Balabushka Cues
Alan Albright
Greetings,
I am interested in purchasing a new pool cue and saw some Balabushka
pool cues being sold on a couple of Internet web sites. These cues are
labeled as being authentic Balabushka cues and sell for $500-$600 each.
1. Are these cues the "real thing" or are they imported
reproductions?
2. Are they worth the money being asked?
Thanks in advance!
Alan
Bob Jewett
Alan Albright (aalb...@mindspring.com) wrote:
[ Sees ads for replica Balabushkas that seem to be offered as
authentic.]
: 1. Are these cues the "real thing" or are they imported
: reproductions?
Almost certainly the latter. Cues made by George Balabushka sell for
more than that. One recently sold for $25,000.
: 2. Are they worth the money being asked?
Get one and try it out. Send it back if you don't like the value.
Bob Jewett
SnookerUSA
Alan,
You can't possibly believe an authentic Balabushka
would go for $800 new could you?
He has been deceased for quite a few years now,
and take it from me, even if he did put out any new
cues, you wouldn't want to buy them........
Now then,
I know you are asking about Helmstetter's reproduction
cues, where he offers a letter of authenticity, and this has
been known to cause confusion for the uninitiated.
Allow me to clear this up for you.
They are very nice cues, but reproductions.
Please list the sites where you saw them, so that we all
who are concerned can view the listing.
I believe Mr. Helmstetter does not condone any
false and misleading advertisements of his line, but it happens.
I've hit with a few of these cues and they are not bad, and if
you like them, then buy one.
My oppinion is you can have a very very nice custom cue that
will appreciate in value more assuradly than one of these.
If that is one of your goals.....
If all you want is a great hitting cue, then you can have one
for $200.......
-
From: Alan Albright <aalb...@mindspring.com>
Date: 5/26/98 10:14 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <356ADC6D...@mindspring.com>
Greetings,
I am interested in purchasing a new pool cue and saw some Balabushka
pool cues being sold on a couple of Internet web sites. These cues are
labeled as being authentic Balabushka cues and sell for $500-$600 each.
1. Are these cues the "real thing" or are they imported
reproductions?
2. Are they worth the money being asked?
Thanks in advance!
Alan
Mark Kulaga
Cue Sports Enthusiast
<A HREF="http://www.snookerusa.com/SnookerUSA.html">SnookerUSA</A>
Ron Hudson
On Tue, 26 May 1998 11:14:53 -0400, Alan Albright <aalb...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>I am interested in purchasing a new pool cue and saw some Balabushka
>pool cues being sold on a couple of Internet web sites. These cues are
>labeled as being authentic Balabushka cues and sell for $500-$600 each.
>
> 1. Are these cues the "real thing" or are they imported
>reproductions?
>
Made in Japan today by the Adam Custom Cues, Ltd, one of Richard Helmstetter's
companies. The cues are "signed" by George Balabushka, who has been dead for
more than 20 years.
> 2. Are they worth the money being asked?
>
Purely a personal decision. Some say yes, and others say no. Check
dejanews.com for an EXTENSIVE thread regarding these cues from a few months ago.
Ron
SnookerUSA
Something Ron Hudson neglected to mention about
George Balabushka's signature being on the cues and
his being deceased for 20 years....
His widow gave permission to Richard Helmstetter to
use George's signature on the cues.
I think by doing this he mistakenly portrayed this to be
a forgery situation.... which it is not.
Ron Hudson
Mark,
Have a little trouble with the facts, eh?
I "mistakenly portrayed" nothing, and I resent your implication.
Ron
Roy E. Malott
Why buy a mass produced cue...? Why buy a cue
that it is one of hundreds or thousands like it in the
world.
Invest that kind of money, $500-$600, in a custom
made cue that will hold it's value more. For this kind
of investment you may even end up with a one of a
kind cue.
Regards, Roy Malott
Roy E. Malott
INDY Q SHOP
IN...@att.net
Featuring " Espiritu " Custom Cues & More !
2612 S. Madison Ave. (317) 780-0042
Indianapolis, IN 46225-2111 (317) 780-7665
***************************************************************
Alan Albright wrote in message <356ADC6D...@mindspring.com>...
>Greetings,
>
>I am interested in purchasing a new pool cue and saw some Balabushka
>pool cues being sold on a couple of Internet web sites. These cues are
>labeled as being authentic Balabushka cues and sell for $500-$600 each.
>
> 1. Are these cues the "real thing" or are they imported
>reproductions?
>
> 2. Are they worth the money being asked?
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>Alan
>
Jerry Forsyth
Alan,
These are reproductions of the Balabushka manufactured by either
Helmstetter or Adams, I do not remember which. I have never hit with one
so I cannot speak to the value.
-Jerry
SnookerUSA
From: R...@Netcams.com (Ron Hudson)
Date: 5/26/98 11:59 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <356af44d...@enews.newsguy.com>
On 26 May 1998 16:40:59 GMT, snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) wrote:
>Something Ron Hudson neglected to mention about
>George Balabushka's signature being on the cues and
>his being deceased for 20 years....
>
>His widow gave permission to Richard Helmstetter to
>use George's signature on the cues.
>
>I think by doing this he mistakenly portrayed this to be
>a forgery situation.... which it is not.
>
>
>Mark Kulaga
>Cue Sports Enthusiast
>SnookerUSA
>
Mark,
Have a little trouble with the facts, eh?
I "mistakenly portrayed" nothing, and I resent your implication.
Ron
================
Ron,
Why didn't you include your initial post about Balabushkas?
Let me answer...
Because you implied that Helmstetter was forging the signatures
intentionally misleading the cue buying public.
I implied nothing about you, and as a matter of fact for the record,
I gave you an OUT for your post, and you promptly tossed it away.
I said you mistakenly did this.........
Here are your exact words:
"Made in Japan today by the Adam Custom Cues, Ltd, one of Richard Helmstetter's
companies. The cues are "signed" by George Balabushka, who has been dead for
more than 20 years."
Are you going to say you didn't mean to imply yourself that they are forgeries?
Here are your exact words again......
"Signed" by George Balabushka who has been dead for more than 20 years.
"Signed" by George Balabushka who has been dead for more than 20 years.
"Signed" by George Balabushka who has been dead for more than 20 years.
I said nothing Ron.
You did.
I implied nothing Ron.
You did.
I think the fellow who asked the question has gotten all the information he
needs
on this topic, and I was proud to help him identify custom cuemakers to
investigate
in this price range so he could make an informed choice on what he wants.
On the other hand,
I think you have added nothing but some fuel to an old fire,and I will be happy
to
be the fire department.
regards,
Jim Barr
SnookerUSA wrote:
>
> His widow gave permission to Richard Helmstetter to
> use George's signature on the cues.
>
> I think by doing this he mistakenly portrayed this to be
> a forgery situation.... which it is not.
>
The funny thing about it is, if the signature is not deceiving then ask
yourself, why is Alan asking if they are the real thing or not?
I guess since Helmstetter has permission to put the Balabushka name on
the cues, then you could also say, they are the real thing. Correct?
After all you do get a certificate of authenticity with the cue.
Currently ducking
Jim Barr
Alan Albright
Thanks to everyone for replying! As a newbie to this news group, I
appreciate everyone taking the time to respond to my questions.
My main concern regarding these cues is how a manufacturer could put the
signature of the legendary George Balabushka on a cue and claim that it is
an authentic Balabushka when they are no longer being produced and the
namesake has been deceased for approximately 20 years. More importantly, I
feel that it is a confusing and deceiving way to sell a product to
consumers who would normally be unable to afford such a prize.
FYI. I'm still in the market for a quality custom made cue. If you have
any suggestions I would be glad to hear them.
Thanks again,
Alan
Ron Hudson
Hay Mark,
Have you been laying off your medication again?
ron
SnookerUSA
From: R...@Netcams.com (Ron Hudson)
Date: 5/26/98 5:06 PM Central Daylight Time
Message-id: <356b3cd8...@enews.newsguy.com>
Hay Mark,
Have you been laying off your medication again?
ron
=======
No Ron,
Still taking my medication like clock work....
but it is for my ulcer, and has no effect on
malicious people like yourself.
Thank you for your concern.
Robert W. Johnson
Ray Schuler is very much alive and his signature is his signature, and on
each cue. See www.schulercue.com, Bob
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co., beta ID 212564
Home of the World Champion Denver Broncos!
bo...@cris.com
Alan Albright wrote in message <356B4095...@mindspring.com>...
Ron Hudson
On Tue, 26 May 1998 18:22:13 -0400, Alan Albright <aalb...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>Thanks to everyone for replying! As a newbie to this news group, I
>appreciate everyone taking the time to respond to my questions.
>
>My main concern regarding these cues is how a manufacturer could put the
>signature of the legendary George Balabushka on a cue and claim that it is
>an authentic Balabushka when they are no longer being produced and the
>namesake has been deceased for approximately 20 years. More importantly, I
>feel that it is a confusing and deceiving way to sell a product to
>consumers who would normally be unable to afford such a prize.
Thank you. Some of us spent a considerable time trying to make the point that
regardless the motive for producing the cues in such a manner, there is the
danger that innocent - as you term yourself - "newbies" could be confused and
potentially deceived by the product. Yes, the cue comes with a "certificate of
authenticity" and the name is applied under license, but the cue taken by itself
does not indicate in any way its true origin and is deceptive in appearance.
Couple this with advertising that simply presents these as "Balabushka cues" and
you have a potential for misunderstanding.
Ron
>
>FYI. I'm still in the market for a quality custom made cue. If you have
>any suggestions I would be glad to hear them.
>
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Alan Albright wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I am interested in purchasing a new pool cue and saw some Balabushka
>> pool cues being sold on a couple of Internet web sites. These cues are
>> labeled as being authentic Balabushka cues and sell for $500-$600 each.
>>
>> 1. Are these cues the "real thing" or are they imported
>> reproductions?
>>
>> 2. Are they worth the money being asked?
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Alan
>
>
----------------------------
Seen on a bumper sticker:
Jesus is coming
everyone look busy
---------------------------
Patrick Johnson
Ron Hudson wrote:
> Yes, the cue comes with a "certificate of authenticity" and the name is applied
> under license, but the cue taken by itself does not indicate in any way its true
> origin and is deceptive in appearance.
> Couple this with advertising that simply presents these as "Balabushka cues" and
> you have a potential for misunderstanding.
===
I think you're being too diplomatic, Ron. It's one thing to license Michael
Jordan's name to sell shoes... nobody's buying them because they think he made
them. It's quite another to license the name of a legendary cuemaker, put it on
your manufactured cue and call it an "authentic Name-of-Legendary-Cuemaker." If
that's what's going on (I'm going by what I read here), and without a prominent
disclaimer, then the perpetrator of those ads is trying to mislead.
Pat Johnson
===
Gary Robinson
On Tue, 26 May 1998 16:59:08 GMT, R...@Netcams.com (Ron Hudson) wrote:
>On 26 May 1998 16:40:59 GMT, snook...@aol.com (SnookerUSA) wrote:
>
>>Something Ron Hudson neglected to mention about
>>George Balabushka's signature being on the cues and
>>his being deceased for 20 years....
>>
>>His widow gave permission to Richard Helmstetter to
>>use George's signature on the cues.
>>
>>I think by doing this he mistakenly portrayed this to be
>>a forgery situation.... which it is not.
>>
>>
>>Mark Kulaga
>>Cue Sports Enthusiast
>><A HREF="http://www.snookerusa.com/SnookerUSA.html">SnookerUSA</A>
>>
>
>
>Mark,
>
>Have a little trouble with the facts, eh?
>
>I "mistakenly portrayed" nothing, and I resent your implication.
>
>Ron
Not trying to start anything I cant finish but:
I, also, took your statement in the wrong way.
I thought by your response, that indeed the cues were made with the
signature under false pretence.
Regards,
Gary
Ron Hudson
Gary,
I have never said the signature was forged or put on the cue under false
pretenses. I have said and believe that when a cue bears a signature and
nothing to indicate its true origin, any person without special knowledge will
naturally believe that the cue was made by the person who "signed" it. When
it's made by someone else, that's deceptive.
Take a look at the Hawley's page on Balabushka cues, http://billiardstore.com/
and tell me if the truth of these cues is revealed. I think this is deceptive
marketing.
I have played with a Helmstetter cue and it was a fine cue. I think he makes a
good product. His signature was on the cue. He is saying "I made this cue and
I am proud of it". Well, when you see a cue with a George Balabushka signature
on the forearm, what association do you naturally make? Is that
I don't know the maker's motives for producing such a cue, but my problem with
the Balabushka is that its true identity is not revealed and when taken by
itself, it poses a potential for deception and fraud.
Ron
Patrick Johnson
Ron Hudson wrote:
> I don't know the maker's motives for producing such a cue, but my problem with
> the Balabushka is that its true identity is not revealed and when taken by
> itself, it poses a potential for deception and fraud.
===
There's no question about the maker's motive for advertising it that way, or that
they're trying to profit from the "potential for deception." Were we born
yesterday?
Pat Johnson
===
Deno J. Andrews
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> I think you're being too diplomatic, Ron. It's one thing to license Michael
> Jordan's name to sell shoes... nobody's buying them because they think he made
> them. It's quite another to license the name of a legendary cuemaker, put it on
> your manufactured cue and call it an "authentic Name-of-Legendary-Cuemaker." If
> that's what's going on (I'm going by what I read here), and without a prominent
> disclaimer, then the perpetrator of those ads is trying to mislead.
>
> Pat Johnson
I think it is perfectly ok to put Balabuskas signature on the cues. His
wife sold out his name and his signature. Most likely for two reasons:
1. Show me the money! 2. So his name will live on in the billiard
world (which obviously it would have even without this move).
So my point is...oh well, she sold out. Too bad, now since we live in a
free market, capitalist society, I support the cues. They are authentic
Balabuskas under a special licensing agreement. I don't consider them
Original Balabuskas, and I don't think they will ever be worth money,
but legally they are what they have been licensed to be.
Take Helmstetter for instance. All the new Helmstetters coming out have
nothing to do with Dick Helmstetter. He hasn't made a cue in years for
the public. He has licensed his name to go on the cues. It's the same
deal! But nobody complains that they bought a fake Helmstetter do
they? Of course not! And these cues will never be worth as much as an
original Helmstetter. By the way, how many of you knew that Dick
Helmstetter designs Big Bertha golf clubs? How about that? Now the Big
Berthas are original Helmstetters.
So I think I have made my point. In response to the original question-
Yes, the cue is a REAL Balabushka, but it is not made by Balabushka and
will most likely not be worth as much as an original.
Hey...do you think Ford Festivas were made by Henry Ford?
Deno J. Andrews
--
To respond, please change .con to .com for anti-spamming
FCISA
>I think it is perfectly ok to put Balabuskas signature on the cues.
His
>wife sold out his name and his signature.
Most likely for two reasons:
>1. Show me the money! 2. So his name will live on in the billiard
>world (which obviously it would have even without this move).
>
>So my point is...oh well, she sold out. Too bad, now since we live in a
>free market, capitalist society, I support the cues. They are authentic
>Balabuskas under a special licensing agreement.
I don't consider them
>Original Balabuskas, and I don't think they will ever be worth money,
>but legally they are what they have been licensed to be.
>
>Take Helmstetter for instance. All the new Helmstetters coming out have
>nothing to do with Dick Helmstetter. He hasn't made a cue in years for
>the public. He has licensed his name to go on the cues. It's the same
>deal!
Helmstetter a Japanese production company, I think it would be very difficult
to prove that Dick Helmstetter made any of the cues with his" signature" I am
sure he probably did SIGN some early cues but most likely made by japanese
production workers. But nobody complains that they bought a fake Helmstetter
do
>they? Of course not!
never be worth as much as an
Helmstetter is worth.
By the way, how many of you knew that Dick
helmstetter as a company recently bought Calloway golf who has been making the
Big Bertha for a long time.
How about that?
Now the Big
and make a good comparison to other Helmstetter products.
>
>So I think I have made my point. In response to the original question-
>Yes, the cue is a REAL Balabushka,
pretense at best. Pretense has always been the thrust of Helmstetter products,
smart business as long as there are not so smart consumers around. "One born
every minute" to quote another famous showman.
but it is not made by Balabushka and
>will most likely not be worth as much as an original.
lines of the original, unbelievable.
>
>Hey...do you think Ford Festivas were made by Henry Ford?
concerning their origin and do not have a fake signature on them anywhere.
Patrick Johnson
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> I think it is perfectly ok to put Balabuskas signature on the cues. They are
> authentic
> Balabuskas under a special licensing agreement.
