Dilemna: Hustling, Balabushka

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/6/97

to

>>From: wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu (John Walkup)
>>Date: 6 Aug 97 02:12:47 GMT
>>Message-ID: <walkup.870833567@dimension>

>I'm not defending nor attacking Mr. Helmstetter here, but I do believe
>Mrs. Balabushka does receive something for this usage of the family name,
>and that cannot be all bad.

So let me get this straight. It is okay for Helmstetter to lie to us,
as long as he pays off Mrs. Balabushka. ????

I personally don't care if Helmstetter is chairman of the March of
Dimes. It's still wrong.

John

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/6/97

to

alig8...@aol.com (Alig8orMan) writes:

>>I sell new cues in my spare time. During the time I prepared
>>to sell cues I spent a long time looking for a reputable
>>cue supplier. I called Sherm Adamson, but I needed cues
>>faster than he could supply them. (I love my Sherm Cue, and I think
>>he makes a great stick. Best linen wrap I have seen so far.)
>>I finally settled on Schuler, but one cue I was determined not
>>to sell was the new Balabushkas. Why? Because my customers
>>may think that they are the originals, and I would be misleading
>>them by not informing them beforehand. The fact that David
>>Helmstetter hands out "Certificates of Authenticity" only makes
>>matters worse. Authentic what? Authentic copy?
>>At any rate, only a scumbag would sell a cue to a customer if he
>>knew that the customer was mistaken about its origin. (You listening,
>>Helmstetter? I would be interested to hear how the Internet Cue Store
>>handles this situation.) BTW, you heard me right. SCUM BAG.
>>And I will not sell Helmstetters nor Adams either.

> John,
> Authnetic replication is exactly what I believe the certificate

Authentic replication???? What the Hell is that? That has to be
one of the grossest contradictions I have ever encountered.

>specifies. Also Mrs. Balabushka has licensed the name to Adams /
>Helmstetter. From what I have seen and from what I have gathered from
>talking to people who sell them, is that they are NOT saying they are
>authentic, but are saying they are copies. The big misrepresentation I

And they need a certificate of authenticity to tell us they are copies?

C'mon, the deceipt is OBVIOUS.

John

Ron Shepard

unread,

Aug 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/6/97

to

In article <walkup.870833567@dimension>, wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu
(John Walkup) wrote:

>[...] The fact that David

>Helmstetter hands out "Certificates of Authenticity" only makes
>matters worse. Authentic what? Authentic copy?

I believe they are authorized copies, authorized by his estate (his wife
specifically). There is no intent to deceive. In fact, if you are a true
believer in someone's vision, then this kind of licensing arrangement is a
good and legitimate way to honor someone and support his family after
death.

>[...] (Although I still stand
>by my assertion that inaction and action are not synonyms.)

I haven't gotten into this debate before, but since I've responded to this
thread I might as well state my opinion. I do not think there is any
moral distinction at all between action and inaction. They are not
synonyms, they are simply irrelevant to a moral distinction. There are
many situations in which "action" or "inaction" are simply different
points of view of the same situation.

For example, say someone is driving a car, he runs a stoplight, and hits a
pedestrian. A person standing on the side of the road could say that the
driver performed an "action", driving his car through the intersection,
that ultimately caused the accident. But the driver could say that he
simply did nothing for a few moments, neither speeding up nor slowing
down, neither pushing harder on the gas pedal nor stepping on the brake,
and it was the pedestrian's fault for performing the action of stepping
into the way of an already moving, much heavier, vehicle; in order to
avoid an accident, an action would have been required of the driver,
namely stepping on the brake pedal. In this situation, inaction from the
driver's point of view does not switch the guilt to the pedestrian. In
such a situation, an action is required, and even expected, by the
driver. But if the light was green, then an action, namely yielding the
right of way, would have been required, and expected, of the pedestrian.
So it is the color of the light that determines fault, and action/inaction
in itself is at best dependent on this, or at worst an irrelevant detail.

In a less legalistic situation, say two physicists define two frames of
reference that are moving with respect to each other. In each of the two
frames, all known physical laws are the same, and as we learned from
Einstein at the beginning of this century which is now almost over, even
the speed of light as measured in these two frames is the same. But the
speed of other objects will be different when measured by observers in
these two frames. And even the order of occurrence of events that are
observed in these two frames will be (or at least _can_ be) different. So
which observer is correct? They both are. Which observer is "stationary"
(inaction) and which is "moving" (action)? The question is meaningless.
If a question is meaningless according to the laws of physics that govern
the universe, then it is difficult to justify a moral distinction between
the different possible answers to such a question.

So, uhhhh, what is the proper Lorentz invariant description of a hustler? ;-)

$.02 -Ron Shepard

Aaron Berg

unread,

Aug 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/6/97

to

John Walkup wrote:

> I found a flaw in my argumentation. It goes like this:

>
> I sell new cues in my spare time. During the time I prepared
> to sell cues I spent a long time looking for a reputable
> cue supplier. I called Sherm Adamson, but I needed cues
> faster than he could supply them. (I love my Sherm Cue, and I think
> he makes a great stick. Best linen wrap I have seen so far.)
> I finally settled on Schuler, but one cue I was determined not
> to sell was the new Balabushkas. Why? Because my customers
> may think that they are the originals, and I would be misleading

> them by not informing them beforehand. The fact that David

> Helmstetter hands out "Certificates of Authenticity" only makes
> matters worse. Authentic what? Authentic copy?

> At any rate, only a scumbag would sell a cue to a customer if he
> knew that the customer was mistaken about its origin. (You listening,
>
> Helmstetter? I would be interested to hear how the Internet Cue Store
>
> handles this situation.) BTW, you heard me right. SCUM BAG.
> And I will not sell Helmstetters nor Adams either.
>

> Now, for those who have been following the hustling debate, I stated
> that it was okay to NOT tell another player that you can actually
> beat him, if you knew he thought otherwise. The two situations
> are somewhat, if not completely, analogous. (Although I still stand

> by my assertion that inaction and action are not synonyms.)
>

> Hmmmmmm. I am going to have to sleep on this one. Any thoughts?
> I have to admit, I may have to reevaluate my position on this one.
> Ouch!
>
> John

The copied Bushkas have been around for years, why raise a stink
about it now. Only an Idiot would walk into an establishment and go "Oh
My God, I can't believe my local pool hall has 20 Balabushkas for
sale!". Besides, they must have the real manufacturer located somewhere
on the cue.

Aaron

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97

to

>
>Authentic replication???? What the Hell is that? That has to be
>one of the grossest contradictions I have ever encountered.
>
>>specifies. Also Mrs. Balabushka has licensed the name to Adams /
>>Helmstetter. From what I have seen and from what I have gathered from
>>talking to people who sell them, is that they are NOT saying they are
>>authentic, but are saying they are copies. The big misrepresentation I
>
>And they need a certificate of authenticity to tell us they are copies?
>
>C'mon, the deceipt is OBVIOUS.
>
>John
>
>
>

It is a feel good thing for those who really don't have a clue what a real
bushka
is, or ever will be in their hands. . . I still don't see the harm.

Kind of like a "Kit Car".... looks like a Lambo, but it's not. . . get it?

Regards,
Mark Kulaga
---
Webmaster: http://www.snookerusa.com
---
"I'm my wife's husband.", spin off of Dr. Laura's "I'm my kids mom" quote.
"No matter where you go, there you are" - not sure... Deepak Chopra?

Laura Friedman

unread,

Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97

to

John Walkup <wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu> wrote in article
<walkup.870987186@dimension>...
>
> I see I am making more enemies by the minute. Okay, okay, okay ... I'll
> lay off David Helmstetter. :)
>
> John
>
John, I completely agree with you (for whatever small consolation that's
worth).

Laura

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97

to

"Laura Friedman" <lfri...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>John Walkup <wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu> wrote in article
><walkup.870987186@dimension>...
>>
>> I see I am making more enemies by the minute. Okay, okay, okay ... I'll
>> lay off David Helmstetter. :)
>>

>John, I completely agree with you (for whatever small consolation that's
>worth).

All right! I am back on the case!

I'll give Helmstetter the benefit of the doubt, but I do have a few questions.

1. I looked up a picture of a Balabushka, and there was no Adams
insignia anywhere on it. Is the manufacturer indicated anywhere on
the cue?

2. If you (meaning, the average cue buyer) did not have an in-depth
knowledge of cue history and saw a Balabushka on a rack, would a
Certificate of Authenticity not lead you to believe that this cue was
the real thing? (Keep in mind that a Adam's Bushka can approach
$800.)

3. Why the signature, if George didn't make the cue and had no involvement
in it whatsoever? In other words, if the signature looks like a real
signature, and not a decal, could this not fool someone?

To me, the whole thing smells funny. George dies, and a cuemaker buys the rights
to his name from his estate. Then he puts out a line of cues called
Balabushka's, with no insignia (I am assuming) to tell anyone who actually
makes the cue. (Notice that the cues are not called The Balabushka Line of
Adams Cues. They are called Balabushkas, as if it is a separate cue
manufacturer.) Then he puts on a decal that makes it look (to me, at least)
as if George signed it. (What other purpose does the signature have?)
Then he gives out Certificates of Authenticity for each cue, even though
the cue is clearly a reproduction, not authentic.

Am I, besides Laura, the only who sees something fishy about this?
Come to think of it, I am not giving Helmstetter much benefit of the doubt
after all.

John

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97

to

snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:

>>
>>Authentic replication???? What the Hell is that? That has to be
>>one of the grossest contradictions I have ever encountered.
>>
>>>specifies. Also Mrs. Balabushka has licensed the name to Adams /
>>>Helmstetter. From what I have seen and from what I have gathered from
>>>talking to people who sell them, is that they are NOT saying they are
>>>authentic, but are saying they are copies. The big misrepresentation I
>>
>>And they need a certificate of authenticity to tell us they are copies?
>>
>>C'mon, the deceipt is OBVIOUS.

>It is a feel good thing for those who really don't have a clue what a real
>bushka
>is, or ever will be in their hands. . . I still don't see the harm.

>Kind of like a "Kit Car".... looks like a Lambo, but it's not. . . get it?

Look up the kit car advertisements. They do not advertise them as
Lamborghinis.

If they did, you wouldn't see a problem with that?

John

Henry K. Miller

unread,

Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97

to

SnookerUSA <snook...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970807021...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...

> >
> >Authentic replication???? What the Hell is that? That has to be
> >one of the grossest contradictions I have ever encountered.
> >
> >>specifies. Also Mrs. Balabushka has licensed the name to Adams /
> >>Helmstetter. From what I have seen and from what I have gathered from
> >>talking to people who sell them, is that they are NOT saying they are
> >>authentic, but are saying they are copies. The big misrepresentation I
> >
> >And they need a certificate of authenticity to tell us they are copies?
> >
> >C'mon, the deceipt is OBVIOUS.
> >

> >John

> >
> >
> >
>
>
> It is a feel good thing for those who really don't have a clue what a
real
> bushka
> is, or ever will be in their hands. . . I still don't see the harm.
>

The harm, Mark, comes from the naive, ill-informed newcomer to cues who
mistakenly buys one thinking that they have purchased a "real" Balabushka.
It's easy to dismiss these folks by saying, "anyone stupid enough to blah,
blah, blah, deserves blah, blah, blah," but, personally, I don't like to
deal with people in that fashion. You sound like a nice guy from your
posts, so I assume that you don't either. Remember, we all started off in
this business knowing virtually nothing about cues. The fact that one lacks
knowledge should not make him/her fair game for deceptive practices. The
fact that the knockoff is "signed" implies a certain amount of legitimacy
that one usually has to inquire about before being told the truth.

I wish I had a dollar in the bank for each person who has called me trying
to sell a "genuine Balabushka" that they bought for $400 or so. "Why, it's
even signed," they explain! It's not easy to tell them that they have been
bilked.

Hank
===========================

--
Henry K. Miller
Chesapeake Cues, Ltd.
International Brokers of Fine Cues
(410) 581-7341
Fax: (410) 363-6362
http://FineCues.com

Ron Shepard

unread,

Aug 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/7/97

to

In article <shepard-0608...@macrls.tcg.anl.gov>,
she...@tcg.anl.gov (Ron Shepard) wrote:

[regarding moral distinctions between action and inaction...]

>I haven't gotten into this debate before, but since I've responded to this
>thread I might as well state my opinion. I do not think there is any
>moral distinction at all between action and inaction. They are not
>synonyms, they are simply irrelevant to a moral distinction. There are
>many situations in which "action" or "inaction" are simply different
>points of view of the same situation.

