feet for instance. Everyone
knows how often
they change the hardware, many times for unnecessary reasons.
Furniture on the
other hand has to be lived with and if there are problems most people
like
them repaired but with these cues most will never be used so there
isn't any
real reason for them to be redone. It wouldn't bother me at all if I
had one
in say 50% condition I've collected things that were in worse shape. I
would
like to know the condition of these cues before Joe Van had so many of
them
refinished. At least he says that they are redone on his web site but
his prices
don't seem to be adjusted.
My personal view is that I would rather have a cue in 50% original
condition
than a refinished cue.
All things said he should sell them as found and if the buyers want
them
refinished its up to them. They have value why impose your
ideas(Joe'e) on them.
EdS
Smorga...@webtv.net (Smorgass Bored) wrote in message news:<1435-3FF...@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net>...
Cyanogirl
So if a nice 30-something-year-old gal finds herself an old sugar daddy of a
husband, and he buys her some new breasts and lips and skin and hair. And he
gets heart/lung/liver/kidney transplants for himself, and hair plugs. And then
he wants to leave her for some insipid high school cheerleader. Can he avoid
paying a costly divorce settlement if he gets the court to grant an annulment
on the grounds that he and his wife are less than 50% the same people they were
when they got hitched? Say it ain't so, Maryann. Say it ain't so.
This is indeed a strange refinishing question.
xoxo
Greg Moore
to sell it, the buyer (a collector/dealer) told me he would have offered
much more for it in original condition, even if it were rough. I found that
to be the same thinking with others I checked with afterwards..
I also refinish old antique boats from time to time and 2 rules apply, only
replace what has to be, and document what isn't original.. And if you can
find a very nice (ie decent finish, water tight) original Shepard,
untouched, maybe stored for 50 years, it will pull _far_ more cash then a
mirror finished, totally restored version of the same boat..
Greg
ps. most boat owners know the cost to restore a classic will never make them
profit, restored is always worth more then rough, but never anywhere near
the cost it took to get it there.. It is restored for personal pride, not
to improve its value.
"Ed S" <redfi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb473b85.04011...@posting.google.com...
Andy Dingley
wrote:
>Just to add.. I once refinished an antique rifle (the stock)..
But what did you finish it with ? Was the price reduction because it
had been refinished (how could they tell ?) or because they didn't
like the materials or technique you had used to do it ?
--
Do whales have krillfiles ?
Mike Wilcox
As usual all the interesting stuff happens when I'm away for a while ;~))
To put my own oar in as an appraiser I would have to say the answer is
what the market dictates and that is subject to change by the whims of
collectors. The list below is just a general view based on what I see in
the present market, I would breakdown value as follows from most valuable
to the least as :
1. A cue with ironclad provenance to a world famous pool player, used in
several notable competitions.
2. A cue in good original condition with a provenace to a well known
player
3. A cue in mint condition, say stored since new.
4. A cue in very good original condition, kept clean.
5.A cue in good condition, old finish, some repairs ( new tips)
6. Fully restored cue.
Mike Wilcox
--
Antique & Collectible Appraisals Online
Antique News, Appraisal Tutorials and More
Join our new Affiliate program
http://www.antique-appraise.com
C.
instinct. Each case is approached differently.
From a conservation point of view, let me demonstrate how I would approach
the issue the O.P puts forward through a series of questions I would ask:
A cue made by George Balabushka in the '60's might
now sell for $10K or more in excellent condition.
However, cues get used during their lifetimes, and
get dirty, dinged up and tired-looking. Suppose a
friend had a Balabushka cue in that state, and
took it to a competent craftsman and had it
restored to its original glory.
Here I would have my appraising cap on the same time my conservation cap
was on. My questions start here
1. Does the dirt on this cue affect its playability?
2. Was the dirt put on the cue through a momentous occasion? Or a series of
momentous occasions?
3.. Does the playability affect the value?
Although I have not conserved a pool cue, I will venture a cue can be
cleaned without refinishing it. However, we must determine from the market
place whether the dirt is valued
3. Do the dings on it affect the playability of the cue, and therefore
collaterally affect the value?
4. Who put the dings in the cue? Did they occur through significant events?
If this trail of inquiry leads me to believe the Balabushka cue would be
more desirable if it was playable, and in its current condition it was not
playable, I would then have to ask myself, as the conservator this question:
5. Can I conserve and restore this cue using the same methods and manner Mr.
Balabushka employed in its crafting?
From my poor experience, the answer to this question is almost always no. A
case in point from my own portfolio. I was asked to do conservation work on
a Froggy Bottom guitar. The damage had affected its playability, which is
one of the main points of value. I could make the instrument playable again,
however, not "Froggy Bottom" playable. My advice to the client was to
contact the maker, (still around) and have him complete the conservation. In
the case of the cue, I think the same thing would apply. I understand Mr.
Balabuhska is deceased. I would conduct an inquiry to see if his family
continued the tradition, or if he had apprentices that worked under him.
By comparison, there are some very significant violins in the world.
Believe it or not, some are routinely refinished. The reason is that
investigation showed the instrument was refinished many times before the
maker became noteworthy. Letting the finish deteriorate affects their
playability, and so the work is done. Others are known to have only the
original makers finish on them, and are never touched.
HOWEVER....
Having said all that stuff...I will offer something to think about that
affects most collected items. Why do we bother collecting these things? I
would bet there are modern cues made by contemporary masters that play very
well at the table. Old things connect us to the past, and the history of
the object is often on its surface. I do not know Mr. Balabushka's history,
however, if I had one of the cues he made, but time had put it in such a
condition that it did not aid my game, would I still want it? If I looked up
to him, the answer is yes. I would mount it and have it displayed for the
wonderful thing I believe it to be, and it would be worth much in my eyes.
The dirt and dings would put me in mind of all the people that played the
cue in the past, handling it in games both important, and not so important.
MOREOVER...
If I had one of Mr. Balabushka's cues in original mint condition, played
rarely, its value would be in demonstrating how his craft affected the game.
I would use it sparingly in the presence of pool experts to demonstrate its
action on the ball for both the appreciation of the maker's skill, and for
any research value it offered. A such, it seems to me this cue would be
worth more than the aforementioned one.
AND FINALLY...
If I had one of Mr. Balabushka's cues, and using it was making me rich
playing the game, and refinishing it was required to keep it playable, I'd
have it refinished in a heartbeat if my earning power with the cue was more
than I could get selling it. I would also leave it alone if I thought
refinishing it would affect my earning ability. I believe the OP
identified the problem in the first post when he said desirable cues are
not very old. It is a straddling act between the contribution the cue can
make to the game if it is still used and kept in top condition through
refinishing, and the historical value it has by what it represents. As time
passes, this distinction will be easier to make. The important cues will
become fewer, and technology will produce contemporary cues that will
out-perform vintage ones.
ALL BETS ARE OFF IF...
Anything, regardless of what it is, is badly damaged from a historically
insignificant fire, flood, etc. to the point it is unpresentable and / or
useless. There is no use in having a Boston Chippendale chair if it is
impregnated with sewage from a flood, and stinks. No harm will come of good
restoration / conservation efforts to such items as far as value goes. The
same would hold true for a Balabushka cue, or Monet painting. These things
start at one value, the damage takes some of it away, and restoration /
conservation has the possibility of returning some of the loss, (never
all).
Then again, what do I know?
C.
Back it comes,
spiffy. But another friend says that now it's not
a "Balabushka" any more due to the cleaning and
refinishing, and that calling it a Balabushka *now
would be mis-representation.* That is the most
contentious part -- a charge of fraudulent
business practice is pretty serious. The debate
is nearing the fisticuff level, as Smorg knows.
"Mike Wilcox" <appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:40018AA6...@sympatico.ca...
Tom Bellhouse
this fight. I have a Palmer cue, made in the
'60's. I had it refinished and the butt
rewrapped, and a new shaft made for it, because I
bought it to play with and not to speculate on.
It's probable that I brought down the resale
value, but that'll be my son's problem!
The original question remains: Do I still own a
Palmer cue now that the restoration has been done?
At what point is it no longer a "Palmer"? That's
the question the guys in rec.sport.billiards were
hung up on. I'm sure there are analogies in
antiques. If I have a piece by a famous furniture
maker, and I have it re-finished, I probably have
reduced its resale value. But can I still
legitimately claim it's by the famous maker?
Seems to me that I could.
Thanks to everybody for the opinions.
Tom Bellhouse
"C." <jcal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HAkMb.63262$JQ1.19988@pd7tw1no...
> Mr. Wilcox demonstrates his art well ; note how
he shows his research
> instinct. Each case is approached differently.
>
> From a conservation point of view, let me
demonstrate how I would approach
> the issue the O.P puts forward through a series
of questions I would ask:
>
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! The violin
example was especially interesting, since one of
the combatants had used
a fine violin as an example of an object one would
never consider refinishing!
Best regards,
Tom
Mike Wilcox
Hi Tom,
Any item that's tied to a famous maker has a lot of value tied
just to the manufacturer, which lessens as each repair is done.
Some simple repairs would be considered legitimate and not change
the value all that much, especially if the provenance of the
piece is tied to the famous/infamous or historical event. For the
average person who owns a cue though, any change or addition you
make from the original takes away from it's value. In the case of
your cue it would still be listed as a
Palmer, but as a altered item with all the modifications listed*.
One thing to always keep in mind is the market you are selling
in, values will be quite different from the Billiard Memorabilia
market to Used Billiard/Cues market. In one it's a historic
relic, in the other it's just a damn good cue ;~))
* If these modifications are made by the famous player it could
even increase it's value ( increased rarity;~)) Man, I love this
business!
--
Smorgass Bored
Re: A Strange refinishing question
Mike Wilcox wrote:
In the case of
your cue it would still be listed as a
Palmer, but as a altered item with all the modifications listed*.
