PDA

View Full Version : Ginacue Resolution



MarkKulungian
08-03-2005, 04:40 PM
My name is Mark Kulungian, owner of Pool Table Magic. For nearly 30 years I have been buying, selling, trading, and collecting cues. During all this time of building and establishing a business, enjoying cue-collecting as a hobby, raising a family, and meeting / dealing with a wide variety of people and personalities, I have never had to deal with anyone so uncooperative, opportunistic, manipulative, and immature as Scott Lee.

It’s been said that my silence has created an atmosphere of guilt. For the past 1 ½ years, I have heard and read lies and deceitful comments about myself and my business generated from Scott Lee and this Ginacue. For those reasons, and many others, I make this public statement to set the record straight. I can remain silent no more. Here are the facts:

Scott Lee has twisted the truth and manipulated people with mis-statements of fact to gain support in an apparent attempt to damage my reputation. Following will be a list of facts, not hearsay, to prove my previous statement to be the truth.

The preliminary court hearing in PA to determine a resolution or move forward with a trial date, regarding this cue took place on Thursday June 23, 2005. At that hearing, the court recognized that I had bought the cue in good faith (with no knowledge of its purported stolen status), acknowledged my receipt and cancelled check proving my payment for the cue and further acknowledged the additional money I had invested to make the cue functional and increase its value. In the presence of the judge, investigating police officer, myself and my lawyer a compromise was recommended and agreed to by Scott Lee and myself. I relinquish the cue to him and he compensates me the dollar amount determined by the court. The second part of the agreement was not to discuss the specific terms of the settlement of this case with anyone, and/or on the internet, except to say “it has been resolved.”

Within a period of less than 10 days, Scott Lee has breached this agreement and has discussed details of this case with at least 2 people, namely “randyg”, who posted details of the court agreement on the Billiards Digest board @ 7:56a.m. on 7-3-05 and “Barbara”, who posted more details @ 9:32a.m. on the same day. This is another example of Scott Lees continued unwillingness to cooperate, comply or represent anything he does in a truthful manner. He has demonstrated total disregard for honor, integrity and voracity.

Therefore, Scott Lee’s repeated breaches of agreements have left me no choice but to come forward and defend myself with the truth surrounding what has really happened in this case. Below is the factual and accurate representation of dates, times and events as they occurred.

Back in September 1992, I purchased an old Ginacue ( circa late 1960’s) Even though the cue was broken, I paid fair market value for it ( I still have the receipt and check) , I wanted this cue because it fit a niche in my collection. I put it aside knowing it needed restoration.

In the winter of 2003, Martyne Backman (Billiards Digest contributing writer) mentioned in one of our conversations an idea she had to write an article about when to restore a cue. Martyne thought it would be interesting if she could find a cue that was relatively worthless and after restoration transformed into a valuable and highly collectable cue. Her problem was the difficulty in locating such a cue.

I told her I had such a cue and if she wanted, I would call Ernie Gutierrez, the original cuemaker, and arrange to have him repair/restore this cue right away. Ernie, as usual, was pleasant and very cooperative. He agreed and completed the work quickly and beautifully.

We discussed this cue at great length during many phone conversations. He shared with me that this cue was originally designed for Eddie “Champagne” Kelly back in circa 1967-69. Ernie recalled building approximately 5-6 cues of this model. He went on to explain that he believed this cue had been worked on by some other cuemaker(s) for a variety of reasons:

First, the decorative ring above the wrap was missing, which meant the decorative ring was purposely cut out and removed and/or the cue was previously broken. Another possible explanation was the handle was replaced at someone’s request: if they wanted a wooden handle instead of linen or leather wrap.

Secondly, Ernie would never misalign the GINACUE script in the white band with the silver nameplate in the buttsleeve. The 2 names would always be on opposite sides of the cue, which was not the case with this cue.

Third, it is possible that this cue could have been pieced together from 2 entirely different cues, especially given its condition when I bought the cue and the fact that other cuemaker(s) worked on the cue.

Ernie rebuilt the entire butt of the cue: the missing ring above the wrap was rebuilt and restored, a new handle wood was installed, the rings in the backend were taken apart and re-aligned, a new “cortland” irish-linen wrap was installed, plus 2 new shafts were fitted and matched. Martyne was thrilled and we moved forward with the project. The article appeared in Billiards Digest March 2004.

When we discussed the silver nameplate and leaving or removing the initials ( S. LEE), Ernie could not recall if he had engraved those initials or not. He offered to remove the initials and I said let’s leave them on since that is the way I purchased this cue. He explained he might have to re-engrave them if they “came out” during the refinish process. I said that would be fine. Back in 1992 when I bought the cue, Ernie told me he did not build this cue for Sang Lee, the world renowned billiards player. He thought he originally built this cue for a woman.

It is Scott Lees good fortune that I am an honest business man, otherwise he would never have had this opportunity. If I was the dishonest person Scott Lee makes me out to be, I could have chosen to remove the initials and replace the broken buttcap when I first purchased the cue or at any time prior to it to being photographed. And I certainly would not have offered the cue to be included in an international magazine article for all to see.

Scott Lee’s selfishness, recklessness, lack of professionalism, and his overall poor handling of this situation is what has disappointed and totally disgusted me. It is people, attitudes, and behavior like his that give the billiard industry a bad name.

Everyone wonders why we can’t move billiards forward and get outside sponsors?? It is negativity and false allegations like these thrown at me that scare potential sponsors away. We all suffer when we can’t problem solve together.

Last year, March 2004, during the Hopkins Expo, a stranger stormed into my booth and declared (pointing into my display case) “that’s my f@&#ing cue and I want it !! Give it to me !!!” Those were some of Scott Lee’s first words to me. Needless to say, I wasn’t too impressed with his initial contact, but I did have a conversation with him. During that conversation I told Scott Lee if he could prove the cue was his, we would work something out. I explained to him the condition of the cue when I bought it and that I had invested money into the cue to make it useful and valuable. I also assured him I would keep the cue in a safe place until such time as we could reach an agreement and he could show proof of ownership. We shook hands to agree with this arrangement. He failed to honor this arrangement, and chose to publicly make false allegations regarding my ownership of this cue in numerous news groups, both in print and over the internet.

Looking back, I see with deep regret that I did not know Scott Lee would write lies and handle this situation in such a destructive and unprofessional manner. These false allegations have caused me a lot of problems, but people who know me and those who do business with me recognize the truth.

Later during the Expo, I was in my hotel room getting ready for a match and the phone rang. It was Joe Van Buren, telling me a police officer and Scott Lee were in my booth and to get down there right away. I was shocked that Scott Lee was there with a police officer. I told him I thought we had an agreement in the presence of witnesses and that this action showed no regard for myself or my business. Scott Lee got loud and the false accusations attracted a lot of negative attention, so I suggested we take this confrontation around the corner to a “quiet spot” where we could have a conversation in private. During that conversation Scott Lee insisted that I give him the cue. The police officer said I did not have to comply with his demands. I shared our above mentioned agreement with the police officer and he agreed with that solution. Scott then shouted, “I don’t have to give you not one f**in nickel !!” I further asked the police officer if I may seek advice from legal counsel to determine exactly what my rights were, since I have never been in this position before. He said yes. Our conversation concluded with that understanding.

I returned to the booth and tended to my business. A while later, Scott Lee returned and offered me $1,000 for the cue. I replied “No. Scott, I paid more than that for the cue plus I invested money and effort to make this cue viable. I bought the cue for my collection, but if the cue is yours I think the fair thing is I should be reimbursed for my expenses and you get the automatic benefit of its significantly higher value. What do you think ? ” His reply was “Hell, you have so many cues, what’s one cue to you. It’s obvious you’re doing very well for yourself. You could afford to give it to me.” I couldn’t believe he said that since it had no bearing on the issue at hand. Scott Lee left the booth a moment or two later.

A while later, George Middleditch, a professional trick shot artist, who knows both of us, stopped in the booth to talk with me about the cue and offered his opinion. Basically, George’s opinion was anyone who lost a cue and after 14 years go by should be “thrilled to hell” to have the opportunity to get it back. I told George what I thought was fair and he agreed with me. He went on to say, even when someone loses their dog, owners are happy to pay a reward just to get their dog back. He offered to talk with Scott Lee and I thanked him for his time and input.

Sometime on Saturday, Jim Yonge, a well respected cue collector stopped into my booth to discuss the Paul Newman auction and the Hustler cue. During that conversation we also talked about what was occurring with the Ginacue and pictures in Martyne’s magazine article. I explained to Jim I had set up a meeting with Scott to try to resolve this problem. Jim offered to go to the meeting to listen and help during the meeting as a witness to what was said. jim_ltr (http://www.classiccues.com/graphics/misc/jim_ltr.htm) http://www.classiccues.com/graphics/misc/jim_ltr.htm

When I returned home, I spoke with my lawyer and he advised me that a police report does not show evidence of ownership and clear or superior title. It merely shows that an item was reported stolen while in one’s possession. Scott Lee’s proof of ownership was his submission of a police report regarding a stolen cue from his vehicle in April 1991. My lawyer’s opinion and recommendation was we needed more information. I followed his advice. A letter was drafted and sent certified mail to Scott Lee on April 27, 2004, requesting basic information like do you have a bill of sale ? When did you buy the cue? Who did you purchase it from? What did you pay for the cue?. A copy of this letter is attached. Scott Lee signed the return receipt for this letter on May 3, 2004.

I offered to resolve this situation with Scott Lee last April, but he would not and still has not cooperated. To date, he has not answered any of those basic reasonable questions of our letter dated April 27, 2004. The fact is Scott Lee has repeatedly demonstrated his unwillingness to resolve this matter amicably and professionally. He has never responded to this letter or provided any evidence of ownership/title. His refusal to provide evidence of title or respond in any fashion whatsoever speaks for itself.

Scott Lee has admitted to having a history of suspicious thefts, where cues were allegedly selectively stolen Scott's tale (http://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ccb&Number=193603&Forum=Al l_Forums&Words=stolen%20cue&Match=Entire%20Phrase& Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=192805&Sea rch=true#Post193603) I find it difficult to believe anyone would leave their car running unattended, with the keys in the ignition, knowing all their personal valuables were in the car for any length of time. The only reported stolen item in this instance was an expensive cue that was on the front seat of his car. In another incident that occurred in April 1991, Scott Lee claimed that after competing in a tournament in which he was the winner of the winner’s bracket at the end of the first day, drove to his hotel and left his pride and joy, his most valuable cue in the front seat of his car on a cold winters’ night. AND, according to the police report, yet again, the only missing item was a very expensive “collectable cue” as Scott Lee makes reference to. I don’t know any competent cue owner/pool player that would leave their cue unattended on the front seat inside their car on a cold night, or any night for that matter. These are the facts…. Not hearsay. Certainly makes you think twice about coincidence or pattern of behavior and if so…. for what motive??

Scott Lee 5/19 Cue was stolen in ID in '91, and allegedly "purchased" in FL 3 months later by a 'cue collector'

During the Hopkins Expo 2004, I told Scott Lee I purchased the cue in fall 1992 and have a receipt and cancelled check to prove it.

S. Lee 5/19 “Barbara...The "wheels of justice" move VERY slowly, especially when the defendant is allowed to continually delay the process.”

Scott Lee and the PA court system have postponed numerous times as well, mostly due to schedule conflicts, so I was told.

S. Lee 5/19 Barbara...Yeah, what DOES it say about him? Especially someone with at LEAST $500,000 in assets! Not my fault that he paid money for a what later turned out to be a stolen cue (btw, he claims it was broken, so he couldn't have paid too much). My only real error was believing him when he told the police and me that he would return the cue, when I provided him with proof that it was mine. I could have had the police confiscate the cue at the time (they offered), and should have!...20/20 hindsight!

It is obvious the cue was broken, and in terrible condition. That is why Martyne wanted this cue for the article.