===
It's probably legal if that's what you mean, but is that your only measure of
acceptability? Would a photocopied drawing of yours qualify as an "authentic Picasso"
if you owned his name? And if you advertised it that way, what would be your
motive?It's not the legality that's at issue here, Deno, it's the intent of the
advertiser.
===
> Hey...do you think Ford Festivas were made by Henry Ford?
===
Exactly the point. Nobody thinks that. Can you say the same about these
"Balabushkas?"
Pat Johnson
===
Tim Hurson
Enough is enough people!!! Nobody cares anymore. We've seen your opinions
Ron, Mark, Deno, et.al. You've all made your point. Now that it's a flame
war, take it to e-mail.
Nuff said,
Tim
Ron Hudson
On Wed, 27 May 1998 06:48:40 -0500, "Deno J. Andrews" <de...@ix.netcom.con>
rambled about a bit, then wrote:
>Hey...do you think Ford Festivas were made by Henry Ford?
>Deno J. Andrews
I think they are made by the Ford Motor Company. Are you saying they are
Balabushka quality?
Sam Adams
Not forgery but on an authenticity scale of 1-10, perhaps 1/2. sure,
it's George's signature, but from the grave? If you troll long enough
with enough baited lines, eventually a fish will bite. For a genuine
Balabushka, take out a second mortgage.
Sam Adams
Hello Deno J.
Seems as if you have voiced opinions contrary to the majority view. When
something like this occurs, be reminded of the Spanish proverb "En boca cerrada no
entran moscas."
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> Patrick Johnson wrote:
>
> > I think you're being too diplomatic, Ron. It's one thing to license Michael
> > Jordan's name to sell shoes... nobody's buying them because they think he made
> > them. It's quite another to license the name of a legendary cuemaker, put it on
> > your manufactured cue and call it an "authentic Name-of-Legendary-Cuemaker." If
> > that's what's going on (I'm going by what I read here), and without a prominent
> > disclaimer, then the perpetrator of those ads is trying to mislead.
> >
> > Pat Johnson
>
> I think it is perfectly ok to put Balabuskas signature on the cues. His
> wife sold out his name and his signature. Most likely for two reasons:
> 1. Show me the money! 2. So his name will live on in the billiard
> world (which obviously it would have even without this move).
>
> So my point is...oh well, she sold out. Too bad, now since we live in a
> free market, capitalist society, I support the cues. They are authentic
> Balabuskas under a special licensing agreement. I don't consider them
> Original Balabuskas, and I don't think they will ever be worth money,
> but legally they are what they have been licensed to be.
>
> Take Helmstetter for instance. All the new Helmstetters coming out have
> nothing to do with Dick Helmstetter. He hasn't made a cue in years for
> the public. He has licensed his name to go on the cues. It's the same
> deal! But nobody complains that they bought a fake Helmstetter do
> they? Of course not! And these cues will never be worth as much as an
> original Helmstetter. By the way, how many of you knew that Dick
> Helmstetter designs Big Bertha golf clubs? How about that? Now the Big
> Berthas are original Helmstetters.
>
> So I think I have made my point. In response to the original question-
> Yes, the cue is a REAL Balabushka, but it is not made by Balabushka and
> will most likely not be worth as much as an original.
>
> Hey...do you think Ford Festivas were made by Henry Ford?
> Deno J. Andrews
> --
> To respond, please change .con to .com for anti-spamming
bobgreen
\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\H
ELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP\HELP
Its the Balabuska virus!!!!!! Not again, PlEASE
Thanks
Bob
Frank
I understand Hitler collects these cues.
Frank
wamiller
Balabushka:
A cue by any other name,
would hit as sweet.
Ed Mercier
I don't think it's right to have Fred Astaire dancing with a vacuum cleaner on a
commercial. Doesn't mean I can do anything about it, or that there is anything
illegal about it, but I don't think it's right.
Deno J. Andrews
FCISA wrote:
> Not he same deal at all, Balabushka was a legendary AMERICAN cuemaker and
> Helmstetter a Japanese production company, I think it would be very difficult
> to prove that Dick Helmstetter made any of the cues with his" signature" I am
> sure he probably did SIGN some early cues but most likely made by japanese
> production workers.
Well I think you didn't do your homework. An original Helmstetter is
just as legendary as a Balabushka. of course they are legendary to a
different crowd. Ask 100 billiard players what they would rather have
an orig. Bushka or an orig. Helmstetter. Your typical response will be
"what the heck is a Balabushka?" face it, Bushka cues are only
important because of the Color of Money. If it wasn't for that movie,
Bushka's would be about as famous as Rambow cues.
Helmstetter is a way more popular cue for players around the world.
Almost everyone who plays billiards seriously knows what a Helmstetter
is.
And the final point is "oh well", so there are cues with George's
signature on them...so what? What's the big deal? Just don't buy one.
How many fake diamonds do you think they produce every year? You don't
hear anybody complaining about them. Anyone who knows about the product
will be able to tell the difference.
Deno Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> Exactly the point. Nobody thinks that. Can you say the same about these
> "Balabushkas?"
>
> Pat Johnson
I have yet to see an ad for these cues stating they were made by
George. Anyone who is seriously in the market for a Buska will know
they can't buy one for as little money as they are asking. They will
also know they can't order one through a catalog. And if they do...they
should not be buying collector cues, because obviously they don't have a
clue what's going on.
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
Sam Adams wrote:
>
> Hello Deno J.
> Seems as if you have voiced opinions contrary to the majority view. When
> something like this occurs, be reminded of the Spanish proverb "En boca cerrada no
> entran moscas."
En English por favor
Deno
Deno J. Andrews
Ron Hudson wrote:
> I think they are made by the Ford Motor Company. Are you saying they are
> Balabushka quality?
>
> Ron
Balabushka cues are not extremely well built. In fact, most I have seen
have rising veneers, loose joints and loose but cap pieces. Another
thing...Balabushka hardly made any of his own blanks. Burton Spain, out
of Chicago, made many of his cue blanks...points and all.
Deno J. Andrews
Patrick Johnson
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> I have yet to see an ad for these cues stating they were made by George.
Well, what does it mean when Hawley's advertises the cues with "certificates of
Authenticity?" Do you think they're trying to alert you to the fact that they
paid his widow? Are you saying it's alright to be deceptive if only the
uninformed will be duped? As long as you're not one of the victims?
I wouldn't buy any cue from this company until they dumped this "Authenticity"
ruse. And even then I'd wonder what other gimmick they've got up their sleeve.
Pat Johnson
Alig8orMan
Here is the wording of the certificate again.
Joe
It reads as follows:
Certificate of Authenticity
The George Balabushka Commemorative Collection
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. Together they assembled as
much information about Balabushka's ideas on cue design, structure,
material and philosophy as possible.
This cue is what George Balabushka would be maiking if he were still with
us today.
In conformation of that fact, this certificate of authenticity is issued.
Signed: George Balabushka R.C. Helmstetter
___________________________________________________________
Patrick Johnson
Alig8orMan wrote:
> Certificate of Authenticity
>
> This cue is what George Balabushka would be maiking if he were still with
> us today. In conformation of that fact, this certificate of authenticity is
> issued.
>
> Signed: George Balabushka R.C. Helmstetter
Tell me again how the signature of a dead guy is confirmation of anything?
Pat Johnson
Deno J. Andrews
Well when it comes right down to it...I'm pretty conservative with this
kind of situation. Let's take a few points here; first, wouldn't you,
if you were going to buy a collector piece, do a little research first?
Of course you would. Also, when was the last time you purchased an
original cue, that had a certificate with it? Everyone knows that stuff
that needs a certificate is usually not the goods. Right from the start,
anyone who knows anything about cue sticks should be on alert when this
type of ad comes flying by.
I don't think it is right for some companies to deceive people. I am an
idealist. More importantly, I am a realist, and I know it will continue
if I like it or not. So do I feel sorry for people who get taken by
these types of deals? Yes and no-I feel sorry that they would buy such
a thing without first asking the right people. And no, not if they jump
into a worthless investment without a clue.
I guess I have a split decision! One for each of my personalities :)
Deno
Sue Backman
Alan -
I find it highly unlikely that you would find a real Balabushka cue for $500
or $600 -- $6000, maybe, if you're lucky. There is a line of production
cues which has licensed the Balabushka name to put on their cues, but if you
have a cue with 'Balabushka' on it, you can be sure it's not the real thing.
(George Balabushka did not sign his cues.)
I just sold one of the nicest Balabushka's I've ever seen for $15,000. I
will warn you that fake Balabushka's abound (a number were made by a
cuemaker of high reknown and sold by a famous pro player, both of whom
should be ashamed of themselves). So many Japanese cue collectors got
burned that it's virtually impossible to sell a real Balabushka in Japan any
more. Before you put up big bucks for a Balabushka be sure you're buying
from a knowledgable and reputable dealer.
Sue Backman
Chalkers Billiard Club & Pro Shop
San Francisco
Alan Albright wrote in message <356ADC6D...@mindspring.com>...
Bradley Cook
You are the reason they make this cue. There are those informed
people(Mark) that see nothing wrong with this, and don't understand how
this can be confusing. It's a deceptive marketing ploy to sell a
product like this cue with a name that every newbie recognizes, even
though it isn't what it appears to be.
Save some money, buy a Joss or maybe a custom cue(Schuler or Arnot).
Alan Albright wrote:
>
> Thanks to everyone for replying! As a newbie to this news group, I
> appreciate everyone taking the time to respond to my questions.
>
> My main concern regarding these cues is how a manufacturer could put the
> signature of the legendary George Balabushka on a cue and claim that it is
> an authentic Balabushka when they are no longer being produced and the
> namesake has been deceased for approximately 20 years. More importantly, I
> feel that it is a confusing and deceiving way to sell a product to
> consumers who would normally be unable to afford such a prize.
>
> FYI. I'm still in the market for a quality custom made cue. If you have
> any suggestions I would be glad to hear them.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Alan
>
> Alan Albright wrote:
>
Dutch
I haven't been able to check out this sight for several months, until
today, and I can't believe you are still whimpering about "Balabushka"
cues. There are a lot of interesting and intellectually challenging
aspects to this sport that you could be sharing. All this crap about
Helmstetter/Balabushka is nothing more that mental masturbation. Grow up
or shut up! Get a life and get on with it!
--
Good Shooting,
Dutch
Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<356B8DB7...@concentric.net>...
Ron Hudson
On 29 May 1998 20:45:44 GMT, "Dutch" <ws...@cillnet.com> blurted:
>I haven't been able to check out this sight for several months, until
>today, and I can't believe you are still whimpering about "Balabushka"
>cues. There are a lot of interesting and intellectually challenging
>aspects to this sport that you could be sharing. All this crap about
>Helmstetter/Balabushka is nothing more that mental masturbation. Grow up
>or shut up! Get a life and get on with it!
The previous discussion on this subject took place probably 6 months ago, and
was revived this week in direct response to a question about the cues from an
admitted "newbie" because he was perhaps getting ready to buy one and asked "are
they real".
Since you haven't been here for "several months", you wouldn't know what has
been discussed in the interim, but it was much and it was interesting. We have
a great life and here and have been getting on with daily.
Thanks for popping in with your kind comments. We'll look forward to hearing
from you again in a few months.
Actually we talked about you quite a bit.
Ron
John Walkup
Dutch wrote:
> I haven't been able to check out this sight for several months, until
> today, and I can't believe you are still whimpering about "Balabushka"
> cues. There are a lot of interesting and intellectually challenging
> aspects to this sport that you could be sharing. All this crap about
> Helmstetter/Balabushka is nothing more that mental masturbation. Grow up
> or shut up! Get a life and get on with it!
You've replied to a thread you have no interest in, and you are complaining
about others not having a life?
Like it or not, the Balabushka issue is of some importance and interest to many
of
us in here. I don't think it is up to someone else to determine what gets
discussed
in here, unless it isn't about billiards.
--
**********************************************************************
John Walkup
The Cue Gallery (http://www.cuegallery.com)
Authorized Dealer:
The Schuler Cue
Verl Horn Custom Cues
Instroke Cue Cases
John Walkup
SnookerUSA wrote:
> Alan,
>
> You can't possibly believe an authentic Balabushka
> would go for $800 new could you?
Why not? Are we all born with some inate understanding of how
muchBalabushka cues are worth? Is everyone a walking "Encyclopedia of
Pool Cues"? I think your position is arrogant.
Let's not assume that everyone has a sophisticated knowledge of cue values.
We are not all pawn shop owners. I get asked basic questions about
cues all the time. But Hell, at one time *I* didn't know the answers to
those
questions, so why should I assume everyone else should as well?
John Walkup
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> FCISA wrote:
>
>
>
> And the final point is "oh well", so there are cues with George's
> signature on them...so what? What's the big deal? Just don't buy one.
> How many fake diamonds do you think they produce every year? You don't
> hear anybody complaining about them. Anyone who knows about the product
> will be able to tell the difference.
There is one big difference: There is so much public awareness about fakediamonds
(everyone knows that they exist) that consumers can at least look out
for them. And these fake diamonds don't have "DIAMOND" scripted on them.
Now suppose that a company called "Gold" makes a bunch of bracelets with
the word "Gold" engraved in it. Deceptive, no? I realize that analogy doesn't
hold
much either, but it is closer than what you offered.
> Deno Andrews
> --
> To respond, please change .con to .com for anti-spamming
--
John Walkup
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> Patrick Johnson wrote:
> > Exactly the point. Nobody thinks that. Can you say the same about these
> > "Balabushkas?"
>
> I have yet to see an ad for these cues stating they were made by
> George.
Nowhere on my web page does it say that Ray Schuler makes the cues I sell.I
shouldn't have to state that. Ray's signature is on the cue, so shouldn't it
be
natural to assume that, since he is a cuemaker, that he indeed made it?
> Anyone who is seriously in the market for a Buska will know
> they can't buy one for as little money as they are asking.
Define "seriously." After all, the original poster was thinking of plunking
down$500 for a cue he thought was a Balabushka. That's serious enough for
me. Or
do we only discuss ethics in terms of protecting the highly informed?
> They will
> also know they can't order one through a catalog. And if they do...they
> should not be buying collector cues, because obviously they don't have a
> clue what's going on.
You assume that those interested in buying Balabushka cues are collectors.The
original poster isn't a collector. What about him?
> Deno J. Andrews
John Walkup
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> Patrick Johnson wrote:
> >
>
>
> Well when it comes right down to it...I'm pretty conservative with this
> kind of situation. Let's take a few points here; first, wouldn't you,
> if you were going to buy a collector piece, do a little research first?
We can ask that question every single time a person is defrauded. But
moreimportantly, why should it be necessary to research an item that is being
sold through a high-profile company with a certificate of authenticity?
Deno, the certificate of authenticity is supposed to be a document that
makes it *unnecessary to do this research*. After all, of what other
possible use is a certificiate of authenticity?
By issuing a certificate of authenticity, the manufacturer is tellling the consumer
"Don't worry about the product being genuine --- we provide a signed document
proving that it is." But it's all a big scam, because the certificate of
authenticity
itself isn't genuine (it's signed by a dead man).
Here is what typically can happen: A player hears from other players about this
mysterious cue called a Balabushka which is supposed to be the biggest killer around.
He's searching the web and finds a Balabushka for sale. The price is $600, which to
this
man (or he could be a kid) is a *lot of money*. Furthermore, the cue comes with a
certificate of authenticity. Now how risky could that really be?
He gets the cue, reads the certificate, and realizes he's been duped. No harm,
right? After
all, the cue can be sent back, right? Yeah, until he realizes that shipping and
shipping insurance
is going to run $15. Plus, many vendors charge a 10% - 25% restocking fee. So now
it is going to cost
him at least $75 to send the cue back. And when the dust clears, he is out $75 and
still
doesn't have a cue to shoot with. Now he has to start the whole process all over.
Or, he could just keep the cue and cut his losses. And the Adams company has made
another
sale. Yippee. Way to go, Dick!
And does anyone in here give a rat's ass about the customer. Some of us do. But to
others,
the fact that this guy didn't know as much about cues as we do means he deserves it.
> Of course you would. Also, when was the last time you purchased an
> original cue, that had a certificate with it? Everyone knows that stuff
> that needs a certificate is usually not the goods.
Oh really? I bet if you took a straw poll of the average consumer you would find
outjust the opposite. In fact, many cuemakers provide certificates of authenticity
with their
cues, not just Adams. Does anyone have a list? So those that provide certificates
of authenticity with their cues are passing off phonies?