Ronnie added:
Yes this is bang on the button. Like with any other item.
Catalogued something like this ....
"A c1960s Palmer cue, restored and refinished, with later additions and
modifications" ..... if the work was carried out by a respected cue
maker or restorer then listing the restorer's name may (or may not) add
some extra value.
However, if the cue before restoration had a specific association with a
famous player then any value it may have had due to that association
would be IMO lost following your restoration, refinishing and
modification work, and IMHO lost regardless of the condition of the cue
*before* your restoration work.
I would also be of the opinion that the purist collector (of such items)
would much prefer and perhaps pay a premium for a <insert: named
maker's) cue which wasn't refinished or modified.
--
Ronnie
(*<~ What makes these Balabushka cues so valuable is that the late
George Balabushka is/was known for his cuemaking skills of that era. His
early cues only cost $100-$300 and were played with, left unprotected in
the trunks of cars, closets and sold, swapped, bartered, pawned and used
to pay off gambling debts. Very few have a provenance or were used by
famous people. They were scratched, dented, dinged, nicked, bumped &
bruised. I believe that less than 1500 were made and fewer have survived
the ravages of time & use.
They were made VERY popular and the price jumped dramatically when
they were mentioned as a 'holy grail' in the movie "The Color of Money"
(with Tom Cruise & Paul Newman). You 'may' find an old Bushka in a pawn
shop or grandma's attic and usually in poor condition.
The argument started with a cue 'dealer' (who has George's old cues
refinished before selling) and a 'cue collector' (who believes that
replacing George's parts and THEN calling it George's work is FRAUD).
They are no closer today, than when this argument started last month..
There's also a personal animosity between the two original posters.
Friends and 'yes men' have jumped into the fray on both sides (muddying
the water... imo)
Tom Bellhouse
"Smorgass Bored" <Smorga...@webtv.net> wrote
in message
news:6137-400...@storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net...
Doug, I think if Joe listed a refinished cue in
the way Ronnie and Mike have suggested, it would
represent a middle ground of sorts. Joe would be
truly representing the cue, and potential buyers
could go for it (or not) depending on whether
their motivation was collecting fine old cues or
just playing with a fine refinished cue.
I mentioned at the beginning of this thread that I
might ship relevant wisdom over to
rec.sport.billiard. There have been some great
responses here, but I think I'm not going to
forward them. You're right about the personal
animosity thing, and they seem to have quieted
down.
Tom <-- doesn't want anybody getting bopped!
Deno J. Andrews
I have been reading all of the responses to this thread and find all of your
points very interesting. I think that a little more info is needed with
regard to these different cues which are listed in the response below by
Robert. BTW, I was one of the two guys debating these points in the
billiard newsgroup.
"Ronnie McKinley" <mcki...@nowherenet.org> wrote in message
news:nu9600plftp0q9k1r...@4ax.com...
> Well reading the page which Doug originally listed ...
> http://www.classiccues.com/cues/balabushka.htm
> ... I personally don't see a whole hell of a lot wrong with the given
> description or how the guy (owner/seller) has actually catalogued them on
his
> web site.
>
> Example:
> 1. George Balabushka - Early cue
> Shafts: 2 - 13mm shafts ivory ferrules, one shaft not original. Both
shafts
> cleaned Wrap: Black leather and original, reconditioned by Paul Mottey.
> Notes: This is another vintage Balabushka, circa 1965-67. It plays superb.
We
> sent this cue to Paul Mottey and he did a fantastic job making this cue
> better than new.
Balabushka was a cue maker, yes. However, the butt or bottom end of many of
the cue sticks he made were made by other cue makers. This part when he
bought it is called a blank. These blanks were spliced with veneers between
the components. Blanks are arguably the most difficult cue component to
manufacture, and he did not make the blanks. There are two types of blanks-
full splice, and short splice. The full splice you have seen in the cues on
the walls in many pool rooms where one wood goes into the other wood and
joined with points that travel far into the bottom half of the cue. Now
these cues on the walls are simple splices without any veneer work. For my
example, I am going to talk about GB cues that use full splice cues because
he had no hand in joining the butt together as they arrived in his shop as
one piece. In these cues, GB turned them round to his specifications, put a
joint on the cue, put decorative rings on the cue at the joint, he cut a
notch in the butt and wrapped the handle part with a wrapping, he placed a
delrin butt cap (the white thing at the bottom of most cues) on the cue, he
turned pre made shafts (by other cue makers) into finished shafts, and
finally he finished the cue using a unique finish (oils) that he could wipe
(without having to refinish) if the cue became dusty in his shop because he
didn't have a spray booth.
In my opinion as a cue collector, this example one that Ronnie covers may be
a little misleading- I think it was the right thing to do to recondition the
leather as it was not "finished" like the rest of the wood and leather needs
to be taken care of. I think it is ok to clean the shafts because if done
properly it doesn't mean sanding off any shaft wood. It's great one shaft
is still original. But what did the other cue maker do to the cue to make
it "better than new?" If in fact it was stripped and refinished, as far as
I am concerned, a major portion of what made the cue a Balabushka was
negotiated thus rendering it not an authentic Balabushka any longer. It
still has Balabushka parts, but MUCH of what made the cue a Balabushka is
gone because he put so much effort into the finish and thought with regard
to the choice of finish. If the finish was polished up a bit, ok, I can
understand that (although I don't agree it should be done) and not have such
a problem calling it an original.
> 2. Gus Szamboti ~Early 1970's~
> This cue was just refinished by Paul Mottey. Great piece for a collection
and
> as an added bonus it even plays great. A very good titlist blank was used
with bright points,
> with little to no gapping in the veneers.
Interestingly, Szamboti was also a blank maker for Balabushka. Here though,
he used a full splice blank from another cue maker putting him in the exact
same boat as Balabushka with regard to using a blank as the basis of his
cue. Had Szamboti made the blank for the cue, an argument can be made that
refinishing the cue means less of the originality of the cue had been
negotiated because so many more hours and materials went into manufacturing
the butt as well. But in this case, no time at all went into the butt
construction by Szamboti...so refinishing it meant taking much of what made
the cue a szamboti away. On the flipside though, Balabushka's finish, IMO
as a collector, is more historically significant because of the choice of
finish, which is documented in the Billiard Encyclopedia as a result of his
years as a wooden toy maker...and knowing that his choice of finish was more
flexible and forgiving not only for the benefit of the cue, but also easier
to apply in a dusty environment such as his cue shop.
> 3. Frank Paradise - Joe Balsis
> This cue belonged to Joe Balsis. We received it from a family friend, and
> there is alot of history associated with this cue. In 1969 he gave this
cue
> to a 10 year old boy to go with his new pool table. He used the cue for a
> while, then put it away.
> opens. This cue was played with by Joe Balsis. This cue plays extremely
well
> and doesn't have the rattles that Paradise cues, especially heavily ringed
> Paradises are known for. This is a piece of history, don't pass this up.
I don't know if the cue has been restored, refinished, or whatever, so it is
hard to say about this cue. One thing for sure though, because it belonged
to such an important player, and because of the unique provenance, there is
value beyond simply the originality of the cue.
> 4. Gus Szamboti - 100% all original
> All original from tip to bumper. This is one of the best condition all
> original cues I have owned. Its absolutely like Gus just handed the cue to
> me. A must have for the serious collector who demands perfection.
Seems perfectly listed.
So to boil down my point- when collecting anything I guess, don't we all
need to figure out what exactly makes a piece original? I mean, if you buy
a "Chippendale" sideboard and later find out that the only thing really
"Chippendale" is the top surface because everything else has been
replaced...do you really think that you still have a "Chippendale?" Or if
you purchased an ancient Praxiteles sculpture that you later found out was
seriously altered by an artist ten years ago to the point that there is
little evidence of the hand of the master, would you still then have an
original? At some point, something cannot ethically be called an original.
What is that point? I don't know for sure and have set my own criteria for
my own collection. Surely something that is only 10% by the master and 90%
aftermarket is not an original. Case in point, a painting of a five point
star simply one color on a blank canvas. Bernard Buffet paints four of the
five arms of the star and Picasso paints one. Is the painting a Buffet, a
Picasso, or a Buffet/Picasso with the artist who did a majority of the work
listed first? In cue making, if you take the Balabushka and count the
components and later find that most have been replaced by a contemporary cue
maker including the shafts, is it still an original Balabushka, or is it a
(enter cue maker) with original Balabushka components?
In your own collections, how much originality must there be in pieces for
you to consider it an original? In my collection, the truly collectible
pieces are 95% or greater in originality. Or, if the piece was altered by a
more important cue maker, or was restored as the result of a decision of a
more important player. For example- Herman Rambow produced cues for the top
billiard players in the world like Willie Hoppe. If Hoppe had a Rambow
restored by someone else for whatever reason, the calue of the cue shifts
from it being a Rambow, to it belonging to Willie Hoppe and he ordered the
work done. The cue is not valuable any more as an original...but with
provenance like that, it will likely be worth more belonging to Hoppe that
it would ever be as an original without the Hoppe provenance. Does that
make sense? These are my basic arguments, and while berated by pool cue
dealers and being accused of not knowing anything about anything...I would
really like to hear the opinions of serious collectors who live in the real
world outside of the pool room, which, IMO has years to catch up to real
collecting standards. Basically, cue dealers are selling these seriously
altered pieces as originals because it is accepted in the marketplace right
now. I believe that that practice will eventually catch up to them and the
value could potentially fall out of the from under the highly collectible
cues that were manipulated. This may especially be true because there are
so many more cue makers today producing truly superior and highly
collectible pieces using precious metals and stones.
I think this is a fascinating topic and would love to hear more about your
thoughts given the information above about the cue components and what went
into the making of Balabushka cues. Thanks for your thoughts and time on
the subject. So far it seems that many of you collectors basically agree
with my premise that at some point, originality is lost and something can no
longer be considered an original. I would love to try and quantify that
notion.