Refer to my attorney’s letter to Scott Lee dated April 27,2004, offering to resolve our disagreement amicably, but Lee has been and continued to be completely uncooperative and had never answered these simple and basic questions required in order to ascertain rightful ownership.

Scott Lee 5/20: It was suggested to me by two other prominent cue collectors (independently), also there at VF, to take this action (specifically, to document with the authorities, that MY stolen property was there, in Mark's booth, at that time). When I called the police, I ASKED for a plain clothes officer, so as not to attract attention to Mark's booth. Unfortunately a uniformed officer showed up, and I had no choice, but to take him to the booth and show him the cue...and then have a discussion with Mark. I apologized to Mark for this "intrusion", and he accepted my apology and shook my hand (and also "accepted" my offer of $1000 as some restitution for his 'loss'...which he later reniged on)!

Scott Lee NEVER apologized for this “intrusion”. Nor did we shake hands in acknowledgement of an apology. His offer of $1,000 was NEVER an agreement. I’ve already expressed what I thought was fair for both of us.

S. Lee 5/20: Marty...I provided the "proof" requested by Mark Kulungian, to him via certified mail, within 10 days of filing the police report in King of Prussia, PA. After receiving a 'certified letter' from his attorney (he wouldn't even return my phone calls or emails), denying my ownership of the cue, I contacted the police again, and sent them copies of all the evidence, proving the cue is mine… as soon as we can force Mr. Kunlungian to show up in court…Mark also "claimed" that he had spent $2000 to have the cue 'restored' by Ernie, and two new shafts built to match the cue. Interestingly, according to Ernie's own information, that "work" could not have cost more than a few hundred dollars...certainly nothing even close to $2K!

Scott, you DID NOT provide the proof of ownership my attorney requested of you. I provided all the documentation you claim I did not. You, on the other hand DID NOT AND HAVE NOT TO DATE identified where, when, and from whom, you acquired this Ginacue ; reasonable basic questions we have been asking from the beginning and you continue to avoid.
letter 1 (http://www.classiccues.com/graphics/misc/ltr1.jpg) and letter 2 (http://www.classiccues.com/graphics/misc/ltr2.jpg)

As far as “force me to show up” … Last Fall I drove to PA on the assigned court date. I was present along with my lawyer, the police officer and his supervisor. You were not there. As it turned out, it seems this was cancelled by you, but no one else was notified.

I have always had a receipt from Ernie, Once again are incorrectly representing the “facts”.

Scott, you also continue to make more false statements: the cue was broken, which has been established, your event dates and times are conflicting, your self-proclaimed value of this cue has been contradictory and your public accusations of what I have invested are wrong. How valuable could you think the cue was if you were so negligent to leave it unattended and unsecured on the front seat of your car on a cold winters’ night?

Scott, you make ignorant statements: How could anyone know if something was stolen? You claim I should have known.

Certainly there is much more I could write, but enough is enough. I have tried to reference facts and combine them with dates and times (whenever possible), in order to validate that my words are the truth, and express more clearly what has transpired since last March.

It truly is a shame that this disagreement had to reach this pinnacle. When all the trash and nonsense is tossed away, what we really have here is a disagreement as to who rightfully owns this cue. The pleasure and happiness I enjoyed while transforming this Ginacue, as Martyne referenced it, “the Frankenstein cue” is now far over-shadowed by just that….. it has become a nightmare. And for me, this one’s over.

Thank you very much for reading.
Mark Kulungian, Pool Table Magic

cueball1950
08-03-2005, 08:11 PM
So what i want to know now is....WHo has Frankenstein now??? I hope that this can be resolved and over with to everybodies satisfaction....................mike

nAz
08-04-2005, 08:40 AM
I can't help but wonder what the value of this cue will be after all is said and done.... now that it has more history then any cue i have heard of.

ras314
08-04-2005, 10:25 AM
I can't help but wonder who wants to buy a cue from this guy after all this. Buys a stolen cue, has work done on it, wants paid enough by the legitimate owner to pay for said work plus purchase of the stolen cue?

Then has the gall to make this statement in public forums:

"I have never had to deal with anyone so uncooperative, opportunistic, manipulative, and immature as Scott Lee."

Fred Agnir
08-04-2005, 12:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ras314:</font><hr> I can't help but wonder who wants to buy a cue from this guy after all this. Buys a stolen cue, has work done on it, wants paid enough by the legitimate owner to pay for said work plus purchase of the stolen cue?

Then has the gall to make this statement in public forums:

"I have never had to deal with anyone so uncooperative, opportunistic, manipulative, and immature as Scott Lee."


<hr /></blockquote>I take it you didn't bother reading the post. Too bad. It explained an awful lot to those that had nothing to base their opinions on.

Wow.

Fred

Scott Lee
08-04-2005, 01:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> I take it you didn't bother reading the post. Too bad. It explained an awful lot to those that had nothing to base their opinions on.

Wow.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Wow indeed, Fred...considering all the blatant lies that Mark is telling in his version of "the truth"! What a crock!

Scott Lee

Scott Lee
08-04-2005, 01:31 PM
mike...I have the cue! Don't believe the lies posted by Mark. Have you ever even HEARD of me talking or acting like he describes? I think not...

Scott

rukiddingme
08-04-2005, 01:43 PM
Is this Peoples' Court?
What happened between you and Scott should stay between you Scott, the lawyers and the court. This is TOTALLY none of our business.
If Scott violated a court order that is a matter for the courts. This post certainly is a violation as well.
So do us all a favor and delete this thread. My $200 bill for this advice is in the mail...N E X T...
ruk

rukiddingme
08-04-2005, 02:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Scott Lee:</font><hr> mike...I have the cue! Don't believe the lies posted by Mark. Have you ever even HEARD of me talking or acting like he describes? I think not...

Scott <hr /></blockquote>

NOPE...I've neither seen or heard...of course I see nothing hear nothing and say nothing...lol
Scott, I'm glad you have your cue back.
ruk

Fred Agnir
08-04-2005, 02:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Scott Lee:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> I take it you didn't bother reading the post. Too bad. It explained an awful lot to those that had nothing to base their opinions on.

Wow.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Wow indeed, Fred...considering all the blatant lies that Mark is telling in his version of "the truth"! What a crock!

Scott Lee <hr /></blockquote>Two things, Scott. A lot of the information should never have been discussed and rediscussed in the open forums. Surely you don't consider yourself innocent.

Secondly, and more importantly, considering I was there for some of the interactions, and I was there when the Ginacue came back from Ernie last year, you might as well let this whole issue die. You can't try to tell me your side of the story. I have my own first-hand account, as opposed to many other posters who simply weren't there.

It's over. Let it die.


Fred

cueball1950
08-04-2005, 04:10 PM
Amen on letting this die a natural death................mike

szambushka
08-04-2005, 05:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote rukiddingme:</font><hr> Is this Peoples' Court?
What happened between you and Scott should stay between you Scott, the lawyers and the court. This is TOTALLY none of our business.
If Scott violated a court order that is a matter for the courts. This post certainly is a violation as well.
So do us all a favor and delete this thread. My $200 bill for this advice is in the mail...N E X T...
ruk
<hr /></blockquote>

Well if thats the case, then all of Scotts posts on this subject should also be deleted. I for one am happy that both sides of this have been posted. Infact its about time.

Szammy

stevenpiesner
08-04-2005, 06:11 PM
The handling of this matter by Mr. Lee has been nothing less than absurd. After seeing the cue in a magazine well before VF, he could have contacted Mark and resolved the problem. It seems obvious he had further intentions.

I have known Mark for 15 years and he has done nothing but reprersent himself with integrity and as a gentleman. He speeaks nothing but the truth, whether you want to hear it or not. He has also given me hundreds of hours of his time and valuable knowledge about cues, and never asked for anything in return.
Mr. Lee, your attempt to discredit Mark has missed the mark. It seems very clear by your actions that just getting a cue back was not the issue.
why dont you tell us what it is really about

tateuts
08-04-2005, 09:32 PM
Why is Mark's IP address the same as Fran's?

Chris

pooldude
08-04-2005, 09:50 PM
This really has nothing to do with the subject, but how did you figure out the IP address of Mark and Fran? I'm just trying to gain a little knowledge and that is the only reason I am asking this question.

tateuts
08-04-2005, 09:57 PM
OK - I'm sick of this self-serving boy scout crap image Mark is trying to present. Mark Kulungian is no boy scout!

Yes, Scott was pissed off. Maybe he sensed that Mark would try to weasel his way out of this.

I think Scott sensed right. My experience is that Mark was less than honest dealing with me. My opinion is that Mark would be difficult to deal with in good faith, and I certainly wouldn't trust him.

What's hilarious is that he doesn't realize that in the age of the internet he can't get away with it anymore. He simply can't mistreat customers and just have them disappear.

By his own post and admissions, he only gave up the cue just before the court would likely have ordered him to give it back, this with the "bone" of receiving some payment. Clearly he knew the cue was Scott's, or he never would have made the deal.

Folks, whether or not Mark Kulungian and/or Scott handled this properly, make no mistake about it - the cue collecting world is small. You can only screw so many people.

Chris

tateuts
08-04-2005, 10:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooldude:</font><hr> This really has nothing to do with the subject, but how did you figure out the IP address of Mark and Fran? I'm just trying to gain a little knowledge and that is the only reason I am asking this question. <hr /></blockquote>

The same way I figured out that Stevenpiesner's is the same as GayleinMD. There must be a reasonable explanation.

Ralph S.
08-04-2005, 10:53 PM
Fred, I respect your opinions and have benefited from some of the vast amounts of knowledge that you have shared freely with this board. Scott has also done the same. I respect both of you very much, but you yourself stated that you were there for only <font color="red">some </font color> of the dealings. Also, Mark Kulungian, has never contributed to this forum in any capacity, except for his first post which is what this controversy is all about. With this being Mark's first post, one must wonder if it will be his only post, made just to stir up trouble.

Since the courts passed judgement in Scott's favor, there obviously must have been sufficient evidence to substantiate Scott's claim. I have noted that you like to play devils advocate on occasion. So, lets play it now. You obviously cant claim to know the whole story when you were only there for some of the interactions.

nhp
08-04-2005, 10:59 PM
Tateuts told me a while back about his dealings with Mark K, and when I heard about Mark's bullshit it even made me angry just listening to what happened. Mark you are a bullshit artist and you are not fooling anyone. Just so you all know, if tateuts doesn't says he can't be trusted, HE DEFINATELY CANNOT BE TRUSTED. I smell a weasel.

nhp
08-05-2005, 03:00 AM
rukiddingme has the exact same IP as Mark K. Same person?

Both IP's are (152.163.100.199)

pooldude
08-05-2005, 04:38 AM
Okay, maybe you will tell me. How do you get the persons IP address?

Qtec
08-05-2005, 06:09 AM
Your IP is 24.209.89.187.

Look at the text ABOVE the post.

Q

SPetty
08-05-2005, 06:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooldude:</font><hr> How do you get the persons IP address?<hr /></blockquote>A person's IP address is posted alongside their name and the date in the header of their message.

In the case of the identical IP addresses: These are AOL addresses. AOL does not assign a single IP address to each person, but assigns a "random" IP address to you when you log on. So identical IP addresses that come from AOL are meaningless.

You can determine that these are AOL addresses by going to http://www.arin.net/whois/ and putting in the IP address. If it comes up as an AOL address, your sleuthing effort as far as trying to claim that the same person made the post is inconclusive.

ras314
08-05-2005, 07:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote ras314:</font><hr> I can't help but wonder who wants to buy a cue from this guy after all this. Buys a stolen cue, has work done on it, wants paid enough by the legitimate owner to pay for said work plus purchase of the stolen cue?

Then has the gall to make this statement in public forums:

"I have never had to deal with anyone so uncooperative, opportunistic, manipulative, and immature as Scott Lee."


<hr /></blockquote>I take it you didn't bother reading the post. Too bad. It explained an awful lot to those that had nothing to base their opinions on.

