[Black-Balled]

I think the majority of opinions here are that the marketing was intentionally vague or intentionally deceitful ...or any measure between those two.

Just for giggles, let's say the person(s) who did the actual work are established people whose own wares are higher priced than where dean wanted the jackpots to come in? And through the kindness of a friend, they pumped out a quick run for dean and jack, under the agreement their involvement would not be disclosed, as such disclosure would be reasonably expected to devalue their own cues or cannibalize their sales.

Does that possibility change anybody's degree of displeasure?

Originally Posted by Seth C.

Somehow you are missing the importance of candor. The non-monetary, moral dimension of life matters - far more than the monetary one. In this context, some buyers of cues may care only about performance, but many value knowing that the cue they’ve purchased was made by - and not just designed and inspected by - the advertised cue maker. Upon learning - shortly after purchase or some years later - that their cue was actually not made by the advertised cue maker, how do you think they feel?

As for the monetary side of things, if a cue owner, having learned that the maker of his cue is not “Maker X” as previously (and reasonably) believed, but is unknown, decides to sell the cue at some point, a straight moral compass on his part will require him to tell the prospective purchaser that the cue was made by an unknown cue maker. That isn’t desirable, obviously.

Does “made by” mean “without any assistance”? Of course not. But it certainly means more than designed by and inspected by. As TATE rightly said in an earlier post, transparency is expected. Being transparent is also the right thing to do. Check out Bob Dzuricky’s disclosures about the source of the blanks used in his sneaky pete cues. http://dzcues.com/prices.html That’s the way it should be done.

Consumer protection laws and agencies came to be, even though fraud had long been the basis for a claim for damages by a purchaser, because of the recognition that unfair or deceptive trade practices cause harm that should be prevented by means other than individual demands for refunds (and lawsuits where refunds are not provided). Among the other victims of unfair or deceptive trade practices are competitors. In the cue selling world, every cue sold by one seller usually means a cue not sold by another seller.

I’m not commenting on this particular situation or the ethics of those involved. But I felt that the “no harm, no foul” view required a response.

[Kickin' Chicken]

Originally Posted by Black-Balled

I think the majority of opinions here are that the marketing was intentionally vague or intentionally deceitful ...or any measure between those two.

Just for giggles, let's say the person(s) who did the actual work are established people whose own wares are higher priced than where dean wanted the jackpots to come in? And through the kindness of a friend, they pumped out a quick run for dean and jack, under the agreement their involvement would not be disclosed, as such disclosure would be reasonably expected to devalue their own cues or cannibalize their sales.

Does that possibility change anybody's degree of displeasure?

it doesn't seem right to head in such a highly speculative hypothetical direction when there are so many known facts upon which to form our opinions.

imo

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by TATE

Now, having a cue made actually means you're not making the cue. Designing a cue is not actually making a cue, nor is consulting on it is "making a cue". You or they need to actually make a cue to say you or they made the cue.

Dean stated Jack made the cues. Jack did not even touch them. Hard to fog that up counsel.

I build AR-15's as a hobby. I build them from the ground up by myself. If I were to sell you one, I would tell you that I built it.

Now, if I had my son install the barrel and torque-down the barrel nut, or he installed the trigger group, or installed the gas block/tube, or any other part, then I would tell you before buying that my son and I built the rifle.

If I didn't do all the work, then I cannot take credit for it. IMHO, this is why I take the term "custom built cues by___(insert name here)___" with a grain of salt.

This appears to be the issue with these Jackpot cues.

Maniac

[JC]

Originally Posted by Maniac

It doesn't matter how good I play. If the cue feels good and brings me to a happy place, that's ALL that matters.

Me, being retired and on a fixed income with enormous yearly medical bills, every little dime I spend matters to me. Maybe someday you'll find that out.

Nit.

Maniac

It's just that I can't tell you the times I've heard players who can't play a lick critiquing how a cue plays.

Kind of silly when you ponder it.

[Maniac]

Originally Posted by JC

It's just that I can't tell you the times I've heard players who can't play a lick critiquing how a cue plays.