> Right from the start,
> anyone who knows anything about cue sticks should be on alert when this
> type of ad comes flying by.
>
> I don't think it is right for some companies to deceive people. I am an
> idealist. More importantly, I am a realist, and I know it will continue
> if I like it or not. So do I feel sorry for people who get taken by
> these types of deals? Yes and no-I feel sorry that they would buy such
> a thing without first asking the right people. And no, not if they jump
> into a worthless investment without a clue.
This is the old "She should have known better than to walk down that darkalley alone"
argument. Maybe she should have, but that in no way excuses the
behavior of the assailant. And the issue here is the ethics of the manufacturer.
The savvy of the consumer is irrelevant.
> I guess I have a split decision! One for each of my personalities :)
> Deno
--
John Walkup
Tim Hurson wrote:
> Enough is enough people!!! Nobody cares anymore. We've seen your opinions
> Ron, Mark, Deno, et.al. You've all made your point. Now that it's a flame
> war, take it to e-mail.
> Nuff said,
> Tim
But, until now you haven't seen MY opinions. Ah-hah!!!
If you don't want to read anymore on this issue, then ignore it. I fail to
see the
point of a discussion group when everyone wants to cut off the discussion
once
it gets heated.
Deno J. Andrews
Dutch wrote:
and I can't believe you are still whimpering about "Balabushka"
> cues. There are a lot of interesting and intellectually challenging
> aspects to this sport that you could be sharing. All this crap about
> Helmstetter/Balabushka is nothing more that mental masturbation. Grow up
> or shut up! Get a life and get on with it!
> Dutch
Well dutch, I'm sorry our discussion doesn't align itself with your
agenda. This happens to be a very interesting discussion for some of
us. In fact, for many of us or the thread would have been dead long
ago. In fact you could start a thread of your own with one of these
other interesting and intellectual aspects, instead of coming here and
telling us to get a life.
There are so many different angles to this thread including legal and
moral questions which have to be hammered out. If you don't find these
interesting, I'm sorry. So I beg of you...leave us boring and lifeless
people discuss what we want. If you don't like it, just don't come in
the thread. You question our lives, and you yourself are responding to
this thread! Go figure? I'm sure you have better things to do with
YOUR LIFE.
Deno J. Andrews
Deno J. Andrews
John Walkup wrote:
> There is one big difference: There is so much public awareness about fakediamonds> (everyone knows that they exist) that consumers can at least look out
> for them. And these fake diamonds don't have "DIAMOND" scripted on them.
> > Now suppose that a company called "Gold" makes a bunch of bracelets with
> the word "Gold" engraved in it. Deceptive, no? I realize that analogy doesn't
> hold> much either, but it is closer than what you offered.
Granted, your analogy is a better one. Even still, I have seen fake
diamonds that come with GIA certificates saying they are real. Of
course these are fakes, but you couldn't tell unless you knew the
diamond was fake. So anyone who wants to buy a serious diamond will go
to someone who KNOWS what they are looking at. Cue collectors should do
the same if they have any doubt. And they should always have doubt! I
think we are on the same wavelength, but we are just beating around the
best explanation.
Deno
Deno J. Andrews
John Walkup wrote:
> But, until now you haven't seen MY opinions. Ah-hah!!!
> > If you don't want to read anymore on this issue, then ignore it. I fail to> see the> point of a discussion group when everyone wants to cut off the discussion> once> it gets heated.
> John Walkup
YEAH, double that!
Deno
Deno J. Andrews
John Walkup wrote:
> We can ask that question every single time a person is defrauded. But
> moreimportantly, why should it be necessary to research an item that is being
> sold through a high-profile company with a certificate of authenticity?
As I have stated before, anything that needs a certificate is usually
not the real thing! When you buy a Patek-Phillipe watch, you don't get
a certificate.
> Deno, the certificate of authenticity is supposed to be a document that
> makes it *unnecessary to do this research*. After all, of what other
> possible use is a certificiate of authenticity?
Granted, in an ideal world, this would be the case. But you know as
well as I do, this is not the case. When I see a certificate, it
usually throws up the red flags for me. I don't think I'm any smarter
than anyone, doesn't a certificate start your defenses?
> By issuing a certificate of authenticity, the manufacturer is tellling the consumer
> "Don't worry about the product being genuine --- we provide a signed document
> proving that it is." But it's all a big scam, because the certificate of
> authenticity itself isn't genuine (it's signed by a dead man).
See, I think when a company gives a certificate, it's really
saying..."this is BS and you shouldn't buy it, because if it was the
goods, we wouldn't need to give you a certificate."
> Here is what typically can happen: A player hears from other players about this
> mysterious cue called a Balabushka which is supposed to be the biggest killer >around.> He's searching the web and finds a Balabushka for sale. The price is $600, which to> this> man (or he could be akid) is a *lot of money*. Furthermore, the cue comes with a> certificate of authenticity. Now how risky could that really be?
RISKY...I agree. The player should still do some more research before
purchasing the cue.
> He gets the cue, reads the certificate, and realizes he's been duped. No harm,
> right? After all, the cue can be sent back, right? Yeah, until he realizes that >shipping and> shipping insurance> is going to run $15. Plus, many vendors charge a >10% - 25% restocking fee. So now> it is going to cost> him at least $75 to send the >cue back. And when the dust clears, he is out $75 and> still> doesn't have a cue to >shoot with. Now he has to start the whole process all over.> Or, he could just keep >the cue and cut his losses. And the Adams company has made> another> sale. Yippee. >Way to go, Dick!> And does anyone in here give a rat's ass about the customer. Some >of us do. But to> others,> the fact that this guy didn't know as much about cues as >we do means he deserves it.
I also care for the customer. I also understand and agree with all of
your points. The fact is though, that these tactics will not change
anytime soon, so we all need to protect ourselves from these ploys. I
learned, and maybe I was lucky, from Joe Gold many years ago...that if
you want to buy a fine thing, go find a person who is an expert in the
field and learn from him/her, and then make a move. Anyone who goes
into a proposition without knowing what's going on, is going to get
screwed. Do I like this? NO, but it is a reality that no matter how
much I dislike it, it will always happen. So I accept it and try best
to protect myself.
John Walkup
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> John Walkup wrote:
> > There is one big difference: There is so much public awareness about fakediamonds> (everyone knows that they exist) that consumers can at least look out
> > for them. And these fake diamonds don't have "DIAMOND" scripted on them.
> > > Now suppose that a company called "Gold" makes a bunch of bracelets with
> > the word "Gold" engraved in it. Deceptive, no? I realize that analogy doesn't
> > hold> much either, but it is closer than what you offered.
>
> Granted, your analogy is a better one. Even still, I have seen fake
> diamonds that come with GIA certificates saying they are real.
That's out-and-out fraud, and completely indefensible IMO.
> Of
> course these are fakes, but you couldn't tell unless you knew the
> diamond was fake. So anyone who wants to buy a serious diamond will go
> to someone who KNOWS what they are looking at. Cue collectors should do
> the same if they have any doubt.
But these guys are not necessarily collectors. That's the whole point! It isn't likebuying gold or diamonds --- there isn't an expert on every street
corner. And
the customer often isn't aware that Balabushkas are so rare and that fakes exist in
large numbers.
> And they should always have doubt! I
> think we are on the same wavelength, but we are just beating around the
> best explanation.
The way I read your views, you slightly excuse the manufacturer because of
caveat emptor. If that isn't correct, maybe we are on the same page.
> Deno
> To respond, please change .con to .com for anti-spamming
--
John Walkup
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> John Walkup wrote:
>
> > We can ask that question every single time a person is defrauded. But
> > moreimportantly, why should it be necessary to research an item that is being
> > sold through a high-profile company with a certificate of authenticity?
>
> As I have stated before, anything that needs a certificate is usually
> not the real thing! When you buy a Patek-Phillipe watch, you don't get
> a certificate.
Fallacy. If A then B does not imply "If Not A, Then Not B."
So, according to your argument what possible use is the certificate of authenticity
other than to dupe someone?
> > Deno, the certificate of authenticity is supposed to be a document that
> > makes it *unnecessary to do this research*. After all, of what other
> > possible use is a certificiate of authenticity?
>
> Granted, in an ideal world, this would be the case. But you know as
> well as I do, this is not the case. When I see a certificate, it
> usually throws up the red flags for me. I don't think I'm any smarter
> than anyone, doesn't a certificate start your defenses?
Are you asking ME, or the average pool player?
> > By issuing a certificate of authenticity, the manufacturer is tellling the consumer
> > "Don't worry about the product being genuine --- we provide a signed document
> > proving that it is." But it's all a big scam, because the certificate of
> > authenticity itself isn't genuine (it's signed by a dead man).
>
> See, I think when a company gives a certificate, it's really
> saying..."this is BS and you shouldn't buy it, because if it was the
> goods, we wouldn't need to give you a certificate."
So what is your opinion of Adams Cue's business policy of issuing a certificate?
> > Here is what typically can happen: A player hears from other players about this
> > mysterious cue called a Balabushka which is supposed to be the biggest killer >around.> He's searching the web and finds a Balabushka for sale. The price is $600, which to> this> man (or he could be akid) is a *lot of money*. Furthermore, the cue comes with a> certificate of authenticity. Now how risky could that really be?
>
> RISKY...I agree. The player should still do some more research before
> purchasing the cue.
>
> > He gets the cue, reads the certificate, and realizes he's been duped. No harm,
> > right? After all, the cue can be sent back, right? Yeah, until he realizes that >shipping and> shipping insurance> is going to run $15. Plus, many vendors charge a >10% - 25% restocking fee. So now> it is going to cost> him at least $75 to send the >cue back. And when the dust clears, he is out $75 and> still> doesn't have a cue to >shoot with. Now he has to start the whole process all over.> Or, he could just keep >the cue and cut his losses. And the Adams company has made> another> sale. Yippee. >Way to go, Dick!> And does anyone in here give a rat's ass about the customer. Some >of us do. But to> others,> the fact that this guy didn't know as much about cues as >we do means he deserves it.
>
> I also care for the customer. I also understand and agree with all of
> your points. The fact is though, that these tactics will not change
> anytime soon, so we all need to protect ourselves from these ploys. I
> learned, and maybe I was lucky, from Joe Gold many years ago...that if
> you want to buy a fine thing, go find a person who is an expert in the
> field and learn from him/her, and then make a move. Anyone who goes
> into a proposition without knowing what's going on, is going to get
> screwed. Do I like this? NO, but it is a reality that no matter how
> much I dislike it, it will always happen. So I accept it and try best
> to protect myself.
So what do you think of those who engage in this kind of behavior? After all, thatwas what the thread was all about.
Ken Bour
John Walkup wrote in message <356FB3E5...@telepath.com>...
>
>
>Deno J. Andrews wrote:
>
>> Patrick Johnson wrote:
these
>> > "Balabushkas?"
>>
>> I have yet to see an ad for these cues stating they were made by
>> George.
>
>Nowhere on my web page does it say that Ray Schuler makes the cues I sell.I
>shouldn't have to state that. Ray's signature is on the cue, so shouldn't
it
>be natural to assume that, since he is a cuemaker, that he indeed made it?
Maybe, but I think the issue is far more complex...
What constitutes being "made" by the cuemaker? Does the cuemaker use
helpers and apprentices in his shop? What if the cue I buy, signed by the
cuemaker, was actually made entirely by an apprentice under supervision?
What if the cuemaker turned the shaft, but the apprentice made the butt or
vice versa? What if some component of the final cue was actually fabricated
by another company/shop under subcontract and is merely "assembled" into the
product? Do these examples qualify as small deceptions? Can it be stated,
accurately, that the cue was "made" by the cuemaker? Is there a percentage
of personal handiwork (however measured) that legitimizes the cue as "made"
by the signator? Is the only qualification that he be alive or does he also
have to be physically involved and, if so, to what extent? Does the
cuemaker actually autograph each cue or does he use a stamp of some kind?
Does it matter? If he personally autographs each product, does it imply
that his were the only hands that touched the cue or only that it passes his
quality inspection?
I understand, for example, that Fillippe (sp?) has a son who is now making
cues which are signed "Fillippe". Obviously, he doesn't have to
misrepresent his surname. But, if I were to buy one of these cues, being
led to believe that it was made by his renowned father, is that deceptive
marketing? Would some advocate that these cues be labeled "Fillippe Jr."?
Now it may be that the son or apprentice actually makes a better product
than the original. If so, then the buyer receives the value implied by the
advertising marks. I suppose it could be true that the Balabushka's made by
Helmstetter/Adams are, as the certificate implies, carefully researched and,
as reproductions, play as well as the originals (they just have little or no
collector value). If so, is this "deception" so much worse than the other
examples mentioned above? It seems to me that providing a document
declaring that the Balabushka is not an original but is, in fact, a 100%
reproduction, may be the most "authentic" practice one could ask for...
These are complex issues and not easily sorted out. In the final analysis,
"caveot emptor" . . .
Ken Bour
Sterling, VA
Deno J. Andrews
John Walkup wrote:
> That's out-and-out fraud, and completely indefensible IMO.
I agree and support this statement. However, it doesn't change the fact
that it will continue to happen.
I would consider the cues real but NOT original Balabushka cues. I
think this is fair. If the company misleads people into believing these
are authentic originals, that's overboard. But I see nothing wrong with
them calling them Balabushkas. That's what they are! Legally! I
wouldn't want one.
Take for example Cartier watches. There are some models that are made
at the Cartier factory. There are other models which are contracted out
to independant watch makers. Both carry the Cartier name, stamps, serial
numbers etc. They are both real Cartier watches, however, the ones
contracted out are not worth as much money, nor will they ever be. But
they are both still real authentic Cartier watches, nobody disputes
that. I don't see how this is any different than the cue case. Face
it, most of us couldn't afford to buy an original Bushka, but we can
afford to buy a Balabushka, that is not made by George. Same goes for
Cartier! Their originals go for several thousand dollars, however,
their lesser models are not made by Cartier and go for about $1000 to
$2000. They are still Cartier! So is the Bushka!
> The way I read your views, you slightly excuse the manufacturer because of
> caveat emptor. If that isn't correct, maybe we are on the same page.
In a way yes and no. The way I see it...the company paid for the right
to use the Balabushka signature and name from his family. If anyone
wants to beef, they should do so with his family who SOLD his name. If
the company misleads people into believing they are buying originals, I
would have a problem...but nobody is doing that. At least not that I
have seen.
Hey, I don't like the fact that cues are being made with his name on
them, but it's the family who made that decision. They chose to have
their family name in the billiard industry continue. Just like Henry
Ford, Walt Disney, August Busch, and many others did in their respective
fields.
Deno J. Andrews
--
Tim Hurson
I was objecting mainly to the flaming, I have no problem with the
discussion. So now you have forced me to give my analogy. I think it's more
like paintings or photographs, i.e. Ansel Adams. There are the originals,
hanging in museums or privately owned, and then there are the prints. The
prints are generally numbered and in many cases come with a certificate of
authenticity. It just guarantees the print was made from the original and is
nothing more than a print. Last weekend my brother and his wife went to 'Art
in the Vineyard' an annual event in our community. They purchased a print of
a local artist for $95. It came with a certificate. The original is in a
gallery in San Francisco and sells for upwards of $500. So the point is, my
brother has a nice piece of art to hang in his house for 1/5th the cost of
the original and he's happy. It's an authentic reproduction not a forgery or
a bootleg copy. With Helmstetters 'disclaimer' posted previously in this
thread, I have no problem with what they have done ethically or otherwise.
Whether or not Balabusha's widow acted 'politically correct' or not is
another story. But it was her right nonetheless.
Tim
John Walkup wrote in message <356FBAF5...@telepath.com>...
>
>
>Tim Hurson wrote:
>
>> Enough is enough people!!! Nobody cares anymore. We've seen your opinions
>> Ron, Mark, Deno, et.al. You've all made your point. Now that it's a flame
>> war, take it to e-mail.
>> Nuff said,
>> Tim
>
>But, until now you haven't seen MY opinions. Ah-hah!!!
>
>If you don't want to read anymore on this issue, then ignore it. I fail
to
>see the
>point of a discussion group when everyone wants to cut off the discussion
>once
>it gets heated.
>
John Walkup
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> John Walkup wrote:
> > That's out-and-out fraud, and completely indefensible IMO.
>
> Take for example Cartier watches. There are some models that are made
> at the Cartier factory. There are other models which are contracted out
> to independant watch makers. Both carry the Cartier name, stamps, serial
> numbers etc. They are both real Cartier watches, however, the ones
> contracted out are not worth as much money, nor will they ever be. But
> they are both still real authentic Cartier watches, nobody disputes
> that. I don't see how this is any different than the cue case.