Since I said before what does _not_ resolve the moral distinction, I
should have said also perhaps what does resolve one. I have no original
insight on this, but I can say that there is lots of interesting reading
on this topic. The book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence" is a
discussion of "values", which is a slippery term itself, but basically it
compares different ways that people have tried to characterize knowledge
and possessions in order to assign to them a relative importance. I first
read this over 20 years ago, and it is something that has kept coming to
mind all these years, so there is "value" in it. Immanual Kant was a
german writer in the 1700's, during the American and French revolutions to
put things in political perspective, and he argued that the only thing
that is "good" is a person's good intentions, and the result of those
intentions are morally irrelevant. If someone intends to do harm, and
does harm, then everyone would probably agree that that is "bad", and if
someone intends to do good and does good, then everyone would probably
agree that that is "good", but it is the other two situations that are the
tricky ones. Kant argues that it is the intentions that are really the
important thing, not necessarily the outcome. Perhaps Kant's criterion
could be applied to the hustling situation. If the hustler intends to
cheat his opponent, then that is "bad" whether he actually succeeds or
not. Jeremy Bentham was an english writer in the early 1800's, at the
beginning of the industrial revolution. He argued that value should be
measured by how much good was done for the most number of people. I guess
that since a hustler helps only himself, but hurts many people, that he
would have relatively little value. As to whether we, as individuals, are
responsible for the health, happiness, and fulfillment of others, that is
a question that has been asked in our earliest mythology, so it probably
has prehistoric origins; that is the question God asked Cain in Genesis,
but unfortunately the answer has been a matter of debate for the 8000
years or so since. ;-)

$.02 -Ron Shepard (who managed to start and end a post with the same word!)

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

>Subject: Re: Dilemna: Hustling, Balabushka
>From: wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu (John Walkup)
>Date: 7 Aug 97 22:28:15 GMT
>Message-ID: <walkup.870992895@dimension>

No John you are not giving him any benefit of the doubt, because in your
mind,
there is none.

I for one will need to see what this certificate looks like. . . anyway,
if someone
tries to sell one as authentic with this certificate, wouldn't this be a
dead giveaway
as to it's origination, besides an exray, or lack of comfirmation by an
expert?

The certificate is in my estimation, something to be framed next to the
cue
for posterity sake. . . but until I see one, I will give the benefit of my
doubt
to Mr. Helmstetter.

Henry K. Miller

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

> Henry,
>
> I would gladly buy one for the sheer having a replica of a piece of
> history,
> much like I would purchase a copy of "David" or "Thinker" or a "Renoir".
> The viewing of the piece makes me ponder history. . . which I hold dear.
>
> These are all accompanied by signatures of the artist. . . but nobody in
> their
> right mind would try to pass them off, and if they did, how would this
> reflect
> on the "Museum Store" that supplied it? I think not at all in a bad way.
>
> It would seem you are presenting that Mr. Helmstetter purposely has this
> intent in mind? Or you in some way blame him for his customers doing
> this?
>
> I don't see the problem here with the company producing the cues, only
> some second and third hand buyers with no ethics.

>
>
> Regards,
> Mark Kulaga
> ---
> Webmaster: http://www.snookerusa.com
> ---
> "I'm my wife's husband.", spin off of Dr. Laura's "I'm my kids mom"
quote.
> "No matter where you go, there you are" - not sure... Deepak Chopra?
>
>
>

Mark,

If you bought a new "Balabushka " hoping to have a "replica of a piece of
history," you would be quite disappointed. As John Collins pointed out in
an earlier post, there is not much resemblance to an original Balabushka in
either looks or construction of the new cues. The only purpose for the name
is to create a market.

As far as what Mr. Helmstetter's motivation is, I have no idea, nor do I
care. I find the existence of these cues insulting to my intelligence and
to the memory of Mr. Balabushka.

Hank

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:

>Henry,

>I would gladly buy one for the sheer having a replica of a piece of
>history,

Have you, in fact, bought one?

>much like I would purchase a copy of "David" or "Thinker" or a "Renoir".
>The viewing of the piece makes me ponder history. . . which I hold dear.

>These are all accompanied by signatures of the artist. . . but nobody in
>their
>right mind would try to pass them off, and if they did, how would this
>reflect
>on the "Museum Store" that supplied it? I think not at all in a bad way.

I don't think that the two situations are the same. A print is clearly
easy to distinguish from a painting. But to the average cue buyer a
Helmstetter cue is not easy to distinguish from an original Balabushka.

Suppose someone was selling reproduction PAINTINGS "signed" by Renoir, and was givin
out Certificates of Authenticity? Although this analogy is not quite
the same, it is a lot closer than what you provided.

John

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

Sherm Adamson <sher...@iac.net> writes:

>R. wrote:

>>
>> Laura Friedman wrote:
>> >
>> > John Walkup <wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu> wrote in article
>> > <walkup.870987186@dimension>...
>> > >
>> > > I see I am making more enemies by the minute. Okay, okay, okay ... I'll
>> > > lay off David Helmstetter. :)
>> > >
>> > > John
>> > >
>> > John, I completely agree with you (for whatever small consolation that's
>> > worth).
>>

>> Actually--and this is hard because I've been vehemently disagreeing with
>> John for the past two weeks--so do I. They're obviously just cashing in
>> on the name and the popularity of the cue in THE COLOR OF MONEY. That
>> would be okay except that they don't (IMO) do enough to let people know
>> that these aren't the authentic bushkas.
>>
>> Rob A.

>This is the main reason why I used my first name "Sherm" to Identify my
>cues. My last name being "Adamson", could easily be mistaken for "Adams"
>which I surely didn't want to happen.

Yeah, but why didn't you call it a "Sherm Adamson"? Calling a cue a Sherm is
like calling it a "Billy Bob," or a "Rufus," or an "Ed." Of course, you could
have called it worse, like a "Brick," but that name is taken.

Me? I would have called it a "Ghost." Can you imagine playing with a
Ghost cue? Coooooool!!!!!! A Sherm sounds like something made in the
back room of a bowling alley. :)

>The thing that kind of aggravates me about the "knock offs" that Adams
>makes is the signature. George wasn't known to sign his cues so why
>would they have a signature on a replica if not to confuse the folks who
>just plain didn't know better.

And the signature looks like a signature.

John

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

... or a "Butch," or a "Dick," or a "Peter," or a "John." Wait a minute!

John

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

"R." <Not...@address.com> writes:

>Laura Friedman wrote:
>>
>> John Walkup <wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu> wrote in article
>> <walkup.870987186@dimension>...
>> >
>> > I see I am making more enemies by the minute. Okay, okay, okay ... I'll
>> > lay off David Helmstetter. :)
>> >

>> John, I completely agree with you (for whatever small consolation that's
>> worth).

>Actually--and this is hard because I've been vehemently disagreeing with
>John for the past two weeks--so do I. They're obviously just cashing in

Holy cow. I had better reevaluate my position. I'm signing up for a dealership
agreement with Helmstetter tomorrow. :)

John

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:

>No John you are not giving him any benefit of the doubt, because in your
>mind,
>there is none.

>I for one will need to see what this certificate looks like. . . anyway,
>if someone
>tries to sell one as authentic with this certificate, wouldn't this be a
>dead giveaway
>as to it's origination, besides an exray, or lack of comfirmation by an
>expert?

Yes, to the well-informed cue buyer. But as Hank pointed out, many have already
been duped. And that didn't have to happen. And it shouldn't have happened.
We don't need to protect the well-informed buyer. It is the non-informed
I worry about.

>The certificate is in my estimation, something to be framed next to the
>cue
>for posterity sake. . . but until I see one, I will give the benefit of my
>doubt
>to Mr. Helmstetter.

Let's see.... my Sherm doesn't have a Certificate of Authenticity.
My Prather doesn't. Neither does my Ingram. I don't see a Certicifate
of Authenticity framed next to my McDermott (especially since my Mickie D
isn't framed.) I don't give out Certificates of Authenticity when I sell
Schuler cues, or Verl Horns for that matter. Gee, I wonder why David
Helmstetter chooses to give out Certificates of Authenticity with his
Balabushkas, since his Balabushkas are not authentic?

John

Greg Wold

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

What _exactly_ does the Certificate of Authenticity say? Does
Helmstetter claim to be selling "authentic Balabushkas"? Maybe it
says the cues are made by Helmstetter, under license to the Balabushka
estate, which follow the exacting specifications in design, materials,
and workmanship established by the deceased master himself. In the
first case, I kind of agree with John. In the latter, there is no
deception involved (in the initial sale, at least), and the whole
transaction is upright and honest.

My house is decorated with several of Ansel Adams's photographs --
only they're reproductions, not original prints. Sure, if I could
afford a genuine article, printed by Mr. Adams himself, I'd love it.
But since I cannot, and I know what I bought, and I am very happy with
it, there's no problem. The same goes for the new 'Bushka
productions, if the Certificates honestly represent the product.

Greg

wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu (John Walkup) wrote:

>alig8...@aol.com (Alig8orMan) writes:
>
>>>I sell new cues in my spare time. During the time I prepared
>>>to sell cues I spent a long time looking for a reputable
>>>cue supplier. I called Sherm Adamson, but I needed cues
>>>faster than he could supply them. (I love my Sherm Cue, and I think
>>>he makes a great stick. Best linen wrap I have seen so far.)
>>>I finally settled on Schuler, but one cue I was determined not
>>>to sell was the new Balabushkas. Why? Because my customers
>>>may think that they are the originals, and I would be misleading
>>>them by not informing them beforehand. The fact that David
>>>Helmstetter hands out "Certificates of Authenticity" only makes
>>>matters worse. Authentic what? Authentic copy?
>>>At any rate, only a scumbag would sell a cue to a customer if he
>>>knew that the customer was mistaken about its origin. (You listening,
>>>Helmstetter? I would be interested to hear how the Internet Cue Store
>>>handles this situation.) BTW, you heard me right. SCUM BAG.
>>>And I will not sell Helmstetters nor Adams either.
>

>> John,
>> Authnetic replication is exactly what I believe the certificate
>

Alig8orMan

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

>Let's see.... my Sherm doesn't have a Certificate of Authenticity.
>My Prather doesn't. Neither does my Ingram. I don't see a Certicifate
>of Authenticity framed next to my McDermott (especially since my Mickie D
>isn't framed.) I don't give out Certificates of Authenticity when I sell
>Schuler cues, or Verl Horns for that matter. Gee, I wonder why David
>Helmstetter chooses to give out Certificates of Authenticity with his
>Balabushkas, since his Balabushkas are not authentic?
>
>John<<

John,
Here is an interesting question for you, since you sell Horn's and have
a problem with Helmstetter's marketing of a "Balabushka". Mr. Horn, makes
argueably the best copy of a Bushka I have ever seen. Mr. Horn doesn't
sign the cues with his name, or Bushka's. These cues, by Horn, unless you
really know what you are looking for, can fool a person with above average
cue intelligence. At least with the Adams line you can see the difference,
and above all feel the difference. And even if the Adams cue was
refinished and the name sanded away, there is no way anyone would mistake
it to be authentic.
I am not knocking Mr. Horn, realize I like his cues and WOULD recommend
them to anyone with a chance to buy them. I think cue to dollar, Horn's
are a bargain. I also realize that when Mr. Horn sells them it is not his
intent to deceive (I don't think so), but in the secondary market, is
where I see the problem.

Joe

John Collins

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

Well there愀 a saying that these days all you need to play with a $1000
cue is a $1000. That said I don愒 see the signifigange of your post. We
are talking about the ethics involved in marketing and selling cues with
the name Balabushka and not the motive and reputation of the buyer.
These days a guy is just as likely to walk in with a neon McDermott and
one of our Pink and Purple cases which would probably get him the six
just about anywhere, and he could probably give the six to anyone in the
place. John, do you still want to put your money up?

Now as to the certificate of authenticity, some very good cuemakers do
provide them, Samsara for example. Joss as a production company provides
certificates of origin with the relevant data on the cue which is very
useful. There are even Taiwan cues with certificates. One one hand if
used properly a certificate is a valuable part of a cue investment and on
the other hand for some manufacturers or distributers a "certificate" is
a marketing ploy. The fact that Prather and other top cuemakers do not
provide documentation for their work does not make it less valuable -
just harder to prove. Now in the case of the Adams-Balabushka愀 the
disclaimer is clearly neccessary and for that aspect of it quite honest.
Only the whole idea behind the marketing is in my opinion not morally
suitable.

John Boy

R.

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

Hard to break the habit, isn't it? Believe me, I know . . . ;)

Rob A.

R.