Kind of silly when you ponder it.

So a crappy player is just as well off playing with a cue that feels like sh*t in his hands as opposed to one that actually feels good to him?

I'm not seeing the logic in this.

And yes....even a crappy player can tell what does and doesn't feel good to him. They're not Neanderthals.

Maniac

[TATE]

Originally Posted by Black-Balled

I think the majority of opinions here are that the marketing was intentionally vague or intentionally deceitful ...or any measure between those two.

Just for giggles, let's say the person(s) who did the actual work are established people whose own wares are higher priced than where dean wanted the jackpots to come in? And through the kindness of a friend, they pumped out a quick run for dean and jack, under the agreement their involvement would not be disclosed, as such disclosure would be reasonably expected to devalue their own cues or cannibalize their sales.

Does that possibility change anybody's degree of displeasure?

Extremely unlikely. Truly famous maker's would have no time for these cues, even doing a favor.

Walter, it's a simple selling gimmick. It's plain as day. He used the word "Libra" all over the place, then "Jack Potter made". There's no decision what to what bullshit story to believe. Believe none of it.

The thing that's pissing me off is Dean still won't come clean even after signing his own confession. This is a perfect example of how not to handle your public relations in business.

[penguin]

Originally Posted by deanoc

There are a few of you guys that hate my PTBarnum method of sales.

No one ever made the claim that AzBilliards wasn't full of suckers

[a1712]

Originally Posted by Black-Balled

I think the majority of opinions here are that the marketing was intentionally vague or intentionally deceitful ...or any measure between those two.

Just for giggles, let's say the person(s) who did the actual work are established people whose own wares are higher priced than where dean wanted the jackpots to come in? And through the kindness of a friend, they pumped out a quick run for dean and jack, under the agreement their involvement would not be disclosed, as such disclosure would be reasonably expected to devalue their own cues or cannibalize their sales.

Does that possibility change anybody's degree of displeasure?

Just for giggles, let's say he sourced the cues from Asia for $32.93 a piece, shilled them on here using Libra and Jack Potters great reputation, then sold them to the Forum Members for $500 then the second batch for $600 a poke. Purely hypothetical of course. Brian.

[alstl]

Originally Posted by a1712

Just for giggles, let's say he sourced the cues from Asia for $32.93 a piece, shilled them on here using Libra and Jack Potters great reputation, then sold them to the Forum Members for $500 then the second batch for $600 a poke. Purely hypothetical of course. Brian.

Pool cue secrets they don't want you to know about.

[TATE]

Originally Posted by alstl

Pool cue secrets they don't want you to know about.

THAT is funny!

[HawaiianEye]

Originally Posted by JC

It's just that I can't tell you the times I've heard players who can't play a lick critiquing how a cue plays.

Kind of silly when you ponder it.

Kind of like the APA-3 players with LD shafts and fancy cues. Without an LD shaft they couldn't make a ball. With an LD, they still can't make a ball.

The "hit" of a cue doesn't mean you "hit" the cue ball with the cue.

[Cuebuddy]

Howd youse guys get so smart? Man I have been learning new words reading the latest posts on this thread, keep the hyperarticulated sentences coming




Cuebuddy>>>>just tryen to fit in.

[JoeyInCali]

Originally Posted by HawaiianEye

Kind of like the APA-3 players with LD shafts and fancy cues. Without an LD shaft they couldn't make a ball. With an LD, they still can't make a ball.

The "hit" of a cue doesn't mean you "hit" the cue ball with the cue.

You can tell 50% of the hit by toning the butt.
And I'm not talking about going to the gym and doing squats.

[Johnny Rosato]

Originally Posted by Cuebuddy

Howd youse guys get so smart? Man I have been learning new words reading the latest posts on this thread, keep the hyperarticulated sentences coming




Cuebuddy>>>>just tryen to fit in.

This is me in a nutshell right here. I've learned lots of new and bigger words here. Of course I don't know the meaning of most and have trouble pronouncing them correctly, but I'm having loads of fun.

[jimmyco]

. .