So anyone, for the right price, can buy the rights to put "Cartier" on
theirwatches? Cartier has no control over the finished product? They don't
have any specifications that the companies are required to follow?
Remember, Balabushka is dead. He has no control over what his name is
slapped on, whatsoever. I have a feeling that if you want to put "Cartier"
on a watch you are going to have to obey some standards of quality, otherwise
Cartier is just another crappy watch company.
> > The way I read your views, you slightly excuse the manufacturer because of
> > caveat emptor. If that isn't correct, maybe we are on the same page.
>
> In a way yes and no. The way I see it...the company paid for the right
> to use the Balabushka signature and name from his family. If anyone
> wants to beef, they should do so with his family who SOLD his name.
It takes two to tango.
> If
> the company misleads people into believing they are buying originals, I
> would have a problem...but nobody is doing that. At least not that I
> have seen.
Ahem. Certificate of *Authenticity*. Authentic what? Authentic copy?
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Deno J. Andrews
John Walkup wrote:
> So anyone, for the right price, can buy the rights to put "Cartier" on
> theirwatches? Cartier has no control over the finished product? They don't
> have any specifications that the companies are required to follow?
Well of course, but don't you think the Bushka family was interested in
having a quality cue made with their name on it? Obviously they agreed
to the standard of quality of Adams, or they would not have sold their
name. Or maybe they didn't care. But who knows.
> Remember, Balabushka is dead. He has no control over what his name is
> slapped on, whatsoever. I have a feeling that if you want to put "Cartier"
> on a watch you are going to have to obey some standards of quality, otherwise
> Cartier is just another crappy watch company.
> John Walkup
Well when it comes right down to it,almost every part of the new Bushkas
are better made than the originals. The glues are superior, the
construction is more accurate, the tolerances are closer, the finish is
superior, etc. Hell, George didn't even make most of his cues. Burton
Spain made a majority of Bushka blanks. George jointed them, put a butt
cap, wrap, shaft and a finish on them and sold them. So how original
were they to begin with? Burton Spain cues are not worth as much, and
he was the major cue maker in the operation. He was responsible for
most of the points!
Quality wise, I would much rather have a newer cue than an old Bushka.
They were not the most well made cues!
Deno
John Walkup
Ken Bour wrote:
> John Walkup wrote in message <356FB3E5...@telepath.com>...
> >
> >
> >Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> >Nowhere on my web page does it say that Ray Schuler makes the cues I sell.I
> >shouldn't have to state that. Ray's signature is on the cue, so shouldn't
> it
> >be natural to assume that, since he is a cuemaker, that he indeed made it?
>
> Maybe, but I think the issue is far more complex...
>
> What constitutes being "made" by the cuemaker? Does the cuemaker use
> helpers and apprentices in his shop? What if the cue I buy, signed by the
> cuemaker, was actually made entirely by an apprentice under supervision?
No problem, as long as the cuemaker has final say over what product his nameis
put on. That is not the case with the Balabushka. For all we know, George
would not want his name put on these cues. So what good is his signature?
A signature is supposed to signify something!
> What if the cuemaker turned the shaft, but the apprentice made the butt or
> vice versa? What if some component of the final cue was actually fabricated
> by another company/shop under subcontract and is merely "assembled" into the
> product? Do these examples qualify as small deceptions? Can it be stated,
> accurately, that the cue was "made" by the cuemaker? Is there a percentage
> of personal handiwork (however measured) that legitimizes the cue as "made"
> by the signator? Is the only qualification that he be alive or does he also
> have to be physically involved and, if so, to what extent?
He has to (1) develop a set of standards, and (2) ensure that each cue lives up
to thosestandards. Those are, IMO, the minimum requirements.
(snip)
> I understand, for example, that Fillippe (sp?) has a son who is now making
> cues which are signed "Fillippe". Obviously, he doesn't have to
> misrepresent his surname. But, if I were to buy one of these cues, being
> led to believe that it was made by his renowned father, is that deceptive
> marketing? Would some advocate that these cues be labeled "Fillippe Jr."?
This is a tougher call. I suppose if Helmstetter's last name was
actuallyBalabushka then this might be more relevant. Or if his son used his
Dad's
signature and his Dad had no control over the final product.
> Now it may be that the son or apprentice actually makes a better product
> than the original. If so, then the buyer receives the value implied by the
> advertising marks. I suppose it could be true that the Balabushka's made by
> Helmstetter/Adams are, as the certificate implies, carefully researched and,
> as reproductions, play as well as the originals (they just have little or no
> collector value). If so, is this "deception" so much worse than the other
> examples mentioned above?
I don't think the quality of the fake Balabushkas is the issue.
> It seems to me that providing a document
> declaring that the Balabushka is not an original but is, in fact, a 100%
> reproduction, may be the most "authentic" practice one could ask for...
Except I have seen the certificate of authenticity advertised as "Signed bythe
late cuemaker." My first problem with the document is that it isn't
a certificate of authenticity at all, yet is titled as such. Second, the
document
is "signed" by George Balabushka. Of course, it actually isn't.
With the way this has been set up, a cue seller can write that each cue comes
with a certificate of authenticity signed by the original maker. Naturally,
that is
pure hogwash, but can't you see the opportunity for deceipt? Do you think
that was accidental? Like someone said, we weren't born yesterday. They put
George's fake signature on the certificate for a reason, and it all points to a
deceptive
advertising campaign, IMO. What other reason could there be to put a fake
signature
on a certificate of authenticity.
Patrick Johnson
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> If the company misleads people into believing these are authentic originals,
> that's overboard. But I see nothing wrong with them calling them Balabushkas.
"If"?? Puhleeze.
The "certificates of Authenticity" offered with these cues, without any
clarification, are obviously meant to mislead people to believe that the cues
are "authentic originals." To cover their legal asses, the company pretends
they really only meant to authenticate the fact that the cues are made to
specifications George Balabushka endorses (you have to actually read the
certificate to get this distinction, and it's not posted for review). But even
that isn't true! They even stuck his signature on the certificate to mislead
you to believe he signed it.
Sure, people should be careful. So manufacturers and retailers have no
responsibility to deal honestly with the public? Spare me.
Helmstetter and Hawley's deserve all the public roasting they get over this, and
much more. Maybe they deserve to get legally slapped around, too. If consumer
interest in these cues wasn't so narrow they probably would. I think everybody
recognizes the legal right to purchase and use somebody's name (though some
would say it shouldn't be so), but that right comes with responsibility, and
this is a clear case of abuse.
Pat Johnson
Patrick Johnson
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> Quality wise, I would much rather have a newer cue than an old Bushka.
> They were not the most well made cues!
In other words, these companies are not only misrepresenting Balabushka's
endorsement of these cues, they're hoping we won't know that it's worthless
anyway? This gets better and better.
Pat Johnson
Patrick Johnson
Tim Hurson wrote:
> With Helmstetters 'disclaimer' posted previously in this thread, I have no
> problem with what they have done ethically or otherwise.
Do you mean the "disclaimer" that had Balabushka's signature on it saying he
endorsed the manufacturing specs for the cues? This compounds the crime. It's
their fallback for those annoying consumers who actually get to the point of
reading the "certificate," and it attempts to mislead in yet another way. These
guys can't force themselves to be honest, even to those they've already
successfully boondoggled.
Pat Johnson
Ron Hudson
>I was objecting mainly to the flaming, I have no problem with the
>discussion. So now you have forced me to give my analogy. I think it's more
>like paintings or photographs, i.e. Ansel Adams. There are the originals,
>hanging in museums or privately owned, and then there are the prints. The
>prints are generally numbered and in many cases come with a certificate of
>authenticity. It just guarantees the print was made from the original and is
>nothing more than a print.
Tim,
The Adams prints are not the same at all because he took the originals, but.....
Let's say that I go to Adam's family and strike a deal with them. Then I go out
and take pictures which are "in the tradition of pictures taken by Ansel Adams",
and I put Ansel Adams's signature on the photos and sell them. Want to buy one
of these? I'll include a certificate of authenticity.
That is a direct analogy of what has been done with these cues. How do you feel
about the morality of this?
I, as others, have no problem with the heirs or the manufacturer having a right
to do what they did. My problem is with the finished product, which is not
clearly labeled as to what it is, and is an invitation to trouble.
Ron
Deno J. Andrews
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> Helmstetter and Hawley's deserve all the public roasting they get over this, and
> much more. Maybe they deserve to get legally slapped around, too. If consumer
> interest in these cues wasn't so narrow they probably would. I think everybody
> recognizes the legal right to purchase and use somebody's name (though some
> would say it shouldn't be so), but that right comes with responsibility, and
> this is a clear case of abuse.
>
> Pat Johnson
Again I stress...be mad at the family for selling his name. Don't be
mad at the company for trying to use a legendary name to help sales. Of
course it's not in the best interest in the cue buying public. But you
can't expect companies to operate with a strict moral code. It would
be nice, but just not possible in our market. Half the major companies
would be closed! I agree with all the moral standards, but will also
realize we will never live under those conditions. So we learn how to
protect ourselves.
Deno
Arnot Q. Wadsworth (Arnot Q Custom Cues)
I was going to try to stay out of this but it's getting stupid. If
being a Balabushka cue that is not a Balabushka cue (not made by
George Balabushki) isn't misleading then I do not know what is! If
you have to resort to misleading advertising to sell a cue then you
need to be ashamed of yourself and quit. No amount of verbiage is
going justify what they are doing and I feel sorry for those who are
taken in by the hype. Building a great cue is not all about money.
It never has been - it's a labor of love.
I wonder how many of these cues they would sell if the advetising said
something to the effect: Balabushka cue - complete with a COPY of
George Balabushka's signature and a certificate of authenticity that
certifies George Balabushka did NOT make the cue?
--
Arnot Q Custom Cues
The Best Kept Secret in the U. S. A.
Handcrafted Precision Made
1641 63rd Way S., West Palm Beach, FL 33415
561 439-0441 http://arnotq.net
Tim Hurson
Here is the wording of the certificate again.
Joe
It reads as follows:
Certificate of Authenticity
The George Balabushka Commemorative Collection
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. Together they assembled as
much information about Balabushka's ideas on cue design, structure,
material and philosophy as possible.
This cue is what George Balabushka would be making if he were still with
us today.
In conformation of that fact, this certificate of authenticity is issued.
Signed: George Balabushka R.C. Helmstetter
_____________________________________________________
The damn thread is so long it took me a while to find it and since I
couldn't remember the exact verbiage, I said 'disclaimer'. All I'm saying is
read it and take it FWIW. Maybe I'm giving too much credit to the average
player, I understand it. Sure, Helmstetter's cashing in on the nostalgia
craze, who isn't? If someone offers you an original Balabushka and you start
salivating, before you plop down your money you better have enough common
sense to insist on it being authenticated by somone who knows. Would you buy
a Rolex from some guy on the street? So. there's a couple of things going on
here.
1. We got a Balabushka that's not a Balabushka and were saying it's not an
original Balabushka but if George were alive today we think this is what he
would have made and so if you buy one you will have an authentic Balabushka
with George's widow's blessing.
2. Is it morally/ethically/politically correct? That answer can probably be
found in the Clinton/Lewinsky NG. ;-)
Free Speech! God I love this country.
Tim
Patrick Johnson wrote in message <3570466A...@concentric.net>...
>Tim Hurson wrote:
>
>> With Helmstetters 'disclaimer' posted previously in this thread, I have
no
John Walkup
Tim Hurson wrote:
> I was objecting mainly to the flaming, I have no problem with the
> discussion. So now you have forced me to give my analogy. I think it's more
> like paintings or photographs, i.e. Ansel Adams. There are the originals,
> hanging in museums or privately owned, and then there are the prints. The
> prints are generally numbered and in many cases come with a certificate of
> authenticity. It just guarantees the print was made from the original and is
> nothing more than a print.
But the fake Balabushkas are not made from the originals. The fake Bushkasbear
no relationship to the original. Your assertion would be partially valid
(and only PARTIALLY valid) if George had authorized the reproduction.
At least this way the fakes would bear SOME relationship to the original cue.
> Last weekend my brother and his wife went to 'Art
> in the Vineyard' an annual event in our community. They purchased a print of
> a local artist for $95. It came with a certificate. The original is in a
> gallery in San Francisco and sells for upwards of $500.
> So the point is, my
> brother has a nice piece of art to hang in his house for 1/5th the cost of
> the original and he's happy. It's an authentic reproduction not a forgery or
> a bootleg copy. With Helmstetters 'disclaimer' posted previously in this
> thread, I have no problem with what they have done ethically or otherwise.
Except (1) cues are often sold over the Internet and the buyer won't read
thecertificate until he has handed over his money, and (2) the certificate is
"signed"
by the original cuemaker. Do the certificates of the Ansel Adams prints bear
Ansel's signature? I doubt it. If they do, I could see the potential for
fraud.
IMO, there is no such thing as an authentic reproduction. The term is an
oxymoron.
There can be AUTHORIZED reproductions, but not authentic reproductions.
And the fake Bushkas are usually not advertised as reproductions, hence the
problem.
> Whether or not Balabusha's widow acted 'politically correct' or not is
> another story. But it was her right nonetheless.
We're not arguing the legalities of the issue. It's the ethics of the issue
that are beingdiscussed. No one has said the widow didn't have the legal right
to do what she did.
John Walkup
Ron Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, 30 May 1998 17:16:10 GMT, "Tim Hurson" <thu...@home.com> rambled about
> a bit, then wrote:
>
> >I was objecting mainly to the flaming, I have no problem with the
> >discussion. So now you have forced me to give my analogy. I think it's more
> >like paintings or photographs, i.e. Ansel Adams. There are the originals,
> >hanging in museums or privately owned, and then there are the prints. The
> >prints are generally numbered and in many cases come with a certificate of
> >authenticity. It just guarantees the print was made from the original and is
> >nothing more than a print.
>
> Tim,
>
> The Adams prints are not the same at all because he took the originals, but.....
>
> Let's say that I go to Adam's family and strike a deal with them. Then I go out
> and take pictures which are "in the tradition of pictures taken by Ansel Adams",
> and I put Ansel Adams's signature on the photos and sell them. Want to buy one
> of these? I'll include a certificate of authenticity.
BINGO! THIS is the best analogy yet. In fact, the two situations are identicalin
every respect. And what is worse, the certificate of authenticity you throw in
has Ansel's (fake) signature on it.
> That is a direct analogy of what has been done with these cues. How do you feel
> about the morality of this?
>
> I, as others, have no problem with the heirs or the manufacturer having a right
> to do what they did. My problem is with the finished product, which is not
> clearly labeled as to what it is, and is an invitation to trouble.
And it is no accident. Putting George's signature on the certificate of
authenticitywas, IMO, a calculated move to help push these cues. Now a reseller
can put
in an advertisement "Includes a certificate of authenticity with the cuemaker's
signature." If you can't see the potential for fraud, you're blind.
> Ron
John Walkup
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> John Walkup wrote:
>
> > So anyone, for the right price, can buy the rights to put "Cartier" on
> > theirwatches? Cartier has no control over the finished product? They don't
> > have any specifications that the companies are required to follow?
>
> Well of course, but don't you think the Bushka family was interested in
> having a quality cue made with their name on it? Obviously they agreed
> to the standard of quality of Adams,
You assume they paid attention to the reputation of the manufacturer. Such
isprobably not the case. If the family was really interested in maintaining
George's reputation I doubt they would have sold the rights to a low-end
Japanese manufacturer.
> or they would not have sold their
> name. Or maybe they didn't care. But who knows.
>
> > Remember, Balabushka is dead. He has no control over what his name is
> > slapped on, whatsoever. I have a feeling that if you want to put "Cartier"
> > on a watch you are going to have to obey some standards of quality, otherwise
> > Cartier is just another crappy watch company.
>
> > John Walkup
>
> Well when it comes right down to it,almost every part of the new Bushkas
> are better made than the originals. The glues are superior, the
> construction is more accurate, the tolerances are closer, the finish is
> superior, etc. Hell, George didn't even make most of his cues. Burton
> Spain made a majority of Bushka blanks.
You can't shoot with a blank.
> George jointed them, put a butt
> cap, wrap, shaft and a finish on them and sold them. So how original
> were they to begin with? Burton Spain cues are not worth as much, and
> he was the major cue maker in the operation. He was responsible for
> most of the points!
Yeah, well, Saginaw makes the power steering units for GM cars, but we stillcall
the finished product a Chevy.
> Quality wise, I would much rather have a newer cue than an old Bushka.