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

Sherm Adamson wrote:

>
> R. wrote:
> >
> > Laura Friedman wrote:
> > >
> > > John Walkup <wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu> wrote in article
> > > <walkup.870987186@dimension>...
> > > >
> > > > I see I am making more enemies by the minute. Okay, okay, okay ... I'll
> > > > lay off David Helmstetter. :)
> > > >
> > > > John
> > > >
> > > John, I completely agree with you (for whatever small consolation that's
> > > worth).
> > >
> >
> > Actually--and this is hard because I've been vehemently disagreeing with
> > John for the past two weeks--so do I. They're obviously just cashing in

> > on the name and the popularity of the cue in THE COLOR OF MONEY. That
> > would be okay except that they don't (IMO) do enough to let people know
> > that these aren't the authentic bushkas.
> >
> > Rob A.
>
> This is the main reason why I used my first name "Sherm" to Identify my
> cues. My last name being "Adamson", could easily be mistaken for "Adams"
> which I surely didn't want to happen.
>

> The thing that kind of aggravates me about the "knock offs" that Adams
> makes is the signature. George wasn't known to sign his cues so why
> would they have a signature on a replica if not to confuse the folks who
> just plain didn't know better.

That's precisely it. They prey upon those who don't know better. Some
kid sees COLOR OF MONEY, here's Paul Newman talk about a Balabushka, and
then he sees one in the store. He's gotta have it because it's the same
one he saw in the movie!

Rob A.

Smorgass Bored

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

There's always a market there for knockoffs, the 5 piece cue in its
"custom" case and one of my favorites (not) the "Walking Cane Cue".
Build it and they will come. Field of Dreams

When all else fails,
Take my advice,
Pull down your pants,
And SLIDE on the Ice. Doug W.

Smorgass Bored

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

I agree with John, but on the other hand whenever a "player" needed his
rent or car payment in New Orleans,they always managed to find which bar
I was in. N'uff said !

Smorgass Bored

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

Huh ! What ?

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

>
>In article <33EA4E...@address.com>, Can'treply@canyou?.com wrote:
>
>>Laura Friedman wrote:
>>>
>>> John Walkup <wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu> wrote in article
>>> <walkup.870987186@dimension>...
>>> >
>>> > I see I am making more enemies by the minute. Okay, okay, okay ...
I'll
>>> > lay off David Helmstetter. :)
>>> >

>>> John, I completely agree with you (for whatever small consolation
that's
>>> worth).
>>
>>Actually--and this is hard because I've been vehemently disagreeing with
>>John for the past two weeks--so do I. They're obviously just cashing in
>>on the name and the popularity of the cue in THE COLOR OF MONEY. That
>>would be okay except that they don't (IMO) do enough to let people know
>>that these aren't the authentic bushkas.
>

>Hmmm, the cue in THE COLOR OF MONEY was really a production Joss, right?
>So let me get this straight. Helmstetter pays the widow a license to use
>the name, in order to exploit the popularity of COM, which used a Joss,
>but said it was a Bushka, and didn't cut the widow in on anything, and
>didn't follow Walter Tevis' storyline in the real "Color of Money"
either,
>so you want to pick on Helmstetter as the bad guy?
>
>I think I'll let you guys pick your way through that philosophical briar
>patch; I'll walk around. :-)
>
>$.02 -Ron Shepard
>
>
>
>

Yeah!
Get Tom Cruise, and Mr. Newman!
And those bad men that made that movie. . .
The heck with Mr. Helmstetter. . . at least he gave Mrs. Bushka some
dinero
for her husbands name.

These guys pass off a JOSS as a Bushka, we buy into that, the Japanese
take the US buy storm and gobble up all the real Bushkas and we are left
with a bunch of replicas made by Mr. Helmstetter.

What is this world coming to?
BTW: I have a real Bushka for sale on one of my pages. . .
http://www.assemblylineproducts.com/rare_cues.html

More importantly, somebody please explain why it feels so good to be bad?
The answer to this question could quite possibly save us all.
I mean we could invent a substitute for "badness", and sell it as the real
thing!
I got dibs on the copyright for that one. . .

Alig8orMan

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

>Except that Horn's cues are inscribed with "HORN" at the bottom. It's
kind
>of hard to pass off a fake Balabushka if it has "HORN" inscribed at the
bottom.
>And Verl has never called his cues Balabushkas.
>BTW, none of my Horn's look like any Balabushkas I have ever seen. But
>I suppose he made some Bushka look-alikes as well.
>
>John<<

John,
Ask Horn how long he has been putting his name on cues. My Horn, which I
ordered from him in 87 or 88 doesn't have this Horn marking. ( I am glad
he is doing it BTW ) We had a Hornybushka in the booth I was working at
the Hopkins show, our deal was if you could guess the maker, you won a
blue book. I kept a talley and the guesses were all over the place.
65% said Balabushka
10% said Paradise
10% said Palmer
remaining 15% varied.
Needless to say, I still have the blue book. Have him make you one, since
he is now putting his name on the cue I see no harm. You will be
surprised. They are actually a better Bushka then the Adams cue.

Joe

twc

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

On 7 Aug 97 20:53:06 GMT, wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu (John
Walkup) wrote:

>
>I see I am making more enemies by the minute. Okay, okay, okay ... I'll
>lay off David Helmstetter. :)
>
>John

Yeah! While you're at it, lay off his brother, Dick Helmstetter...

TW

Tom Bellhouse

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

Henry K. Miller wrote:
> (Big Snip)

> Mark,
>
> If you bought a new "Balabushka " hoping to have a "replica of a piece of
> history," you would be quite disappointed. As John Collins pointed out in
> an earlier post, there is not much resemblance to an original Balabushka in
> either looks or construction of the new cues. The only purpose for the name
> is to create a market.
>
> As far as what Mr. Helmstetter's motivation is, I have no idea, nor do I
> care. I find the existence of these cues insulting to my intelligence and
> to the memory of Mr. Balabushka.
>
> Hank

Hank,

I am sorely troubled. I started getting into this authenticity thing, and I
discovered that:

1. My Lincoln Continental was not made by Abrahan Lincoln.

2. Samuel Adams didn't brew my beer.

3. Ben Hogan didn't make my golf clubs. What a ripoff -- they have his
name right on them. (Some sonofagun must have been stronger than dirt --
the pen mashed right into the steel when he forged the signature
(bad pun, sorry)).

4. Many of the cues modified and sold by George Balabushka were really made
from Brunswick Titelist butts. Another ripoff. George was probably smart
enough to know that he would sell more "Balabushkas" than "Modified Brunswicks".

5. Palmer cues were not made by Arnold Palmer. In fact, some of the butts
were made by Gus Szamboti, and others by Brunswick. They just picked up the
Palmer name to fool people into thinking that Arnold had gone into cue making.
And the Balners didn't even pay Winnie Palmer a royalty!

The list goes on and on. Is there no end to this moral depravity?

Best regards,

Tom Bellhouse
____________________________________________________________________

Frank Glenn

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

John Walkup <wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu> wrote in article

<walkup.871021819@dimension>...

> Sherm Adamson <sher...@iac.net> writes:
>
> >> > John Walkup <wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu> wrote in article
> >> > <walkup.870987186@dimension>...
> >> > >

I don't believe anyone looking for a Balabuska (original) who actually knew
ANYTHING about the cues or the cuemaker, would be fooled by the Adams
replica. And I agree that they are cashing in on the popularity from the
movie.
Frank

John Collins

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

alig8...@aol.com (Alig8orMan) writes:

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:

>>snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:

>It isn't destinguishable? You are joking. I could tell, when I knew
>NOTHING
>about cues. (Practically nothing).

Then explain Hank's statement that people have actually been duped.

John

John Collins

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

One thing noone has really addressed is that the ADHELM-BUSHKA line
doesn´t even really resemble George Balabushka´s work except in the sense
that they are both pool cues. It is wrong to blatantly use the name of
such a famous legend to market your mass produced cues. It is not wrong
to call them the "Balabushka" line by Helmstetter and signed with the
Helmstetter signature and not with a "Balabushka" signature. The fact
that Balabushka is printed on the cues is the real travesty because
George felt no need to identify his work in any way other than the
quality of it. But it is a sad fact of life today that proper marketing
of a "name" or "namebrand" is more successful than building that name on
a solid foundation.

The BS about these are the cues that George would have made if he
continued to live is just that. I bet that this type of marketing is
against everything that George believed in.

Now for the disclaimer: aside from the Balabushka issue - I feel that
Helmstetter cues are still great cues for the money.

Me.

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

>
>snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:
>
>>Henry,
>
>>I would gladly buy one for the sheer having a replica of a piece of
>>history,
>

>Have you, in fact, bought one?
>
>>much like I would purchase a copy of "David" or "Thinker" or a
"Renoir".
>>The viewing of the piece makes me ponder history. . . which I hold dear.
>
>>These are all accompanied by signatures of the artist. . . but nobody in
>>their
>>right mind would try to pass them off, and if they did, how would this
>>reflect
>>on the "Museum Store" that supplied it? I think not at all in a bad way.
>
>I don't think that the two situations are the same. A print is clearly
>easy to distinguish from a painting. But to the average cue buyer a
>Helmstetter cue is not easy to distinguish from an original Balabushka.

>
>Suppose someone was selling reproduction PAINTINGS "signed" by Renoir,
and
>was givin
>out Certificates of Authenticity? Although this analogy is not quite
>the same, it is a lot closer than what you provided.
>
>John
>
>
>

Nope, don't own one, shot with a few in the past. . . liked one of the
three.

It isn't destinguishable? You are joking. I could tell, when I knew
NOTHING
about cues. (Practically nothing).

Well, well. . . certificate of authenticity, shmicity. . . this says he is
the only one
actually making copies with permission no? and has the (Right) to make
them. . .
so if you buy another claiming it to be a Helmstetter, you'd be in a lot
of trouble
mister. . .

;O)

Mark
Hang loose. . .

Ron Shepard

unread,

Aug 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/8/97

to

In article <33EA4E...@address.com>, Can'treply@canyou?.com wrote:

>Laura Friedman wrote:
>>
>> John Walkup <wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu> wrote in article
>> <walkup.870987186@dimension>...
>> >
>> > I see I am making more enemies by the minute. Okay, okay, okay ... I'll
>> > lay off David Helmstetter. :)
>> >

>> John, I completely agree with you (for whatever small consolation that's
>> worth).
>

unread,

Aug 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/9/97

to

>
>Suffice to say that I am not buying anything Mark is selling.
>
>John
>
>

John,

Why would you say this?. . . are you insinuating that I would
sell a counterfeit as the real thing? or am not to be trusted in
any way? I hope you were joking.

Greg Wold

unread,

Aug 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/9/97

to

R...@Netcams.com (Ron Hudson) wrote:

>On Fri, 08 Aug 1997 00:27:29 GMT, gw...@princeton.com (Greg Wold)
>wrote:
>
>>What _exactly_ does the Certificate of Authenticity say? Does
>>Helmstetter claim to be selling "authentic Balabushkas"? Maybe it
>>says the cues are made by Helmstetter, under license to the Balabushka
>>estate, which follow the exacting specifications in design, materials,
>>and workmanship established by the deceased master himself. In the
>>first case, I kind of agree with John. In the latter, there is no
>>deception involved (in the initial sale, at least), and the whole
>>transaction is upright and honest.
>>
>>My house is decorated with several of Ansel Adams's photographs --
>>only they're reproductions, not original prints. Sure, if I could
>>afford a genuine article, printed by Mr. Adams himself, I'd love it.
>>But since I cannot, and I know what I bought, and I am very happy with
>>it, there's no problem. The same goes for the new 'Bushka
>>productions, if the Certificates honestly represent the product.
>>
>>Greg
>>
>Sorry Greg, but you have blown your argument. The Ansel Adams prints
>that you own are just that, prints of Adams's own work. They are
>authentic Ansel Adams.

Ron,

Here's a little experiment for you, to show you how, in fact, my
argument is not blown. Go to a local store and buy yourself the 1997
Ansel Adams calendar. Cut out one of the pictures, and take it to a
local gallery. Tell them it's an authentic Ansel Adams, and ask them
to buy it.

When they throw you out, will you bounce? ;-)

>How 'bout if I went out and took some pictures and finished them in
>the "style of Ansel Adams", and put his name on them and offered them
>for sale. Would you feel the same about those prints. I will be
>happy to include a certificate saying they are authentic reproductions
>which follow the exacting specifications in design, materials, and
>workmanship established by the deceased master himself.

Instead of that, it seems you should sell them as "the pictures Ansel
Adams would be taking were he alive today." Then you could rake in
the big bucks, no? I have to say, having read Alig8toMan's
Certificate wording, that it sure looks like a line of cr*p to me.
I'm awfully disappointed that this is going on.