Wow.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

No, I didn't bother to read much of this post. Looked like a carbon copy of the same one on AZB whch I did read carefuly. It looks like a deliberate attempt to spread as much bs as possible, far as I can tell.

pooldude
08-05-2005, 07:42 AM
Duh!!! That's too funny. Right before my eyes and I can't see it. See, I knew I use to shoot better than I do now, I just can't see anymore. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Thanks for pointing out the IP address to me.

Fran Crimi
08-05-2005, 08:08 AM
My guess is we probably use the same Internet Provider.

Fran

SpiderMan
08-05-2005, 08:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooldude:</font><hr> This really has nothing to do with the subject, but how did you figure out the IP address of Mark and Fran? I'm just trying to gain a little knowledge and that is the only reason I am asking this question. <hr /></blockquote>

The same way I figured out that Stevenpiesner's is the same as GayleinMD. There must be a reasonable explanation. <hr /></blockquote>

Does anyone know Stevenpiesner? I see that this thread contains his first post.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
08-05-2005, 08:38 AM
Perhaps they work together, as Sid V and I do.

SpiderMan

Fran Crimi
08-05-2005, 08:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Perhaps they work together, as Sid V and I do.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

Nope. I don't even know Mark.

SpiderMan
08-05-2005, 08:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooldude:</font><hr> How do you get the persons IP address?<hr /></blockquote>A person's IP address is posted alongside their name and the date in the header of their message.

In the case of the identical IP addresses: These are AOL addresses. AOL does not assign a single IP address to each person, but assigns a "random" IP address to you when you log on. So identical IP addresses that come from AOL are meaningless.

You can determine that these are AOL addresses by going to http://www.arin.net/whois/ and putting in the IP address. If it comes up as an AOL address, your sleuthing efforts as far as trying to claim that the same person made the post is inconclusive.
<hr /></blockquote>

SPetty,

I'm curious about this AOL thing. If AOL assigns a "random" address every time you log on, what are the chances it will randomly assign the same 11-digit number to two different people, and those two people happen to be interacting on the same chat board at the same time? Sounds a lot more remote than winning the lottery, unless there's something left out here. Perhaps the same "random" number is assigned to everyone who logs in within a certain time period?

SpiderMan

Qtec
08-05-2005, 09:39 AM
As far as I know, no 2 pc,s have the same IP No. Even if you are assigned a random IP from your ISP, it is still unique.
The whole point of masking one,s IP [ and the software is free to download on the web] would be to post under a new name. Although the IP NO is different, Fran posts under her OWN name. This would seem to defy the whole point!
3 posters on this thread seem to have the same IP, to me , this is not possible.
I checked nAz,s IP because I know he lives in NY. My trace confirmed this.
I checked your IP- you are close to Dallas. Does QX** ring a bell?

I,m sure its a glich and nothing else.

Qtec

SpiderMan
08-05-2005, 09:45 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> As far as I know, no 2 pc,s have the same IP No. Even if you are assigned a random IP from your ISP, it is still unique.
The whole point of masking one,s IP [ and the software is free to download on the web] would be to post under a new name. Although the IP NO is different, Fran posts under her OWN name. This would seem to defy the whole point!
3 posters on this thread seem to have the same IP, to me , this is not possible.
I checked nAz,s IP because I know he lives in NY. My trace confirmed this.
I checked your IP- you are close to Dallas. Does QX** ring a bell?

I,m sure its a glich and nothing else.

Qtec <hr /></blockquote>

Yes, I am in Dallas. But my IP address never changes, ie no "random assignment" that I've seen (though I don't make a habit of checking it).

SpiderMan

Qtec
08-05-2005, 10:06 AM
85.147.32.113 is the IP adress that IDs my PC with the ISP. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
It is not the IP of my PC! I am behind a router.ie a modem that can connect more than one pc to the same connection.[ This is the WAN connection] Every pc behind the router has a different IP.[ This is the LAN connection] It can be static [ always the same] or dynamic[ assigned a different IP every time athe pc makes a new connection.[ every morning] .If you work in an office with 8 pc,s and you use the same pc everyday, the chances are you will have a static IP . In any case, if any of the people in your office would post to the CCB, they would have the same IP as you do.!
Have you checked your IP? ipconfig/all
Am I making any sense? LOL

Qtec..........pc,s can drive you crazy /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

pooldude
08-05-2005, 10:11 AM
Okay, I checked my IP and it came back Road Runner. That doesn't really tell me anything as far as who I am and where I log on from.

daviddjmp
08-05-2005, 10:20 AM
How this works is that big providers like AOL have their customers behind routers. Individual IPs are assigned on the customer side of the router (Identical IPs will result in routing conflicts) and all of these different IPs go out to the Internet through the same AOL router, so it appears that multiple people have the same IP. This is called Network Address Translation. NAT was implemented years ago to save the dwindling pool of V4 IP addresses which is finite. This way, hundreds or thousands of AOL customers can surf through a single AOL address, and they have many of these types of networks in place-

Qtec
08-05-2005, 10:37 AM
Seems logical.
What you see is the router IP and not the PC IP. Maybe some sort of security policy.?????
Qtec

SpiderMan
08-05-2005, 11:05 AM
Thanks - that was a very concise and enlightening explanation.

SpiderMan

SpiderMan
08-05-2005, 11:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> 85.147.32.113 is the IP adress that IDs my PC with the ISP. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
It is not the IP of my PC! I am behind a router.ie a modem that can connect more than one pc to the same connection.[ This is the WAN connection] Every pc behind the router has a different IP.[ This is the LAN connection] It can be static [ always the same] or dynamic[ assigned a different IP every time athe pc makes a new connection.[ every morning] .If you work in an office with 8 pc,s and you use the same pc everyday, the chances are you will have a static IP . In any case, if any of the people in your office would post to the CCB, they would have the same IP as you do.!
Have you checked your IP? ipconfig/all
Am I making any sense? LOL

Qtec..........pc,s can drive you crazy /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Yes, that was a very good explanation, easy to follow. I actually experience what you mention, a co-worker and I have identical IP addresses when we post. We work in different laboratories in the same building.

SpiderMan

PBat51
08-05-2005, 01:14 PM
tap tap tap.... Well said sir. There is a main difference betwen AOL and other providers; AOL is a service that provides a "portal" to the internet. Those of us that use other providers (comcast, verizon, &amp; etc) have what is essentiallly a real world ip address from your internet providers "block" of addresses. AOL uses their own (private) ips and then routes traffic to the internet through another source therefore getting the different ip then what the user may see.

That is why these people may have the same ips esp since their from the same region.

OK my head hurts.....

daviddjmp
08-05-2005, 01:40 PM
Absolutely. It provides an extra layer of security for the customers as the provider has control over the filters, access lists and other features of the router that control inbound and outbound traffic.

daviddjmp
08-05-2005, 01:45 PM
Yep. I use Comcast here in Northern CA and I have a Mac and a PC connected to a router. I could put any number of machines behind it and anyone on the Net would see me sourced as the routers public IP that was assigned to my router by Comast. With a cable modem, the IP you see would actually be the IP of the Ethernet interface of the computer itself.

PBat51
08-05-2005, 07:22 PM
Yes its a simaler situation.

Now If I was to dial into one of your computers and you allowed me to share your internet access that would be closer to AOL's setup. You have to think of them as a global BBS that lets you take a peek at the internet.

Its just different than the access that you (comcast) or I (verizon) experiance.

tateuts
08-05-2005, 07:26 PM
Wow, that IP stuff is strange. I guess we can dismiss the notion that Fran and Mark are multiple personalities (know what I mean, Vern?).

Interestingly enough, I am on a trip right now (Maui) and signed up for ethernet broadband in my hotel room. The IP address listed the company in Washington state that has the broadband service.

Chris

stevenpiesner
08-06-2005, 01:14 PM
spider, you have absolutely no idea what your talking about. i am not this gaeilinmd guy. Yes it was my first post on this forum, so in your mind i guess that i dont get to give my opinion. A bit of facts would be a good thing for you to have before you make statements.

DickLeonard
08-06-2005, 04:28 PM
Chris whatever the reaason is it must be easly explained we all know Gayle or Fran wouldn't be using an alias to hide behind.####

DickLeonard
08-06-2005, 04:54 PM
Ras314, I think what Mark posted be it right or wrong is done in a legal form. Scott has never presented his case in an orderly legal fashion. If Mark was acting as a crook S. Lee would definitly have been taken off of the Cue, No Ifs,No Ands,No Butts.

The cue makers should place a hidden serial number in their cues and then have a stolen cue list. Now if Scott was paid by his Insurance Co, his Insurance Co has a claim on the Cue, For Scott to get possession of the Cue he should have to reimburse his Insurance Co. Just my opinion.####

tateuts
08-06-2005, 05:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote stevenpiesner:</font><hr> spider, you have absolutely no idea what your talking about. i am not this gaeilinmd guy. Yes it was my first post on this forum, so in your mind i guess that i dont get to give my opinion. A bit of facts would be a good thing for you to have before you make statements. <hr /></blockquote>

We already cleared up this IP thing. It's a good thing you're not Gayle in Maryland. I bet she would be highly embarassed. You're probably some cheerleader "they" solicited to write a post to support Mark. That's why I posted what I did, not Spiderman.

Chris

nhp
08-06-2005, 05:35 PM
Leonard, this guy Mark has dealt with other people in a dishonest fashion. Tateuts is an honest person and would never, ever say something negative about someone unless it was true. If tateuts says Mark can't be trusted, he can't be trusted, I assure you.

eg8r
08-09-2005, 05:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
For nearly 30 years I have been buying, selling, trading, and collecting cues. During all this time of building and establishing a business, enjoying cue-collecting as a hobby, raising a family, and meeting / dealing with a wide variety of people and personalities, I have never had to deal with anyone so uncooperative, opportunistic, manipulative, and immature as Scott Lee.
<hr /></blockquote> Well, that is absolutely too hard to believe. There is no chance Scott is the worst of all those at once. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

pooltchr
08-09-2005, 06:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
For nearly 30 years I have been buying, selling, trading, and collecting cues. During all this time of building and establishing a business, enjoying cue-collecting as a hobby, raising a family, and meeting / dealing with a wide variety of people and personalities, I have never had to deal with anyone so uncooperative, opportunistic, manipulative, and immature as Scott Lee.
<hr /></blockquote> Well, that is absolutely too hard to believe. There is no chance Scott is the worst of all those at once. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

It's obvious that someone has cloned Scott and put his alter-ego in the clone. This is exactly the opposite of my impressions of Scott. In all my dealings with him, I have only seen someone who bends over backward to help others, is generous with both his time and his knowledge, and is passionate about the game.
Steve

Jimmy B
08-11-2005, 12:00 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote stevenpiesner:</font><hr>
I have known Mark for 15 years and he has done nothing but reprersent himself with integrity and as a gentleman. He speeaks nothing but the truth, <hr /></blockquote>

LOL I love this [censored], Mark's pals speak up and tell us what a stand up guy he is then Scott's pals do the same. LOL I happen to have been there and know much of the inside dealings as well as having heard both sides from each person. There is an old saying 3 sides to every story, this is a clear case of that. I would also add that knowing both people and having talked with them each (one more then the other) on a few occassions I find them both to be nits and this thing needs to go away and they should both hope that people have short memories.

JB

Jimmy B
08-11-2005, 12:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr>
The cue makers should place a hidden serial number in their cues and then have a stolen cue list. Now if Scott was paid by his Insurance Co, his Insurance Co has a claim on the Cue, For Scott to get possession of the Cue he should have to reimburse his Insurance Co. Just my opinion.#### <hr /></blockquote>

Some do put numbers in, I am not sure how it could help in a situation like this, a good deal is a good deal and most dealers wouldn't care. I do find your question about the insurance company very interesting and would love to hear more about this aspect. There are also people right now working on a tiny microchip technology to hide in cues so that they can be scanned and tracked to an extent.