> They were not the most well made cues!
Irrelevant. We weren't discussing the quality of the cue.
> Deno
John Walkup
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> Patrick Johnson wrote:
> > Helmstetter and Hawley's deserve all the public roasting they get over this, and
> > much more. Maybe they deserve to get legally slapped around, too. If consumer
> > interest in these cues wasn't so narrow they probably would. I think everybody
> > recognizes the legal right to purchase and use somebody's name (though some
> > would say it shouldn't be so), but that right comes with responsibility, and
> > this is a clear case of abuse.
> >
> > Pat Johnson
>
> Again I stress...be mad at the family for selling his name. Don't be
> mad at the company for trying to use a legendary name to help sales.
It takes two to tango. The family couldn't do what they did if they didn'thave a
willing accomplice.
And why shouldn't Adams rely instead on the reputation of their company
and the quality of their product to sell cues? The fact that they felt it necessary
to put George's name on a cue to sell it should tell you something about the
company.
Now if the company had bent over backwards to make sure that no one could
be deceived by their product then we wouldn't be arguing here. But that didn't
happen. If anything, the company set up a situation that made it particularly
easy for the unscrupulous to sell their product. Whether the company did this
intentionally we will never know. (IMO, I think they did.)
> Of
> course it's not in the best interest in the cue buying public. But you
> can't expect companies to operate with a strict moral code.
Why not?
> It would
> be nice, but just not possible in our market.
Why not?
> Half the major companies
> would be closed!
Yeah, those companies that need deceipt in order to stay open. Did Adamsreally have
to put George's name on their cues in order to sell them? If so,
how come other cue manufacturers don't engage in this practice and still manage
to stay open? If not, why do it?
I really do think that you can put out a great product at a reasonable price and
make a living and be totally honest about your product. If so, why excuse those that
don't?
Those that sell merchandise under false pretenses aren't the victims of
the realities of the business world, they're the perpetrators. The world would be
a better place without them.
> I agree with all the moral standards, but will also
> realize we will never live under those conditions. So we learn how to
> protect ourselves.
And we also learn to express outrage when someone doesn't live to those
moralstandards. Right? RIGHT???
John Walkup
Arnot Q. Wadsworth (Arnot Q Custom Cues) wrote:
> I wonder how many of these cues they would sell if the advetising said
> something to the effect: Balabushka cue - complete with a COPY of
> George Balabushka's signature and a certificate of authenticity that
> certifies George Balabushka did NOT make the cue?
They should have at least made this a requirement of their dealers.
Robert W. Johnson
There's a tavern here in Denver that has the Mona Lisa hanging on the big
wall behind the main bar. You mean it might not be the real thing? Damn,
I've been taking out of town guests there for years just to see it!
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co., beta ID 212564
Home of the World Champion Denver Broncos!
bo...@cris.com
John Walkup wrote in message <3572122E...@telepath.com>...
Deno J. Andrews
John Walkup wrote:
> Irrelevant. We weren't discussing the quality of the cue.
> John Walkup
You were the one who brought up the quality issue. I was just
responding and stating that Balabushka cues were made also by Burton
Spain. And the blank has alot to do with the playability of the cue.
Any half decent cue maker can make shafts. But how many can make the
veneered point blanks like on Spain's? Maybe two or three in the
country!
Deno
Deno J. Andrews
John Walkup wrote:
If so, why excuse those that don't?
I am not excusing these companies. Things have been like this forever,
and will not change. So I choose to deal with it. To waste my life
raising hell on this issue would be wasting my life.
Deno
Williams Ferguson
Has anyone ever shot with one of these reproductions of the balabushka
cues? Do they shoot as good as the originals? Do they use the double
spliced joint that Burton Spain developed or is their design based on the
Brunswick Titlist butt, or are they just jointed with tenons like most cues
and have Balabushka style inlays? I have never shot with or even seen an
original Balabushka, but have heard of their legendary hit which I would
attribute part of that to the blanks he choose to use in his cues. I
wouldn't mind paying $500 for an accurate replica of a balabushka if the
butts design is based on the original's construction with its spliced
joints, but if it is just a look alike and has the typical tenon style
joint construction of most cues then I wouldn't even consider it a replica,
but merely a look a like, and would not be willing to buy one. I am very
interested in the construction of these replicas, so anyone who knows how
they are truly constructed please reply.
On the other hand, ethically I would have a hard time buying a cue from
this company based on the way they try to deceive the customer, even though
it may be a great cue. Now if it where being sold and clearly stated as an
accurate replica of a Balabushka cue, I would be happy paying $500 for one.
And if for some reason they wanted to include a certificate I would expect
it to be signed by the family of George Balabushka, not George himself, and
stated it was made by one of Helmstetter companies. If they wanted to put
George Balabushka's name on the cue I would rather them put just Balabushka
Replica by Helmstetter. That way everything is stated as what you are
really getting and doesn't make you feel like you are dealing with a
dishonest company, and it makes you more likely to buy their cue even
though it is not an original, but an authorized reproduction.
Honesty is a greater salesman than deceit,
Williams Ferguson
Tim Hurson <thu...@home.com> wrote in article
<Vs0c1.793$b13.7...@news.rdc1.sfba.home.com>...
Alig8orMan
I think one thing should be clarified about Burton / John Davies (Davis)
spliced Bushkas. They were not the full splice that Burton Spain developed,
but a shorty tradtional splice, which is commonly used today. I believe
Burton Spain perfected his splice in the late 80's / early 90's making it
impossible for a Bushka (real) to have this technique. Bushkas (real) will
use the Spain / Davies shorty splice, a titlist cue or a Szamboti blank. The
best points of the bunch will usually be the Szamboti pointed cue. One
of the reasons these cues command a premium.
As far as the splice in the replica's looking at the different styles
they look to be a shorty splice but without doing other research this is
an opinion based purely on looking at pictures. I will say after looking
closely at the cues, some have the simplicity in design that is commonly
found in Balabushkas. GB1 through 5 and 8 and 9 definately have
some of Georges trademark designs. GB 6 the points are not even close.
If someone has a real Bushka with these points, he has hit the lottery.
GB7 I have never seen a that kind of butt design on an original Bushka.
Thats not to say he didn't do it, but I have never seen anything close.
One other thing I see, is that these cues seem to have birdseye forearms.
I have always been told that all of his cues had straight grain maple. But
some birdseye maple forearms MAY exist.
Joe
>Williams Ferguson" <fer...@1starnet.com>
>Has anyone ever shot with one of these reproductions of the balabushka
>cues? Do they shoot as good as the originals? Do they use the double
>spliced joint that Burton Spain developed or is their design based on the
>Brunswick Titlist butt, or are they just jointed with tenons like most
>cues and have Balabushka style inlays? I have never shot with or even seen an
>original Balabushka, but have heard of their legendary hit which I would
>attribute part of that to the blanks he choose to use in his cues. I
>wouldn't mind paying $500 for an accurate replica of a balabushka if the
>butts design is based on the original's construction with its spliced
>joints, but if it is just a look alike and has the typical tenon style
>joint construction of most cues then I wouldn't even consider it a replica,
>but merely a look a like, and would not be willing to buy one. I am very
>interested in the construction of these replicas, so anyone who knows how
>they are truly constructed please reply.
snip>>
>Williams Ferguson<
Williams Ferguson
OOPS! I got that all messed up in my last post. I reread where I learned
the information I based may statement on, and it did state as you mentioned
on him using the shorty splice. I have never seen a titlist blank before
either, but did they have the full splice caring all the way back to the
end of the cue? i.e. lacking a tenon joint between the forearm and the
handle. Based on the fact that Balabushka did use a tenon joint in this
area on some of his cues, that is probably how the replicas are made
because that would waste the least amount of wood and therefore be more
profitable.
That brings up another question. Has anyone ever shot with one of Burton
Spain's or Hercek's double spliced cues? Did that building technique
really make a difference in the the way they shoot, or is it not a
noticeable difference over other well made cues using the tenon type of
joints?
Sorry about the errors in my last post, and thanks for catching them so
quickly Joe,
Williams Ferguson
Alig8orMan <alig8...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199806011557...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
John Walkup
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> John Walkup wrote:
> If so, why excuse those that don't?
>
> I am not excusing these companies. Things have been like this forever,
> and will not change. So I choose to deal with it.
No, you choose to *ignore* it. Big difference. "Dealing with it" would
beexpressing outrage, or writing the company, or informing prospective
customers
about what is going on.
> To waste my life
> raising hell on this issue would be wasting my life.
Then why bother posting to RSB at all?
No one is asking you to write your Congressman. No one is asking you to
hold a press conference, or to sue the company. All I am saying is that
if I see something
being done out there that I think is wrong, I am going to say so. Is that
so much
trouble? Is that notion so scary that I have to close my eyes to those
acting unethical?
In other words, stand up for something!
Deno J. Andrews
John Walkup wrote:
> In other words, stand up for something!
> John Walkup
I am standing up for something. I believe the company owns the rights
to the Balabushka signature and name. Thus letting them operate within
the framework of the law. The Balabushka family should have thought
about what they were doing. They sold the name! Adams simply made a
good deal with them and are making Balabushka cues.
There are many examples of these kind of deals. One that comes to mind
is Dale Carnegie's (sp) book- How to win friends and influence people.
Every bunch of years, the book is updated and revised by someone,
reprinted and resold. But guess what...It is still Dale Carnegie on the
cover, but in essence, his contributions to the book become less and
less as his old stuff gets edited out for the new stuff. Every time the
book is revised, his estate says "this is what HE would be writing about
if he were here today" which is exactly what is printed on the
certificate for the Bushkas.
How about other names you may have heard of who haven't been alive
formany years. L. Ron Hubbard has been dead for a long time. But you
wouldn't know it by the commercials for his book. How about Sidney
Omarr in the Astrology field? He's been gone for a while, but his
column continues to have his name on it in newspapers.
Adams is doing nothing wrong. In fact, I applaud them for creating
affordable cues, for people who want a piece of a legend, without having
to pay $25,000 for an original. I think it's cool, and I don't think
there are many people who get deceived. The ones that do should learn
to read.
I respect your being a purist in this regard. However, the company has
done nothing wrong, except make a better cue than the originals! It's
too bad they won't be worth as much.
Deno J. Andrews
Arnot Q. Wadsworth (Arnot Q Custom Cues)
What kind of cuemaker would put someone else's name on his cues?
--
Deno J. Andrews
Arnot Q. Wadsworth (Arnot Q Custom Cues) wrote:
>
A capitalist cue maker.
These cues are not even made by A cue maker. They are made by
computers. The parts are just loaded in by some workers. They are not
custom made cue sticks like yours. These are big company products.
I wish they would have chosen a better cue to replicate. I do not hold
Balabushka cues in the highest regard. I don't think they are bad cues,
just not as good as everyone thinks. I think the only reason they are
popular is because of the movie. I would be interested in the cue
makers opinions of Bushka cues (originals). Say if there were no
collectors value of the cues. What do you think the cues would be
worth? Obviously the cues you guys make today are far superior in
almost every way. Do you really think they hit great? Do you think the
aged wood has an added effect on the hit. Arnot...would you rather play
with a Bushka than one of your own cues?
Oh...another example... Smith & Wesson
Deno
John Walkup
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
> Arnot Q. Wadsworth (Arnot Q Custom Cues) wrote:
> >
> > What kind of cuemaker would put someone else's name on his cues?
>
> A capitalist cue maker.
>
> These cues are not even made by A cue maker. They are made by
> computers. The parts are just loaded in by some workers. They are not
> custom made cue sticks like yours. These are big company products.
But the Certificate of (ahem) Authenticity states that these are the cues
Georgewould be making if he were alive today. I didn't realize George was
so heavily
interested in automation. Are we really to believe that George would be
feeding
cues into a giant computer-operated machine? Since the vast majority of
cuemakers today
don't even do that, it is pretty far-fetched.
The whole thing is a joke. We are told by the cuemaker himself that these
are the
cues built in the traditions of the original maker. But those that defend
the practice
of the cuemaker say that these cues are nothing like the original. A
Madison Avenue
license is one thing, outright deceipt is another.
Legal? Sure. No is debating that. What we are debating is whether the
cuemaker did
anything *wrong* (not illegal). There is a big difference between the two
concepts.
Deno J. Andrews
John Walkup wrote:
> But the Certificate of (ahem) Authenticity states that these are the cues
> Georgewould be making if he were alive today. I didn't realize George was
> so heavily interested in automation. Are we really to believe that George would > be feeding cues into a giant computer-operated machine? Since the vast majority > of cuemakers today don't even do that, it is pretty far-fetched.
> John Walkup
I hope you are not under the misconception that cue makers today are
making "hand made" cues. Ever heard of a CNC machine? How about a tape
lathe, or a tracer machine? I'd bet an overwhelming amount of cue
makers are using these machines to make their cues. I'd bet George
would be doing the same today. All top cue makers today are using some
sort of automation.
Deno
Ron Shepard
In article <357057...@ix.netcom.con>, de...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Again I stress...be mad at the family for selling his name. Don't be
>mad at the company for trying to use a legendary name to help sales. Of
>course it's not in the best interest in the cue buying public.
I disagree with this statement. If someone makes a line of commemorative
cues, then it *is* in the best interest of everyone, including the cue
buying public, for this to be part of an open, legitimate, business deal.
The only other choice is for it to be an illegitimate, covert, counterfeit
operation, right? I don't see much room in between these two extremes.
There are more counterfeit Balabushka cues out there being sold than
originals, but for some reason the people involved in this greater
deception manage to cleanly escape the wrath of r.s.b. Instead, yet
another Helmstetter/Balabushka thread has exploded condeming those who try
to do the right thing, while tacitly condoning the counterfeiters.
What are some of the differences between the Adams cues and the counterfeits?
*) Helmstetter is a contemporary of Balabushka, and a well-respected cue
maker himself, who associates him name and the name of his company with
the cues, who guarantees the cues, and who tells the customers the truth
about who made the cues and when they were made (namely, they are new
cues, not old cues); in contrast, the counterfeiters are unknown people,
who sell their cues by telling the customers that they are originals, made
25 or 30 years ago by George Balabushka, with the sole purpose of
deceiving the buyer.
*) The Adams commemorative cues start at $300, which is a fair price for a
good quality production cue stick; the counterfeits start at 10x that
price and go up from there.
*) The Adams company goes out of their way to explain their relationship
with the Balabushka family, their now-famous "certificate" is sold with
every stick, and is even online for those who want to know the truth
before they buy; the counterfeiters claim that their cues are made by
George Balabushka himself, and expend effort to perpetrate their fraud,
they have no business relationship with the Balabushka family.
*) The Adams cues are not replicas of original Balabushka cues, but are
rather made in the same simple style with similar point designs and inlays
(someone posted a while back that shafts are not even interchangable
between the Adams cues and the original Balabushkas); in contrast, the
counterfeiters try to make cues that look as close as possible to an
original cue, and then portray it as an original to the buyer. There is a
queston whether the designs of the Adams cues are what George Balabushka
would be making today if he were still alive, as claimed in the
certificate, but this is an artistic judgement, not a moral issue.
>But you
>can't expect companies to operate with a strict moral code.
Yes you can, and I believe that both Helmstetter and the Balabushka family
have acted correctly within any reasonable definition of anyone's "strict
moral code".
>Patrick Johnson wrote:
>> Helmstetter and Hawley's deserve all the public roasting they get over
this, and
>> much more. Maybe they deserve to get legally slapped around, too.
I think it would be more entertaining for all of us if some of the
self-righteous hipocrites (who didn't know George Balabushka, and don't
know the surviving family, yet think they have the moral right to dictate
what can and can't be done by the family) got "legally slapped around" a
little too. ;-) But it's a free country, we have free speech, and this is
an unmoderated newsgroup, so it's probably not going to happen.
>> If consumer
>> interest in these cues wasn't so narrow they probably would. I think
everybody
>> recognizes the legal right to purchase and use somebody's name (though some
>> would say it shouldn't be so), but that right comes with responsibility, and
>> this is a clear case of abuse.
Yes, I think there is abuse here, but the victims are the surviving family
who have the right, both legal and moral, to make business decisions.
They don't need, or deserve, a bunch of strangers preaching to them about
their business.
I've posted before how I feel about these threads. I think basically they
are vicious gossip. Check dejanews if you want to know more about my
opinions, there is little left to say without repeating myself.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Patrick Johnson
Ron Shepard wrote:
> I believe that both Helmstetter and the Balabushka family
> have acted correctly within any reasonable definition of anyone's "strict
> moral code".