Greg

Sherm Adamson

unread,

Aug 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/9/97

to

SnookerUSA wrote:
>
> >The idea of George Balabushka, post humously, signing the Certificate of
> >Authenticity seems rather rediculous to me. I mean they say that the
> >cues are made in the manner and design that George would be using if he
> >were alive and crankin' out cues today, then put his signature on it as
> >if he was making the statement. How can they possibly justify this?
> >Just my opinion 8^)
> >Sherm
>
> Sherm,
>
> The signature is a (faux) signature, much like that on any item,
> where the "artist" is no longer around., to sign for himself.

If the artist is no longer around to sign an object himself, why should
someone else take the liberty to do so?! Especially when the work was
not his own!!!

> Legally, it would seem Mr. Hemlstetter has the right to do so.
> I don't see this as being the problem at all, nor the signature on
> the (faux) cue stick being marketed by Mr. Helmstetter.

Obviously we're not talking legalities, we're discussing ethics and I
believe that most people who respect George Balabushka's work feel
contempt for the way these cues are marketed.

>
> They do say, "The cues are made in the manner design that George would
> be using if he were alive today". So? What makes you say this is >not true?

OK you opened this up. Where do they get off interpreting what George
would or would not be making if he were alive today. This is obviously
speculative at best! I haven't seen any of the "Adam's Balabushka's"
that even remotely looked like any of the real Balabushka's I've owned!

> You don't explain this at all, just show your disgust for it.

Can't help what I feel! I thought that any person with even a little
intelligence would understand why!

>
> Uhm, I don't think they put the signature on that as if "he" meaning Mr.
> Balablushka were making it. If this were so, you would only see George
> Balabushka and not Richard Helmstetter as well.

I assume you are refering to the Certificate here and I think logic
would tell you just the opposite. If they had ommited George's signature
from the document, it might have made a little sense. To put his
signature on it in such a manner suggests the cues are a collaberation
of George's and Dick Helmstetter's which they clearly were not. The
signature on the cue itself, is bad enough, but it is actually an aid to
identify one of these phonies over the phone. When someone asks me the
value of a Balabushka, over the phone, I tell them if it's signed, it's
a phoney worth next to nothing.
>
> Even the dumbest cue buyer knows Mr. Balabushka is "Dead", so they
> should be aware he cannot sign his own name. . .

Yes but a lot of informed people do not know;1) when he died, 2) that he
didn't sign his cues, 3) That a major cue manufacturer is marketing a
cue called a "Balabushka", carying a "faux" signature (with no
explaination that it is faux), with no marking showing it's true maker.

> How can they justify what?
> I keep seeing the same people protesting, but without much foundation for
> their contempt.

I think you are overlooking the explainations.

>
> First the "Predator" gets attacked, for -what I'm not sure, but my survey
> is
> quickly finding they are attacks without much foundation in truth.

I'll deal with the survey further down!

> Now this with Mr. Helmstetter.

Another point that I've not seen mentioned is the fact that this is not
the first episode of questionable ethics involving Adam/Helmstetter.
Anybody familiar with the "Robert Weir" cuemaking scandal back in the
'80's. These "Weir" cues were also made in Japan.

>
> I'm beginning to think you guys are the "My cup is half-empty, get out of
> my
> way your driving too slow, I'm going to cut you off now you bastard"
> kind of people.
>
> Just my oppinion, until a survey is taken and I am proven wrong.

As far as your "survey". I think it is inherently biased. It is for
people who have already bought "Predator" shafts. It would be human
nature for someone who had made a purchase, in which they have paid
twice the normal price for an object, to try to justify it in their own
mind, even if it is a subconcious justification. The survey does not
allow for all of the people who through research, engineering knowlege,
or just plain common sense, found the advertizing hype to be a crock and
did not purchase one.
This makes any survey of this type useless!

> ;O)
>
> Life is a joke gentlemen, learn to laugh, or move aside "You are in my
> way!"

I agree with you on this part.

>
Sherm
8^)
////////////////////////////!\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\!///////////////////////////
Sherm Custom Cues
The Finest In Custom Billiard Cues Made To Your Specs.
15 Years Experience
Member "American Cuemakers Association"
3352 Nine Mile Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45255
Shop (513) 553-2172 Fax (513) 553-0417
e-mail, sher...@iac.net
http://www.iac.net/~shermcue
(Webpage Under Construction)
////////////////////////////!\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\!///////////////////////////

Sherm Adamson

unread,

Aug 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/9/97

to

The idea of George Balabushka, post humously, signing the Certificate of
Authenticity seems rather rediculous to me. I mean they say that the
cues are made in the manner and design that George would be using if he
were alive and crankin' out cues today, then put his signature on it as
if he was making the statement. How can they possibly justify this?
Just my opinion 8^)
Sherm

--

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/9/97

to

>The idea of George Balabushka, post humously, signing the Certificate of
>Authenticity seems rather rediculous to me. I mean they say that the
>cues are made in the manner and design that George would be using if he
>were alive and crankin' out cues today, then put his signature on it as
>if he was making the statement. How can they possibly justify this?
>Just my opinion 8^)
>Sherm

Sherm,

The signature is a (faux) signature, much like that on any item,
where the "artist" is no longer around., to sign for himself.

Legally, it would seem Mr. Hemlstetter has the right to do so.
I don't see this as being the problem at all, nor the signature on
the (faux) cue stick being marketed by Mr. Helmstetter.

They do say, "The cues are made in the manner design that George would

be using if he were alive today". So? What makes you say this is not
true?

You don't explain this at all, just show your disgust for it.

Uhm, I don't think they put the signature on that as if "he" meaning Mr.

Balablushka were making it. If this were so, you would only see George
Balabushka and not Richard Helmstetter as well.

Even the dumbest cue buyer knows Mr. Balabushka is "Dead", so they

should be aware he cannot sign his own name. . .

How can they justify what?

I keep seeing the same people protesting, but without much foundation for
their contempt.

First the "Predator" gets attacked, for -what I'm not sure, but my survey

is
quickly finding they are attacks without much foundation in truth.

Now this with Mr. Helmstetter.

I'm beginning to think you guys are the "My cup is half-empty, get out of

my
way your driving too slow, I'm going to cut you off now you bastard"
kind of people.

Just my oppinion, until a survey is taken and I am proven wrong.

;O)

Life is a joke gentlemen, learn to laugh, or move aside "You are in my
way!"

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/9/97

to

I think the argument against the signature on the cue, and the certificate
is
weak at best.

One argument I can see as being more to their point, would be how the
"Internet Cue Store" markets the faux "Bushka".

Helmstetter Cues have a listing.
Balabushka Cues have a listing to themselves.
This seperation, without notation this cue is manufactured by Mr.
Helmstetter
is in my believe deceptive, and could in and of itself, if changed solve
much
argument over the signature, and certificate.

My reasoning is thus.
If I go to the "Museum Store" I know what is in there is a copy.
If I go to the "Internet Cue Store", I'm not so sure simply based
on the name of the store. It isn't implying anything within is faux.
Matter of factly, I think they would wish to present all as authentic.

So, what I have said with far too many words is.
This seems deceptive to me, more so than Mr. Helmstetter marketing
the faux Balabushkas under his name.
Ilegal? No.

Just my oppinion.

BOBWHP

unread,

Aug 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/9/97

to

In article <33ECC8...@iac.net>, Sherm Adamson <sher...@iac.net>
writes:

>Obviously we're not talking legalities, we're discussing ethics and I
>believe that most people who respect George Balabushka's work feel
>contempt for the way these cues are marketed.

Perhaps the following example would be a better illustration of why many
people in the business feel so strongly about the marketing of ersatz
Balabushkas. What if a craftsman in the glassblowing business obtained
permission from the estate of Louis Tiffany to manufacture Tiffany style
lamps, vases, etc. with a copy of Tiffanys' signature on the items? I
think the reaction from the art collector/dealer community would be
predictably negative, and the ensuing confusion in the after market among
the unsophisticated almost certain.

Bob Whipple
Decatur, Georgia

Thomas Wayne

unread,

Aug 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/9/97

to

John Walkup wrote

> [snip] (Notice that the cues are not called The Balabushka Line of
>Adams Cues. They are called Balabushkas, as if it is a separate cue
>manufacturer.) Then he puts on a decal that makes it look (to me, at least)
>as if George signed it. (What other purpose does the signature have?)
>Then he gives out Certificates of Authenticity for each cue, even though
>the cue is clearly a reproduction, not authentic.

John Collins wrote:
>The BS about these are the cues that George would have made if he
>continued to live is just that. I bet that this type of marketing is
>against everything that George believed in.
>
>Now for the disclaimer: aside from the Balabushka issue - I feel that
>Helmstetter cues are still great cues for the money.

Dick Helmstetter / Adams Cues has a long history of attaching "famous"
names to a line of mass-produced low-end cues:

The "Julio Stambolini" line - supposedly designed by and produced under
the supervision of one ‘Julio Stambolini’, a very well-known and highly
regarded violin maker (presumably Italian) who had built a few cues as a
hobby until the demand became so great that he was forced to find a
manufacturer to produce his masterpieces. The problem? Violin maker
Julio Stambolini doesn’t exist. Never did. Pure marketing fiction.
But to this day I occasionally see these cues being resold as if they
were really built by an individual.

The "Raymond Calvert" line - these cues were designed by the famous
European fashion designer ‘Raymond Calvert’, and featured inlays cut
with laser machinery. Guess what? That’s right, fashion giant Raymond
Calvert was also a fictional character. Plus, the edges and fit of the
laser cut inlays looked terrible, even to the untrained eye. This line
didn’t last long.

The "Robert Weir" line - this was the most deceptive attempt, because
Robert Weir really did exist. He was a pool player in Texas. But he
didn’t build the cues. The brochure claimed that he had been making
cues for twenty years, though the brand was actually new, with NO
mention of Japan as the real country of origin. The Texas address was a
postal box; the cues were built in Japan and shipped to Texas for
distribution. There was also a well-known American cuemaker involved in
the scheme; his shop was to be used for service and repair work (name
withheld to protect the guilty). This episode in cuemaking history
actually became somewhat of a scandal within the ‘inner circle’ of
cuemakers.

And now, the "Balabushka" line - Whatever there is to say about these
cues has already been beaten to death in r.s.b. But I would add this:
the use (misuse?) of George Balabushka’s name in marketing these cues
represents "value added". If it’s actually just a $450 Adams cue,
perhaps it will become a $750 ‘Balabushka’ cue with the addition of an
inexpensive signature decal. Like most markets, let the buyer beware.
But, as a socially responsibly group, it probably doesn’t hurt to
practice a little word of mouth educating - just to protect the innocent
suckers amongst us…

Thomas Wayne

Tom Bellhouse

unread,

Aug 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/9/97

to

BOBWHP wrote:
Bob,

I like the analogy, but there's a problem. Louis Comfort Tiffany never made
a lamp, a vase, a bowl or a window. He designed them, he bankrolled them,
and others made them. When this happens in cue-making, it's considered a
scandal.

Best regards,

Tom Bellhouse
________________________________________________________________________

>
> In article <33ECC8...@iac.net>, Sherm Adamson <sher...@iac.net>
> writes:
>

> >Obviously we're not talking legalities, we're discussing ethics and I
> >believe that most people who respect George Balabushka's work feel
> >contempt for the way these cues are marketed.
>

Alig8orMan

unread,

Aug 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/9/97

to

> I have to say, having read Alig8toMan's
>Certificate wording, that it sure looks like a line of cr*p to me.<<

Wait a second MISTER. I did not WORD anything. I posted the genuine
article. Just for the record.

Joe

BOBWHP

unread,

Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97

to

In article <33ED27...@XSPAMcyberhighway.net>, Tom Bellhouse
<alt...@XSPAMcyberhighway.net> writes:

>I like the analogy, but there's a problem. Louis Comfort Tiffany never
made
>a lamp, a vase, a bowl or a window. He designed them, he bankrolled
them,
>and others made them. When this happens in cue-making, it's considered a

>scandal.

True. This analogy (like most) is flawed, but I think the main point
holds water. There would be a hue and cry in the art world (scandal if
you prefer) if signed works by an unaffiliated craftsman were authorized,
and there would be confusion on the part of the uninformed in the resale
market. That's the crux of the comparison.

Bob Whipple
Decatur, Georgia

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97

to

>If the artist is no longer around to sign an object himself, why should
>someone else take the liberty to do so?! Especially when the work was
>not his own!!!

Because it is a replica, and that should include the signature.
Although here, the replica did not need one, because George
never signed his, this production cue is obviously being marketed
to the lower cue buyers on the cue-chain, and the signature is
"probably" there to make them feel like they are getting more
for their money. . . (No real big deal.)

>
>Obviously we're not talking legalities, we're discussing ethics and I
>believe that most people who respect George Balabushka's work feel
>contempt for the way these cues are marketed.
>
>

They are not his cues being marketed but copies.
Why would you feel contempt?
They are not being sold as "Original Bushkas".