Deno J. Andrews
T-13
>billiard players in the world like Willie Hoppe. If Hoppe had a Rambow
>restored by someone else for whatever reason, the calue of the cue shifts
>from it being a Rambow, to it belonging to Willie Hoppe and he ordered the
>work done. The cue is not valuable any more as an original...but with
>provenance like that, it will likely be worth more belonging to Hoppe that
>it would ever be as an original without the Hoppe provenance. Does that
>make sense? These are my basic arguments, and while berated by pool cue
>dealers and being accused of not knowing anything about anything...I would
>really like to hear the opinions of serious collectors who live in the real
>world
How about something that is not irrevocably stuck in the hypothetical?
We are more likely to make sense when we are not aruging about how many
angels can dance upon the head of a pin.
As has been pointed out here recently, there ARE general principles
that apply to the world of antiques. So let's not lose ourselves
in coulda, woulda, shoulda. These are real world principles. They
vary, of course, but they vary IN THE REAL WORLD. Let's stay there,
shall we?
T.
Deno J. Andrews
talking about real cue sticks that have had major work done to them by
someone other than the original maker. So let's keep it real by asking you
this- If you have a cue that is still 90% original, is it still an original?
How about 80%? 70%? 60%? 50%? 40%? 30%? 20%? 10? At what point,
using the general principals you refer to, is something no longer an
original? When is there enough work done to a Picasso that renders it no
longer a Picasso? When does a cue lose its Balabushka status...after how
much of his work has been replaced? Thanks.
Deno J. Andrews
"T-13" <as...@asdf.com> wrote in message
news:htt6001c7g0ge9r3l...@4ax.com...
Deno J. Andrews
> laughable but that's another matter, and probably again also subjective :)
Yeah, that's sort of the way the cue business works right now. Asking
prices are crazy because in the pool world, there is always a lot of waiting
around for the sucker. Dangling 60%-70% of the asking price in cash to a
dealer can yield you just about any collectible cue priced high.
Deno
Mike Wilcox
As has already been pointed out an item made by "Palmer" or " Balabushka" will
always be considered a Palmer or Balabushka regardless of how much work is done
on it. The only difference will be how it's described in a sales listing, all
modifications should be spelled out as Ronnie has suggested.
There is no hard and fast percentage for originality, and it all depends on the
type of item and what that market determines is acceptable . With furniture some
feel that 15 % replacement of parts subject to wear is acceptable for the repair
of things like drawer runners and minor repairs to veneer or inlay. With old
master paintings it's a different ball game because of their rarity and age,
most have been cleaned and restored repeatedly. With pool cues, to be considered
in original condition this would likely be the equivalent of replacing
components that are meant to be replaced, such as tips and maintaining the
finish and grip.
Mike Wilcox
> Well I suppose it's a trade or collector's market anyway, so the asking
> prices are just a bit of a come-on, maybe even irrelevant. As to the suckers,
> well I can't imagine Dick and Dora Blow would want a pool cue to hang on
> their kitchen wall.
>
> --
> Ronnie
The guys at the billiard group could settle this argument by simply looking up
some post sales results for billiard memorabilia auctions.
T-13
>Well, aren't we in fact talking about the real world? I mean, we are
>talking about real cue sticks that have had major work done to them by
>someone other than the original maker. So let's keep it real by asking you
>this- If you have a cue that is still 90% original, is it still an original?
>How about 80%? 70%? 60%? 50%? 40%? 30%? 20%? 10? At what point,
>using the general principals you refer to, is something no longer an
>original? When is there enough work done to a Picasso that renders it no
>longer a Picasso? When does a cue lose its Balabushka status...after how
>much of his work has been replaced? Thanks.
>Deno J. Andrews
Well, no, you weren't in fact talking about the real world. You
were giving a hypothetical example. See my quote of your post
above for confirmation. Words like "if" and "for example" are
the tip off. ;)
I have noted many times here how hard it is to communicate with words.
It is. But it is all we've got.
I bought a piece of glass once and there was so much pointing
and grunting involved you might have thought, had you seen the exchange,
that you were watching the opening scene of 2001 A Space Odessey.
That being said, I'd rather have one cue that was 100%, to use your
system, than have two cues that were 90%. I don't like things that
have been monkeyed-around-with very much and I have found that
other people don't either.
There are times when things are "hot" and in those times you can sell the
cracked tea cup of a certain style. BUT the day comes when the market has become
saturated. Then one finds that the cracked cup is dead merchandise.
Best Wishes,
T.
Deno J. Andrews
> As has already been pointed out an item made by "Palmer" or " Balabushka"
will
> always be considered a Palmer or Balabushka regardless of how much work is
done
> on it. The only difference will be how it's described in a sales listing,
all
> modifications should be spelled out as Ronnie has suggested.
I can't buy this argument because the structure of the cues I am talking
about are made by another cue maker and were purchased by Balabushka. If
all of the work Balabushka did to manufacture the cue has been eliminated,
it is no longer a Balabushka...how could it be? You can see cues today that
are made from the same sorts of blanks Balabushka used. Because those
blanks are somewhat collectible, cue makers who use them are sure to list
them as such. However, take away the work of Balabushka, and you have
exactly the same thing that some contemporary cue makers are using to make
their cues. At some point, a Balabushka made from a Titlist blank, when all
of Balabushka's work is gone, becomes what it once was, a Titlist
blank...nothing more, nothing less. I defer back to my example of a
Praxiteles sculpture- he made from a blank piece of marble a sculpture.
Three thousand years later someone starts chiseling away his work and makes
a work of his own out of what was a Praxiteles. The second artist made
something that is still a sculpture, resembles the work of Praxitiles, used
contemporary materials and processes...with your above justification, you
would have no problem with this being listed as an original Praxiteles
right? And if not, where is the difference?
> what that market determines is acceptable .
What if the market is uneducated regarding collecting standards? Would you
agree that doing this to cue sticks will make them way more undesireable in
the long term when and if serious collecting standards catch up to the
collectible cue stick market?
> With old
> master paintings it's a different ball game because of their rarity and
age,
> most have been cleaned and restored repeatedly.
Speaking of art, I came across this in the Journal of Arts Management, Law
and Society; Author Benhamou, Francois Ginsburgh, Victor. It is in a piece
called "Is there a market for copies?" 3/22/2002:
***"A few years ago, Christie's sold a painting by Egon Schiele that the
buyer later found to be "heavily" restored. A legal judgment directed the
auction house to reimburse the buyer because, with 90 percent of the work
repainted, it could no longer be considered to be by Schiele. The judgment
did not discuss the fact that the original painting was by Schiele, nor did
it discuss at what point the restoration rendered the work not by Schiele.
Would the court's judgment have been different if only 89.5 percent had been
repainted?"***
> With pool cues, to be considered
> in original condition this would likely be the equivalent of replacing
> components that are meant to be replaced,
I can agree with this but limited to tips and ferrules. Finishes are not
"meant" to be replaced...and only a small fraction of cues in general are
refinished at any time in their life.
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
> I can't cite a case for a pool cue, but sure could cite many, many other
> cases.
http://www.billiardcue.com/cue$1.html
Check out the Rambow given to Jackie Gleason from Willie Mosconi. The
asking price is $40,000. The exact same cue stick without the proven
provenance will ask less than 10% of this asking price...and it will be a
tough sell at that.
Deno
Deno J. Andrews
> The guys at the billiard group could settle this argument by simply
looking up
> some post sales results for billiard memorabilia auctions.
If you can find some credible sources, I would love it if you would forward
them to me. I monitor Sotheby's and the such, but these cues are never put
up for auction. I have found some billiard stuff there but it is mostly
stuff greater than 100 years old. Unfortunately, cue prices of these high
end collectibles are set more on the basis of one dealer saying "so and so
didn't take this much for it..." which, is far from credible imo. I mean,
who knows if the offer was real, if there was cash offered,
whatever...basing things on what didn't happen is a backwards way of doing
business...and unfrotunately there are not many of these cues up for auction
in credible venues.
Deno
Deno J. Andrews
> >The exact same cue stick without the proven
> >provenance
> What proven provenance? :) ..... more like hearsay.
While I completely agree with you in principal that the letter doesn't mean
very much at all...it is common knowledge that the cue maker Rambow made the
cues for the movie "The Hustler." Also, the lettering on the cue is pretty
unique to Rambow and has never been successfully forged. There is good
reason to believe the lettering and the cue are authentic, and no good
reason not to believe it's authenticity. Granted, at 40k, it's worth making
sure the lettering is under the finish...and having a lab test to approx age
of the finish on the cue...but he'll never get 40k for it, and will be lucky
to get 10k for it.
> "tough sell" ... yea, but every piece needs a good yarn attached
Isn't that the truth...
Deno
Tom Bellhouse
wrote in message
>
>news:6539005u3t76htt0a...@4ax.com..
.
> >> >The exact same cue stick without the proven
> >> >provenance
> >
> >> What proven provenance? :) ..... more like
hearsay.
> >
> >While I completely agree with you in principal
that the letter doesn't mean
> >very much at all...it is common knowledge that
the cue maker Rambow made the
> >cues for the movie "The Hustler." Also, the
lettering on the cue is pretty
> >unique to Rambow and has never been
successfully forged. There is good
> >reason to believe the lettering and the cue are
authentic, and no good
> >reason not to believe it's authenticity.
Granted, at 40k, it's worth making
> >sure the lettering is under the finish...and
having a lab test to approx age
> >of the finish on the cue
>
>
genuine 'Rambow' cue.