>
> >Patrick Johnson wrote:
> >> Helmstetter and Hawley's deserve all the public roasting they get over
> >> this, and much more. Maybe they deserve to get legally slapped around, too.
>
> I think it would be more entertaining for all of us if some of the
> self-righteous hipocrites (who didn't know George Balabushka, and don't
> know the surviving family, yet think they have the moral right to dictate
> what can and can't be done by the family) got "legally slapped around" a
> little too. ;-)
Strong words, Ron... what subtlety does the little winkyface add?
You apparently feel it's within the "reasonable definition of anyone's strict moral
code" to make it appear that Balabushka signed that certificate and personally
agrees the cues were made as he would have. You also probably disagree that the
very existence of a "certificate of authenticity" is misleading, whatever it
finally says. What's "authentic" here? Why isn't this a "certificate of
similarity?" You don't have to know Balabushka or his family to recognize this
"certificate" for what it is, however they try to clean it up with the actual
wording. (Though, by the way, I never criticized the family - maybe they have no
control over how the name's used now.)
And yes, I think I have the moral right to object to this kind of crap, whether
it's done by Adams, Helmstetter, Hawley's or even by a family selling one of its
deceased members' names for profit. I don't think I have the ability to dictate to
anybody, however... maybe you can tell me how that works. Are you trying to
dictate what can and can't be said about this?
I guess your moral sensibilities just aren't identical with mine, Ron. Go figure.
But I'm mystified why you'd call me "hypocritical" for objecting to this. Do you
think I've done what I criticize?
Pat Johnson
Ron Shepard
> You apparently feel it's within the "reasonable definition of anyone's
strict moral
> code" to make it appear that Balabushka signed that certificate and personally
> agrees the cues were made as he would have.
I gave several examples of what I think is the difference between a
legitimate line of commemorative cues and counterfeit ripoffs, but you
chose to delete them for some reason. Here they are again in case you
missed them.
It is these differences, among others, that make it clear that Helmstetter
is *not* trying to deceive his buyers.
>[...] You don't have to know Balabushka or his family to recognize this
> "certificate" for what it is, however they try to clean it up with the actual
> wording. (Though, by the way, I never criticized the family - maybe
they have no
> control over how the name's used now.)
I read through about 20 posts in this thread, and my comment was about the
general trend to make unfounded pronouncements about the motives of the
family in making the choice to continue the Balabushka name in the cue
business. Some claimed that it was greed, others claimed that they are
obviously trying to decieve the buyers. There is no evidence that this
was their motive, and in fact the magazine advertising of these cues and
the wording of the certificate make it clear who is manufacturing the cues
and when they are made (i.e. now, not 30 years ago).
If Helmstetter really *wanted* to sell his cues as counterfeits for $20K,
if he didn't care enough about the situation to make arrangements with the
widow and family before he began selling his cues, if he didn't guarantee
the cues himself and have his name and his companies name associated with
them, then perhaps there would be a question about his motives. But he
did all these things.
And the surprising thing, to me, is that it is these very things that are
being criticized in this thread. That is the irony. If the people
involved do the right thing, then they are criticized. If they don't, and
if they really do try to pass off fakes as originals, then there is never
a word of protest against them, thereby receiving tacit approval for their
actions.
> And yes, I think I have the moral right to object to this kind of crap,
whether
> it's done by Adams, Helmstetter, Hawley's or even by a family selling
one of its
> deceased members' names for profit.
No, you don't have the moral right, I don't have the moral right, and none
of the other clowns here in r.s.b. who don't know the facts or the people
involved have the right to make such moral pronouncements. As far as I
know, no one active in this thread even owns one of the cues in question.
It is none of our business. That's all there is to it, it is none of our
business. Such factless speculation of other's motives or intentions,
especially in such a malicious manner, should not be discussed in a public
forum.
You, and others in this thread, do have the moral right to denounce the
real counterfeiters, but you have yet to do so.
>I don't think I have the ability to dictate to
> anybody, however... maybe you can tell me how that works. Are you trying to
> dictate what can and can't be said about this?
Again, you are asking a question that I have already answered in my
previous post. Here is the text:
> > But it's a free country, we have free speech, and this is
> > an unmoderated newsgroup, so it's probably not going to happen.
> I guess your moral sensibilities just aren't identical with mine, Ron.
Go figure.
Just think of me as a defender of innocent widows, and orphans, and all
that is good, against malicious rumor mongors. ;-)
As I've said previously, I've posted my opinions about this topic in the
past. Check dejanews if you want the details.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
> > I disagree with this statement. If someone makes a line of commemorative
> > cues, then it *is* in the best interest of everyone, including the cue
> > buying public, for this to be part of an open, legitimate, business deal.
> > The only other choice is for it to be an illegitimate, covert, counterfeit
> > operation, right? I don't see much room in between these two extremes.
> > There are more counterfeit Balabushka cues out there being sold than
> > originals, but for some reason the people involved in this greater
> > deception manage to cleanly escape the wrath of r.s.b.
>
> So give us the names of these people and we can turn on the wrath.
That's the ironic thing about this situation. The *real* counterfeiters
don't advertise their real names, or their real companies, or guarantee
their products the way Helmstetter does. Maybe that's one way to tell the
good guys from the bad guys?
> Sorry, but when enough people soak money into a product they thought
wassomething
> different, then someone botched the "strict moral code." That
> shouldn't happen.
I don't know of anyone who has bought such a cue thinking it was a 30 year
old collectable cue stick. I may have missed a few posts in this thread,
but I don't know of even one person. When you say "enough people", it
makes it sound like there are hundreds, or thousands of such purchases.
You even gave an example in one of the posts (it has evaporated from my
reader, so I can't quote it now) about someone building a part for a
Chevy, but it is still a Chevy. I'm sure you know that the real car maker
Louis (I think that
is the right name) Chevrolet died long ago, and that the Chevys that you
see being made now have absolutly nothing to do with "original" Chevrolet
cars.
The same goes for Ransom Olds. I just happened to see a TV show about him
the other day because this is the 100 year anniversary of Oldsmobile, the
first mass produced automobile in this country.
Both legendary car makers died long ago, yet their names live on in
quality products even today. I think the same thing is happening to the
legendary cue maker Balabushka, perhaps on a smaller scale, but it is the
same moral issues involved in all these cases.
[...]
> The proper "strict moral code" would have required Helmstetter's company
to require
> all those
> dealing in the phony Balabushkas to boldly state the origin of the cue so that
> there could be no
> misunderstanding.
>
> Did he do that? If not, why the Hell not? If so, then we can all go home.
I don't require this of Chevrolet or Oldsmobile advertising by General
Motor Company, so I apply the same moral code to Adams cue company. Let
me be clear, this is not an "everybody does it so it must be alright"
argument, it is an "everybody does it *because* it is right" argument.
> The Certificate of Authenticity could have been used to hammer this
point home if
> (1)
> it hadn't been titled a Certificate of Authenticity, and (2) it didn't have
> George's signature on it.
It is the same autograph copy that is on the cue stick. To someone
wanting such a commemorative cue stick, this is exactly what they want.
It is like having a Micky Mantle autograph baseball bat. The autograph
adds value. That is exactly what the buyer of such a product *wants*, and
there is nothing wrong or immoral about a buyer who wants such an
autograph, and, provided the family approves, there is nothing wrong with
a cue maker who manufactuers and sells such a product.
[...]
> Except it is a bunch of strangers that have been taken in by the
Balabushkaphonies
> and have lost money.
I don't know of a single person in all the posts that I've read in these
threads who claims to have spent $20K, or even $10K, or even $3K on one of
the Adams cues. How many, exactly, is "a bunch"?
You are a cue dealer, so you surely must know people who have been
bamboozled by a fake Balabushka and lost a few thousand dollars. Why
aren't you outraged by this instead of picking on Dick Helmstetter and
George Balabushka's widow?
[...]
> But to say that the Balabushka family has no responsibilties to the
people that
> these
> cues are marketed to is wrong, at least in my opinion.
They sell a pretty good production cue stick for a reasonable price and
the cues have warranties and guarantees, so I think that everyone is
fulfilling their responsibilities.
If they were selling the sticks for $3000 instead of $300, and if there
were no warranties, and if you didn't even know who the real manufacturer
was, and if it was advertised as being an original 30 year old cue made by
George Balabushka, then I would say that they had failed their
responsibilites.
> What arethe responsibilities of a cue manufacturer and a dead man's
relatives when
> it comes to
> the licensing of a name? I know that you want all of us to just agree
with you and
> go home.
> But I'm not going to do that.
I think what bothers me about these Helmstetter/Balabushka threads is the
malicious nature and the personal attacts against people who are not in
this public forum to defend themselves. The last time this thread came
up, Jerry Franklin's more recent death and the continuing production of
SouthWest cues even got mixed up in it, which I thought reflected very
poorly on all of us here in r.s.b. If the discussion about these
responsibilites was more abstract, then I think it might be interesting
and productive. But as it is, and as the previous threads have been, I
think it is just poor taste. Of course, I hope that I can persuade others
to look at this issue from my point of view, but even if I can't, I still
wish that these ugly threads would just go away.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
John Walkup
Deno J. Andrews wrote:
But that isn't what you stated in your post. You said that all that went into makingthese cues was that a worker fed a chunk of wood into a machine. I am sure that the
vast majority of cuemakers spend a lot more hands-on time than you implied.
John Walkup
Ron Shepard wrote:
> In article <357057...@ix.netcom.con>, de...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> >Again I stress...be mad at the family for selling his name. Don't be
> >mad at the company for trying to use a legendary name to help sales. Of
> >course it's not in the best interest in the cue buying public.
>
> I disagree with this statement. If someone makes a line of commemorative
> cues, then it *is* in the best interest of everyone, including the cue
> buying public, for this to be part of an open, legitimate, business deal.
> The only other choice is for it to be an illegitimate, covert, counterfeit
> operation, right? I don't see much room in between these two extremes.
> There are more counterfeit Balabushka cues out there being sold than
> originals, but for some reason the people involved in this greater
> deception manage to cleanly escape the wrath of r.s.b.
So give us the names of these people and we can turn on the wrath.
(snip)
> >But you
> >can't expect companies to operate with a strict moral code.
>
> Yes you can, and I believe that both Helmstetter and the Balabushka family
> have acted correctly within any reasonable definition of anyone's "strict
> moral code".
Sorry, but when enough people soak money into a product they thought wassomething
different, then someone botched the "strict moral code." That
shouldn't happen.
If no one had ever been hoodwinked, I would agree with you. But when we hear
question after question, story after story that shows that there is confusion about
who made what, something's wrong. And if you look at how these cues have
been marketed it is easy to see how people could have been taken in.
You may respond that people should be careful. Yes, they should. But they
shouldn't HAVE
to be careful. And the fact that they have to be careful is an indicator that
something isn't right.
The proper "strict moral code" would have required Helmstetter's company to require
all those
dealing in the phony Balabushkas to boldly state the origin of the cue so that
there could be no
misunderstanding.
Did he do that? If not, why the Hell not? If so, then we can all go home.
The Certificate of Authenticity could have been used to hammer this point home if
(1)
it hadn't been titled a Certificate of Authenticity, and (2) it didn't have
George's signature on it.
As it stands, the certificate does the opposite until the buyer gets a chance to
read it.
> >> If consumer
> >> interest in these cues wasn't so narrow they probably would. I think
> everybody
> >> recognizes the legal right to purchase and use somebody's name (though some
> >> would say it shouldn't be so), but that right comes with responsibility, and
> >> this is a clear case of abuse.
>
> Yes, I think there is abuse here, but the victims are the surviving family
> who have the right, both legal and moral, to make business decisions.
> They don't need, or deserve, a bunch of strangers preaching to them about
> their business.
Except it is a bunch of strangers that have been taken in by the Balabushkaphonies
and have lost money. If the Balabushka family wants to sell cues amongst
themselves, fine. But as soon as they are involved in a situation where someone
is
using their dead relative's name to possibly bamboozle people out of their money
then
they become willing accomplices. Did that happen? It depends on how you view it.
But to say that the Balabushka family has no responsibilties to the people that
these
cues are marketed to is wrong, at least in my opinion.
> I've posted before how I feel about these threads. I think basically they
> are vicious gossip.
I wouldn't characterize it as gossip. We are talking about a tough issue here:
What arethe responsibilities of a cue manufacturer and a dead man's relatives when
it comes to
the licensing of a name? I know that you want all of us to just agree with you and
go home.
But I'm not going to do that.
--
John Walkup
Ron Shepard wrote:
> In article <35749C61...@concentric.net>, pjm...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> >> *) The Adams cues are not replicas of original Balabushka cues, but are
> >> rather made in the same simple style with similar point designs and inlays
> >> (someone posted a while back that shafts are not even interchangable
> >> between the Adams cues and the original Balabushkas); in contrast, the
> >> counterfeiters try to make cues that look as close as possible to an
> >> original cue, and then portray it as an original to the buyer. There is a
> >> queston whether the designs of the Adams cues are what George Balabushka
> >> would be making today if he were still alive, as claimed in the
> >> certificate, but this is an artistic judgement, not a moral issue.
>
> It is these differences, among others, that make it clear that Helmstetter
> is *not* trying to deceive his buyers.
The logic eludes me. So if I am trying to prove A is not B, then showing that C is
notB is somehow proof?
I think it is perfectly possible for two different entities to deceive, but to do it
in completely
different ways.
> If Helmstetter really *wanted* to sell his cues as counterfeits for $20K,
> if he didn't care enough about the situation to make arrangements with the
> widow and family before he began selling his cues, if he didn't guarantee
> the cues himself and have his name and his companies name associated with
> them, then perhaps there would be a question about his motives. But he
> did all these things.
Yeah, it's called "covering your legal ass."
> And the surprising thing, to me, is that it is these very things that are
> being criticized in this thread. That is the irony. If the people
> involved do the right thing, then they are criticized. If they don't, and
> if they really do try to pass off fakes as originals, then there is never
> a word of protest against them, thereby receiving tacit approval for their
> actions.
Say what? People kill people all the time, yet in this thread no one has
blastedmurderers. So are we condoning murder?
There are basically two reasons no one in here is blasting the blatant
counterfeiters:
1. We don't know who they are.
2. We weren't talking about the blatant counterfeiters; we were talking about
Helmstetter and
the Balabushka family.
3. (Most importantly) There is no disagreement on the evilness of the blatant
counterfeiters,
so there would be no discussion involved.
> > And yes, I think I have the moral right to object to this kind of crap,
> whether
> > it's done by Adams, Helmstetter, Hawley's or even by a family selling
> one of its
> > deceased members' names for profit.
>
> No, you don't have the moral right, I don't have the moral right, and none
> of the other clowns here in r.s.b. who don't know the facts or the people
> involved have the right to make such moral pronouncements. As far as I
> know, no one active in this thread even owns one of the cues in question.
So now we have to buy one of Helmstetter's cues before we can complain abouthis
business practices. (!) This is so laughable.
> It is none of our business. That's all there is to it, it is none of our
> business.
It damn well is our business! You may disagree whether Helmstetter acted
ethically,but the very issue IS our business. It should be everyone's business in
here because
(get this) they are selling these cues to the general public. As I said before, if
they
wanted to sell the cues only amongst themselves then it wouldn't be any of our
concern.
> Such factless speculation of other's motives or intentions,
> especially in such a malicious manner, should not be discussed in a public
> forum.
>
> You, and others in this thread, do have the moral right to denounce the
> real counterfeiters, but you have yet to do so.
Okay, here goes:
The real counterfeiters are bad people! Shame! Shame!
Good enough for you? (Boy, that really accomplished a lot.)
John Walkup
Ron Shepard wrote:
> In article <3574A60D...@telepath.com>, cue...@telepath.com wrote:
>
> > > I disagree with this statement. If someone makes a line of commemorative
> > > cues, then it *is* in the best interest of everyone, including the cue
> > > buying public, for this to be part of an open, legitimate, business deal.
> > > The only other choice is for it to be an illegitimate, covert, counterfeit
> > > operation, right? I don't see much room in between these two extremes.
> > > There are more counterfeit Balabushka cues out there being sold than
> > > originals, but for some reason the people involved in this greater
> > > deception manage to cleanly escape the wrath of r.s.b.
> >
> > So give us the names of these people and we can turn on the wrath.
>
> That's the ironic thing about this situation. The *real* counterfeiters
> don't advertise their real names, or their real companies, or guarantee
> their products the way Helmstetter does. Maybe that's one way to tell the
> good guys from the bad guys?
No.
> > Sorry, but when enough people soak money into a product they thought
> wassomething
> > different, then someone botched the "strict moral code." That
> > shouldn't happen.