>
>OK you opened this up. Where do they get off interpreting what George
>would or would not be making if he were alive today. This is obviously
>speculative at best! I haven't seen any of the "Adam's Balabushka's"
>that even remotely looked like any of the real Balabushka's I've owned!
>
>

Where do you get interpreting that this is wrong?
Speculation is the nature of business.

Then what is your worry?
You are getting hot and bothered here about nothing.

>
>Can't help what I feel! I thought that any person with even a little
>intelligence would understand why!
>
>

You sound like you have PMS here, "Can't help what you feel".
And now I don't have any intelligence?
"Feel" < A descriptive word not given to thought.
What seperates us from the one's that hang from the branches,
is the fact we can feel, and think at the same time.
(Most of us).

>I assume you are refering to the Certificate here and I think logic
>would tell you just the opposite. If they had ommited George's signature
>from the document, it might have made a little sense. To put his
>signature on it in such a manner suggests the cues are a collaberation
>of George's and Dick Helmstetter's which they clearly were not. The
>signature on the cue itself, is bad enough, but it is actually an aid to
>identify one of these phonies over the phone. When someone asks me the
>value of a Balabushka, over the phone, I tell them if it's signed, it's
>a phoney worth next to nothing.

You assume?
I think I made it fairly clear.
At least you didn't say you "Feel" I mean the Certificate were being
discussed.

Why?
Put the signature on the cue but not the Cert?
That makes NO sense.
Adding Mr. Helmstetter's signature adds that bit of legitimacy I "Think"
was necessary. But this is only a guess on my part as to the motivation.

It suggests a collaberation? I "think" you are "assuming" again.

When they ask you the value of a bushka you say if it is signed it is a
phoney?
and worth next to nothing?

That isn't very nice. . .or ethical on your part.

If you wish to talk ethics that is. . . and I don't think you do.

>
>Yes but a lot of informed people do not know;1) when he died, 2) that he
>didn't sign his cues, 3) That a major cue manufacturer is marketing a
>cue called a "Balabushka", carying a "faux" signature (with no
>explaination that it is faux), with no marking showing it's true maker.
>
>

Informed people don't know this?
Yes they do.

>
>I think you are overlooking the explainations.
>
>>

What explanations? I only see people ready to lower themselves to
the point of trying to discredit the other person arguing.
I have read no facts. . . only accusations.

>
>Another point that I've not seen mentioned is the fact that this is not
>the first episode of questionable ethics involving Adam/Helmstetter.
>Anybody familiar with the "Robert Weir" cuemaking scandal back in the
>'80's. These "Weir" cues were also made in Japan.
>
>

Why has nobody broght this to light?
All you do is mention it lightly. . . and leave it at that.
I will not give credance to it, untill it is explained properly.

>
>As far as your "survey". I think it is inherently biased. It is for
>people who have already bought "Predator" shafts. It would be human
>nature for someone who had made a purchase, in which they have paid
>twice the normal price for an object, to try to justify it in their own
>mind, even if it is a subconcious justification. The survey does not
>allow for all of the people who through research, engineering knowlege,
>or just plain common sense, found the advertizing hype to be a crock and
>did not purchase one.
>This makes any survey of this type useless!

How so?
I didn't even purchase one. . . and my oppinion is it isn't for me based
on a trial at a pool hall. As I have stated several times.

Why don't you give your oppinion.
I welcomed ALL oppinions.

You mean like someone buying a "High end Cue of any person?"
would never say they can't stand it because they paid so much for it?
Bull hockey.

I invite everyone to fill out the survey.
I even ask for their experience as a player and if they do not have it,
are they an engineer to give credence to their answers!

My survey is useless?
You haven't even READ IT!

Jim Meador

unread,

Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97

to

Tom Bellhouse wrote:
>
> BOBWHP wrote:
> Bob,

>
> I like the analogy, but there's a problem. Louis Comfort Tiffany never made
> a lamp, a vase, a bowl or a window. He designed them, he bankrolled them,
> and others made them. When this happens in cue-making, it's considered a
> scandal.
>

> Best regards,
>
> Tom Bellhouse

Artists have been using apprentices to do their labor for centuries.
Many of the great masterpieces hanging in galleries were painted (to a
point) by apprentices, and completed by the master. If all that matters
is the design, then any cue maker can apply it. However, if the shooting
characteristics are the result of art as in "craftsmanship", as opposed
to something more cosmetic as in "design", then that is a different
animal. But what can one cuemaker know about a piece of that would be
beyond the grasp of others? Opppps.
--
Jim Meador
------------------------------------------
Billiard World (Web Magazine)
<http://www.billiardworld.com>
------------------------------------------
Chalk Talk (Instructional Newletter)
<http://www.billiardworld.com/chalktlk.html>
P.O. Box 2923
Newport News, VA 23609
------------------------------------------

Smorgass Bored

unread,

Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97

to

Bushka's are the most counterfeited & copied cue in the world. Some of
the things to look for in identifying the real deal are:
1)whether the joint pin is a 5/16 14--this means that the joint screw
is 5/16" in diameter with 14 threads per inch.
2)some of his early cues had an ivory butt cap, a 4 point "Titlist' butt
and a brass sleeved joint
3)later Buska's used points from Burton Spain,silver rings in the joint
collars
4)a typical Bushka was a 4 point,4-veneer cue,witha silver ring,black
phenolic joint bands,a atainless steel joint,and a long pin rounded at
the end
5)in the butts of many Bushka's you can find a piece called a
"Tang".This was an insert between the rubber bumper and the weight
bolt,inside the butt end of the cue. This "Tang" was of certain
dimensions that are known to many cue makers and collectors
6)Bushka's always had a brown rubber bumper on the butt
G.B started out using stock Willie Hoppe cues by Brunswick,cutting
one-piece cues in half and adding joints. Szamboti also supplied blanks
to G.B. When G.B. died in 1975 he took many of his cue making secrets
with him. He is loved and missed by all who knew him.

When all else fails,
Take my advice,
Pull down your pants,
And SLIDE on the Ice. Doug W.

John Collins

unread,

Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97

to SnookerUSA

SnookerUSA wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Dilemna: Hustling, Balabushka
> >From: wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu (John Walkup)
> >Date: 8 Aug 97 19:11:37 GMT
> >Message-ID: <walkup.871067497@dimension>
> >
> >snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:
> >
> >>>snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:
> >
> >>It isn't destinguishable? You are joking. I could tell, when I knew
> >>NOTHING
> >>about cues. (Practically nothing).
> >
> >Then explain Hank's statement that people have actually been duped.
> >
> >
> >John
> >
> >
>
> They were stupid?
> Yep, that's my answer and I'm sticking to it.
>

> Regards,
> Mark Kulaga
> ---
> Webmaster: http://www.snookerusa.com
> ---
> "I'm my wife's husband.", spin off of Dr. Laura's "I'm my kids mom" quote.
> "No matter where you go, there you are" - not sure... Deepak Chopra?

Oh Mark that is a ridiculous statement. I could walk into any poolroom
in the country and sell some Taiwan cues as Tim Scruggs or Southwest cues
to players who are supposed to "know" about cues. How easy is it then to
fool intentionally or not, beginners or naive buyers? Maybe they were
"stupid" not to go out and get enough information to uncover the
deception but not everyone has or chooses that course.

John Collins

unread,

Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97

to John Walkup

John Walkup wrote:
>
> >Now as to the certificate of authenticity, some very good cuemakers do
> >provide them, Samsara for example. Joss as a production company provides
>
> Because they are authentic Samsaras.
>
> John

If you are going to quote me please quote the entire relevant paragraph.
I said that certificates are a valuable addition when used properly.

Thank you.

John Collins

=^.^=

unread,

Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97

to

snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) wrote:

>I think the argument against the signature on the cue, and the certificate
>is weak at best.

>One argument I can see as being more to their point, would be how the
>"Internet Cue Store" markets the faux "Bushka".

>Helmstetter Cues have a listing.
>Balabushka Cues have a listing to themselves.
>This seperation, without notation this cue is manufactured by Mr.
>Helmstetter is in my believe deceptive, and could in and of itself, if changed solve
>much argument over the signature, and certificate.

========
I'm not taking sides in this...I don't know enough about it. However,
I think Mark has a point. Not just the Internet Cue Store, but other
cue stores I've visited on the Web also list Balabushka as though it
is an independent maker and not merely a model name for a line of
cues.

By listing them seperately, these stores are furthering the
misconception (if one exists...I said I'm not taking sides) about who
made the cue.

I don't see a big problem with using the signature on the cue, as long
as it is approved by the B family; and the wording in the certificate
of authenticity is fairly straightforward in saying that this is not
an original Bushka. However, George's signature on the certificate
does leave a bad taste in my mouth. Is there, perhaps, another George
in the family? A son or grandson could have signed the certificate. If
this is the case, it would be better, IMO, to have "Grandson of George
Balabushka" (or something) below the signature. (Can someone verify:
does the signature on the cue match the signature on the certificate?)

The cue maker is not the only guilty party (if one exists). The family
sold the rights to use the name, so they have a part in it. And cue
stores market the cues as though Balabushka is a cue maker independent
of Helmstetter. (If this marketing ploy is a requirement made by the
cue maker...well, then I *will* take sides because that would be
intent to deceive.)

Bev =^.^= clou...@primenet.com
http://www.bayside.net/users/cbsites/pool/

Ron Shepard

unread,

Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97

to

In article <33EC14...@XSPAMcyberhighway.net>, Tom Bellhouse
<alt...@XSPAMcyberhighway.net> wrote:

[...]
> 1. My Lincoln Continental was not made by Abrahan Lincoln.

And the other Fords aren't made by Henry Ford either. His family actually
profits from using his name on automobiles to this day!

> 2. Samuel Adams didn't brew my beer.
>
> 3. Ben Hogan didn't make my golf clubs. What a ripoff -- they have his
> name right on them. (Some sonofagun must have been stronger than dirt --
> the pen mashed right into the steel when he forged the signature
> (bad pun, sorry)).

Let's see I have a Stan Smith tennis racket somewhere too. Now you're
going to tell me that not only did he not make it, he didn't even really
play with it?

> The list goes on and on. Is there no end to this moral depravity?

You mean those Jacklyn Smith panties sold in K-mart weren't actually worn
by her? Wait 'till Carlo hears about this one! How about those Levi
Strauss jeans? Or that Elvis Presley coffee cup (alright, Elvis is still
alive, so maybe he did draw that picture of Graceland on it and sign it
himself). And maybe George Washington didn't actually pose for that
picture on this dollar bill? Surely, they don't make Micky Mantle
baseball bats any more, do they? And don't call me "Surely". Calvin
Klein, Chanel, Goodrich tires, Kelloge cereal, Edison power and light,
Bell telephone, you name it.

And in some fields it is actually an honor to have something named after
you even if there is no money involved. Green functions, Bessel
functions, Schrodinger equation, Lorentz contraction, Born-Oppenheimer
approximation, Legendre polynomials, Dirac delta function, Schwartz
inequality, Hertz, Newton's equation, Hamilton's principle, Boyle's law,
Gibb's free energy, and so on.

Look folks, a commemorative line of cue sticks is just that. It isn't the
first time that a license agreement has been signed, and it won't be the
last. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If you want to get
your panties in a bunch over something, how about unauthorized
counterfeiting?

$.02 -Ron Shepard

Alig8orMan

unread,

Aug 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/10/97

to

>(Can someone verify:
>does the signature on the cue match the signature on the certificate?)
>

To a "t". It is the same. From what I know about this deal is that
Helmstetter acted as a consultant and had the cues outsourced. I really
don't think he is making them. Besides he has spent the last 5 or so years
developing the Big Bertha line of golf clubs. Yes, the VERY popular line
of clubs. He is making more $$$$ at Calloway than I ever think he made
making cues. He hasn't been into pool in a long time. I think the peole to
be sore at is the Adams people.

Joe

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

Anyone want to apologize to Mr. Helmstetter yet?

Chuck Woo

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

In article <33ED27...@XSPAMcyberhighway.net>,

Tom Bellhouse <alt...@XSPAMcyberhighway.net> wrote:
>I like the analogy, but there's a problem. Louis Comfort Tiffany never made
>a lamp, a vase, a bowl or a window. He designed them, he bankrolled them,
>and others made them. When this happens in cue-making, it's considered a
>scandal.

It's only considered a scandal because Balabushka neither designed the cues,
built the cues, nor authorized the cues (he was dead at the time), and yet
people here are saying that the manufacturer not only does not publicize
these facts, but may even imply that the opposite is true (at least wrt some
of the facts).