>
> - it's the from Willie Mosconi ~ to ~
Jackie Gleason bit I'm having
> the laugh with :) That letter on its own is no
proof. Is there any other
> confirmation, other written documents,
references, which firmly supports this
> claim? - that such a cue exchange ever took
place, and this is that exact
> 'Rambow' cue, the one in the film which Mosconi
gave to Gleason and then this
> guy gets it from some dame on a blind date .....
"apparently" .... LOL
I think the transaction (gift) is mentioned in The
Billiard Encyclopedia, which has become the
"bible" for students of billiard history. There's
a long discussion about the movie, the cues, etc.
Gleason was a very good pool player and loved to
gamble. BTW, Ronnie, you mentioned that you didn't
know much about cues. Here's all you need to
know: The little end is for hitting the cueball,
and the big end is to get you out the door after
you win the money. ;<)
Best regards,
Tom
----->
> >...but he'll never get 40k for it, and will be
lucky
> >to get 10k for it.
>
> Stick into Christie's I say, into one of those,
high society auction bashes
> in NY, for dead American icons' cast-offs ....
5% to charity :)
>
>
>
>
> --
> Ronnie
Mike Wilcox
Let me make it really simple for you, an item identified as having
been created by the artist retains it's creators name regardless of what's
been done to it. Your example of someone taking an ancient unfinished
marble by an artist and finishing it to look like the original artist did
it does not hold water though, this is fraud and not a restoration. This
type of thing has been done for years in Europe and sold to gullible American
Museums.
In the case of the Christie's sale of a painting, their failure to list the extensive repainting was what got them into trouble. Had they listed the painting as a Schiele with all the repainting itemized in the sale catalogue the sale would have been legitimate and the judge would have thrown it out of court.
Deno J. Andrews
the auction house to reimburse the buyer because, with 90 percent of the
means that, and tell me how you see this as saying something else, it can no
longer be considered to be by Schiele! You state that this means something
else. What it doesn't say is that the money needed to be refunded because
there was undisclosed work. What it does say is that it can no longer be
considered to be by Schiele. So case in point, I do not think you are
correct about what the journal article says.
With regard to your premise that "an item identified as having been created
by the artist retains it's creators name regardless of what's been done to
it." I will give you an extreme example to show where this justification
falls apart. Picasso takes a canvas and paints a masterpiece on it. Over
years and year it deteriorates in someone's home. Luckily they were able to
make a color photograph of the original before it completely deteriorated.
The paint becomes flaky and dry and eventually all that is left is evidence
that there was once a painting on this canvas. The owner takes the Picasso
to a local talented, even master, artist with the color photo asking that he
repaint it as well he can from the photo. The local artist explains that to
do it on this canvas right, all the old paint must be scraped off so that
the new paint will stick to the new layer of gesso that the artist must
apply to the old canvas. The owner agrees. The artist scraped every mm of
paint off the canvas...re gessoed the canvas...and finally repainted the
canvas in the style of Picasso, to the best of his ability and as close as
possible to the picture, including Picasso's signature. Now if it is true
what you say, you can justifiably list an item like this as an original
Picasso,true? I mean, he was the original creater right? By your
standards, it would be ok to list this as an original Picasso as long as you
also disclose that it has been completely repainted, right? Rightfully,
this new creation should be called a "(enter artist name) copy of Picasso's
'whatever'" If you list this item as an original Picasso, no matter the
disclosure of the work, it is wrong and is clearly what the auction house
did and got busted for doing. It is like me taking a Rolls Royce,
completely stripping it down. Selling the parts off and constantly
replacing those parts with 1970 VW Bug parts all the way down to the frame
and tires...assembling the car that I now have (which would be the 1970
Bug), and calling it a Rolls Royce.
Deno
Mike Wilcox" <appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4004C36B...@sympatico.ca...
Let me make it really simple for you, an item identified as having been
created by the artist retains it's creators name regardless of what's been
done to it.
Ed S
is. But at $10,000 I think it would fly out the door. They have had
it for years so it doesn't seem to be priced to sell or they may be
waiting
for that special person. They may never come. It still is a great
piece IMO.
I wish they would quit refinshing these great cues and let the new
owners
decide what to if anything. Most people wouldn't refinsh a chippendale
unless
there are real problems. I don't think a few dings and dirt warrant
refinshing.
Since Balabuska didn't use a finish that would chip it could be
cleaned without
refinishing. Age and patina as I've said before give antiques appeal.
Why make
an old cue look new. You can get new cues anywhere.
EdS
"Deno J. Andrews" <denoa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<ZV0Nb.8308$3J2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
Andy Dingley
<mcki...@nowherenet.org> wrote:
>Yes, very good. It can be mentioned in the feckin' Domesday Book, but where
>is the evidence and confirmation to support this is the **actual** cue?
Who cares ? The "collectibles" market is a collective hallucination,
and an agreement to accept the same reference sources as being
unchallengable gospel. If everyone reads the same book, everyone falls
for the same story, true or false.
And after all, the only true value is what someone will pay for it.
Mike Wilcox
> On the contrary, the article clearly states that "A legal judgment directed
> the auction house to reimburse the buyer because, with 90 percent of the
> work repainted, it could no longer be considered to be by Schiele." That
> means that, and tell me how you see this as saying something else, it can no
> longer be considered to be by Schiele! You state that this means something
> else. What it doesn't say is that the money needed to be refunded because
> there was undisclosed work. What it does say is that it can no longer be
> considered to be by Schiele. So case in point, I do not think you are
> correct about what the journal article says.
I never read the journal article, so I can't very well comment on whole story.
But I do know from a lifetime in the business that items in a fine arts sale are
listed as:
"By John Henry Blow ( American 1843-1898)" if the creator's name is known by
provenance and research that the artist did indeed create that work.
-"Attributed to" If from examination the painting matchs the artists style and
production and period, but is unsigned.
- "In the school of " or " in the circle of " the artist, paintings with less
convincing proof of origin with some tenuous tie to the artist, possible painted
by a student of the artist.
-"After", paintings in the style of and subject matter of an specific artist,
but created by another artist
Now you are being ridiculous, as I have already stated they got busted for
misrepresentation, it never would have even got to court if it were listed as
having
been " heavily restored". Secondly condition reports are available from most
large auction houses from their specialists department as a service to all
interested buyers. The only way that Christies could have been nailed is if it
was not made clear in the condition report the extensive nature of the
repainting, even then it's a case of your experts versus their experts.
T-13
>Is this the real world now?
-----
No, I do not wish to own a collectable cue.
I thought about it later and I'd like to modify this point a bit,
"There are times when things are 'hot' and in those times you can sell the
cracked tea cup of a certain style. BUT the day comes when the market has become
saturated. Then one finds that the cracked cup is dead merchandise."
The market isn't static. It's not like a bucket. It's a fluid thing.
Fad and fashion have a lot to do with it. You can see this in the older
books on antiques collecting. Things that were once popularly collected
are no longer sought after, well, not with such fervor. The case in point,
pool cues, is a wonderfully apt example, if I have been reading all this
correctly: a movie, The Color of Money, put the fire underneath this market.
And one day this market will cool down.
T.
T-13
>>The Color of Money, put the fire underneath this market.
>>And one day this market will cool down.
>And what put the fire under Clarice Cliff?
>
> ... and what put the fire under Van Gogh and rest of Post-Impressionism?
>
>And I could go on ............. ad infinitum
>
>Fad and fashion will always be the driving force. It was the driving force
>centuries ago so why would it change, why would it be any different today in
>this fickle world?
>
>Just so long as we don't fool or delude ourselves.
----
Glad to see you agree about fad and fashion, R. But I wonder if there
are not many collectors out there who are not aware of it.
Consider the odious "Gone With The Wind Lamp".
I don't think they are selling like they used to.
T.
Mike Wilcox
> In rec.antiques T-13 <as...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
> >The Color of Money, put the fire underneath this market.
> >And one day this market will cool down.
> >
>
> And what put the fire under Clarice Cliff?
>
> ... and what put the fire under Van Gogh and rest of Post-Impressionism?
>
> And I could go on ............. ad infinitum
>
> Fad and fashion will always be the driving force. It was the driving force
> centuries ago so why would it change, why would it be any different today in
> this fickle world?
>
> Just so long as we don't fool or delude ourselves.
>
> --
> Ronnie
The best thing one can do is seize the opportunity and run with it ;~)) The
difference today is that the fads seem to rise and fade much faster, probably
due to the collective addiction to the media. On day one some oddball thing is
on the roadshow worth a ton, on day two there's 119 of them listed for sale on
#$&y, dragged out of wherever they've be hiding for yonks and the market softens
on day three ;~))
--
T-13
>>Consider the odious "Gone With The Wind Lamp".
>>I don't think they are selling like they used to.
>
>
--------
You think I'm joking? Google it up.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=gone+with+the+wind+lamp&btnG=Google+Search
Hmmm... could be that you guys outside the US have never heard of such
a thing. Well, that's to your benefit. ;) They are God-awful.
True, the analogy between the Gone With The Wind Lamp and the current
topic is not an exact one, but they are close enough to warrant a bit of
discussion in that in both instances movies influenced buying habits.
T.
T.
Deno J. Andrews
> Now you are being ridiculous, as I have already stated they got busted for
> misrepresentation,
Well, the article is from a credible legal journal, and your assessment as
to why they got busted is different than what was reported. If they indeed
get busted for the reason you state, why was it not reported as such? And
the part about it not going to court if...while I may agree, it is
speculation, and we are talking about something that did happen and was
reported as such, rather than talking about something that didn't happen.
Deno
Mike Wilcox
Yes, I remember the run on those as well ;~)). Another thing that's
in the dumper is old mason jars and chickencoop chairs.
Mike Wilcox
> In rec.antiques Mike Wilcox <appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >T-13 wrote:
> >
> >> >>Consider the odious "Gone With The Wind Lamp".
> >> >>I don't think they are selling like they used to.