>
> I don't know of anyone who has bought such a cue thinking it was a 30 year
> old collectable cue stick. I may have missed a few posts in this thread,
> but I don't know of even one person.
I have met two that thought they were made by George Balabushka. I believe
HankMiller also has as well. Furthermore, many have asked if they are actually the
real
thing, so the origin of the cue hasn't been blatantly advertised.
> When you say "enough people", it
> makes it sound like there are hundreds, or thousands of such purchases.
>
> You even gave an example in one of the posts (it has evaporated from my
> reader, so I can't quote it now) about someone building a part for a
> Chevy, but it is still a Chevy. I'm sure you know that the real car maker
> Louis (I think that
> is the right name) Chevrolet died long ago, and that the Chevys that you
> see being made now have absolutly nothing to do with "original" Chevrolet
> cars.
Sorry, but it is the same company. If the Balabushka family had kept on makingthe
cues, things may have been different. The truth is that the fake Bushkas have
nothing in common with the originals. They're not even made on the same continent.
> [...]
> > The proper "strict moral code" would have required Helmstetter's company
> to require
> > all those
> > dealing in the phony Balabushkas to boldly state the origin of the cue so that
> > there could be no
> > misunderstanding.
> >
> > Did he do that? If not, why the Hell not? If so, then we can all go home.
>
> I don't require this of Chevrolet or Oldsmobile advertising by General
> Motor Company, so I apply the same moral code to Adams cue company. Let
> me be clear, this is not an "everybody does it so it must be alright"
> argument, it is an "everybody does it *because* it is right" argument.
There is a huge difference between the Chevy/Olds situation and the Balabushka
situation:No one thinks that Louis Chevrolet or Ransom Olds handcrafted the cars
coming off the
assembly line. No one thinks that they have anything to do with the building of
these
cars. PLUS, the cars are made by the same company, the founder simply passed on.
Cues are much more associated with single individuals than cars.
In the case of the Balabushkas, many think that these cues are made by George
Balabushka.
Many times I have seen regulars in here have to tell someone that George actually
passed away
many years ago. PLUS, the company that is making the Balabushkas has nothing in
common
with the original cuemaker.
> > The Certificate of Authenticity could have been used to hammer this
> point home if
> > (1)
> > it hadn't been titled a Certificate of Authenticity, and (2) it didn't have
> > George's signature on it.
>
> It is the same autograph copy that is on the cue stick. To someone
> wanting such a commemorative cue stick, this is exactly what they want.
> It is like having a Micky Mantle autograph baseball bat. The autograph
> adds value. That is exactly what the buyer of such a product *wants*, and
> there is nothing wrong or immoral about a buyer who wants such an
> autograph, and, provided the family approves, there is nothing wrong with
> a cue maker who manufactuers and sells such a product.
You can't see the difference between putting a signature on the cue and putting
thesignature on a Certificate of AUTHENTICITY?
> [...]
> > Except it is a bunch of strangers that have been taken in by the
> Balabushkaphonies
> > and have lost money.
>
> I don't know of a single person in all the posts that I've read in these
> threads who claims to have spent $20K, or even $10K, or even $3K on one of
> the Adams cues. How many, exactly, is "a bunch"?
How much, exactly, is someone required to lose before he can claim he lost money?
> You are a cue dealer, so you surely must know people who have been
> bamboozled by a fake Balabushka and lost a few thousand dollars. Why
> aren't you outraged by this instead of picking on Dick Helmstetter and
> George Balabushka's widow?
I think it sucks. But there is no disagreement. Coming in here and complaining
aboutthe purely fake Bushkas would be like whining about poverty. Since there is
nothing
to discuss about the counterfeiters, why bring it up? I can complain about
murderers,
burglars, and drunk drivers as well, but RSB is not a gripe session. It is a
DISCUSSION
group.
> [...]
> > But to say that the Balabushka family has no responsibilties to the
> people that
> > these
> > cues are marketed to is wrong, at least in my opinion.
>
> They sell a pretty good production cue stick for a reasonable price and
> the cues have warranties and guarantees, so I think that everyone is
> fulfilling their responsibilities.
>
> If they were selling the sticks for $3000 instead of $300, and if there
> were no warranties, and if you didn't even know who the real manufacturer
> was,
Is the name of the real manufacturer emblazoned on the cue? I assumed it wasn't.If
it is, I would change my opinion on this issue. To me, if you want to inform
people who the real manufacturer is you (get this) put the name of the manufacturer
on the
cue!
> and if it was advertised as being an original 30 year old cue made by
> George Balabushka, then I would say that they had failed their
> responsibilites.
I think we can agree that Adams is not guilty of outright fraud. This is a question
of ethics,not legalities.
> > What arethe responsibilities of a cue manufacturer and a dead man's
> relatives when
> > it comes to
> > the licensing of a name? I know that you want all of us to just agree
> with you and
> > go home.
> > But I'm not going to do that.
>
> I think what bothers me about these Helmstetter/Balabushka threads is the
> malicious nature and the personal attacts against people who are not in
> this public forum to defend themselves.
Well, somebody tell them to get in this forum. Are we not supposed to discuss
their dealings simply because they aren't here?
> The last time this thread came
> up, Jerry Franklin's more recent death and the continuing production of
> SouthWest cues even got mixed up in it, which I thought reflected very
> poorly on all of us here in r.s.b. If the discussion about these
> responsibilites was more abstract, then I think it might be interesting
> and productive. But as it is, and as the previous threads have been, I
> think it is just poor taste. Of course, I hope that I can persuade others
> to look at this issue from my point of view, but even if I can't, I still
> wish that these ugly threads would just go away.
These ugly threads will go away when cue manufacturers sell their cues *solely*on
the merit of the product. If Adams had bent over backwards to make sure
that no one would have been misled about the true nature of these cues then
this ugly thread would never have happened.
Patrick Johnson
Ron Shepard wrote:
> I gave several examples of what I think is the difference between a
> legitimate line of commemorative cues and counterfeit ripoffs, but you
> chose to delete them for some reason. Here they are again in case you
> missed them.
Well, OK Ron, if you insist on plodding through these again:
>
>
> >> What are some of the differences between the Adams cues and the counterfeits?
> >>
> >> *) Helmstetter is a contemporary of Balabushka, and a well-respected cue
> >> maker himself, who associates him name and the name of his company with
> >> the cues, who guarantees the cues, and who tells the customers the truth
> >> about who made the cues and when they were made (namely, they are new
> >> cues, not old cues)
Yeah, eventually, if you get to the point of actually reading the fine print. The
ads I saw give exactly the opposite impression by simply trumpeting the "certificate
of authenticity" without explanation or clarification.
> ; in contrast, the counterfeiters are unknown people,
> >> who sell their cues by telling the customers that they are originals, made
> >> 25 or 30 years ago by George Balabushka, with the sole purpose of
> >> deceiving the buyer.
OK, so this is only the secondary purpose of these ads.
> >> *) The Adams commemorative cues start at $300, which is a fair price for a
> >> good quality production cue stick; the counterfeits start at 10x that
> >> price and go up from there.
Good for them. Sounds like fair pricing. This has nothing to do with the
misleading "certificate."
> >> *) The Adams company goes out of their way to explain their relationship
> >> with the Balabushka family, their now-famous "certificate" is sold with
> >> every stick, and is even online for those who want to know the truth
> >> before they buy
If this was fair and honest advertising, you wouldn't have to "want to know." It
would be obvious from the ads, and not require finding and reading the fine print,
which is not even displayed with the main ads that I've seen.
> ; the counterfeiters claim that their cues are made by
> >> George Balabushka himself, and expend effort to perpetrate their fraud,
> >> they have no business relationship with the Balabushka family.
Having a business relationship with the family doesn't exempt anyone from the
obligation to be forthright in their advertising.
> >> *) The Adams cues are not replicas of original Balabushka cues, but are
> >> rather made in the same simple style with similar point designs and inlays
> >> (someone posted a while back that shafts are not even interchangable
> >> between the Adams cues and the original Balabushkas); in contrast, the
> >> counterfeiters try to make cues that look as close as possible to an
> >> original cue, and then portray it as an original to the buyer.
So they only try to mislead with their advertising, not with the actual cues.
> >> There is a queston whether the designs of the Adams cues are what George
> Balabushka
> >> would be making today if he were still alive, as claimed in the
> >> certificate, but this is an artistic judgement, not a moral issue.
Wrong. The fact that its claimed in the certificate, with Balabushka's signature
under the claim, is one of the central moral issues.
> It is these differences, among others, that make it clear that Helmstetter
> is *not* trying to deceive his buyers.
Seeing the advertising and noting its effect are all that's necessary to judge its
honesty. These other things are commendable, I'm sure, but they don't mitigate the
fundamental dishonesty of the "certificate" you have to find and read to know the
truth and Balabushka's signature on it implying his personal endorsement of the
manufacturing specs. This makes it pretty certain that lots of people won't know
the whole truth even after reading it.
> I read through about 20 posts in this thread, and my comment was about the
> general trend to make unfounded pronouncements about the motives of the
> family in making the choice to continue the Balabushka name in the cue
> business. Some claimed that it was greed, others claimed that they are
> obviously trying to decieve the buyers. There is no evidence that this
> was their motive, and in fact the magazine advertising of these cues and
> the wording of the certificate make it clear who is manufacturing the cues
> and when they are made (i.e. now, not 30 years ago).
Yeah, if you find it and read it and ignore its intrinsic dishonesty about other
facts. And how is it unfounded? We have the facts before us. Whether its the
family or only those who bought the name from them, somebody's trying to zoom us.
> If Helmstetter really *wanted* to sell his cues as counterfeits for $20K,
> if he didn't care enough about the situation to make arrangements with the
> widow and family before he began selling his cues, if he didn't guarantee
> the cues himself and have his name and his companies name associated with
> them, then perhaps there would be a question about his motives. But he
> did all these things.
Helmstetter wants $20k, he's just decided he can get it one $300 cue at a time.
> And the surprising thing, to me, is that it is these very things that are
> being criticized in this thread. That is the irony. If the people
> involved do the right thing, then they are criticized. If they don't, and
> if they really do try to pass off fakes as originals, then there is never
> a word of protest against them, thereby receiving tacit approval for their
> actions.
It sure looks to me like the sellers want people to believe these fakes are
originals. The fact that they don't overtly say that isn't good enough. If it
looks like that to me, a consumer, when I see the ads, then they're deceiving me.
Maybe you believe it's unintentional. I'm not convinced just because there's a
recognizable cuemaker and a "surviving family" involved.
> No, you don't have the moral right, I don't have the moral right, and none
> of the other clowns here in r.s.b. who don't know the facts or the people
> involved have the right to make such moral pronouncements. As far as I
> know, no one active in this thread even owns one of the cues in question.
> It is none of our business. That's all there is to it, it is none of our
> business. Such factless speculation of other's motives or intentions,
> especially in such a malicious manner, should not be discussed in a public
> forum.
This is ridiculous, Ron. Of course we have the facts. The facts are the
advertising. We don't have to know the people. And of course it's our business.
We're the public they're selling to. I don't think there's much speculation about
motives necessary here. If you think it's clear that there's no intent to mislead,
I've got a bridge to sell you.
> You, and others in this thread, do have the moral right to denounce the
> real counterfeiters, but you have yet to do so.
I'm sure we would if they were advertising so publicly.
> >I don't think I have the ability to dictate to
> > anybody, however... maybe you can tell me how that works. Are you trying to
> > dictate what can and can't be said about this?
>
> Again, you are asking a question that I have already answered in my
> previous post. Here is the text:
>
> > > But it's a free country, we have free speech, and this is
> > > an unmoderated newsgroup, so it's probably not going to happen.
I didn't make myself clear here. I was making a snide point about your use of the
word dictate (quote follows):
"didn't know George Balabushka, and don't know the surviving family, yet think they
have the moral right to dictate what can and can't be done by the family"
> Just think of me as a defender of innocent widows, and orphans, and all
> that is good, against malicious rumor mongors. ;-)
Some malicious rumors have probably been advanced in this thread, but criticism of
this fundamentally dishonest method of retail promotion is not one of them.
Pat Johnson
Alig8orMan
Well there is one on Ebay and the description should further fuel the debate.
But as far as the below statement is concerned, when the cues first hit the
market, the ad in every publication was very clear on the origins of the cue.
Now it has been about 4 years or so, and I guess advertising of the cues BY
ADAMS has slowed some what. But all ads by Adams have said the origin
of the cue. There are people who don't read every billiard publication and I
am sure Adams didn't advertise in every publication, so one can assume
not everyone saw it. Where I think where the problem persists is in the dealers
of these cues. They know exactly where the cue comes from and it may
"slip" their mind to mention it at time of sale. I have met three or four
people who bought these cues from dealers who had neglected to hand
over the certificate. But all these people knew Balabushka had been dead
for some time and purchased them just to have something that said
Balabushka.
Joe
>John Walkup <cue...@telepath.com>
Deno J. Andrews
John Walkup wrote:
> But that isn't what you stated in your post. You said that all that >went into makingthese cues was that a worker fed a chunk of wood into a >machine. I am sure that the vast majority of cuemakers spend a lot more hands-on time than you implied.
After reviewing my post, I agree. It did sound as though custom cue
makers actually made their cue by hand.
Most modern custom cue makers use automation. There are differences
between a large corporation having a shop and a custom maker. A custom
cue maker is usually a smaller operation, for example the cue maker and
maybe two workers. Most of the time there is only one worker. A
corporation has many workers producing the cues. The custom shop is in
charge by the cue maker. In a corporate situation, there would be a
foreman or manager. I guess what I am saying is there is a bit more
structure in the labor department in a corporate shop.
There is one main reason why mass cue makers don't make cues of the same
quality as the custom makers...The market doesn't call for it! Most
people buying cues are uneducated in billiard games and just want a cue
to play with. Do you think these people are going to go to a custom cue
maker to spend a thousand when...they can buy a cue that looks as cool
with decals, that plays just as well(at least in their hands, not ours),
and is less than half the price?
I listen to cue makers cry and moan all the time about how they can't
sell cues. There is only room at the top for a bunch of cue makers.
Everybody else should be making production cues.
It's a joke what some cue makers are asking for their cues. I have seen
some real garbage cue for $1500. Why would someone who wants a custom
cue, spend $1500 on a piece of garbage when they could have for example
a Cognoscenti for the same price. And these cue makers are wondering
why they can't sell cues.
So bringing the point back to this Balabushka thing...I think cue makers
are complaining about fraud and this and that because they can't stand
the fact that someone is giving a great deal on a cue, and selling! So
they all cry fraud, when in fact...I would be willing to bet the
consumer satisfaction percentage is HUGE with the new Bushka's. How
about it, some company can make a good cue and sell it for less than a
grand! I applaud cue makers who make custom cues for affordable
prices. I don't need to mention names because you all know who I think
they are.
Oh, and who cares if the cues are made in Japan? The best balls are
made in Belgium, the best cloth made in Spain, the best slate from
Italy, the best cue tips from Japan and the list goes on.
Another point is availability. For example, if someone buys a cue from
one of these fly by night cue makers, will they be able to get new
shafts or have cue work done in a reasonable time period? Most likely
not. When buying a cue from Adams, you know you will be able to get
replacement shafts and parts IF something goes wrong. Now realize the
perspective of my argument. Obviously, those of us in the industry
don't feel this way, but there are far more players OUT of the industry
than IN. Adams is just catering to these players. Face it, custom cue
makers don't even like to deal with these people. Because these people
don't really care for supreme quality.
I'd bet that less than a tenth of a percent of the people who purchased
new Balabushkas thought they were old originals. It's just not an
argument if one or two people thought they bought an original. We may
never agree on any of these points. But that's cool, can we still be
friends? :)
Deno
Ron Shepard
In article <357439...@ix.netcom.com>, de...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
[...]
>I wish they would have chosen a better cue to replicate. I do not hold
>Balabushka cues in the highest regard. I don't think they are bad cues,
>just not as good as everyone thinks. I think the only reason they are
>popular is because of the movie. [...]
I have read that the original cues sold for $100 to $200 when new in the
50's and 60's. I think that was a pretty good price at the time.
Brunswick Titlests cost about $5 for comparison. In the 80's before the
movie (TCOM) came out, I think they were selling for up to $400 or $500 or
so, and then after the movie came out, the prices went up by a factor of
10x. Clearly the movie "The Color of Money" contributed in part to the
"legend" of the cue maker. That is one of the reasons why I think this
Helmstetter/Balabushka bashing is so misguided. George Balabushka never
made much money with his cues when he was alive, and now it seems that
people want to taint whatever fame he has achieved after his death too.