I myself don't have a problem with licensing (since part of my "daily nut"
sometimes depends on it), but I'd draw the line here, as there seems to me
to be some definite misleading advertising going on. Genuine faux pearls,
indeed.

- Chuck

Chuck Woo

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

In article <5sl1s4$h...@nntp02.primenet.com>,

=^.^= <clou...@primenet.com> wrote:
>I don't see a big problem with using the signature on the cue, as long
>as it is approved by the B family; and the wording in the certificate
>of authenticity is fairly straightforward in saying that this is not
>an original Bushka. However, George's signature on the certificate
>does leave a bad taste in my mouth. Is there, perhaps, another George
>in the family? A son or grandson could have signed the certificate. If
>this is the case, it would be better, IMO, to have "Grandson of George
>Balabushka" (or something) below the signature. (Can someone verify:

Oh yeah?!? Well, so's yer old man! Neener neener! ;9

On a less serious note, I think one reason people are taking such exception
to the Signature (henceforth capitalized for legal purposes) is that there's
"only one George". To the best of my knowledge, George's family did not
make Balabushka cues. If there were a George Jr signing the cues, I think
people would be even more in an uproar, because now we not only have an
imposter cue, but an imposter cuemaker! (Or, at the very least, someone
who doesn't matter in the least bit. Sorry, George Jr, I'm sure you're
a swell guy...)

As an analogue (uh oh), consider the case of Barry Szamboti. From what I
can tell, he WILL NOT take his dad's name for his own cues, and WILL NOT
stand on his dad's work to sell his own. Sure, people will flock to him
for a taste of The Great Szamboti Legacy, but I imagine Barry has pride
enough to slap that feeling out of his customers. Adam Cue, however, seem
to be banking on people with that feeling.

- Chuck

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

>Let's see. Here we have a Richard Helmstetter, who strikes a deal
>with the family of a dead person, puts only the dead person's
>signature on a cue and publishes an accompanying certificate which
>says: "This fine billiard cue is the product of a unique joint effort
>between the family of the late cue master, George Balabushka, and the
>superb manufacturing abilities of Richard Helmstetter. He signs the
>certificate with the signatures of the dead person and himself, and
>then has someone else actually manufacture the cues.
>
>And some apology is due because some folks think there might be some
>margin for deception here? Is that about right?
>
>

I'm through with this thread myself.
I don't think Mr. Helmstetter did anything wrong here.
Furthermore, I think it is SLANDEROUS any of you have said what you have!
without the facts. Untill then, YOUR claims are slander.

That would be about right.

end of my addition to this thread until I release any data from my
polling.

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

>
>I'm through with this thread myself.
>I don't think Mr. Helmstetter did anything wrong here.
>Furthermore, I think it is SLANDEROUS any of you have said what you have!
>without the facts. Untill then, YOUR claims are slander.
>
>That would be about right.
>
>end of my addition to this thread until I release any data from my
>polling.
>
>

I know this annoys Jim but I have to once again add to one of my previous
posts. . . You here is to be defined as (You) impersonal plural, as in all
of those
attacking Mr. Helmstetter without all the facts.

Although, you will notice I commented it was odd that some retailers
on-line
are seperating Helmstetter cues with Balabushka cues, giving the idea that
this is a seperate line unto itself.

-

Alig8orMan

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

>Bottom line clarification of my position on the issue: Balabushka made
>Balabushkas. Nobody else has, or will, and any misrepresentation of that

>fact is intentionally deceptive. Unfortunately, it is also legal. We
all
>shop at the great Caveat Emptorium, however. Maybe discussions like the
one
>we have had in this forum may help spread the word and spare the sheep.
>
>The only real solution would lie with the retailers, online and
otherwise.
>Maybe a disclaimer, or an explanatory paragraph, could undo the potential

>injustice done by selling the phoney Balabushkas. But I won't hold my
breath
>Best regards,
>
>Tom Bellhouse

Tom,
I don't know a single person who bought an Adams Bushka and thought he
was buying the real thing. When Adams/Helmstetter set out to do this cue,
it started as a tributary idea only. I also hear the line will be
discontinued due to POOR sales. And even a person with limited knowledge
would be able to logically make the assumption that since this guy is
dead, any NEW cues would obviously not be the real thing. People in this
group are acting like everyone that buys a new cue, has the I.Q. of a head
of lettuce, or just got off the Forrest Gump shrimp boat. I don't think
any dealer of these cues would risk their reputation saying these were the
genuine article. Plus as I read the certificate, I can see it says clearly
that these are NOT the real thing.
For all you who want to see a cue that embelishes the Bushka concept, and
looks like a Bushka. Go to Richard Blacks web page and see the Bushka cue
he has in his line. This is a real tribute to a great cuemaker, by a great
cuemaker.

Joe

Alig8orMan

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

>The problem is that you, "Mark", are so wrapped up in arguing that you
>have ignored the facts. I'm tired of the petty bickering and have no
>more to say on the subject. I've stated my opinions and the facts that I
>know. You have certainly not brought forth ANY information, just
>arguments. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and if you aren't
>open minded enough to see the problem than I don't intend to waste any
>more of my time to try to enlighten you.
>;-)
>Sherm

The problem I see here, is that all you guys want to HANG the wrong
person. Also it isn't Mark who is lacking the open mind. The Bushka line
was manufactured in totally legal fashion. The way it was marketed maybe
a touchy subject, but again Helmstetter was NOT the marketer or the p.r.
department. So get off his case already.
The only beef one can have with Mr. Helmstetter is that the cues (imo)
don't really capture the essence of the real deal.
Maybe someone is jealous that he didn't get offered the consulting
contract? But thats getting away from the point, so I wont go there.

Joe

ps: Don't say Helmstetter allowed this to happen. I don't even think he
resides in the US.

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

she...@tcg.anl.gov (Ron Shepard) writes:

>Look folks, a commemorative line of cue sticks is just that. It isn't the
>first time that a license agreement has been signed, and it won't be the
>last. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If you want to get
>your panties in a bunch over something, how about unauthorized
>counterfeiting?

Well, since George didn't actually do the authorizing I don't see a huge
ethical difference. Legal, yes.

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

clou...@primenet.com (=^.^=) writes:

>snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) wrote:

>I'm not taking sides in this...I don't know enough about it. However,
>I think Mark has a point. Not just the Internet Cue Store, but other
>cue stores I've visited on the Web also list Balabushka as though it
>is an independent maker and not merely a model name for a line of
>cues.

And I believe that the way Helmstetter markets his cues has a lot to do
with this.

>By listing them seperately, these stores are furthering the
>misconception (if one exists...I said I'm not taking sides) about who
>made the cue.

>I don't see a big problem with using the signature on the cue, as long

>as it is approved by the B family; and the wording in the certificate
>of authenticity is fairly straightforward in saying that this is not
>an original Bushka. However, George's signature on the certificate
>does leave a bad taste in my mouth. Is there, perhaps, another George
>in the family? A son or grandson could have signed the certificate. If
>this is the case, it would be better, IMO, to have "Grandson of George
>Balabushka" (or something) below the signature. (Can someone verify:

>does the signature on the cue match the signature on the certificate?)

>The cue maker is not the only guilty party (if one exists). The family

>sold the rights to use the name, so they have a part in it. And cue

I agree. Sure, his wife may have been a poor widow, but that doesn't
make what she did right. Now, if George told her on his deathbed that
he wanted Helmstetter to market a line of cues commemorating his work,
I would understand. For some reason, I doubt that.

>stores market the cues as though Balabushka is a cue maker independent
>of Helmstetter. (If this marketing ploy is a requirement made by the
>cue maker...well, then I *will* take sides because that would be
>intent to deceive.)

John

Carl M. Pearson

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

To hell with selling just cues, I'm gonna sell Certificate of Authenticity replicas, too.

My current inventory include Certificate of Authenticity replicas for all
cue makers, living or dead, and some from cue makers who haven't gone into the
business yet. I have a limited supply of those from one cue maker who isn't
even born yet! This one is due to be a rare and valuable addition to any
collection! Order yours now!

I have Balabushkas, Babbylushykas, and Ballybabushkas. George, Gus and Gerty.
I have Shon, Shaun, Shawn, Shahn, Shone, and Scones.
I have McDermott, MacDermott, Mick Dermott, and Mack Dermots.
I have Shick, Shiq, Shik, Shaq, and Shic.
I have Samsara, Sam Sarah, Sam Sorry, and Slam Sarah.
I have Tad, Tod, Tadd, Thad, and Rad.
Too many to list here! All have Genuine Original Real Replica signatures!

$150 each plus $25 for the COAR! Plus postage, handling and insurance.

DO NOT USE THE US MAIL, send via UPS. Cash preferred. Money orders accepted.

Carlo

Ron Shepard

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

In article <walkup.871317782@dimension>, wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu
(John Walkup) wrote:

Well then, we disagree; I think it does make an ethical difference. I
think that if someone markets a commemorative line of cues with a forged,
or stolen, signature, then that is not ethical, and especially so if they
are marketed and sold as if they were originals. But if he licenses that
signature, either from the original person or, as in this case, from the
estate of his widow who owns it, then it is ethical. And if he includes a
certificate, as in this case, which states that this is a commemorative
cue, then that is ethical. Maybe it is not a huge ethical difference, but
it is a significant one.

Many things are legal that are not ethical, just as some things are
illegal that are ethical, so that is irrelevant.

I think the real ethical issue here, using Kant's criterion, is whether
the cue maker had an INTENT to make and sell counterfeit cue sticks. It
seems pretty clear to me, from the wording of the certificate to the
licensing of the signature, that this is not the case. Whether the cue
sticks look, or hit, or bear any resemblence whatsoever to orignal
Balabushka cue sticks is irrelevant to the ethical question, although of
course these are important questions for other reasons.

Has anyone measured the squirt of these commemorative cue sticks? Now
THAT would be an important question! ;-)

$.02 -Ron Shepard

Tom Bellhouse

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

Chuck,

I agree in principle with the folks who have taken offense at the selling of
ersatz Balabushkas. I was around when you could get a real one for under $200,
and I have mentally kicked myself in the butt a hundred times for not getting
into cue collecting then. But who knew that those cues would be so rare and so
expensive some day?

In a similar vein, there once was a fine line of production cues called
Palmer Originals. They were relatively inexpensive in the 60's, as were
Paradise cues, Szambotis and Balabushkas. I think the Palmer's value has not
appreciated as much as the others partly because somebody appropriated
the name "Palmer" and started cranking out crappy cues in Taiwan, or
somewhere. Preying on suckers.

Bottom line clarification of my position on the issue: Balabushka made
Balabushkas. Nobody else has, or will, and any misrepresentation of that
fact is intentionally deceptive. Unfortunately, it is also legal. We all
shop at the great Caveat Emptorium, however. Maybe discussions like the one we
have had in this forum may help spread the word and spare the sheep.

The only real solution would lie with the retailers, online and otherwise.
Maybe a disclaimer, or an explanatory paragraph, could undo the potential

injustice done by selling the phoney Balabushkas. But I won't hold my breath . . .

Best regards,

Tom Bellhouse

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:

>>
>>Suffice to say that I am not buying anything Mark is selling.

>John,

>Why would you say this?. . . are you insinuating that I would
>sell a counterfeit as the real thing? or am not to be trusted in
>any way? I hope you were joking.

You snipped out the line I was referring to. So how can I answer?

John

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

R...@Netcams.com (Ron Hudson) writes:

>On Sat, 09 Aug 1997 12:53:58 -0400, Sherm Adamson <sher...@iac.net>
>wrote:

>>The idea of George Balabushka, post humously, signing the Certificate of
>>Authenticity seems rather rediculous to me. I mean they say that the
>>cues are made in the manner and design that George would be using if he
>>were alive and crankin' out cues today, then put his signature on it as
>>if he was making the statement. How can they possibly justify this?
>>Just my opinion 8^)
>>Sherm

>That's exactly right. The certificiate should have been signed by
>some party to the agreement authorizing the deal - someone from the
>family.

Even *I* would have went along with this. But I would still have problems
calling the cues Balabushkas.

John

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:

>I think the argument against the signature on the cue, and the certificate
>is
>weak at best.

>One argument I can see as being more to their point, would be how the
>"Internet Cue Store" markets the faux "Bushka".

>Helmstetter Cues have a listing.
>Balabushka Cues have a listing to themselves.
>This seperation, without notation this cue is manufactured by Mr.
>Helmstetter
>is in my believe deceptive, and could in and of itself, if changed solve
>much
>argument over the signature, and certificate.

Actually, in small print it is stated that the cues are made by Adam.
But the fact that the cues are reproductions is not made well-known.

However, Richard's marketing approach allowed this to happen. In fact,
it appears to me to be deliberate.