>
> >Yes, I remember the run on those as well ;~)). Another thing that's in the dumper is old mason jars
> >and chickencoop chairs.
> >
>
> OK Mike I'll peck .... what the hell is a chickencoop chair?
>
> --
> Ronnie
They're a local variation on windsor chairs, the row of back spindles are similar in appearance to old
chicken coop windows that were barred with wooden dowels to kept the birds in and the fox out ;~))
here's a link to some images http://www.merrickvilleantiques.com/cgi-bin/pics.cgi
Joe Van
>In rec.antiques T-13 <as...@asdf.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd rather have one cue that was 100%, to use your
>>system, than have two cues that were 90%. I don't like things that
>>have been monkeyed-around-with
>
>
>Aren't you the lucky one.
>
>
>Is this the real world now?
Ronnie,
First I want to introduce myself as Joe Van Buren I handle the website
for classiccues.com and I have some of these cues that are in question.
Second, Mike seems to have the situation figured out from what I read.
Anyways, you need to seperate cues from paintings, art, vases, Tiffany lamps,
Philadelphia tables, etc.. Cues especially back then were made for a specific,
dynamic purpose. They are not static items. They take a beating, pool players
are not the most caring individuals, nor did anyone expect a 125 dollar cue to
be worth 10k. That being said, out take is very simple.
An all original 100% unplayed, original tips, shipping carton, Balabushka
business
card, etc.. would bring the most mon
www.pooltablemagic.net / www.classiccues.com
Joe Van
I am the "cue dealer" listed in this thread on the other group. I want to
clarify a few things as well as give my standings on the issue.
George Balabushka made cues, at the time arguably the best cues made. They are
to cue collectors, as the 1971 Hemi Cuda convertible is to mopar enthusiasts.
It is estimated in many publication that GB made between 1000-1200 cues. Of
those cues we can safely assume a loss of 10-20%. Why? At the time cues were
purchased to play pool with, they were left in the trunk of cars, busted at
times of anger, and so on. In the same thinking that they were meant to be
played with, at the time people routinely had work done on these cues.
Refinished, rewraps, new ferrules, and other work were commonplace.
It is believed that GB used oil finishes early in his career. After seeing an
all-original titlist blanked Balabushka made in the mid - late 60's I am
convinced if he did oil it was way before then. This cue clearly had a lacquer
type finish. Deno is trying to correlate the amount of work GB did to a cue in
terms of its value and amount of originality. It's absolutely not done this way
in our industry. Cue collecting and dealing has plenty of precedence to go by.
Bushka's cues, after originality / provenance issues, are valued by type of
blank he used, and the amount or style of decorative inlays the cue may have
Cues are relatively new to the whole collector movement. The industry has a
"Blue Book", the accuracy can be debated, but it is akin to the Blue Book of
guns by the same publisher. It is being revised for a March 2004 release.
Collecting and condition:
I do not think there is a collector out there that would argue an all original,
tip to bumper, cue wouldn't be the most desired cue to have. But because of the
dynamic use of a pool cue, these are the hardest cues to come by. It is also
extremely hard to determine, by a cuesmith, or even the most knowledgeable cue
collector / dealer, if a finish is original, or any other part for that matter.
I mean the industry even has provision and value for shipping container,
receipts, business cards, letterhead etc. This being said, 100% all original
cues bring the proper premium in excess of what a refinished / reworked cue
would bring. I mean you can use a 10-1 numerical grading scale, the mint,
excellent, very good, style of collecting scale. They are all priced on grade.
No different than anything the antique market does on a daily basis. There has
never been a cue, refinished or reworked in the industry that I know of that
was renamed at any time.
We represent cues to the best of our ability. We do not believe in hiding any
fact that we know during a sale. We list everything in its entirety on the
site.
So anyways, thanks for your time..
To Mike Wilcox.. you seem to be someone with some common sense.. good reads..
kudos to someone who actually understands the correlation between price and
condition.
Best regards,
Joseph F. Van Buren
ps: to be fair with Doug and so everyone gets a better idea...
http://www.classiccues.com/cues/cuescrypt.htm
There are cues that are also ORIGINAL and are priced accordingly...
T-13
-------------
Hi,
I was hoping you would address the issue of provenance.
If you get time, please do. It's an interesting subject.
Thanks,
T.
Deno J. Andrews
news:20040116165803...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> George Balabushka made cues, at the time arguably the best cues made.
Arguably by a small number of players, mostly on the east coast where
Balabushka worked. During the time, there was the rest of the world who
were not of this thought that Balabushka made the best cue. There were
other cue makers of the day that were producing quality cues as well, whose
cues today don't bring as much as Balabushkas...because they were not
mentioned as the holy grail in a major hollywood movie- The Color of Money.
> They are
> to cue collectors, as the 1971 Hemi Cuda convertible is to mopar
enthusiasts.
Funny. You have been trying to get people to disconnect cue collecting from
any other collecting...but then go on to compare Balabushka to a car.
> In the same thinking that they were meant to be
> played with, at the time people routinely had work done on these cues.
> Refinished, rewraps, new ferrules, and other work were commonplace.
Furthermore, there are so many cues that are older, played with longer, and
in better condition than some cues that aren't even ten years old. Cues
were played with, yes. But those cues that fall into bad conditions are
abused. Tips and ferrules were certainly changed with regularity as are
tires on a car. Getting a refinish is not a common repair unless you are in
the business of selling restored cues. Most cues on earth are never
refinished.
> It is believed that GB used oil finishes early in his career. After seeing
an
> all-original titlist blanked Balabushka made in the mid - late 60's I am
> convinced if he did oil it was way before then.
How do you know it wasn't refinished?
> This cue clearly had a lacquer
> type finish.
That could have been applied by any cue maker since Balabushka.
> Deno is trying to correlate the amount of work GB did to a cue in
> terms of its value and amount of originality.
Because if you take a full splice blank which was made by someone else,
measure the amount of work Balabushka did to the blank, erase that work, you
are left with a blank made by somone else, not a Balabushka. I know that is
not good for your sales.
> It's absolutely not done this way in our industry.
Not yet, because dealers who have these heavily restored cues in stock and
ready to sell do not want the buying public to be educated to the point they
may realize they are paying thousands more for a cue than they should. Hey,
if they have the money and don't care, fine. But if they think they are
buying something they are not, it is wrong to lead them to believing that a
heavily restored Balabushka where there is little evidence of his work is
really a Balabushka.
> Cue collecting and dealing has plenty of precedence to go by.
Unfortunately...
>> Bushka's cues, after originality / provenance issues, are valued by type
of
> blank he used, and the amount or style of decorative inlays the cue may
have
Inlays intrinsically make the cue more valuable because they were time
consuming...and even after a refinish, there is still evidence of
Balabushka's work on the cue in the form of the inalys. If he had made the
blanks too, then a refinish would be less a hit to the originality of the
cue because you couldn't deny the craftsmanship of the butt. But George
didn't make the blanks.
> There has never been a cue, refinished or reworked in the industry that I
know of that
> was renamed at any time.
Many of the early Schuler cues were renamed under his name because he had
the integrity to do so when he heavily restored cues. He also believed that
once a new cue maker did enough work to a cue that the cue became the new
maker's work. There is plenty of evidence of this if you choose to look for
it.
> To Mike Wilcox.. you seem to be someone with some common sense.. good
reads..
> kudos to someone who actually understands the correlation between price
and
> condition.
> ps: to be fair with Doug and so everyone gets a better idea...
> http://www.classiccues.com/cues/cuescrypt.htm
Always the advertiser...
Deno J. Andrews
Joe Van
>-------------
>Hi,
>I was hoping you would address the issue of provenance.
>If you get time, please do. It's an interesting subject.
>Thanks,
>T.<<
T,
I would love to talk provenance and the pool industry. But I will
warn you, unfortunately provenance is a very tough thing to do with cues
and pool items in general. There are a few types that are of major importance
in dealing with cues. Cues that are made for champion players, cues that
may have accompanying paperwork, and then letters written by the supposed
owners.
Cues that were made in that time period for champions, were sometimes
adorned with that persons name. My Joe Balsis, Paradise cue, we have Pete
Tascarella
cues that belonged to Steve Mizerak, and Larry Liscotti, we have quite a few
others.
But even with those you need, or it helps, to have some sort of photo or other
documentation
to further increase the value.
Lets take my Paradise for an example. It was a cue made for Joe Balsis, at the
time he
was a world champion. I was told by the previous owner he used it in tourneys.
I don't know
it for sure, but thats what this person said. So as a collectable, it is a
Paradise made for Joe Balsis, with some value. But if I had a photo of him
using the cue in a match it would add to the value. The reason for this is
these cuemakers sometimes made a few cues for the individuals. I have seen 2
other Paradises with the Balsis foil, I have seen 3 Palmers made for Balsis, I
know Irvin Crane had at least 2-3 Bushkas, many Palmers. They received them as
gifts, cues to try, if they didn't like them they sold them or gave them back.
But it doesn't mean they used them in competition.
Now fortunately Paradise marked his fancier works. Makes ID'ing a little less
hazardous.
Balabushka on the other hand, well he didn't sign or mark cues in any one way.
There
are alot of cuemakers and dealers/collectors that can ID a Bushka, but there
are alot
of good fakes. So now for a Bushka, we would almost always trust a cue that had
the blessing
of one of a few cuemakers that we trusted in id'ing said cue. A person may have
a sales
receipt describing the cue, the original box, etc.. this all helps in
determining provenance and
its value.
To further communicate the importance of a guarantee or letter of provenance.
If you took
the right Palmer, to a decent cuemaker you could have a very nice, very
accurate Bushka
copy made for less than 2k total and probably sell it to an ill informed buyer
for alot
more money than that.