JB

DickLeonard
08-11-2005, 05:04 AM
Jimmy B I knew technology would catch up with valuable cues. In my very limited legalize not repaying the Insurance Co even after 13 years would constitute fraud.

I was at Turning Stone a few years back and a fellow had paid $4200 for a Balabushka and was looking for someone to authenticate the cue. I said I can tell, let me hit a few balls with the cue, on the fifth shot there came the dread clunk which had prevented me from buying many of George's cues. I told him thats George's cue, you can copy his work but you can't copy his clunk.

That is the state of buying old famous cues LET THE BUYER BEWARE.####

08-11-2005, 08:56 AM
I have absolutely no quarrel with either man, but someone's going to have to explain to me what their dispute is doing in a public forum in the first place. This is a matter for the two of them and the courts, and, as far as I can tell, nobody else whatsoever. GF

PBat51
08-13-2005, 07:29 PM
Jim,

This might be the best thing you've ever typed into a computer.

Well said sir

MarkKulungian
08-16-2005, 05:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr> My experience is that Mark was less than honest dealing with me. My opinion is that Mark would be difficult to deal with in good faith, and I certainly wouldn't trust him.

What's hilarious is that he doesn't realize that in the age of the internet he can't get away with it anymore. He simply can't mistreat customers and just have them disappear.


Chris
<hr /></blockquote>
Chris: Are you referring to the Palmer cues you purchased last December? If so, what was it that I did that was dishonest and made me difficult to deal with in good faith ? How were you mistreated ?

Mark

tateuts
08-17-2005, 07:21 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote MarkKulungian:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr> My experience is that Mark was less than honest dealing with me. My opinion is that Mark would be difficult to deal with in good faith, and I certainly wouldn't trust him.

What's hilarious is that he doesn't realize that in the age of the internet he can't get away with it anymore. He simply can't mistreat customers and just have them disappear.


Chris
<hr /></blockquote>
Chris: Are you referring to the Palmer cues you purchased last December? If so, what was it that I did that was dishonest and made me difficult to deal with in good faith ? How were you mistreated ?

Mark <hr /></blockquote>

Mark,

Customers make your business. You are just screwing yourself mistreating people. I think you remember full well what happened.

Why you want to air this on the internet is beyond me, but ok, since you asked:

You sent me the worst warped cue I've ever received, in my entire collection and in my dealings ever - with anyone - and told me that you hadn't noticed. Joe said he didn't notice either. Now that's two of you who didn't notice.

Well, what does that tell you? You didn't notice. At least the 3 other cues Joe sent were almost what he said they were.

OK. Yes I was disappointed. I expected you guys to be experts. I paid premium for the good stuff. I really thought you were a special dealer and collector. I respected your knowledge and experience.

When my simnple solution - make me a $150 shaft from the original parts (in a $6,000 plus package) met with such vile rejection by you and Joe, and the subsequent insults that followed by you two, I was surprised and disappointed.

You and Joe basically told me to take it or leave it, return the cue if I didn't like the warped shaft you lied about or overlooked.

You seriously underestimated me. You pissed me off. I decided to return the entire package. Then I got word that you would pay for the shaft and I received a number of insulting, moronic e-mails from Joe lamenting having to pay for a stinking shaft re-make.

I'm sorry. Your're fired.

Chris

Fred Agnir
08-17-2005, 10:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Mark Kulungian:</font><hr>Chris: Are you referring to the Palmer cues you purchased last December? If so, what was it that I did that was dishonest and made me difficult to deal with in good faith ? How were you mistreated ?

Mark <hr /></blockquote>

Mark,

Customers make your business. You are just screwing yourself mistreating people. I think you remember full well what happened.

Why you want to air this on the internet is beyond me, but ok, since you asked:<hr /></blockquote> Hmmm... Chris, let's be honest here. You brought it up. You're forcing Mark to bring it up. This internet is funny like that, but you dropped two bombs.

[ QUOTE ]
You sent me the worst warped cue I've ever received, in my entire collection and in my dealings ever - with anyone - and told me that you hadn't noticed. Joe said he didn't notice either. Now that's two of you who didn't notice. <hr /></blockquote> If it was the worst cue you've received, couldn't you have just returned it for your money back? What am I missing?

[ QUOTE ]
OK. Yes I was disappointed. I expected you guys to be experts. I paid premium for the good stuff. I really thought you were a special dealer and collector. I respected your knowledge and experience.<hr /></blockquote> Are you saying that Joe and Mark didn't advise you that the shaft was warped? These are older cues, many of which have warped shafts, nicked butts, etc. This is normally fully disclosed. I would be shocked if there wasn't some kind of "as is" caveat.


[ QUOTE ]

When my simnple solution - make me a $150 shaft from the original parts (in a $6,000 plus package)<hr /></blockquote> I don't understand why making a new $150 shaft is a solution. Who was to pay for the shaft? Aren't you in a market for classic cues? Maybe I just don't understand the reasons why people collect classic cues. Is making a new shaft for it make it worth more? Again, I don't see how a new shaft plays into the purchase.

And was this other $6000 part of a package deal? Was there anything wrong with that part of the deal? Was it even related to this deal? Weren't the other cues and such part of a completely different deal with a completely different seller?

[ QUOTE ]
You and Joe basically told me to take it or leave it, return the cue if I didn't like the warped shaft you lied about or overlooked.<hr /></blockquote> Again, what am I missing? You weren't happy with the cue, they offered to take it back. Are you angry because they say they didn't notice that it was warped?


In the end, what did you get? Did you get a new shaft or not? Mark seems to be giving away a lot of new shafts. I'll take one. I'm sure I have a cue that would fit.

Fred

P.S. yes, I know something of this deal. I've heard from one side, and now I'd really like to hear from the other side. So far, Chris, nothing you say is giving me any indication that you were screwed.

tateuts
08-17-2005, 11:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>
If it was the worst cue you've received, couldn't you have just returned it for your money back? What am I missing?
Are you saying that Joe and Mark didn't advise you that the shaft was warped? These are older cues, many of which have warped shafts, nicked butts, etc. This is normally fully disclosed. I would be shocked if there wasn't some kind of "as is" caveat. <hr /></blockquote>

Be shocked. Joe told me the cues were straight. This was a specific question I asked. The cues were prominently featured on the web site - no disclosure, no as is. I did not say it was the worst cue - I said it was the most warped. Fortunately the Szamboti handle was in great shape so I wanted to keep the cue - I just resented paying full bore dealers prices and having to put more money into it to find a shaft, at my time and expense, that should have been straight in the first place.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>
I don't understand why making a new $150 shaft is a solution. Who was to pay for the shaft? Aren't you in a market for classic cues? Maybe I just don't understand the reasons why people collect classic cues. Is making a new shaft for it make it worth more? Again, I don't see how a new shaft plays into the purchase.<hr /></blockquote>

It's not really a good solution, but it was a compromise I suggested and was willing to accept. My suggestion was for them to pay for a re-make through Proficient. I was willing to accept a non original shaft for a twisted one. I paid roughly $1500 for the cue. Trust me, the I would far prefer to have a decent original shaft. The solution would have been to be for Mark and Joe to have been upfront (more competent or more diligent) in the first place, or lacking that, working with me to make up for their mistake. Mark outright rejected my friendly and reasonable solution. He said "send the cue back for a refund". So I simply said I would send back all 4.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>

And was this other $6000 part of a package deal? Was there anything wrong with that part of the deal? Was it even related to this deal? Weren't the other cues and such part of a completely different deal with a completely different seller?

<hr /></blockquote>

Yes, there was. One of the extra shafts on one cue was from the wrong year and didn't fit. On another cue the buttcap had been twisted tearing off a piece of the decal. These were relatively minor issues I didn't press. The badly warped shaft did bother me a lot since the cue it came on only had one shaft.

As far as who owned what, it doesn't matter what relationship Mark and Joe have with their sources. As dealers, owners, or agents they are responsible financially for their own performance as if they owned the cues. They didn't disclose they were selling for another owner - I just assumed they owned the cues.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> Again, what am I missing? You weren't happy with the cue, they offered to take it back. Are you angry because they say they didn't notice that it was warped?

<hr /></blockquote>

Yes, I was. What you're missing is the attitude. Do you think I just walk around pissed off at people for nothing? You don't know me, I'm a very easy going and friendly guy.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>

In the end, what did you get? Did you get a new shaft or not? Mark seems to be giving away a lot of new shafts. I'll take one. I'm sure I have a cue that would fit.


<hr /></blockquote>

Yes, as I said in my previous post, they relented when I said I was sending back all 4 cues and paid for an extra shaft. Then I received insulting e-mails from Joe about the whole thing. There was nothing free about it. I paid over $6,000 for 4 cues and they gave me [censored] for customer service. I thought I was being most generous with my offer.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>


P.S. yes, I know something of this deal. I've heard from one side, and now I'd really like to hear from the other side. So far, Chris, nothing you say is giving me any indication that you were screwed. <hr /></blockquote>

I wasn't screwed, but I would have been. $150 is peanuts to me and them. What bothered me is the attitude and poor customer service. In my mind, the issue is standing behind your work. I like dealing with companies who stand behind what they do.

There is no legal issue involved here. They legally did the right thing and all they were required to do in offering me a refund. According to their policies, I would have been within my legal rights to send all 4 cues back.

The issue is trust.

Chris

Cane
08-17-2005, 11:34 AM
Chris, I really don't think you had to dignify that with a response, but I also understand why you felt you should. Hmmm... this and Freds questioning of your response to your deal with Mark and Joe reminds me of a post in another thread on another venue, related to this same subject.

[ QUOTE ]
...there were many things that happened in this story, and I don't recall you were standing there. And I assume you weren't at the court hearings, either. Everything you're speculating is 3rd or 4th party, from someone who is having a current issue with one of the parties. Right or wrong, that makes his side biased.
<hr /></blockquote>

Let's see... Who said that? I believe it was in response to an opinion on this situation by someone who was apparently in a quandry as to why someone who WAS NOT THERE and had only received information from ONE OF THE PARTIES should even be involved in discussion of the thread.

Just curious, Chris... do you recall the individual who posted this as being there when the deal was done, then undone, between you and Mark &amp; Joe? I mean, I don't know, maybe they were, but I don't seem to recall them saying anything except that they heard it from Mark!!!

Later,
Bob (thinks Chris is a standup guy and that someone who seems to be insulted by others sticking their nose in a situation where they "weren't there" is doing just what they berate others for)

tateuts
08-17-2005, 11:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr> Chris, I really don't think you had to dignify that with a response, but I also understand why you felt you should. Hmmm... this and Freds questioning of your response to your deal with Mark and Joe reminds me of a post in another thread on another venue, related to this same subject.

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
...there were many things that happened in this story, and I don't recall you were standing there. And I assume you weren't at the court hearings, either. Everything you're speculating is 3rd or 4th party, from someone who is having a current issue with one of the parties. Right or wrong, that makes his side biased.
<hr /></blockquote>

Let's see... Who said that? I believe it was in response to an opinion on this situation by someone who was apparently in a quandry as to why someone who WAS NOT THERE and had only received information from ONE OF THE PARTIES should even be involved in discussion of the thread.

Just curious, Chris... do you recall the individual who posted this as being there when the deal was done, then undone, between you and Mark &amp; Joe? I mean, I don't know, maybe they were, but I don't seem to recall them saying anything except that they heard it from Mark!!!

Later,
Bob (thinks Chris is a standup guy and that someone who seems to be insulted by others sticking their nose in a situation where they "weren't there" is doing just what they berate others for) <hr /></blockquote>

Hi Bob,

Fred is one of the good guys. I know it, and he knows I know it. He is trying to be fair and objective.

Here - I dug this up from the archives.

Anyone who doesn't laugh when they see this has no sense of humor: This is now THE infamous straight shaft nobody noticed!

http://www.palmercollector.com/ModelIWarp.html

It's straight. Ain't that right, Joe?