I would guess that Mosconi played some part in picking the cue for the
movie "The Hustler" in 1960. I assume that he picked the cue because it
was a good playing, plain, cue that a road player might use -- at least
this seems reasonable. However, as far as I know, Mosconi himself did not
play with a Balabushka cue. He played with a Rambow (or with several,
over the years), but this may have been due to the fact that both Mosconi
and Rambow worked for Brunswick.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Arnot Q. Wadsworth (Arnot Q Custom Cues)
Deno I don't think you have a clue about cues, manufactured cues,
custom cues, or any other kind of cues and it is obvious you need
lessons in truthfulness, integrity, honesty, and character.
Den J. Andrews wrote:
>
> John Walkup wrote:
> > But that isn't what you stated in your post. You said that all that
>went into makingthese cues was that a worker fed a chunk of wood
into a
>machine. I am sure that the vast majority of cuemakers spend a lot
more hands-on time than you implied.
> > John Walkup
>
> After reviewing my post, I agree. It did sound as though custom cue
> makers actually made their cue by hand.
>
> Most modern custom cue makers use automation. There are differences
> between a large corporation having a shop and a custom maker. A custom
> cue maker is usually a smaller operation, for example the cue maker and
> maybe two workers. Most of the time there is only one worker. A
> corporation has many workers producing the cues. The custom shop is in
> charge by the cue maker. In a corporate situation, there would be a
> foreman or manager. I guess what I am saying is there is a bit more
> structure in the labor department in a corporate shop.
If you think the only difference in manufacturing environment and
custom cuemakers shop is structure in the labor department then you
should visit one.
>
> There is one main reason why mass cue makers don't make cues of the same
> quality as the custom makers...The market doesn't call for it! Most
> people buying cues are uneducated in billiard games and just want a cue
> to play with. Do you think these people are going to go to a custom cue
> maker to spend a thousand when...they can buy a cue that looks as cool
> with decals, that plays just as well(at least in their hands, not ours),
> and is less than half the price?
The reason these people buy manufactured cues is that they think they
are buying custom cues. The people selling these cues tell these
customers that "it is good cue to start with". They DO NOT HAVE TO
SPEND THOUSANDS to get a good custom cue, made the right way with the
best materials. People like you make them think they do!
>
> I listen to cue makers cry and moan all the time about how they can't
> sell cues. There is only room at the top for a bunch of cue makers.
> Everybody else should be making production cues.
And you should learn something about cues before you start giving
advise about them. You should quit giving advise about cues until you
become the best cuemaker in the world. I know a lot more about the
game of billiards than you do about cues and you do not hear me giving
billiard advise.
> It's a joke what some cue makers are asking for their cues. I have seen
> some real garbage cue for $1500. Why would someone who wants a custom
> cue, spend $1500 on a piece of garbage when they could have for example
> a Cognoscenti for the same price. And these cue makers are wondering
> why they can't sell cues.
>
> So bringing the point back to this Balabushka thing...I think cue makers
> are complaining about fraud and this and that because they can't stand
> the fact that someone is giving a great deal on a cue, and selling! So
> they all cry fraud, when in fact...I would be willing to bet the
> consumer satisfaction percentage is HUGE with the new Bushka's. How
> about it, some company can make a good cue and sell it for less than a
> grand! I applaud cue makers who make custom cues for affordable
> prices. I don't need to mention names because you all know who
> they are.
>
Do you work for these people - you say you are in the industry - what
do you do?
> Oh, and who cares if the cues are made in Japan? The best balls are
> made in Belgium, the best cloth made in Spain, the best slate from
> Italy, the best cue tips from Japan and the list goes on.
>
> Another point is availability. For example, if someone buys a cue from
> one of these fly by night cue makers, will they be able to get new
> shafts or have cue work done in a reasonable time period? Most likely
> not. When buying a cue from Adams, you know you will be able to get
> replacement shafts and parts IF something goes wrong. Now realize the
> perspective of my argument. Obviously, those of us in the industry
> don't feel this way, but there are far more players OUT of the industry
> than IN. Adams is just catering to these players. Face it, custom cue
> makers don't even like to deal with these people. Because these people
> don't really care for supreme quality.
If you had ever met a custom cue maker you would not say that we don't
like to deal with these people. They are not sub human and we are not
up on a pedestal. I try to educate players as to what a real value
is when it comes to cues. Most of the people I talk to appreciate
fine well made cues but don't think they can afford one because all
they ever see advertised are the high end cues.
>
> I'd bet that less than a tenth of a percent of the people who purchased
> new Balabushkas thought they were old originals. It's just not an
> argument if one or two people thought they bought an original. We may
> never agree on any of these points. But that's cool, can we still be
> friends? :)
And that makes it OK - just a few people got ripped off. I know a guy
here in Florida that will sell you some water front property. Us
natives call it swamp land.
I'd bet that if you sell one of your friends one of the fake
Balabushkas your friendship won't last long. Some of us would not do
that
to our friends.
> Deno
Ron Shepard
In article <3574EE6F...@telepath.com>, cue...@telepath.com wrote:
[...]
>> I don't know of anyone who has bought such a cue thinking it was a 30 year
>> old collectable cue stick. I may have missed a few posts in this thread,
>> but I don't know of even one person.
>
>I have met two that thought they were made by George Balabushka. I believe
>HankMiller also has as well. Furthermore, many have asked if they are
actually the
>real
>thing, so the origin of the cue hasn't been blatantly advertised.
I think the origin of the cue has been blatantly advertised. It has been
a couple of years since I saw an ad in a magazine, but it went into some
detail about how the movie (TCOM) increased the demand for Balabushka
cues, how illegitimate counterfeiters began taking advantage of this
demand, and how Adams cue company made arrangements with Balabushka's
family to use the name to produce a commemorative line of cue sticks in
order to satisfy this demand in a legitimate way at a reasonable price.
There is a web page somewhere that has the text from this ad. Anyone know
where it is?
>> You even gave an example in one of the posts (it has evaporated from my
>> reader, so I can't quote it now) about someone building a part for a
>> Chevy, but it is still a Chevy. I'm sure you know that the real car maker
>> Louis (I think that
>> is the right name) Chevrolet died long ago, and that the Chevys that you
>> see being made now have absolutly nothing to do with "original" Chevrolet
>> cars.
>
>Sorry, but it is the same company. If the Balabushka family had kept on
makingthe
>cues, things may have been different. The truth is that the fake Bushkas have
>nothing in common with the originals. They're not even made on the same
continent.
Well, Chevrolets and Oldsmobiles are still made on the same continent as
they were originally, but it seems to me that all the other things are
pretty similar. When GM bought out the car companies, the original owners
were no longer in charge, they were made in different manufacturing
plants, by different workers, they were designed by different engineers,
and over time, they were made with completely different technology than
they were originally. This is the usual way that businesses evolve, and
this is not a bad thing.
[...]
>> I don't require this of Chevrolet or Oldsmobile advertising by General
>> Motor Company, so I apply the same moral code to Adams cue company. Let
>> me be clear, this is not an "everybody does it so it must be alright"
>> argument, it is an "everybody does it *because* it is right" argument.
>
>There is a huge difference between the Chevy/Olds situation and the Balabushka
>situation:No one thinks that Louis Chevrolet or Ransom Olds handcrafted
the cars
>coming off the
>assembly line.
You *think* that you know of four people who bought an Adams cue thinking
that it was a 30 year old cue made by George Balabushka. Are you certain
that absolutely "No one thinks that Louis Chevrolet or Ransom Olds
handcrafted the cars coming off the assembly line"? I'd guess that if you
look hard enough, you might find a few that were at least uncertain. They
might not know when these people died, or even if they were dead. But
even if you did, I don't think you could make a good argument against GM
for unfair advertising, just as you can't make a good argument against
Adams for their advertising.
>No one thinks that they have anything to do with the building of
>these
>cars.
Certainly most reasonable and knowlegable people know this, but there are
probably a few that are uncertain. They might even post such a question
in a newsgroup. That doesn't make them stupid, just cautious. And it
doesn't make GM guilty of fraud.
>PLUS, the cars are made by the same company, the founder simply passed on.
I don't know the details of these things for the car companies, but I'm
pretty sure in both cases that the manufacturing locations and the
personel involved changed. I don't think it is that much different from
the Helmstetter/Balabushka situation.
>Cues are much more associated with single individuals than cars.
Production cars or custom cars? Certainly 100 years ago, cars were
associated with individuals more than they are now. I think there are
several interesting similarities here between car and cue manufacturing,
the use of new technology, and so on.
>In the case of the Balabushkas, many think that these cues are made by George
>Balabushka.
Well, you *think* you know of four, right? And if these four had taken
the time to actually read the ad text then they would know the answer.
>Many times I have seen regulars in here have to tell someone that George
actually
>passed away
>many years ago. PLUS, the company that is making the Balabushkas has
nothing in
>common
>with the original cuemaker.
The same is true for Chevy and Olds. This is not only the way things are,
it is the way things should be. This is progress. This is how
businesses, and technology, evolve.
>> It is the same autograph copy that is on the cue stick. To someone
>> wanting such a commemorative cue stick, this is exactly what they want.
>> It is like having a Micky Mantle autograph baseball bat. The autograph
>> adds value. That is exactly what the buyer of such a product *wants*, and
>> there is nothing wrong or immoral about a buyer who wants such an
>> autograph, and, provided the family approves, there is nothing wrong with
>> a cue maker who manufactuers and sells such a product.
>
>You can't see the difference between putting a signature on the cue and putting
>thesignature on a Certificate of AUTHENTICITY?
Is this like the difference between having a Micky Mantle autograph on a
baseball bat and on a baseball card? No, I don't see much difference. To
a collector, or a fan, he wants the autograph. The autograph adds value,
and there is nothing wrong with a manufacturer providing this value or the
buyer wanting it.
[...]
>> I don't know of a single person in all the posts that I've read in these
>> threads who claims to have spent $20K, or even $10K, or even $3K on one of
>> the Adams cues. How many, exactly, is "a bunch"?
>
>How much, exactly, is someone required to lose before he can claim
>he lost money?
Well, they didn't lose money, they bought a cue stick. A good production
cue stick for a fair price.
>[...] To me, if you want to inform
>people who the real manufacturer is you (get this) put the name of the
manufacturer
>on the
>cue!
This is irrelevant. Some cues have their manufactuers stamped on them,
some don't. Some cues have autographs (Balabushka, Mosconi, Mizerak, etc.
-- even Tom Cruise's autograph is on some cue sticks) on them some don't.
It is the buyers who decide whether the stamps and autographs add value or
not.
>I think we can agree that Adams is not guilty of outright fraud. This is
>a question
>of ethics,not legalities.
Yes, I have been discussing ethics, not legalities. It is the right, both
legal and moral, for Helmstetter and the Balabushka family to make the
arrangement that they have made. It is not our moral right, as outsiders
who don't know the people involved or the facts of the arrangement, to
spread unfounded gossip about their business deal or their intentions.
[...]
>> I think what bothers me about these Helmstetter/Balabushka threads is the
>> malicious nature and the personal attacts against people who are not in
>> this public forum to defend themselves.
>
>Well, somebody tell them to get in this forum. Are we not supposed to discuss
>their dealings simply because they aren't here?
It seems unfair, doesn't it? Put the shoe on the other foot and think
about how your, or your surviving family, would feel if the situation were
reversed.
[...]
>These ugly threads will go away when cue manufacturers sell their
>cues *solely* on
>the merit of the product.
In this situation, and probably in many others, it is the buyers who
decide what has value, not just the manufacturers. In this case, the
artistic style of the stick design and the authorized use of the autograph
are what the buyers want to have. If it were not for these things, then I
don't see much reason to buy these cues over other models by the same
manufacturer or over other cues made by other cue makers. I think that
these two things, the artistic style and autograph, are legitimate things
for the cue maker to sell and for the buyer to purchase.
>If Adams had bent over backwards to make sure
>that no one would have been misled about the true nature of these cues then
>this ugly thread would never have happened.
Well, I think they did bend over backwards, but others don't think they
bent far enough. This discussion is purely academic to me. I don't own
one of these cues, and I don't want to own one of these cues. But I think
that it is the buyer's right to own one if he wants it, and I think that
Helmstetter and the Balabushka family have the right to manufacture these
cues and sell them to the interested buyers.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Deno J. Andrews
Arnot Q. Wadsworth (Arnot Q Custom Cues) wrote:
>
> custom cues, or any other kind of cues and it is obvious you need
> lessons in truthfulness, integrity, honesty, and character.
Well of course you are entitled to your opinion which I respect.
However, honestly, I may know more about making fine cues than you do.
I am not saying this is for sure, but I will bet it's close. Oh and the
reason so many people get upset like you is because I AM honest, I tell
the truth...and it takes character to speak your mind, especially when
it goes against the grain. But thank you for the list of lesons you
think I need. I don't think I will subscribe. It is real easy to judge
other people...it takes character to look at yourself.
> If you think the only difference in manufacturing environment and
> custom cuemakers shop is structure in the labor department then you
> should visit one.
Well I have spent plenty of time in cue shops. I will tell you what I
have found. In all the cue makers I know, I have yet to meet one who
doesn't think his cue is the greatest cue ever made. Too bad only a
couple of them are correct in their assessment of their own work.
Another thing...many of the cue makers in this country are obsessive
artists who feel the billiard playing public owe them something. Some
other qualities include no personal management, lack of organization and
a bad work ethic. Obviously not all cue makers share these traits, but
a good number of the ones I have met do.
> The reason these people buy manufactured cues is that they think they
> are buying custom cues. The people selling these cues tell these
> customers that "it is good cue to start with". They DO NOT HAVE TO
> SPEND THOUSANDS to get a good custom cue, made the right way with the
> best materials. People like you make them think they do!
Well, this is a bad argument...here's why... I walk into a pool room and
buy a CUSTOM MCDERMOTT! How can anyone possibly think they are buying a
custom cue off the rack. There is nothing custom about it. A custom
cue is a cue built for a specific person, to specific specs. ANYTHING
else is a production model. And I don't make anybody think anything
other than they should buy the absolute best for what they can afford.
You shouldn't make references about people you know nothing about, it's
uncouth.
> And you should learn something about cues before you start giving
> advise about them. You should quit giving advise about cues until you
> become the best cuemaker in the world.
Again, you have your opinion which I respect. Obviously you don't know
me very well. You have no idea what I have done, who I have done it
for, and for how long I have done anything. I am sure you know a little
about cue making. I would love to hit with one of your cues so I could
evaluate it. But you probably don't make billiard cues.
> Do you work for these people - you say you are in the industry - what
> do you do?
I have worked for cue makers. I am in the industry now, in more ways
than one.
Do your homework. I don't throw credentials around, because I have
nothing to prove to you or anyone. I do what I do, I do it the best I
can and I enjoy myself at all times.
> If you had ever met a custom cue maker you would not say that we don't
> like to deal with these people. They are not sub human and we are not
> up on a pedestal. I try to educate players as to what a real value
> is when it comes to cues. Most of the people I talk to appreciate
> fine well made cues but don't think they can afford one because all
> they ever see advertised are the high end cues.
I am sure you make a nice cue. And I applaud you for taking the time to
educate your customers. Value in what sense? Do you think your cues
will be valuable one day? There are different levels of value in cue
sticks. YOu could say the value lies in its good hit, or its looks. I
would like to know your thought on what makes a cue valuable. Let's say
person A bought a cue from you for $800. If they brought it back two
weeks later and said they didn't want it, would you buy it back for the
selling price, if it were in very good shape? How about the question,
but two years later and the cue was in good shape?
> I'd bet that if you sell one of your friends one of the fake
> Balabushkas your friendship won't last long. Some of us would not do
> that to our friends.
Well I wouldn't sell a fake to anybody, but if someone wanted an
authorized replica of a Bushka, I would send them to Adams. Otherwise I
would suggest going to a custom shop for a cue. I do not sell cues.
Obviously I think you are quick to judge someone you don't know at all.
I don't really care. I must have said something that pushed one of your
buttons. It was probably something you didn't like hearing...but it was
the truth anyway. This happens alot. And usually the people who fly
off the handle are guilty of something. I will be in south Florida in
July. I will also be at the trade show. Maybe I can see one of your
cues? Maybe you will meet me in Ft. Lauderdale in July for some fine
billiards and Cohibas?
Deno
Frank
>
>Most modern custom cue makers use automation.
So, the ones made for Hitler were carved with a Pocket Knife. :-)