Best regards,
Joe Van Buren
Joe Van
>As has already been pointed out an item made by "Palmer" or " Balabushka"
>will always be considered a Palmer or Balabushka regardless of how much work
is
>done on it. The only difference will be how it's described in a sales listing,
all
>modifications should be spelled out as Ronnie has suggested.<<
There is no way this can even be true. Deno has told all of us pool players
that you
antique fellows do not do this. On the contrary and my belief, this is the only
thing
that makes sense...
>With pool cues, to be considered in original condition this would likely be
the equivalent of replacing components that are meant to be replaced, such as
tips and maintaining the
>finish and grip.<<
Mike,
Cues that have been refinished are not 100% original, they are original but
not
100%. As you stated earlier the cue is always going to be a Bushka, outside of
a major, major reconstruction. In this industry an all original, tips, finish,
the works
would bring a lot more money than an equivelent refinished cue. There are
allowances
made for tips, thats about it.
Joe Van
My apologies, I wasn't picking on you AOL just grabbed your post first. :)
>Secondly from what I see/read on your website I don't have much of a problem
>with your side of it either.
I understand the market and my customers.. and their monetary levels of
comfort.
>However. Deno I think tries to toe the purist line way too much, which is not
>always easy in the antiques and collectible trade - that is, in the real
>world. <<
Funny.. We have been trying to explain this to him for weeks.. but to help you
guys
out.. he is a 3 cushion player and they think they are above all other billiard
disciplines.
We call it billiard elitism, and it is glaring with this guy.
>I think that is the best most of us can do - so long as the intentions are
good and
>honourable, and our passions are genuine :-)>>
Agreed...
mcat
<mcki...@nowherenet.org> wrote:
>However. Deno I think tries to toe the purist line way too much, which is not
>always easy in the antiques and collectible trade - that is, in the real
>world. We all try and fail in our owns ways to be the "purist" - I think
>that is the best most of us can do - so long as the intentions are good and
>honourable, and our passions are genuine :-)
>
>
>
>==
>Regards
>Ronnie
You know, sometimes I really like you, Ronnie.
mcat
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Mike Wilcox
What are you on about? I have already stated that in the best of all worlds a cue
in original condition is always going to be more sought after than a refinished
one, the only exception being one with an ironclad provenance to a famous player.
As far as original finishes go this issue has been discussed here many times and at
great length. It has alway been my contention that the term original finish on many
items is a marketing ploy and much abused. With the exception of true oriental
lacquer few finishes make it beyond fifty years without needing some sort of
restoration. Most pieces with oil finishes were routinely maintained with cleaning
and recoating, French polished (shellaced) pieces were often touched up yearly,
each new coat amalgamating with the previous one. As for nitro cellulose lacquers
one can spray a fresh coat over an old one very easily with no one being the wiser,
I know because I have been removing original finishes and putting them back on
since about 1963 ;~))
Deno J. Andrews
> Lets take my Paradise for an example. It was a cue made for Joe Balsis, at
the
> time he was a world champion. I was told by the previous owner he used it
in tourneys.
> I don't know it for sure, but thats what this person said. So as a
collectable, it is a
> Paradise made for Joe Balsis, with some value.
Provenance = Hearsay
So the previous owner was not Balsis obviously. Did the previous owner buy
it from Balsis? So without any paperwork, or a signed letter from Balsis
stating it was his cue, you are arguing that what the guy who SOLD it to you
told you is sufficient evidence of provenance to make the cue any more
collectible than if it were simply a Paradise? Granted, I think in the pool
world Hearsay is more of a source than in other collecting circles...but for
big dollar items the hearsay is sort of ignored.
> But if I had a photo of him
> using the cue in a match it would add to the value. The reason for this is
> these cuemakers sometimes made a few cues for the individuals.
I have also seen several cues that are the same...and if this is the case
Joe, how can you tell from a picture (mostly B&W in that era), that any one
cue is the one that you have in your collection? The chances of any
distinguishable marking on a cue that has been duplicated more than once is
a longshot. A photo of a cue in someone's hands from that far back can
hardly ever conclude anything. So many cues were made of the same blanks so
they looked basically the same. Many had brass or stainless joints which
are hard to distinguish in B&W photos. And only in the cases of the highly
decorated cues can they be differentiated with any accuracy. In the case of
Balabushkas, so many were plain that ten pictures of ten players all with
plain Bushkas wouldn't necessarily allow you to conclude that any one you
had in your hand was the same in the pic being held by any specific player.
> So now for a Bushka, we would almost always trust a cue that had
> the blessing of one of a few cuemakers that we trusted in id'ing said cue.
Do these cue makers ever make mistakes in IDing Balabushkas? What happens
if you purchase what you think or want to believe is a real Balabushka, have
it restored so that the original finish and wrap are replaced (some good
evidence of age and authenticity)...put it on the selling block and sell it
as a Balabushka...five years later it is found that the stainless steel
makeup used in the joint wasn't even formulated until after Balabushka's
death? Make it more interesting- let's say that the person who purchased it
from you sold it, and it eventually was sold again before the discovery.
Who is responsible for the fake? This is sort of an extreme case, but I
think it is relevant with regard to this debate about originals and
provenance. I mean, the end buyer is going to want his money back; the guy
who purchased it from you is going to want his money back; what are you
going to say to the cue maker who gave the cue his "blessing." Are you
saying in this post that some Balabushkas that have come through your
service were bought as Balabushkas only on the blessing of a contemporary
cue maker? Are you concerned in your business about potential liability if
a cue you sold as a Balabushka turned out to be a fake?
With regard to restoring and refinishing the cues- doesn't stripping and
refinishing cues erase a good amount of evidence of age? Do any of the
Balabushkas you have for sale now have any provenance, or were they cues
that were IDd as Balabushkas by contemporary cue makers? And would it be
easier to ID a Balabushka in all original condition, or a completely
restored Balabushka?
Deno J. Andrews
Joe Van
>What are you on about? I have already stated that in the best of all worlds a
>cue in original condition is always going to be more sought after than a
>refinished one, the only exception being one with an ironclad provenance to a
famous
>player.<<
I think I might have misread the original statement. I was just trying to
convey
that tips are allowed to be replaced, and hence will not always defer from 100%
originality.. sorry for any confusion..
>As far as original finishes go this issue has been discussed here many times
>and at great length. It has alway been my contention that the term original
finish
>on many items is a marketing ploy and much abused. <<
I agree wholeheartedly with your entire statement on finishing. You will
get no gruff from me here..
Joe
Joe Van
>Provenance = Hearsay
>So the previous owner was not Balsis obviously. Did the previous owner buy
>it from Balsis?
I list on the site where the cue came from. It came through the son of his
best man. I don't have any reason to doubt the son or the father since I
have spoken to them both. I felt no reason to have the father or son write
a letter. Its clear to me where the cue came from.
>I have also seen several cues that are the same...and if this is the case
>Joe, how can you tell from a picture (mostly B&W in that era), that any one
>cue is the one that you have in your collection? <<
Recently this was done for other cues that came out of the Balsis
estate. The Balabushka was purchased by a collector that like yourself,
only buys all original pieces. This cue was not only that, but had b/w photos
and magazine articles that clearly showed the cue. As long as you have a clear
photo, I do not see a problem. Are there bad photos, I would think but there
are
also many good ones.
>Do these cue makers ever make mistakes in IDing Balabushkas?<<
These as in the ones we use? Not that we know of. We mostly rely on the
guy closest to Balabushka to do the id'ing.
>what are you going to say to the cue maker who gave the cue his "blessing."<<
We would refund the money, try and get our money back and never use the
cuemaker
again. Could this happen, I am sure it could.
>Are you saying in this post that some Balabushkas that have come through your
>service were bought as Balabushkas only on the blessing of a contemporary
>cue maker?<<
No, we use them as reference. In some cases 2-3 cuemakers may see the cue.
Depends on the cue, and if we cannot make the distinction.
>Are you concerned in your business about potential liability if
>a cue you sold as a Balabushka turned out to be a fake?<<
If we sold a fake we would immediately return the money. But if you
had 2-3 cuemakers that know more about GB's cues than anyone else
and they said yes.. who is qualified to do the disputing?
>Do any of the Balabushkas you have for sale now have any provenance,<<
Depends on your definition of provenance.. if we had any paperwork from GB or
original owners than it would go with the cue. But with Bushkas we pay a fee
to someone who guarantees his appraisals of Bushkas 100%. In most cases
we do this on Bushkas that we sell.
>And would it be easier to ID a Balabushka in all original condition, or a
completely
>restored Balabushka?<<
I feel I could ID either case, fairly accurately. Would a beat to hell cue that
looks 30
years old be easier to ID than a newer looking cue? Sure, but what stops a new
cuemaker
from making a fake and artificially adding age?
Joe
Joe Van
>Funny. You have been trying to get people to disconnect cue collecting from
>any other collecting...but then go on to compare Balabushka to a car.<<
This is not true at all.. I have been trying to get people to realize static vs
dynamic. And the fact you cannot have a dynamic article that doesn't suffer
wear and tear more quickly than a static piece.
>Furthermore, there are so many cues that are older, played with longer, and
>in better condition than some cues that aren't even ten years old.<<
This maybe the case but its few and far between with the older collectable
cues.
>Most cues on earth are never refinished.<<
This is a rediculous statement. Anyone here can go to
www.proficientbilliards.com
and see his workload and know that most cuemakers have equivilent refinish
workloads.
>How do you know it wasn't refinished?<<
Its very obvious and why don't you ask D. White from the group
yourself. Its his cue and it wasn't refinished.
>Not yet, because dealers who have these heavily restored cues in stock and
>ready to sell do not want the buying public to be educated to the point they
>may realize they are paying thousands more for a cue than they should. <<
Look small fry.. you came into this forum and tried to sell your infantile and
bogus
beliefs on people who do this for a living and a hobby. They are telling you
that YOU
are WRONG. You are still WRONG.