Chris

Ralph S.
08-17-2005, 12:11 PM
Dayum!!! That thing has curves close to that of a snake! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

tateuts
08-17-2005, 12:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ralph S.:</font><hr> Dayum!!! That thing has curves close to that of a snake! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote>

It was - it was actually twisted just like a corkscrew.

When they say pictures don't do it justice, they don't. it looked even worse in real life. I'd never seen anything like that before.

Hardly noticible, really it is.

Chris

joevan
08-17-2005, 01:01 PM
See this is what transpired in our dealings with Chris Tate. Chris inquired about a few Palmer cues that we had on the site. Specifically his main concern was “Do we honor our website policy about returns” incase he didn’t find them to his liking. He was assured that we do, by me, Joe, who did most of the e-mail correspondence, and Mark had a few phone calls with him. He asked me the condition of the cues, I said the ones I had in my possession were fine and in very good shape. Mark via telephone said the one he had was in good shape. Unfortunately he didn’t roll them or gun site the cues for straightness, so he didn’t know how straight the cues were or in this case, how bad this shaft was.

Anyways he arranged payment, partial by Paypal and others sent via credit card. Well he received the cues, said that he loved them all, confirmed via e-mail to quote “more than I expected”, except one which had a warped shaft. Ok, that’s not a problem. Mark offered to take the cue back, as per our policy clearly shown on the web and our purchasing agreement. He went ballistic, “how can you sell a cue with a shaft this warped”, sending pictures, etc. Mark tried to explain to him that he handles so many cues and it’s hard to look at every one of them. So again, we asked him to please send the cue back.

Well his response was, “You don’t get it, I want the cue”. We explained that the collector that consigned the cue couldn’t take a loss on the cue and just asked for the cue back. It was that simple, just send the cue back and we will send you the money. The collector said he would simply rather sit on the cue then lose any more money on the transaction. Chris then went into a tirade stating if I cannot have the shaft, then I am sending all of the cues back. We reminded him that was not the agreement we had prior to the sale. Outside of the fact that the collector that owned the other cues that Chris had previously said were “more than he expected” had already committed his incoming monies. Well, during this time period, Chris tried to cancel the Paypal payment. Now this payment was earmarked for a Palmer model 17, which was one of the cues he said he loved. At this point we were totally aghast; Mark and I discussed our options. We were both concerned that he wasn’t going to return any of the cues after the Paypal incident and by the way he was acting. So we reluctantly agreed to furnish the other shaft through Scott Sherbine at proficient, at our financial loss.

Forget how we felt, we have dealt with people like Chris before, just not as arrogant. But the other collectors were mortified that anyone could act like this. Mark was ready to buy all the cues from the other collectors, if this needed to be the case so they wouldn’t incur any burden from this individual.

So the bottom line is this about Chris Tate in one transaction:
Someone who does not follow through with deals he makes
Someone who absolutely doesn’t give one iota about fellow collectors
Someone who is so caught up in himself, he is the only person that matters to him

But we found out he did the same thing to another dealer on a case, where he wanted to “adjust” the selling price after he received the case but when he had good photos beforehand. See, Chris is right, the Internet makes the world smaller, but it is a two way street, as Chris found out when another dealer refused to take a Paypal payment from him for another Palmer. As dealers we do discuss cues, and more importantly, customers. We like most other people in the service industry believe the customer is always right, but we also believe you have to be a man of your word; this however is not Mr. Chris Tate.

By the way, both collectors have agreed to endorse this as the facts to what transpired, so we have full permission to disclose their e-mail addresses upon request.

One last thing... Don’t you wonder why someone who received everything they wanted, even at the expense of other individuals, would still hold a grudge? It’s because he is now one of two people that cannot buy from us… ever.

Some other things I have noticed that Chris is claiming.. “paid full bore”? That’s an outright fabrication. They were on a sales page and we reduced them even further. To the point that we didn’t make ANYTHING on the sale of the Palmer cues, we just moved them for the collectors that we deal for. As far as the condition of the other cues.. He in an e-mail said they were more than he expected and not once ever contested the condition of the other cues.
A further point to show what an arrogant idiot he is, I had nothing to do with Marks post and he is calling out my name in all his responses. Why? ‘cause again he came after me via PM in AZ’s forum and again I gave him a what for. Which I will every time.

Joe

joevan
08-17-2005, 01:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr>
It's straight. Ain't that right, Joe?

Chris
<hr /></blockquote>

Hey pal. We agreed it wasn't straight. At least if you are going to tell a story, get it right.

joevan
08-17-2005, 01:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr>


You sent me the worst warped cue I've ever received, in my entire collection and in my dealings ever - with anyone - and told me that you hadn't noticed. Joe said he didn't notice either. Now that's two of you who didn't notice.

Well, what does that tell you? You didn't notice. At least the 3 other cues Joe sent were almost what he said they were.

OK. Yes I was disappointed. I expected you guys to be experts. I paid premium for the good stuff. I really thought you were a special dealer and collector. I respected your knowledge and experience.

When my simnple solution - make me a $150 shaft from the original parts (in a $6,000 plus package) met with such vile rejection by you and Joe, and the subsequent insults that followed by you two, I was surprised and disappointed.

You and Joe basically told me to take it or leave it, return the cue if I didn't like the warped shaft you lied about or overlooked.

You seriously underestimated me. You pissed me off. I decided to return the entire package. Then I got word that you would pay for the shaft and I received a number of insulting, moronic e-mails from Joe lamenting having to pay for a stinking shaft re-make.

Chris <hr /></blockquote>

Chris,
You should be honest and tell everyone that we offered to take the cue back as we promised you that we would during the negotiations. You should also be honest and tell them it wasn't until you said "You don't get it, I want the cue", that we became reprehensive and uncooperative. This because we did exactly what our negotiated agreement was. This came after we said send the cue back and you will get a full refund. It wasn't take it or leave it, but it was what was negotiated BEFORE hand.

Joe

ps: My last e-mail to Tate during the transaction....

Chris,

I hope you enjoy the cues and I want to take a minute to say something to you.

First, the collector who owned the model I took a loss, and another collector took a loss on the C and the 17 so you could own those cues. I know you don’t appreciate that, but I figured you should know. But most importantly I couldn’t have you mess the deal because the collector was reinvesting his cash into two other cues. I want to tell you that you may think Mark was in some way dishonest, but a lot of times he doesn’t have the time to inspect every cue. I also want to tell you, so the other deal wasn’t squashed he offered to buy the cues from the other collector for what you were paying so not to disappoint this other collector.

Our perspective:
I have e-mail from YOU approving the C, the 17 and the I. I was under no obligation to take all the cues back. As per our policy, I was also under no obligation to negotiate the deal further. We offered to take back the cue that was not to your liking, which is all we were obligated to do. Your hissy fit got you your shaft, but it was YOU who will lose in this deal. I don’t look at it as we lost a potentially good customer, what I lost was a potentially large pain in the ass.

BTW the former owner of the C, the I and the 17 was Tom Gallager and you can call him at 570-875-0440 during his work hours to verify anything about this e-mail. Or e-mail him at champ1@ptd.net. You might recognize the name from susiecuebilliards site as one of the “collectors” that Rich has showcased.

Best regards,

Joe Van Buren

PS: You buying the modified model M, priceless…

tateuts
08-17-2005, 01:21 PM
Joe,

If you re-read the posts, I did acknowlege that you would take the cue back. I stopped payment on my credit card through paypal because I was returning the cues. I had them packaged up and just asked for your written guarantee that you would accept them. I wanted this from a legal standpoint since I no longer trusted you.

It's nice to know that neither you or Mark check over the cues you sell. I am sorry, I thought you were dishonest, now I realize you are just incompetent. My mistake.

Chris

joevan
08-17-2005, 01:22 PM
BTW while I am here, I want to address the Ginacue issue. I was one of three people IN the booth both times Scott Lee came to the booth. The others were Dean, and Martyne and both saw Scott's tirade. He absolutely, unequivocally used the F-bomb in every other sentence. Both at the booth and at the meeting. I was also the only one at the meeting besides Jim Younge and his reply can be seen.
I will go on record as saying that if I found a cue that was stolen from me at a show 15 years later, I, like all of you, would probably act somewhat similar. So I chalk it up to human nature, but there are other ways to handle such a situation. No one can deny that. If a guy comes to you at a pool tourney and says hey, thats my cue, give it to me, with NO paperwork, would you give it to him?

Joe

joevan
08-17-2005, 01:25 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr> Joe,

If you re-read the posts, I did acknowlege that you would take the cue back. I stopped payment on my credit card through paypal because I was returning the cues. I had them packaged up and just asked for your written guarantee that you would accept them. I wanted this from a legal standpoint since I no longer trusted you.

It's nice to know that neither you or Mark check over the cues you sell. I am sorry, I thought you were dishonest, now I realize you are just incompetent. My mistake.

Chris

<hr /></blockquote>

Chris,
Call it anything you want, but it was fully explained to you when you wanted to return the cue. I held the cue for 5 seconds when I transferred the cue from marks box to mine. I checked the cues I sent you and had in my posession, and there were no issues.

What you should tell people is that we had an agreement before hand that we would honor our policy and we were fully prepared to do so. It was you who after agreeing that the policy was sufficient, tried to change the policy.

Joe

tateuts
08-17-2005, 01:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr>
Chris,
Call it anything you want, but it was fully explained to you when you wanted to return the cue. I held the cue for 5 seconds when I transferred the cue from marks box to mine. I checked the cues I sent you and had in my posession, and there were no issues.

What you should tell people is that we had an agreement before hand that we would honor our policy and we were fully prepared to do so. It was you who after agreeing that the policy was sufficient, tried to change the policy.

Joe <hr /></blockquote>

Joe,

That's why I didn't blame you. I actually never said you personally did anything wrong, except for maybe not looking the cue over.

What I blamed you for was the string of insulting e-mails. A simple "I'm sorry, we'll make it up to you" is just customer service 101.

Chris

joevan
08-17-2005, 01:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr>
Joe,

That's why I didn't blame you. I actually never said you personally did anything wrong, except for maybe not looking the cue over.

What I blamed you for was the string of insulting e-mails. A simple "I'm sorry, we'll make it up to you" is just customer service 101.

Chris

<hr /></blockquote>

Chris,
You fully have committed to calling me out here. Something you will rue doing. I had nothing to do with Marks post yet you repeatedly posted my name. Why was that?
C'mon tell everyone.. before I post our AZ discussion..

"Im sorry, we will make it up to you?" Are you on crack.. we offered to take the damn cue back. What more can you ask for? Oh I forgot, its you, for Chris Tate you not only want to change peoples operating policies you want the Hertz Gold treatment. Sorry..

Joe (---it will never happen again, that I assure you

ps.. you don't blame me?!?!?

Chris Tate…

“Be shocked. Joe told me the cues were straight.”

“The solution would have been to be for Mark and Joe to have been upfront”

“As far as who owned what, it doesn't matter what relationship Mark and Joe have with their sources.”

“It's straight. Ain't that right, Joe?”

I read Joe in alot of posts I had nothing to do with.

tateuts
08-17-2005, 01:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr>
Joe,

That's why I didn't blame you. I actually never said you personally did anything wrong, except for maybe not looking the cue over.

What I blamed you for was the string of insulting e-mails. A simple "I'm sorry, we'll make it up to you" is just customer service 101.

Chris

<hr /></blockquote>

Chris,
You fully have committed to calling me out here. Something you will rue doing. I had nothing to do with Marks post yet you repeatedly posted my name. Why was that?
C'mon tell everyone.. before I post our AZ discussion..

"Im sorry, we will make it up to you?" Are you on crack.. we offered to take the damn cue back. What more can you ask for? Oh I forgot, its you, for Chris Tate you not only want to change peoples operating policies you want the Hertz Gold treatment. Sorry..

Joe (---it will never happen again, that I assure you

ps.. you don't blame me?!?!?

Chris Tate…

“Be shocked. Joe told me the cues were straight.”

“The solution would have been to be for Mark and Joe to have been upfront”

“As far as who owned what, it doesn't matter what relationship Mark and Joe have with their sources.”