John

Sherm Adamson

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to SnookerUSA

SnookerUSA wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm through with this thread myself.
> >I don't think Mr. Helmstetter did anything wrong here.
> >Furthermore, I think it is SLANDEROUS any of you have said what you have!
> >without the facts. Untill then, YOUR claims are slander.
> >
> >That would be about right.
> >
> >end of my addition to this thread until I release any data from my
> >polling.
> >
> >
>
> I know this annoys Jim but I have to once again add to one of my previous
> posts. . . You here is to be defined as (You) impersonal plural, as in all
> of those
> attacking Mr. Helmstetter without all the facts.
>

The problem is that you, "Mark", are so wrapped up in arguing that you

have ignored the facts. I'm tired of the petty bickering and have no
more to say on the subject. I've stated my opinions and the facts that I
know. You have certainly not brought forth ANY information, just
arguments. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and if you aren't
open minded enough to see the problem than I don't intend to waste any
more of my time to try to enlighten you.
;-)
Sherm
>

--
////////////////////////////!\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\!///////////////////////////
Sherm Custom Cues
The Finest In Custom Billiard Cues Made To Your Specs.
15 Years Experience
Member "American Cuemakers Association"
3352 Nine Mile Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45255
Shop (513) 553-2172 Fax (513) 553-0417
e-mail, sher...@iac.net
http://www.iac.net/~shermcue
(Webpage Under Construction)
////////////////////////////!\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\!///////////////////////////

Carl M. Pearson

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

1. Gus Balabushka, with a great cuemaker reputation, has his reputation improved
from the Color-of-Money.

2. Barry Balabushka, cuemaker, carries on family tradition.

3. Cuemaking businessmen see marketing edge in using Balabushka name to
sell cues.

4. Businessmen approach family Balabushka and offer compensation to use
Balabushka name.

5. Family Balabushka's has concerns about possible negative name usage.

6. Businessman see sales benefit and sells family on "Protection" afforded by
including a Certificate of Authentiticity.

7. Family Balabushka's concerns are addressed and covered by C of A, and
probably other adjustments.

8. RSB ignites. Jim hates Mark. Mark deletes his spellchecker. Jim doesn't
send a cue to a kid, but hates Mark 'cause Mark vacilated about it.

9. Both Mark and Jim send cuesticks and cue sticks, to Carlito, care of Carlo.
Carlito is a well deserving kid with no money but good potential at pool.

10. Jim and Mark kiss, like it, and move in together, provided Mark loses the beard,
Jim stays off of cafeine for a month and Mark quits preferring leather balls.

11. J.Lee shows up and gives Jim and Mark first hand evidence about implants and
simultaneously converts them back, and both of their deep screw shots improve.
Nobody needs to tell Breedlove 'cause he has a temper.

12. Family Balabushka gets a check.

13. Businessmen get a check.

14. Players get a decent, not great, cue for decent dollars. Sounds fair.

14. Carlito gets some cues.

15. Jim and Mark get straight.

16. Capitalism as a way of life continues forward.

17. Barry Balabushka has a 3 year backlog and doesn't mind at all.

18. Barry sends Carlito a cue, too.

Carlo

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:

>>The idea of George Balabushka, post humously, signing the Certificate of
>>Authenticity seems rather rediculous to me. I mean they say that the
>>cues are made in the manner and design that George would be using if he
>>were alive and crankin' out cues today, then put his signature on it as
>>if he was making the statement. How can they possibly justify this?
>>Just my opinion 8^)
>>Sherm

>Sherm,

>The signature is a (faux) signature, much like that on any item,
>where the "artist" is no longer around., to sign for himself.
>Legally, it would seem Mr. Hemlstetter has the right to do so.
>I don't see this as being the problem at all, nor the signature on
>the (faux) cue stick being marketed by Mr. Helmstetter.

Except you have to ask "Why did they put George's signature on
the Certificate?" The only purpose I can see it prividing is
to mislead.

>They do say, "The cues are made in the manner design that George would
>be using if he were alive today". So? What makes you say this is not
>true?

What makes it true? A Certificate of Authenticity is not a mere
opinion column. The very title mandates truth, but Helmstetter
cannot support what is written and signed.

>You don't explain this at all, just show your disgust for it.

>Uhm, I don't think they put the signature on that as if "he" meaning Mr.
>Balablushka were making it. If this were so, you would only see George
>Balabushka and not Richard Helmstetter as well.

So why is George's signature on it?

>Even the dumbest cue buyer knows Mr. Balabushka is "Dead", so they
>should be aware he cannot sign his own name. . .

No, you are mistaken. Whether a cue buyer knows he is dead has nothing
to do with intelligence. That is a pretty arrogant stand you are making.

>I'm beginning to think you guys are the "My cup is half-empty, get out of
>my
>way your driving too slow, I'm going to cut you off now you bastard"
>kind of people.

Actually, I have a different take on this. Those of us who have serious
problems with Richard Helmstetter's marketing approach, such as
Ron Hudson, Hank Miller, and myself, tend to stand up for the little
guy. We don't take arrogant stances about cue buyers being dumb
just because they didn't know that George Balabushka is dead. We
want everything to be out in the open and honest. If the Helmstetter's
are reproductions, they should be labeled with the Adam insignia to let
everyone know they are indeed mady be Adam. The Certificate of
Authentiticity should not have been "signed" by Balabushka. In other words,
Helmstetter should have bent over backwards to inform everyone that
his cues are reproductions, and he (IMO) failed to do that.

John

Chuck Woo

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

In article <19970811162...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Alig8orMan <alig8...@aol.com> wrote:
>...it started as a tributary idea only. I also hear the line will be

>discontinued due to POOR sales. And even a person with limited knowledge
>would be able to logically make the assumption that since this guy is
>dead, any NEW cues would obviously not be the real thing. People in this

I know he was a player and not a cuemaker, but what about the new "Willie
Mosconi" line of tribute cues from Joss? They seem to be similar in ways
(ie. Mosconi didn't design them (he was dead at the time also) or play
with them or pole vault with them) so it's clearly a licensing deal.
However, Joss has plastered its own named on the advertising and the cue
so no one would even think that it could be otherwise tied to the man,
except as a tribute.

As far as the dead guy thing goes, now that Jerry Franklin is gone, I'm
led to believe that Southwests are still Southwests. (I wonder how sales
are these days, though...)

>group are acting like everyone that buys a new cue, has the I.Q. of a head
>of lettuce, or just got off the Forrest Gump shrimp boat. I don't think

Great, now we're going to hear it from the Lettuce Advancement Foundation
and the Shrimp Union. Thanks, Joe.

> For all you who want to see a cue that embelishes the Bushka concept, and
>looks like a Bushka. Go to Richard Blacks web page and see the Bushka cue
>he has in his line. This is a real tribute to a great cuemaker, by a great
>cuemaker.

Note that Black calls it a "Bushka", not a "Balabushka". You're right, it's
a beautiful tribute.

- Chuck

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:

>>If the artist is no longer around to sign an object himself, why should
>>someone else take the liberty to do so?! Especially when the work was
>>not his own!!!

>Because it is a replica, and that should include the signature.
>Although here, the replica did not need one, because George
>never signed his, this production cue is obviously being marketed
>to the lower cue buyers on the cue-chain, and the signature is
>"probably" there to make them feel like they are getting more
>for their money. . . (No real big deal.)

No real big deal? Aren't ALL fraud attempts designed to make
customers feel they are getting more for their money?

>Why?
>Put the signature on the cue but not the Cert?
>That makes NO sense.

It makes perfect sense, and it is exactly what I would have done if
I had written the certificate. And I would be willing to bet that
most cuemakers agree.

>>Another point that I've not seen mentioned is the fact that this is not
>>the first episode of questionable ethics involving Adam/Helmstetter.
>>Anybody familiar with the "Robert Weir" cuemaking scandal back in the
>>'80's. These "Weir" cues were also made in Japan.

>Why has nobody broght this to light?
>All you do is mention it lightly. . . and leave it at that.
>I will not give credance to it, untill it is explained properly.

I think Thomas Wayne did exactly that.

John

Alig8orMan

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

>However, Richard's marketing approach allowed this to happen. In fact,
it appears to me to be deliberate.
>
>John

One more time, Mr. Helmstetter is NOT marketing this cue. He acted more as
a consultant, than anything else. If all of you want to take up a crusade,
call Adams Cue Manufacturing with your displeasure. If you want to accuse
someone fine, but at least get the culprit correct.

>Actually, in small print it is stated that the cues are made by Adam. But
the fact that the cues are reproductions is not made well-known.<<

The very first advertisement for these cues CLEARLY stated that the line
was called Balabushka by Adams/Helmstetter.

Joe

SnookerUSA

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

>
>Actually, in small print it is stated that the cues are made by Adam.
>But the fact that the cues are reproductions is not made well-known.
>

>However, Richard's marketing approach allowed this to happen. In fact,
>it appears to me to be deliberate.
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
<thud>.

Regards,
Mark Kulaga
---
Webmaster: http://www.assemblylineproducts.com

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:

>>
>>>(Can someone verify:
>>>does the signature on the cue match the signature on the certificate?)
>>>
>>

>> To a "t". It is the same. From what I know about this deal is that
>>Helmstetter acted as a consultant and had the cues outsourced. I really
>>don't think he is making them. Besides he has spent the last 5 or so
>years
>>developing the Big Bertha line of golf clubs. Yes, the VERY popular line
>>of clubs. He is making more $$$$ at Calloway than I ever think he made
>>making cues. He hasn't been into pool in a long time. I think the peole
>to
>>be sore at is the Adams people.

>Anyone want to apologize to Mr. Helmstetter yet?

Once I find out exactly what his involvment was. Exactly what kind of
consulting did he do? Isn't Helmstetter held responsible to Adam cues?

John

Donovan

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

Ron Shepard <she...@tcg.anl.gov> wrote in article
<shepard-1008...@anchah.chm.anl.gov>...
> In article <33EC14...@XSPAMcyberhighway.net>, Tom Bellhouse

> Look folks, a commemorative line of cue sticks is just that. It isn't
the
> first time that a license agreement has been signed, and it won't be the
> last. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If you want to get
> your panties in a bunch over something, how about unauthorized
> counterfeiting?
>

> $.02 -Ron Shepard
>
A Balabushka is that because of the craftsman who made it. A copy should
never be represented as anything else. Just another example that money is
all most people care about.
Donovan;-)

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

alig8...@aol.com (Alig8orMan) writes:

>>However, Richard's marketing approach allowed this to happen. In fact,
>it appears to me to be deliberate.
>>
>>John

>One more time, Mr. Helmstetter is NOT marketing this cue. He acted more as

>a consultant, than anything else. If all of you want to take up a crusade,

Then kindly explain to me why his signature is at the bottom of the certificate.
A mere consultant? I don't think so. And you make it sound as if
Mr. Helmstetter is completely independent from Adam Custom Cues. Is that
the case? Was that the case then? (I thought, maybe incorrectly, that
Richard Helmstetter either owned or operated Adam Custom Cues.)

>call Adams Cue Manufacturing with your displeasure. If you want to accuse
>someone fine, but at least get the culprit correct.

Even the certificate stated that it was Richard Helmstetter who
brought about the agreement. It appears that his involvement in this
deal goes beyond mere consulting. If he struck the deal, he's the
man.

>>Actually, in small print it is stated that the cues are made by Adam. But
>the fact that the cues are reproductions is not made well-known.<<

>The very first advertisement for these cues CLEARLY stated that the line

>was called Balabushka by Adams/Helmstetter.

That certainly is an improvement over what I saw on the Internet Cue Store's
web page.

John

=^.^=

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

alig8...@aol.com (Alig8orMan) wrote:

>>(Can someone verify:
>>does the signature on the cue match the signature on the certificate?)
>>

> To a "t". It is the same. From what I know about this deal is that
>Helmstetter acted as a consultant and had the cues outsourced. I really
>don't think he is making them. Besides he has spent the last 5 or so years
>developing the Big Bertha line of golf clubs. Yes, the VERY popular line
>of clubs. He is making more $$$$ at Calloway than I ever think he made
>making cues. He hasn't been into pool in a long time. I think the peole to
>be sore at is the Adams people.

Oh, okay. Then substitute Adams for Helmstetter in my post. I admitted
that I didn't know much about this when I dove in. I was just trying
to put a different perspective on it. 8-)

Bev =^.^= clou...@primenet.com
http://www.bayside.net/users/cbsites/pool/

Carl M. Pearson

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

1. George Balabushka, with a great cuemaker reputation, has his reputation improved

from the Color-of-Money.