>But George didn't make the blanks.<<
So what...
>There is plenty of evidence of this if you choose to look for it.<<
Hey I have asked you for plenty of proof and you have YET to come up
with anything to the contrary. Good luck...
Joe
T-13
>You know, sometimes I really like you, Ronnie.
>
>mcat
---
T.
Deno J. Andrews
> This is a rediculous statement. Anyone here can go to
> www.proficientbilliards.com
> and see his workload and know that most cuemakers have equivilent refinish
> workloads.
And if you were to compare the amount of cues refinished to the total amount
of cues, the refinished group wouldn't make up 1%.
> Look small fry.. you came into this forum and tried to sell your infantile
and
> bogus beliefs on people who do this for a living and a hobby. They are
telling you
> that YOU are WRONG. You are still WRONG.
You will all notice something about Joe. When he fails to cite any credible
sources or runs out of sales pitches, he resorts to calling shorter people
derogatory names. As you can tell, he is a real stand up business
person...someone only people over 5'8" should deal with. Because those of
us at 5'7" and below are "midgets, small fry," and other names. Wonder how
he feels about ethnicities and race?
> >But George didn't make the blanks.<<
> So what...
It's amusing what an ignorant statement this is. So what? If GB didn't
make the blank, and you erase all of his work down to the blank...there is
no way on earth you legitimately have a GB cue. Calling it such is a fraud.
There is legal precedence from the art world that I cited for you from a
credible legal journal that you brushed off as nonsense. To refresh your
memory, a court ruled that a painting that had serious restoration work
could no longer be considered by that artist...and Christies (maybe you have
heard of them) had to refund serious $$$ because they sold the piece under
the name of the artist who was no longer considered to be the author of the
piece because enough of his work had been destroyed. The painting was
painted over...just like your Balabushka cues that are restored to the point
there is very little evidence of GBs work.
> Hey I have asked you for plenty of proof and you have YET to come up
> with anything to the contrary. Good luck...
And I gave you an example from the cue world. Schuler took some Rambows
that were in disrepair and brought them back to glory. Not once did he ever
call them Rambow cues because they were not. At that point, Schuler has a
bulk of the work into the cues, and they were named accordingly as Schuler
cues. I had several discussions with him in the late 80s on the topic...and
he was a cue maker with the integrity to call a spade a spade. Those cues
today aren't worth as much as they would have been had he fraudulently
called them Rambows and simply said they were restored. But Ray had
integrity and knew at which point a cue should no longer be called by its
former name.
Deno J. Andrews
Joe Van
> 3 cushion player?? Don't know what you're on about. What has this got to do
>with the discussion?
>
>I wasn't being derogatory to Deno.
Ronnie,
In pool / billiards we have a few different disciplines..
Billiards, the game with no pockets. There are a variety of games, 1 cusion,
3 cushion etc.. Billiard players think they are above everyone in the world,
let alone pool. In general they think they are the tuxedo set. Hence "towing
the purist line way too much"...
Pocket billiards, like what you have seen in the Hustler and the Color
of Money, its what on the TV. Is its own genre, and people are a little
less uptight. But frowned upon by the billiard elitists.
Then there is artistic pool, snooker, pyramid etc.. other areas of the
industry.
Everything but bumper pool.. :)
I was just trying to give you some background.
Deno J. Andrews
> In pool / billiards we have a few different disciplines..
> Billiards, the game with no pockets. There are a variety of games, 1
cusion,
> 3 cushion etc.. Billiard players think they are above everyone in the
world,
> let alone pool. In general they think they are the tuxedo set. Hence
"towing
> the purist line way too much"...
I know, it's so sad that us billiard players aren't in the business of
defacing billiard antiques and restoring them so that important traces of
authenticity are gone forever, like so many others in the industry. It is
already difficult to ID a GB that is original, and not an exact science.
Now imagine it is completely restored. My guess is that this practice will
virtually quadruple the number of "Balabushkas" in existence by making it
difficult to distinguish age, origin, and if it is the work of another cue
maker. I am sorry that there are people in the world, Joe, that don't
degenerate things because they see other people doing it. But ultimately I
find it sad that a dealer who wants to be trusted is out here making fun of
people who tow the purist line too much. I mean, you pretty much just said
that you aren't interested in the purist collector. But then again, we
aren't interested in former, possible, maybe, "Balabushkas" that can no
longer be indentified for age because much of the evidence is gone forever.
Deno
Deno J. Andrews
> In the appraisal and valuations of these snooker/billiard related items
I've
> always applied the same principles as I would apply with any other antique
> (furniture) related item. But not being a snooker/billiard specialist, at
the
> end of the day, I duck, dive and wing it as best I can. I meet purist
> everyday of the week (in all manner of thing) and for the most part I
admire
> them for their purist principles.
In the american pool scene, the purists are seen as suckers because they
actually think for themselves rather than simply doing what they see others
doing. I like being a purist. I like knowing that the lines of
originality, authenticity, and historical preservation are not blurred by my
actions with billiard antiques. I collect to collect. Joe is a dealer who
is in business to make a profit however he can. To him, restoring a
Balabushka for $500 that will maybe add $2000 to a buyer who doesn't know
any better is a good move. To me, I see that $500 being spent to erase a
large percentage of what made the cue collectible in the first place, as
well as that money aiding in the destruction of historical evidence thus
making cues over time harder and harder to authenticate. These are the
problems when people have collections for different reasons. From a
business perspective, Joe is probably making the right decision. But there
have been plenty of businesses who dump toxic waste into rivers because it
was the right business decision. Just because it makes a profit does not
mean it is the right thing to do. I don't see many dealers at all taking
much responsibility to preserve the originality of these pieces. It is sad
from the purist perspective...to sell out for a buck.
Anyway, I am happy to see that someone understands the purist mentality.
You are obviously not a subscriber to the american business mentality of
profit at any cost...
Deno J. Andrews
Smorgass Bored
A price on priceless
A monthly antique appraisal at the University of Tampa helps people
separate trash from treasure.
By JANET ZINK, Times Staff Writer
Published January 18, 2004
TAMPA - With their treasures protected by towels, bundled in bubble
wrap and covered with paper, they came wondering.
What's it worth? When was it made? Is the family legend true?
They were all participants Saturday in the most recent Antique
Evaluation, hosted each month in the University of Tampa's Plant Hall,
adjacent to the Henry B. Plant Museum.
Some went away disappointed.
Jeff Crawford came from Tarpon Springs with two small creamers that,
according to family members, had been used in the White House.
Not true, appraiser Ashby Moody assured them. More likely, they came
from a hotel.
On the other hand, appraiser Jay Hunter Loiselle cooed over a Windsor
chair owned by Tori Johnston of Brandon.
"The form is terrific," he said.
Johnston's grandparents were antique collectors who bought the chair in
the 1920s. It had been passed on to Johnston, and she wanted to know how
much it might be worth.
"I'd hate to keep it for 20 years and then find out it's kindling," she
said.
Her Internet searches revealed that similar chairs were selling for more
than $30,000. Perhaps she was sitting on something just as valuable.
Loiselle examined the chair's legs, ran a finger over its back, turned
it over and looked closely at the bottom of the seat.
"It's a very fine chair," he said.
The splayed legs, uneven number of spindles and well-defined turnings
all indicated it was an original Windsor dating from the mid 1700s. A
repair that looked like it was made in the 1840s knocked a bit off the
chair's worth.
But the paint was the main problem. The characteristic green paint,
where 95 percent of a Windsor chair's value lies, was not original.
His final evaluation: about $1,500. Had the paint been original, he
said, it might have been worth $15,000.
© Copyright 2002-2004 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved.
Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~
Ed S
chair? Does this mean we are supposed to refinish or not refinish.
EdS
Smorga...@webtv.net (Smorgass Bored) wrote in message news:<11484-40...@storefull-3256.bay.webtv.net>...
Mike Wilcox
These original finish stories are such a load of bollix, unless they actually test the paint in a lab there is no way
anyone can say the paint is anything but "old".. Even then all the testing will tell you is the paint's chemical make
up matches that of other period chairs and not that it's the first paint that ever hit the wood ;~)). They really
should go back to the term " Wonderful patina" or "Nice old Finish" , which is certainly far more truthful.
We have been doing repaints on furniture* for over 40 years using paint recipes dating from the late 18th Century, it
would be fun to see what these experts would say about windsors we repainted back in 1960 ;~))
* These pieces had old finishes beyond repair.
Andy Dingley
<appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>We have been doing repaints on furniture* for over 40 years using paint recipes dating from the late 18th Century, it
>would be fun to see what these experts would say about windsors we repainted back in 1960 ;~))
IR spectroscopy will tell them apart pretty easily. I'm assuming that
your paint had a linseed oil binder, and the age of that is estimable
to the rough magnitude.
What did you use as a drier / siccative for it ? Just the metal used
for this (often identifiable with a microscope alone) will date it
roughly to pre- or post- war. Old oils were nearly all dried with
lead, or sometimes with manganese. Anything recent will be cobalt
based, unless it's deliberate reproduction.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
Mike Wilcox
I don't see the Keno Brothers with one of those hanging out of their pockets when they make these pronouncements of
original finishes ;~)) As I said, our paint recipes predated 1800, so no modern oils, dryers or pigments would have been
used. In many cases the pigments such as the lead white, red lead, and some ochre's, acted as their own drying catalysts,
to my knowledge none of the modern dryers were used.
The point is they are making statements regarding the finish that are not possible to verify by simply looking at it and I
doubt any tests are even being completed except on extremely valuable pieces. The US Roadshow are far more guilty in this
regard than the UK Roadshow . On the UK show John Bly and the boys are much more careful about this topic and usually
refer to an old finish as "A great old finish, lovingly maintained" or "just look at the Patina of this piece, see how
the mahogany has faded almost to a yellow", which is as it should be.