“It's straight. Ain't that right, Joe?”

I read Joe in alot of posts I had nothing to do with. <hr /></blockquote>

Joe,

Post whatever you want. I almost don't have to say anything - you're doing it all for me.

Chris

tateuts
08-17-2005, 03:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr>
Anyways he arranged payment, partial by Paypal and others sent via credit card.

Joe
<hr /></blockquote>

Just to set the record straight, I paid on a Bank of America cashiers check for the bulk of this to accommodate you, because you didn't want to pay credit card or Paypal transaction fees. I sent this Federal Express. The Model 17 I paid for on Paypal via credit card, this because we reached an agreement on the price a few days after I sent the cashier's check.

I actually did successfully stop payment on the credit card/paypal transaction through my credit card company after Paypal refused to reverse the transaction. Then, your e-mail came in reversing the prior decision and agreeing to pay for the shaft. I then called the credit card company and removed the charge suspension, which hadn't been debited to Paypal yet.

It was you, Joe who assured me in writing that the cues were straight, and that the company had a money back guarantee if the cues were returned for any reason within a few days.

I'm not saying that you lied, and I don't believe that you did lie. But I would have thought you would check them, knowing that I was concerned about it.

Chris

joevan
08-17-2005, 03:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr>
Just to set the record straight, I paid on a Bank of America cashiers check for the bulk of this to accommodate you, because you didn't want to pay credit card or Paypal transaction fees. I sent this Federal Express. The Model 17 I paid for on Paypal via credit card.

I actually did successfully stop payment on the credit card/paypal transaction through my credit card company after Paypal refused to reverse the transaction. Then, your e-mail came in reversing the prior decision and agreeing to pay for the shaft. I then called the credit card company and removed the charge suspension, which hadn't been debited to Paypal yet.

It was you, Joe who assured me in writing that the cues were straight, and that the company had a money back guarantee if the cues were returned for any reason within a few days.

I'm not saying that you lied, and I don't believe that you did lie. But I would have thought you would check them, knowing that I was concerned about it.

Chris <hr /></blockquote>

Chris,
Thats right, you did pay by cashier check it was because at the prices you paid, the cc fee was impossible to absorb. Well let me tell you, your CC company and Paypal would have a hell of a time. I contacted a rep at paypal and sent them your e-mail approving the cue and they assured me that the payment would stand.
The cues I had in my possession, you keep forgetting to add this. You knew from the get go, I had three of the cues and Mark had one.

Joe

joevan
08-17-2005, 03:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr> Joe,

Post whatever you want. I almost don't have to say anything - you're doing it all for me.

Chris <hr /></blockquote>

You're right, I am proving what an unreasonable person you are. Anyone reading this will see you made an agreement and balked. Which is something not even you can deny.

Joe

joevan
08-17-2005, 03:49 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr> There is no legal issue involved here. They legally did the right thing and all they were required to do in offering me a refund. According to their policies, I would have been within my legal rights to send all 4 cues back.

The issue is trust.

Chris

<hr /></blockquote>

No, you are wrong here. Our policy states if you are unhappy with a cue or feel it wasn't as advertised you can send it back. Since we had in WRITING you were more than happy with the other 3, we only had to take that ONE cue back. Anyone sane can see that. You're right, the issue is trust and I emplore anyone making a deal with YOU to remember that.

Joe

tateuts
08-17-2005, 03:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr> I contacted a rep at paypal and sent them your e-mail approving the cue and they assured me that the payment would stand.
The cues I had in my possession, you keep forgetting to add this. You knew from the get go, I had three of the cues and Mark had one.

Joe <hr /></blockquote>

You are probably right because it was just for the one cue.

In all honesty, I will say this to everyone on the boards, I truly think you personally are trustworthy. I have no problem with you in that regard.

Chris

Barbara
08-17-2005, 04:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr>You sent me the worst warped cue I've ever received, in my entire collection and in my dealings ever - with anyone - and told me that you hadn't noticed. Joe said he didn't notice either. Now that's two of you who didn't notice.
<hr /></blockquote>

It's so funny how the human eye works. I showed MK the butt of my Barry Szamboti cue. He held it, looked at it, and said, "It's a longer cue than normal. About 59"." I'll never forget that. But he was off by 1/2". He was walking out of the Expo entrance at the time.

Barbara

joevan
08-17-2005, 05:45 PM
One more Ginacue related post. I read more than once the court decided in SL's favor. I find this disturbing and inaccurate. It was an arbitrated hearing, what that means is there was a resolution negotiated and hammered out by both parties. (Only one party has upheld his end of the bargain BTW and his initials won't appear in the post) What this in essence did was stop a long, drawn out trial that would have been a train wreck financially and cost more that the cue would ever be worth.

Joe

Troy
08-17-2005, 05:55 PM
You guys need to GROW UP !!! The childishness is past getting old.

As we told people in my "Corporate America" years,
"Take this off-line and into the playground on your own time".

tateuts
08-17-2005, 07:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr>
Chris,
Thats right, you did pay by cashier check it was because at the prices you paid, the cc fee was impossible to absorb. Well let me tell you, your CC company and Paypal would have a hell of a time. I contacted a rep at paypal and sent them your e-mail approving the cue and they assured me that the payment would stand.
The cues I had in my possession, you keep forgetting to add this. You knew from the get go, I had three of the cues and Mark had one.

Joe <hr /></blockquote>

OK - let's summarize this. Here's what you have said so far:

- I negotiated a deal with Mark on a 3 cue package (and a 4th cue later on).

- Before I would pay you cash (and paypal fot he 4th later) , I questioned if the cues were staight and questioned your return policy if the cues were not as advertised. You said the cues could be returned as stipulated by your web-site policy.

- Your company guaranteed me that the cues were straight and the return policy was as stated on the web site.

- It turned out one cue was badly warped. Neither you or Mark noticed it because neither of you checked it.

- You were flabbergasted at my arrogance when I asked for a $150 re-made shaft instead of a refund.

- Because you did not agree to this initially, I wanted to return all the cues for a refund. I tried to therefore stop payment on my credit card/Paypal transaction while requesting a guarantee from you, in writing, that Pool Table magic would refund me.

Under threat of this, you agreed to pay for the shaft like I originally suggested, and proceeded to send me insulting e-mails with language very similar to your preceding posts, which now everyone has seen for themselves.

Are those the facts?

Chris

tateuts
08-17-2005, 08:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> You guys need to GROW UP !!! The childishness is past getting old.

As we told people in my "Corporate America" years,
"Take this off-line and into the playground on your own time". <hr /></blockquote>

Troy,

Hang in there. This was a long time coming and I've just dealt with the help so far.

Chris

joevan
08-17-2005, 10:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr>
Chris,


OK - let's summarize this. Here's what you have said so far:

- I negotiated a deal with Mark on a 3 cue package (and a 4th cue later on).

- Before I would pay you cash (and paypal fot he 4th later) , I questioned if the cues were staight and questioned your return policy if the cues were not as advertised. You said the cues could be returned as stipulated by your web-site policy.

- Your company guaranteed me that the cues were straight and the return policy was as stated on the web site.

- It turned out one cue was badly warped. Neither you or Mark noticed it because neither of you checked it.

- You were flabbergasted at my arrogance when I asked for a $150 re-made shaft instead of a refund.

- Because you did not agree to this initially, I wanted to return all the cues for a refund. I tried to therefore stop payment on my credit card/Paypal transaction while requesting a guarantee from you, in writing, that Pool Table magic would refund me.

Under threat of this, you agreed to pay for the shaft like I originally suggested, and proceeded to send me insulting e-mails with language very similar to your preceding posts, which now everyone has seen for themselves.

Are those the facts?

Chris <hr /></blockquote>

Chris,
1- I know it as a 4 cue package but my recollection is they were all purchased together. At least they were shipped that way. If you want to say the model 17 was a day or two later, sure.

2- You asked if the cues were in good shape and we said yes. If you asked if they were straight, I would have said the cues I have in my posession are. Now if I said the other cue was straight, I would have contacted Mark and asked him. The dealer we consigned the cue from had never given us a cue that had a warped shaft, so Mark probably would have trusted him in his description of the cue to us. Nothing about that says "dishonest, or less than honest" about Mark, what it says is he should probably look at cues a little more closely when we consign them.

3 - See above, but yes the policy was never in question.

4 - No, a shaft was badly warped.

5 - No, we were "flabbergasted" when you came across with "You don't get it, I want the cue" after we asked for the cue to be returned.

6 - Part 1: Ok. Part two: No, I paid for the shaft for the sake of the others involved in the transaction, as stated. As far as language, if the shoe fits... but so far I have been more than kind in what I have catagorized you as. BTW it was only on the final e-mail or two during the transaction, where I laced into you, deservedly so.

The biggest fact is we had an agreement before hand. One which you didn't honor. This will always be our stand in this issue, that and you have shown exactly what you are about.

Mark asks you a question, you bring me in.

You say "My experience is that Mark was less than honest dealing with me. My opinion is that Mark would be difficult to deal with in good faith, and I certainly wouldn't trust him" But then you say to me on AZ.. "I was just upset because he said "take it or leave it" when I wanted the shaft re-made." Thats doesn't sound like a honesty issue, it sounds like someone use to getting his way and finally having someone say NO. You also say you have no problems with ME, yet you had the audacity to call me out. BTW you paid $ 1,100.00 for that particular cue. It was marked down to $ 1200 from 1500 and you got it for 100 less. Also anyone who knows you, knows you don't pay "full bore" for anything.

Joe

joevan
08-18-2005, 04:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr>
Troy,

Hang in there. This was a long time coming and I've just dealt with the help so far.

Chris <hr /></blockquote>

Whats a long time coming? When you give someone everything they want and offered to do the right thing to begin with, its very hard for me to think that there would still be animosity. Oh thats right.. we didn't come over and detail your car afterwards, you know customer service 101 and all that.. sorry..


Joe

DickLeonard
08-18-2005, 05:00 AM
Chris, I left my cue in my car for 12 years. I had a 1978 Saab with the hatchback. I left my door unlock and someone broke in and took my CB and left my cue. A very funny story whenever I thimk of it I can't stop laughing.

My friend, an apprentice cue maker took my cue and joined it and secured it at the ferrule and hung it over Dr.Dave's V putting pressure on the shaft to straighten the shaft. Every few days he would check the shaft and re-adjust the shaft to make sure he was sraightening the shaft in the right place, within 2 weeks both of my shafts were straight as an arrow.

I think that is a better solution than new shafts which make the cue a bastard.####

eg8r
08-18-2005, 05:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
BTW the former owner of the C, the I and the 17 was Tom Gallager and you can call him at 570-875-0440 during his work hours to verify anything about this e-mail. <hr /></blockquote> I surely hope you asked for Tom's permission to add his name to this crap. What a mess these couple dealings have become and more and more names keep getting added in.

eg8r

pooltchr
08-18-2005, 05:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Troy:</font><hr> You guys need to GROW UP !!! The childishness is past getting old.

As we told people in my "Corporate America" years,
"Take this off-line and into the playground on your own time". <hr /></blockquote>

I agree...the forum is no place to air out all this dirty laundry. Seems like an issue between individuals, and they are trying to win support of the "masses". I don't think our "votes" are going to change anything.
My vote is for admin to delete the entire thread.

Sid_Vicious
08-18-2005, 05:40 AM
That was a thought("I surely hope you asked for Tom's permission") I had also. I believe that if it was I in this battle, I'd cut my losses, either side of the fence, and go away for a while and let this die out before it gets any deeper...sid

joevan
08-18-2005, 06:20 AM
Support of the masses? Hardly, BUT if you are going to mud wrestle, be prepared to mud wrestle. The last time we didn't post when someone questioned our dealings, we were presumed guilty. Now you get what you want, and you don't like it. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. As far as Mr. Gallager, he says he hopes someone calls him.
If the thread is deleted, then the stolen cue thread(s) should also bite the dust.