2. Barry Balabushka, cuemaker, carries on family tradition.

3. Cuemaking businessmen see marketing edge in using Balabushka name to
sell cues.

4. Businessmen approach family Balabushka and offer compensation to use
Balabushka name.

5. Family Balabushka's has concerns about possible negative name usage.

6. Businessman see sales benefit and sells family on "Protection" afforded by
including a Certificate of Authentiticity.

7. Family Balabushka's concerns are addressed and covered by C of A, and
probably other adjustments.

8. RSB ignites. Jim hates Mark. Mark deletes his spellchecker. Jim doesn't
send a cue to a kid, but hates Mark 'cause Mark vacilated about it.

9. Both Mark and Jim send cuesticks and cue sticks, to Carlito, care of Carlo.
Carlito is a well deserving kid with no money but good potential at pool.

10. Jim and Mark kiss, like it, and move in together, provided Mark loses the beard,
Jim stays off of cafeine for a month and Mark quits preferring leather balls.

11. J.Lee shows up and gives Jim and Mark first hand evidence about implants and
simultaneously converts them back, and both of their deep screw shots improve.
Nobody needs to tell Breedlove 'cause he has a temper.

12. Family Balabushka gets a check.

13. Businessmen get a check.

14. Players get a decent, not great, cue for decent dollars. Sounds fair.

15. Carlito gets some cues.

16. Jim and Mark get straight.

17. Capitalism as a way of life continues forward.

18. Barry Balabushka has a 3 year backlog and doesn't mind at all.

19. Barry sends Carlito a cue, too.

Carlo

Ron Shepard

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

In article <33EF5A...@cuemakers.org>, Thomas Wayne
<wa...@cuemakers.org> wrote:

[...]
>A small point of clarification:
[...]
>At least one vendor on the net makes no mention of the real
>origin of these cues and also describes them as being just like the cue
>"in the movie The Color of Money".

As has been pointed out before in this thread, it is ironic that the
"Balabuska" in the movie "The Color of Money" was really a Joss. Joss
also marketed copies of this copy, and sold then as collector's items, not
because they were meant to be original Balabuskas, but because of their
connection with the movie.

[...]
>Ultimately, the responsibility for educating the buyer rests with the
>SELLER. He knows exactly what he is selling; he should be damn sure the
>customer knows what he is buying. To do any less is despicable.

This is a good point. In a business transaction, both the buyer and the
seller should should profit from the exchange. If they don't, then
something is wrong.

$.02 -Ron Shepard

Sherm Adamson

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

Ron Hudson wrote:
>
> >>
> >Anyone want to apologize to Mr. Helmstetter yet?
> >
> >
> >

> >Regards,
> >Mark Kulaga
> >---

> Let's see. Here we have a Richard Helmstetter, who strikes a deal
> with the family of a dead person, puts only the dead person's
> signature on a cue and publishes an accompanying certificate which
> says: "This fine billiard cue is the product of a unique joint effort
> between the family of the late cue master, George Balabushka, and the
> superb manufacturing abilities of Richard Helmstetter. He signs the
> certificate with the signatures of the dead person and himself, and
> then has someone else actually manufacture the cues.
>
> And some apology is due because some folks think there might be some
> margin for deception here? Is that about right?

Careful now Ron. You're just going to confuse the issue with all of
these "Facts". Some members of the group would rather argue semantics
than facts.
For the record, I agree.
8^)

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

she...@tcg.anl.gov (Ron Shepard) writes:

>In article <walkup.871317782@dimension>, wal...@dimension.nhn.uoknor.edu
>(John Walkup) wrote:

>>she...@tcg.anl.gov (Ron Shepard) writes:
>>
>>>Look folks, a commemorative line of cue sticks is just that. It isn't the
>>>first time that a license agreement has been signed, and it won't be the
>>>last. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If you want to get
>>>your panties in a bunch over something, how about unauthorized
>>>counterfeiting?
>>

>>Well, since George didn't actually do the authorizing I don't see a huge
>>ethical difference. Legal, yes.

>Well then, we disagree; I think it does make an ethical difference. I
>think that if someone markets a commemorative line of cues with a forged,
>or stolen, signature, then that is not ethical, and especially so if they
>are marketed and sold as if they were originals. But if he licenses that
>signature, either from the original person or, as in this case, from the
>estate of his widow who owns it, then it is ethical. And if he includes a

Here is where I disagree. I don't think Mrs. Balabushka can ethically
allow another cuemaker to determine what is or isn't the essence of a
Balabushka cue. She wasn't a cuemaker. The LAW may allow her to speak
for George, but that doesn't mean it is ethical for her to do so.

>certificate, as in this case, which states that this is a commemorative
>cue, then that is ethical. Maybe it is not a huge ethical difference, but
>it is a significant one.

>I think the real ethical issue here, using Kant's criterion, is whether
>the cue maker had an INTENT to make and sell counterfeit cue sticks. It
>seems pretty clear to me, from the wording of the certificate to the

>licensing of the signature, that this is not the case. Whether the cue

So what purpose does George's signature at the bottom of the certificate
serve?

>sticks look, or hit, or bear any resemblence whatsoever to orignal
>Balabushka cue sticks is irrelevant to the ethical question, although of
>course these are important questions for other reasons.

John

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

alig8...@aol.com (Alig8orMan) writes:

>>The problem is that you, "Mark", are so wrapped up in arguing that you
>>have ignored the facts. I'm tired of the petty bickering and have no
>>more to say on the subject. I've stated my opinions and the facts that I
>>know. You have certainly not brought forth ANY information, just
>>arguments. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and if you aren't
>>open minded enough to see the problem than I don't intend to waste any
>>more of my time to try to enlighten you.

> The problem I see here, is that all you guys want to HANG the wrong

>person. Also it isn't Mark who is lacking the open mind. The Bushka line
>was manufactured in totally legal fashion. The way it was marketed maybe
>a touchy subject, but again Helmstetter was NOT the marketer or the p.r.
>department. So get off his case already.

Is Richard Helmstetter responsible for the actions of the company
Adam Custom Cues? If he had any control over the marketing of this
product, then he is to blame. If Adam Custom Cue is a completely
separate entity, then I concede your point, at least as far as marketing
goes. (I have other beefs, however.)

> The only beef one can have with Mr. Helmstetter is that the cues (imo)
>don't really capture the essence of the real deal.

And this is a large part of the problem. In the certificate it says
that these cues would be the ones George would be making if he were
still alive. I think that is bunk, and Richard signed it.

> Maybe someone is jealous that he didn't get offered the consulting
>contract? But thats getting away from the point, so I wont go there.

Well, I was the one that started the whole argument, and I am not jealous
because I didn't get the consulting contract.

>ps: Don't say Helmstetter allowed this to happen. I don't even think he
>resides in the US.

Irrelevant.

John

Thomas Wayne

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

> snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) writes:
>

> >Why has nobody broght this to light?
> >All you do is mention it lightly. . . and leave it at that.
> >I will not give credance to it, untill it is explained properly.
>

John Walkup wrote:

> I think Thomas Wayne did exactly that.
>
> John

A small point of clarification:

Dick Helmstetter’s current involvement with Adam Cues and Helmstetter
Cues is rather limited; the certificates of "authenticity" do, however,
carry a facsimile of his signature. I DO NOT think any of this
constitutes "fraud" on the part of the manufacturer. Mr. Helmstetter is
very talented at marketing, which is what this is all about (he’s also a
complete gentleman and a pretty good guy). Both the ‘Balabushka’
brochure and the certificate are clear about George Balabushka’s
non-involvement in the production of these cues. Any customer of
average intelligence should understand this, IF he reads the
literature. Whether these are the cues George would be building if he
were alive today is open to debate; though at 85+ years old I’m not sure
he’d building much of anything :-].

The fraud occurs when a seller intentionally or recklessly fails to make
note of the non-original nature of the product. I have seen this happen
in two ways: At least one vendor on the net makes no mention of the real

origin of these cues and also describes them as being just like the cue

"in the movie The Color of Money". Second, I have met more than one
‘sucker’ who bought a "Balabushka" from a private party in the belief
that it was genuine. I’ve NOT heard of anyone paying inflated prices
for the ‘new’ cues, though it’s possible this has also happened. But,
if the end result is a purchase based in part on the belief that the
cues was built by George Balabushka, then fraud has occurred, regardless
of price. . .

Ultimately, the responsibility for educating the buyer rests with the
SELLER. He knows exactly what he is selling; he should be damn sure the
customer knows what he is buying. To do any less is despicable.

Thomas Wayne

Alig8orMan

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

> 11. J.Lee shows up and gives Jim and Mark first hand evidence about
implants and simultaneously converts them back, and both of their deep
screw shots improve.
> Nobody needs to tell Breedlove 'cause he has a temper.

I wanna know who went first., and who got sloppy seconds. :)

Joe

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/11/97

to

alig8...@aol.com (Alig8orMan) writes:

> I don't know a single person who bought an Adams Bushka and thought he
>was buying the real thing. When Adams/Helmstetter set out to do this cue,

I think Hank already stated he had come across some people who did exactly
that. Hank?

>it started as a tributary idea only. I also hear the line will be

A very badly and unethically planned tributary.

>discontinued due to POOR sales. And even a person with limited knowledge
>would be able to logically make the assumption that since this guy is
>dead, any NEW cues would obviously not be the real thing. People in this

>group are acting like everyone that buys a new cue, has the I.Q. of a head

>of lettuce, or just got off the Forrest Gump shrimp boat. I don't think

No, we are assuming that the people going out to buy cues COULD BE
uninformed. These people need protection as well, otherwise we wouldn't
need laws dealing with fraud.

Consider an example. There was a t-shirt supplier making t-shirts
with "Gucci" proudly displayed on the front. They were fakes. One
fashion expert said that Gucci didn't make t-shirts, so it should have
been obvious that they were fakes. Obvious to whom? (I am reasonably
certain it was Gucci, but I could be wrong.)

>any dealer of these cues would risk their reputation saying these were the
>genuine article. Plus as I read the certificate, I can see it says clearly
>that these are NOT the real thing.

But how close to a fake is it, when George Balabushka's signature is found
at the bottom? The signature, to me at least, gives the reproduction a
lot more prestige than is deserved. If a company wants to make Balabushka
look-alikes, fine. Just don't say that George gave his blessings on it,
because he didn't. Yet, that is what is implied with the signatures.

To me, George's family may have LEGAL authorization to sell his name
to the highest bidder, but that doesn't make their actions ethical. And
Helmstetter is no angel in this either. All the evidence points to the
fact that this was a scheme to make money off of George's name, and nothing
else. Tributary? IMO, that is hogwash.

John

John Walkup

unread,

Aug 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/12/97

to

"Carl M. Pearson" <carl_p...@datamatic.com> writes:

>1. Gus Balabushka, with a great cuemaker reputation, has his reputation improved
> from the Color-of-Money.

Where am I in this. And no, I am not going to move in with Jim and Mark.

John

Sherm Adamson

unread,

Aug 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM8/12/97

to

Alig8orMan wrote:
>
> >The problem is that you, "Mark", are so wrapped up in arguing that you
> >have ignored the facts. I'm tired of the petty bickering and have no
> >more to say on the subject. I've stated my opinions and the facts that I
> >know. You have certainly not brought forth ANY information, just
> >arguments. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and if you aren't
> >open minded enough to see the problem than I don't intend to waste any
> >more of my time to try to enlighten you.

> >;-)
> >Sherm

>
> The problem I see here, is that all you guys want to HANG the wrong
> person. Also it isn't Mark who is lacking the open mind. The Bushka line
> was manufactured in totally legal fashion. The way it was marketed maybe
> a touchy subject, but again Helmstetter was NOT the marketer or the

Then why does he put his signature on the Certificates and take all of
the credit for his "Superb Manufacturing Abilities". He certainly wants
people to believe that HE is VERY involved in the process! If he really
isn't, this doesen't absolve him from questionable ethics, it sort of
proves that he is deceiving the public by claiming he is the man behind
these "masterpieces".

p.r.
> department. So get off his case already.

> The only beef one can have with Mr. Helmstetter is that the cues (imo)
> don't really capture the essence of the real deal.

This is true!

> Maybe someone is jealous that he didn't get offered the consulting
> contract? But thats getting away from the point, so I wont go there.

I would hope not. This is really grasping!
>
> Joe

>
> ps: Don't say Helmstetter allowed this to happen. I don't even think he
> resides in the US.
>

What difference does that make? The cues aren't made in the US either!

I want to say that I feel no malice towards Richard Helmstetter. I do
feel that he is responsible ethically for what happens under his
direction. Apparently he should be considered responsible for the
"Balabushka" line even if only because he allowed them to use his
signature on the certificates. If he in fact was not involved in the
manufacture or marketing of this line, than it seems that his statements
and signature on the certificate are nothing less than misleading.