In my humble opinion the term "original finish" should not be used*, since finishing methods such as French polish
remained relatively unchanged for considerable periods of time. There is no way anyone can guarantee such a piece made in
1785 was not " taken down" and redone in 1795, 1810 or even 1840.
* Unless you have an ironclad provenance indicating the piece has been in a locked box since new ;~)
lurker@nospam.com Texas Lurker
> >
>
> >> IR spectroscopy will tell them apart pretty easily.
>
pockets
>
>
>
> Ronnie
Are you calling Andy an Eskimo? Or, just a heavy coat?
--
Texas Lurker !
Bob Hay
correct e-mail
fork...@yahoo.com
Andy Dingley
<appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> As I said, our paint recipes predated 1800, so no modern oils, dryers or pigments would have been used.
There are "modern" oils, but the "ancient" oils haven't disappeared.
We've all got our reprinted copies of Dossie or Stalker & Parker and
these recipes aren't hard to recreate. It's characteristic though that
these finishes aren't long-term stable and their age is pretty obvious
to inspection with simple instruments.
> In many cases the pigments such as the lead white, red lead, and some ochre's, acted as their own drying catalysts,
Umbers, rather than ochres. You need the manganese, not just the iron.
Umbers and Siennas are quite distinctive by region. You can learn a
lot about renaissance Italian work from the type that was used, and
they're not that hard to identify either.
>The point is they are making statements regarding the finish that are not possible to verify by simply looking at it
Even I can spot the colour of a real lead-dried oil finish. Stick it
under a microscope and I can tell you if it was lead, umber or both.
There are easy tests possible that accurately tell you things about
the finish. They don't tell you everything you might want, but some
things they can tell you, with relatively little effort. You need an
organic chemist with an interest in such things, and a very big
anorak.
Show me a piece of 17th century walnut and if the "little ice age" is
visible in the rings, it's the easiest piece of dendochronology you'll
ever see. It doesn't rule out 20th century timber, but it does prove
some 17th century to be truly old.
>In my humble opinion the term "original finish" should not be used*, since finishing methods such as French polish
>remained relatively unchanged for considerable periods of time. There is no way anyone can guarantee such a piece made in
>1785 was not " taken down" and redone in 1795, 1810 or even 1840.
This is hard for french polish, as shellac is pretty stable. But
dissolve a tiny chip of the finish and HPLC will spot any pyridine in
there (someone re-finished it post-war and used "meths" rather than
"spirits of wine").
Look at an oil finish though and the gross aging of it (which is easy
enough to study) dates it to a century or two, wth some adjustment for
display conditions, light & heat.
20th century lacquers are even easier. You can get a good idea of the
decade from the crudest chemistry of it (and we're back with IR
spectroscopy). It was a busy decade for finish chemistry, and fashions
changed frequently.
--
Socialism: Eric, not Tony
Mike Wilcox
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:21:35 -0500, Mike Wilcox
> <appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > As I said, our paint recipes predated 1800, so no modern oils, dryers or pigments would have been used.
>
> There are "modern" oils, but the "ancient" oils haven't disappeared.
> We've all got our reprinted copies of Dossie or Stalker & Parker and
> these recipes aren't hard to recreate. It's characteristic though that
> these finishes aren't long-term stable and their age is pretty obvious
> to inspection with simple instruments.
I don't disagree with much of what you say, it is possible to determine a finish has some age to it by just looking at it. Old
spirit, oil and paint finishes all develop certain characteristics over time that indicate a finish is old, but that's as far
as it goes by just giving it the hairy eyeball.
>
>
> > In many cases the pigments such as the lead white, red lead, and some ochre's, acted as their own drying catalysts,
>
> Umbers, rather than ochres. You need the manganese, not just the iron.
> Umbers and Siennas are quite distinctive by region. You can learn a
> lot about renaissance Italian work from the type that was used, and
> they're not that hard to identify either.
After several hundred years of oxidation, UV and dirt without lab testing? Bollix. Experts are fooled all the time Andy, the
museums of the world by their own admission are full of fakes. It is possible to determine areas of the world where pigments
were mined, but that's no guarantee that that pigment was always used by tradesmen in that area. In a great many cases
pigments were mixed with whatever was available.
>
>
> >The point is they are making statements regarding the finish that are not possible to verify by simply looking at it
>
> Even I can spot the colour of a real lead-dried oil finish. Stick it
> under a microscope and I can tell you if it was lead, umber or both.
> There are easy tests possible that accurately tell you things about
> the finish. They don't tell you everything you might want, but some
> things they can tell you, with relatively little effort. You need an
> organic chemist with an interest in such things, and a very big
> anorak.
>
> Show me a piece of 17th century walnut and if the "little ice age" is
> visible in the rings, it's the easiest piece of dendochronology you'll
> ever see. It doesn't rule out 20th century timber, but it does prove
> some 17th century to be truly old.
Other than 17th Century buildings I've been in ( Pubs) the only other 17th Century timber ( Furniture) I've seen in the last
30 years were in museums ;~)) There's a lot of other things I'd be looking for rather than annular rings and finish when
dating a piece.
>
>
> >In my humble opinion the term "original finish" should not be used*, since finishing methods such as French polish
> >remained relatively unchanged for considerable periods of time. There is no way anyone can guarantee such a piece made in
> >1785 was not " taken down" and redone in 1795, 1810 or even 1840.
>
> This is hard for french polish, as shellac is pretty stable. But
> dissolve a tiny chip of the finish and HPLC will spot any pyridine in
> there (someone re-finished it post-war and used "meths" rather than
> "spirits of wine").
Again, the test in this case will not help you if the the 1795 piece was refinished earlier in it's lifetime, predating more
modern chemical elements.
>
>
> Look at an oil finish though and the gross aging of it (which is easy
> enough to study) dates it to a century or two, wth some adjustment for
> display conditions, light & heat.
This isn't much of an accomplishment when dealing with items for the most part less than 150 years old ;~)))
>
>
> 20th century lacquers are even easier. You can get a good idea of the
> decade from the crudest chemistry of it (and we're back with IR
> spectroscopy). It was a busy decade for finish chemistry, and fashions
> changed frequently.
>
> --
> Socialism: Eric, not Tony
Andy Dingley
<appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> > In many cases the pigments such as the lead white, red lead, and some ochre's, acted as their own drying catalysts,
>>
>> Umbers, rather than ochres. You need the manganese, not just the iron.
>> Umbers and Siennas are quite distinctive by region. You can learn a
>> lot about renaissance Italian work from the type that was used, and
>> they're not that hard to identify either.
>
>After several hundred years of oxidation, UV and dirt without lab testing? Bollix.
What's "lab testing" ? I'm talking about a moderately powerful bench
microscope, nothing more. It doesn't even need to be a sample prepared
as a transmission slide, if it's small enough to go on the stage.
This is a volume characteristic (shape of the particles), not the
surface, and they're highly stable inorganics that really aren't going
to shift. It's like looking at explosive taggants.
Suppose you're looking at a renaissance wedding cassone, supposedly
given from one known family to another as part of a big dynastic
hitching with good historical records. Does it fit with the local
umbers, or does it look like those mined from 200 miles away ? If it's
a "foreigner", then how so ? Maybe you're looking at someone else's
wedding trousseau.
> Experts are fooled all the time
Sure, each piece of information only adds one tiny fragment to your
knowledge. But it adds up, and sometimes that one fact can disprove
another hypothesis.
There's also a huge gap between a half-decent museum curator (or even
the obsessional anorak who has studied every one of Cellini's bronzes
and can't tie their own shoelaces) and the Antiques Roadshow cheekie
chappies.
>In a great many cases pigments were mixed with whatever was available.
Pigments, yes - because good pigments are hard to find. I live near a
still-working ochre mine (Clearwell caves) that has been known since
Roman times as a source for purple and black ochres. Now anyone can
find the red stuff or make the black, but purple is rare. There's
another Roman site near to me where lapis lazuli was found that's
probably Afghan.
Oil driers in Tuscany though, just dig in any nearby hillside. They
all work pretty well, but you can tell them apart afterwards.
>There's a lot of other things I'd be looking for rather than annular rings and finish when
>dating a piece.
Are we dating a piece though, or looking for repairs on it ?
>This isn't much of an accomplishment when dealing with items for the most part less than 150 years old ;~)))
If you're asking "is it refinished ?", then the chances are that it
was done last week, just to flog it.
The problem with aging of oil finishes is that teh rate is highly
variable, depending on condition. If it's 100-200 years old, then you
should be able to estimate within a few decades, if you have nearby
comparison pieces. Of course you need somewhere like Tyntesfield for
this, where the whole house was built and furnished almost as one,
then remained almost entirely unchanged since.
--
Inbreeding - nature's way of always giving you enough fingers to count your cousins
Mike Wilcox
I think you are missing the point here, which is people are making judgements about a pieces finish without testing them in
any way. Anyone who has been in the trade for any length of time knows that the structure of a finish can be tested for it's
chemical make up in a number of ways both simple and complex, but there is no way to prove a finish is the original by just
looking at it, that went out with that old crook Bernard Berenson ;~))
Andy Dingley
<appra...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I think you are missing the point here, which is people are making judgements about a pieces finish without testing them in
>any way.
That's rather my point. People don't test, but they could do. There
are a range of tests that are useful (albeit fragmentary) and don;t
require huge instruments or high costs.
Andy Dingley
<mcki...@nowherenet.org> wrote:
>Which people are these, Andy? Dealers and collectors in the real world
>or the armchair geeks?
You try selling me a stick for $10,000 and I'm going to get very
interested in what the finish is.
Besides which, some of those armchair geeks are collectors too. Nearly
everything I know about finishing chemistry I learned from a few
industrial chemists who collect, restore or reproduce old firearms.
Now if you think _I'm_ an anorak, you should see these people.