But put yourself in our position. You get slammed by someone you're in litigation with after its been declared there would be no public statements, everyone reading it assumes your guilty because you're not saying anything. You comeout and tell your side of the story and get slammed for doing the right thing to begin with. Then some wannabe jumps up calls you dishonest, and what, you're not supposed to defend your position? This same guy says earlier in the stolen cue posts, he has "minor issues" with Mark. But you can clearly see, he wants attention and now these minor issues supposedly have some bite. But anyone with a brain can see we did the right thing AGAIN. Look we have sold over 650 cues on the internet and never had one returned for improperly describing a cue, now this would have been a first, and we were ready to accept that.

Joe (---everything is ok, till your team gets poked in the eye

Troy
08-18-2005, 07:26 AM
Two babies come on here, one with 2 previous posts, the other with about 20 previous posts, and take over the forum with historical garbage (or is it hysterical garbage).

This is getting as bad as another rant about smoking that went on for days with one certain poster continuously putting up the same crap.

ENOUGH !!! STOP THE MADNESS

Rich R.
08-18-2005, 07:30 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr> Anyone reading this will see you made an agreement and balked. Which is something not even you can deny. <hr /></blockquote>
I guess I am the "anyone" reading this.
From what I have read, and a few things I know from other sources, I know I will not be doing any business with you or Mark.

tateuts
08-18-2005, 10:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Chris, I left my cue in my car for 12 years. I had a 1978 Saab with the hatchback. I left my door unlock and someone broke in and took my CB and left my cue. A very funny story whenever I thimk of it I can't stop laughing.

My friend, an apprentice cue maker took my cue and joined it and secured it at the ferrule and hung it over Dr.Dave's V putting pressure on the shaft to straighten the shaft. Every few days he would check the shaft and re-adjust the shaft to make sure he was sraightening the shaft in the right place, within 2 weeks both of my shafts were straight as an arrow.

I think that is a better solution than new shafts which make the cue a bastard.#### <hr /></blockquote>

You are so right, Dick.

The worst thing about a re-made shaft is it just ruins the way the cue originally felt. The Model "I" with the remade shaft feels just pathetic. Fortunately I have bought a number of Palmers from the same year that came with multiple shafts. I now have a supply of first, second, and third and later catalog original shafts.

I don't care who makes them. I've probably got a half dozen from different makers - every re-made shaft I've played with just ruins the feel of the cue. It just doesn't match up well with the butt. The original shafts feel right.

Chris

justbrake
08-18-2005, 12:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr> Anyone reading this will see you made an agreement and balked. Which is something not even you can deny. <hr /></blockquote>
I guess I am the "anyone" reading this.
From what I have read, and a few things I know from other sources, I know I will not be doing any business with you or Mark. <hr /></blockquote>

I don't think I would buy from someone that says it's straight and when it arrives it's not I would be pissed off myself. being that said I must say pooltablemagic bringing this up in an open forum and letting everyone know about what happened ( over year ago) I must say isn't to smart of a buisness man selling cues and I think alot of people here and at AZ will not buy from you, IMO

Steven

joevan
08-18-2005, 01:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>I guess I am the "anyone" reading this.
From what I have read, and a few things I know from other sources, I know I will not be doing any business with you or Mark. <hr /></blockquote>

Thats ok.. I had other sources say that I don't need a customer like you.

Joe

joevan
08-18-2005, 01:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote justbrake:</font><hr>
I don't think I would buy from someone that says it's straight and when it arrives it's not I would be pissed off myself. being that said I must say pooltablemagic bringing this up in an open forum and letting everyone know about what happened ( over year ago) I must say isn't to smart of a buisness man selling cues and I think alot of people here and at AZ will not buy from you, IMO

Steven <hr /></blockquote>

Ok.. maybe slowly for the LI crowd. You can be pissed, but thats why we honor our policies.
Second.. we didn't bring it up.
Third.. We sell enough cues and luckily there are those people with decent reading skills.
4th and most importantly.. If we get called out, we will respond.

Joe

tateuts
08-18-2005, 01:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote justbrake:</font><hr>
I don't think I would buy from someone that says it's straight and when it arrives it's not I would be pissed off myself. being that said I must say pooltablemagic bringing this up in an open forum and letting everyone know about what happened ( over year ago) I must say isn't to smart of a buisness man selling cues and I think alot of people here and at AZ will not buy from you, IMO

Steven <hr /></blockquote>

Ok.. maybe slowly for the LI crowd. You can be pissed, but thats why we honor our policies.
Second.. we didn't bring it up.
Third.. We sell enough cues and luckily there are those people with decent reading skills.
4th and most importantly.. If we get called out, we will respond.

Joe <hr /></blockquote>

Joe,

You responded just like I thought you would. Keep it coming.

I am really rue-ing this.

Chris

tateuts
08-18-2005, 01:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>I guess I am the "anyone" reading this.
From what I have read, and a few things I know from other sources, I know I will not be doing any business with you or Mark. <hr /></blockquote>

Thats ok.. I had other sources say that I don't need a customer like you.

Joe <hr /></blockquote>

You do not deserve any customers, and you won't many after this gets "googled".

Just do us a favor and get lost. Don't slam the door on your ass on the way out.

Chris

joevan
08-18-2005, 02:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr>
You do not deserve any customers, and you won't many after this gets "googled".

Just do us a favor and get lost. Don't slam the door on your ass on the way out.

Chris <hr /></blockquote>

What's the matter Chris, you got snagged. *sniff* Well at least you were smart enough to stop posting about a travesty that never happened. As far as my answers, you called me out and no one here liked the responses. Which is what I expected. Its ok to try and slam and discredit someone, but when they answer.. its OMG you're wasting bandwidth.. etc.. etc.. etc.. take it to the playground etc.. etc.. Well you know what, you bring a pit bull to a poodle show and this is what you get.

BTW you don't see me hanging on the coattails of the guys who posted in support of Mark , do you? Yeah, look in the mirror and keep lying to yourself, if it makes you happy. You're right, I hope its googled, there is one stand up guy and one guy who thought he was smart and got his tail handed to him.

Joe

tateuts
08-18-2005, 02:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr>
You do not deserve any customers, and you won't many after this gets "googled".

Just do us a favor and get lost. Don't slam the door on your ass on the way out.

Chris <hr /></blockquote>

What's the matter Chris, you got snagged. *sniff* Well at least you were smart enough to stop posting about a travesty that never happened. As far as my answers, you called me out and no one here liked the responses. Which is what I expected. Its ok to try and slam and discredit someone, but when they answer.. its OMG you're wasting bandwidth.. etc.. etc.. etc.. take it to the playground etc.. etc.. Well you know what, you bring a pit bull to a poodle show and this is what you get.

BTW you don't see me hanging on the coattails of the guys who posted in support of Mark , do you? Yeah, look in the mirror and keep lying to yourself, if it makes you happy. You're right, I hope its googled, there is one stand up guy and one guy who thought he was smart and got his tail handed to him.

Joe <hr /></blockquote>

Joe,

I didn't have to discredit you - you did it yourself with your insults.

Not professional. You should not be in your own business. As far as your negotiating skills go - bad. I got all the entertainment I wanted when I watched you two tremble, shake, and cave in for a measely $150. That was hilarious.

I was just bluffing. I was keeping all 4 cues no matter what.

Don't go calling others stupid.

Chris

tateuts
08-18-2005, 03:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr>
It's so funny how the human eye works. I showed MK the butt of my Barry Szamboti cue. He held it, looked at it, and said, "It's a longer cue than normal. About 59"." I'll never forget that. But he was off by 1/2". He was walking out of the Expo entrance at the time.

Barbara <hr /></blockquote>

Barbara,

Now, I hope your not suggesting that Mark might be fibbing about not seeing that huge bow in the cue, are you?

I wonder why he sent his boy to do a man's job?

Where is Mark Kulungian now?

Chris

joevan
08-18-2005, 03:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr>
Joe,

I didn't have to discredit you - you did it yourself with your insults.

Not professional. You should not be in your own business. As far as your negotiating skills go - bad. I got all the entertainment I wanted when I watched you two tremble, shake, and cave in for a measely $150. That was hilarious.

I was just bluffing. I was keeping all 4 cues no matter what.

Don't go calling others stupid.

Chris
<hr /></blockquote>

Chris,
Good for you. But you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt what a lying scumbag you are. You got called out, and now you are trying to play the "Oh I planned it card" after all the BS about Mark's dishonesty. Had I not answered, it would have been, "Oh see how right I was", Yeah you're real smart. So now after this big charade its I planned it. ROTFLMAO. You're such a nit its unbelievable.
You waste all this bandwidth, admit your a liar and now you want to think you're a genius. OMG how funny is that.

Let me tell you, no one trembled at 150.00. We should have stuck to our policy, we learned. No biggie. The best part now is there is no doubt the classless low life you are. You can try and say anything you want about me insulting you or whoever, but as shown here, at least it was the truth.

BTW its not negotiating skills when you agree to something and then not go through with it. I am glad you posted this because now I can stop, its undebatable what kind of person you are.

Wait.. wait.. I have to just add one other thing.. maybe two. How is that "prototype" Meucci made by Palmer. ROTFLMAO Now that post on AZ was entertainment. and judging by your descriptions on your site, you wouldn't know a Szamboti splice from a can of coke.

Joe (---thinking there is a rubber room with your name on it...

joevan
08-18-2005, 03:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr> Barbara,

Now, I hope your not suggesting that Mark might be fibbing about not seeing that huge bow in the cue, are you?

I wonder why he sent his boy to do a man's job?

Where is Mark Kulungian now?

Chris

<hr /></blockquote>

Woohoo I am Chris see how smart I am?!?!? YOU called me, Mark didn't call me YOU DID. Nice try. You just keep showing your true colors.

Joe

tateuts
08-18-2005, 04:41 PM
Joe,

If you wonder why you can't sell your Palmer, I've been asked about it a few times and I've valued it at $1,500 because the points look quite a bit off to me.

That's it for me - I'm out of here.

Just one more parting shot, just for you:

A Joe straight cue (http://www.palmercollector.com/ModelIWarp.html)

DickLeonard
08-19-2005, 04:54 AM
JustBrake

I would think how the cue was shipped could influence the cue. If it was shipped by air in a compartment with no heat it would be subjected to below zero temperature. then reheated by landing and kept in a sweltering warehouse till delivery. ####

nhp
08-19-2005, 05:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr> Joe,

If you wonder why you can't sell your Palmer, I've been asked about it a few times and I've valued it at $1,500 because the points look quite a bit off to me.

That's it for me - I'm out of here.

Just one more parting shot, just for you:

A Joe straight cue (http://www.palmercollector.com/ModelIWarp.html)


<hr /></blockquote>

DAMN!!! Chris is that a cue or a sickle?? What kind of jerk sold that!?

nhp
08-19-2005, 05:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr>
Joe,

I didn't have to discredit you - you did it yourself with your insults.

Not professional. You should not be in your own business. As far as your negotiating skills go - bad. I got all the entertainment I wanted when I watched you two tremble, shake, and cave in for a measely $150. That was hilarious.

I was just bluffing. I was keeping all 4 cues no matter what.

Don't go calling others stupid.

Chris
<hr /></blockquote>

Chris,
Good for you. But you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt what a lying scumbag you are. You got called out, and now you are trying to play the "Oh I planned it card" after all the BS about Mark's dishonesty. Had I not answered, it would have been, "Oh see how right I was", Yeah you're real smart. So now after this big charade its I planned it. ROTFLMAO. You're such a nit its unbelievable.
You waste all this bandwidth, admit your a liar and now you want to think you're a genius. OMG how funny is that.

Let me tell you, no one trembled at 150.00. We should have stuck to our policy, we learned. No biggie. The best part now is there is no doubt the classless low life you are. You can try and say anything you want about me insulting you or whoever, but as shown here, at least it was the truth.

BTW its not negotiating skills when you agree to something and then not go through with it. I am glad you posted this because now I can stop, its undebatable what kind of person you are.

Wait.. wait.. I have to just add one other thing.. maybe two. How is that "prototype" Meucci made by Palmer. ROTFLMAO Now that post on AZ was entertainment. and judging by your descriptions on your site, you wouldn't know a Szamboti splice from a can of coke.

Joe (---thinking there is a rubber room with your name on it... <hr /></blockquote>

LOL you are way off dude...Chris is the most honest guy I know, he is an EXTREMELY successful business man and could care less what people at the bottom of the food chain like you think. You got exposed for being a fraud, now you're angry. Am I seeing a pattern here?

Rich R.
08-19-2005, 05:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>I guess I am the "anyone" reading this.
From what I have read, and a few things I know from other sources, I know I will not be doing any business with you or Mark. <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr> Thats ok.. I had other sources say that I don't need a customer like you.

Joe <hr /></blockquote>
Joe, it is just that kind of attitude, and not your problems with one customer, that will keep me from being one of your customers. With that attitude, it is apparent that you don't want any customers.

justbrake
08-19-2005, 10:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> JustBrake

I would think how the cue was shipped could influence the cue. If it was shipped by air in a compartment with no heat it would be subjected to below zero temperature. then reheated by landing and kept in a sweltering warehouse till delivery. #### <hr /></blockquote>

I would think at the age of the cues in question and not all but one was very warped (hardly likely would be my answer) , I really don't know when the shipping of the cues was that you would have to ask either Chris or Joe that , but this is an old story brought back up and that the hatchet was never buried , for a messely $150.00 IMO and what I would have done if it happened to me I would have sent them all back and never said another word about it, but you have someone that wanted them and someone that wanted to make the sale.

Steven

Ralph S.
08-19-2005, 12:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>I guess I am the "anyone" reading this.
From what I have read, and a few things I know from other sources, I know I will not be doing any business with you or Mark. <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr> Thats ok.. I had other sources say that I don't need a customer like you.

Joe <hr /></blockquote>
Joe, it is just that kind of attitude, and not your problems with one customer, that will keep me from being one of your customers. With that attitude, it is apparent that you don't want any customers. <hr /></blockquote>


Seems to me that Joe is doing his and Mark's business far more harm than good. I, personally would/will not do business with them. One of the oldest truths of advertising, is the word of mouth is your best advertisement. Apparently Joe doesn't know this. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

dg-in-centralpa
08-19-2005, 02:07 PM
I don't know Mark, Joe, or Chris(other than his past posts). I've met Mark at the shows but not enough to say anything about his character. As for Joe's attitude, I think he has a legitimate point in trying to defend his reputation. Any of us, in the same position would do the same, although I would have quit a while back. Joe is being attacked by everyone on this board even though many have never dealt with him. If someone had a bad experience with him, fine. That doesn't mean everyone will. None of this is productive for either side. All it really is now is a pissing match.
Years ago, I was in the collectible business as well. Different product but dealing in rare and valuable records worldwide. I did this for 15 years. If I sent a package of 4 items to someone and one wasn't what it was supposed to be, I refunded the money on that item only. Not all four, especially if the rest was satisfactory. One bad item does not make a bad dealer. Did I inspect everything I sent out? Yes, but that was me. Some dealers and collectors I didn't have to because of their reputation, but I did for my own satisfaction. In my past business, I was told about certain dealers to be careful of, but I had no problems with that person. Joe is being criticized for trying to do his job. If company policy is to refund for one item in question, why must he take back the others that are ok? This I don't understand. Now this is just becoming a post of insults to each one. This does nothing to sway me to either side. I'm looking at the business side only.
As for an earlier post that Mark should have known the original cue was stolen, this is absurd. Would the person selling it to him say that it's stolen? Of course not. If any rare records were stolen, word went out to the dealers about this. This way we could find the perpetrator. I worked with local and state police many times to catch thieves. Maybe Scott should have alerted dealers about his stolen cue. I'm not saying Scott's wrong, but I would have done this. Let's stop all this bickering once and for all. It's not doing anyone any good.

DG - had 2 record stores with rare records and memorabilia

wolfdancer
08-19-2005, 02:34 PM
Good post !!
My own Ginacue resolution, is that I resolve never to read anything else by either party involved.
Chris now states he always intended to keep all 4 cues, and everything else was for his amusement...wanted to see them sweat a little??? And he's a businessman???? I might want to see an Att'y, if someone made false accusations, in a public forum, against me. I think all their reputations were sullied, once they began the personal attacks.
And re: the original dispute...Scott Vs Mark....if I was the arbitrator...I would have issued a Solomon-like judgement
"Cut the baby in half"
Is there "no honor amongst........"????

joevan
08-19-2005, 05:23 PM
DG,
Great post and exactly on point. This will be my last post on the subject because any questions of character are already answered. As far as word of mouth advertising, it works great until someone slanders your business and then you are backed into a corner and have to respond to false allegations. I guess the thing to do would have been let him slander us with no response, right Ralph? Thats great. As far as my attitude, well when someone acts in this manner to me, sorry I was bought up not to let someone talk in an ill manner towards me or my best friends, especially when its unwarranted. I am sorry if that offends you.. As far as the hatchet being buried, we had no ill will towards Tate, we made a decision we weren't going to sell to him after this transaction. Thats it, plain and simple. BTW we have sold almost 700 cues over the internet and not ONE has comeback due to an error in the listing, or it not being what we said.

Joe

Fred Agnir
08-20-2005, 04:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cane:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>
...there were many things that happened in this story, and I don't recall you were standing there. And I assume you weren't at the court hearings, either. Everything you're speculating is 3rd or 4th party, from someone who is having a current issue with one of the parties. Right or wrong, that makes his side biased.
<hr /></blockquote>

Let's see... Who said that? I believe it was in response to an opinion on this situation by someone who was apparently in a quandry as to why someone who WAS NOT THERE and had only received information from ONE OF THE PARTIES should even be involved in discussion of the thread.
<hr /></blockquote>I'm sorry you don't see the obvious difference, Bob. I didn't ask for this to come out. Chris pushed it twice, and forced Mark to respond. I didn't make one accusatory remark to Chris. I asked questions, to which he answered. And he answered in what I see as proper. So, again, I'm sorry you somehow don't find the difference. A man's business reputation is getting insulted on the internet, and both sides of the story should be heard.

I accused nobody of anything. I responded to a thread posted by one of the parties here, on this board. I wasn't rumor mongering, as others have done.

Fred

Fred Agnir
08-20-2005, 04:23 AM
Obviously, I'm going to love this post because it echos what I'm thinking. Trying to look at both transactions from a business and third party view (not 5th via internet)only, the rumors aside, etc. I've shared my feelings with that in mind.

Fred

Ralph S.
08-20-2005, 10:25 AM
As far as word of mouth advertising, it works great until someone slanders your business and then you are backed into a corner and have to respond to false allegations. I guess the thing to do would have been let him slander us with no response, right Ralph?


<font color="red">Actually, I do agree that you have a right to defend yourself/repuatation. However, being in business, I don't think the namecalling and mudslinging going on in this thread is going to help your business. Many people are most apt to remember bad experiences or turmoils that a business sometimes endures. Much like this one. Both parties have hurled insults and done some name calling in this post. I just beleive that whoever had handled themselves with a bit better diplomacy would come out looking more credible. That is what I was referring to in the word of mouth advertising phrase I posted. </font color>

Cane
08-20-2005, 06:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> I accused nobody of anything. I responded to a thread posted by one of the parties here, on this board. I wasn't rumor mongering, as others have done.

Fred <hr /></blockquote>

Fred, My apologies... didn't take my valium that day I don't guess. Threatened to run down an old lady in the Wal Mart Parking lot, even... I understand your intentions. I just thought the whole thing was getting out of hand with so many 3rd, 4th, 5th party comments that I jumped on you.... Again, my apologies.

Later,
Bob

Gayle in MD
08-21-2005, 11:30 AM
Hi,
I don't know why you are investigating IP numbers, or why you are dragging my name into all this BS about stolen cues, but I assure you, I am far too computer illiterate to pull off any kind of computer hoax.

It may interest you to check Fred's posts in this very thread, where two of his posts have different IP numbers, although they were made within minutes of one another.

This thread is too convoluted for me to even figure out by whom, and for what offense I am being accused, LOL.

I don't even know this Steven guy....and wasn't even in Maryland on the date on which he made his post,... I was in Long Beach, North Carolina, minding my own business, sitting in a sand chair, fishing!

People who post on the internet, should not post personal information which has been confided in them by their friends. That's all I have to say about this, other than, if I am being accused of something, I should get an apology from whomever has made the accusation....

/ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Gayle in Md.

Fred Agnir
08-22-2005, 05:13 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> It may interest you to check Fred's posts in this very thread, where two of his posts have different IP numbers, although they were made within minutes of one another.
<hr /></blockquote>
It's my split personalities.

Fred &lt;~~~ wondering how I did that

Candyman
08-22-2005, 09:24 AM
I don't even know this Steven guy....and wasn't even in Maryland on the date on which he made his post,... I was in Long Beach, North Carolina, minding my own business, sitting in a sand chair, fishing!
================================================== ==========
You've been busted Gayle! There is no Long Beach in North Carolina. Word has it, there was a Gayle sighting on Oak Island. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Gayle in MD
08-22-2005, 03:21 PM
AH HA HA HA HA! You are quite right, my friend, they have dropped "Long Beach" and lumped it in with Oak Island. I have been going there for so many years, though, I'll never stop calling it Long Beach. Check your PM's.

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
08-22-2005, 03:33 PM
LOL, Fred, who is it on here that uses the by-line, "Computers are the work of the devil????

Take care Fred,
Gayle in Md.

Jimmy B
08-23-2005, 09:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote joevan:</font><hr> Well you know what, you bring a pit bull to a poodle show and this is what you get.


Joe <hr /></blockquote>

Sad part is Joe I think you believe this.

JB

steffi
08-31-2005, 06:21 AM
I'm curious but does Ernie put a serial number on every cue he makes?

I've seen serial numbers of some of the fancy ivory ebony cues so did this cue not have any serial # or the alleged owner couldn't produce proof of purchase with serial #?

Rich R.
08-31-2005, 06:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote steffi:</font><hr> I'm curious but does Ernie put a serial number on every cue he makes?

I've seen serial numbers of some of the fancy ivory ebony cues so did this cue not have any serial # or the alleged owner couldn't produce proof of purchase with serial #?
<hr /></blockquote>
Most custom cues do not have any serial numbers on them, however, I think some means of identification may become more comon in the future.

Jimmy B
09-05-2005, 05:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote steffi:</font><hr> I'm curious but does Ernie put a serial number on every cue he makes?

I've seen serial numbers of some of the fancy ivory ebony cues so did this cue not have any serial # or the alleged owner couldn't produce proof of purchase with serial #?
<hr /></blockquote>

Ernie now puts numbers on his cues, but I don't get your point as to how it would help. I don't believe the cue was ever questioned, but knowing who bought it originally will not help 10-20 years down the road. I mean by then it could be sold,lost traded or even stolen 10x. There is no system in place to track the movement on cues at this time, but many makers can name the original buyers.

JB

theinel
09-06-2005, 12:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jimmy B:</font><hr>Ernie now puts numbers on his cues, but I don't get your point as to how it would help. I don't believe the cue was ever questioned, but knowing who bought it originally will not help 10-20 years down the road. I mean by then it could be sold,lost traded or even stolen 10x. There is no system in place to track the movement on cues at this time, but many makers can name the original buyers.

JB <hr /></blockquote>
Interesting point about serial numbers not being a definitive answer but they can't hurt. As far as a system goes, if all cues had serial numbers and all dealers and collectors recorded them in all transactions (and they were included in police reports when cues were stolen) then they would definitely prevent this type of situation from happening and would probably cut down on thefts as most thieves would realize that stealing the cue wasn't very worthwhile to them. Serials numbers will never be LoJack but they should have been utilized a long time ago.