John Parris Cues

[poolqjunkie]

The simple matter of the fact is, John Parris cues are not what they used to be, or at least the majority of Parris cues being made today.

Whilst my opinion is not one based on decades of cue making, I feel logic here would be that if John Parris cues are built on the reputation that John Parris makes exquisite cues, what can be said if it’s a John Parris cue not made by John himself?

I work in advertising and can see how well John has marketed himself off the back of extremely hard work and knowledge in cue making. Fair enough that he has decided to reap the benefits of this and churn out cues with his label on it but if you’ve built a reputation as THE finest in the business, then it’s up to you to keep up that hard work and quality of product. If not, then you will simply lose that reputation over time.

I’ve owned two Parris cues and I’ve got to say that based on those ….there is no way I would go back to a Parris cue. I doubt I’m the only one that feels this way.

It’s as simple as this, if you bought a Picasso, a Monet or a da Vinci painting, how would you feel if you found out that it was actually one of his many understudies that worked on it?

A lot of cue makers have helps in their workshops. Also, some parts might be purchased premade. But as long as the end product is of top quality, I do not see any problem with that.
To compare a cue maker to a very famous artist in terms of value is not fair. The values of the two for one thing is not even close. Also, a cue is built to be used to play with, and they are all basically constructed more or less in the same way. An art piece such as a painting is not to be used in any way but to be admired, so there is not a question of playability. The styles of artists really varies, much more so than cue makers.
A cue is judged by its craftsmanship and its playability; a painting is judged by its collectibility.
It would be more realistic to compare a cue maker's work to that of a carbinet / furniture maker. Most furniture makers have helpers, may be also lots of advanced machinery and equipments to increase the effeciency of the production. This does not bother me, as long as the resulting good is outstanding.
A lot of customers complain about a long waiting period, and the price. But then they want the cue maker to do everything on his own. Why? Does that make the cue better in terms of playability or workmanship because it was done by one person? There is no reason why it would or should. To have different people doing different things can help to speed up the process and to free up more time for the cue maker to create and to improve.
If a cue maker's standard declines, it is not because he has others helping him; but because of his failure in training, to manage his team and to control the quality of work.

[honleung80]

You are absolutely right about quality of end product. I do not doubt that some Parris cues made today are of superb quality but i simply question why it is now very much 'Hit and Miss' compared to yesteryears. It seems that this is very much the general consensus these days.
For me it is simply because John Parris is making far less of his cues than he used to. It is no coincidence that the majority of people I know that support Parris are those that have his cues of atleast 8 years ago whereas those that have purchased a Parris within the last 2-3 years are very much hit and miss.
If the quality of a product is based on the craftsmanship of an individual, surely logic suggests that the quality will diminish if he himself is making fewer of them.
Regarding art, for me it is simply 'something to be admired' or a skill in a particular craft. For exmaple my first Puma Kings WERE a work of art....it's playablity' was also renowned. At the same time I'm not saying the likes of Mike Wooldridge or Trevor White should be compared to a Monet but if their craftsmanship is of the highest quality then too should be considered as artists in their own field.

A lot of cue makers have helps in their workshops. Also, some parts might be purchased premade. But as long as the end product is of top quality, I do not see any problem with that.
To compare a cue maker to a very famous artist in terms of value is not fair. The values of the two for one thing is not even close. Also, a cue is built to be used to play with, and they are all basically constructed more or less in the same way. An art piece such as a painting is not to be used in any way but to be admired, so there is not a question of playability. The styles of artists really varies, much more so than cue makers.
A cue is judged by its craftsmanship and its playability; a painting is judged by its collectibility.
It would be more realistic to compare a cue maker's work to that of a carbinet / furniture maker. Most furniture makers have helpers, may be also lots of advanced machinery and equipments to increase the effeciency of the production. This does not bother me, as long as the resulting good is outstanding.
A lot of customers complain about a long waiting period, and the price. But then they want the cue maker to do everything on his own. Why? Does that make the cue better in terms of playability or workmanship because it was done by one person? There is no reason why it would or should. To have different people doing different things can help to speed up the process and to free up more time for the cue maker to create and to improve.
If a cue maker's standard declines, it is not because he has others helping him; but because of his failure in training, to manage his team and to control the quality of work.

[platt]

This topic of JP cues is running short of things to say so this is my last entry. Like any business that flourishs it comes down to cost and over heads, John has build a name as Keith said on the pros that used him (DAVIS). As the years turned and the boom of the 80s and 90s started JP stepped up and met the demand and as a result his cues are wanted all over the world. Now he has a factory or large work shop with more cuemakers to meet the orders and like most things thats starts of a one man show the standard dose drop when products are mass produced.
So are the Parris cues as good as the older one ? are you getting value for money ?
Any player paying large amount of money for a cue must know what they are looking for.
JP is simply supplying cues on demand and if people are happy to pay for his cues and not have a major input into what there looking for they deserve what they get.
Any of the smaller cuemaker i've used are more than helpful to get you the right finish you are looking for. So i say good luck to JP from a business point of view he is a very clever man and when you get himself to have an input to a cue you get what you asked for.

[keith auld]

Quiet honestly I don't think you can beat O'Min, Master or the others coming out of Thailand, great quality, great finish and great quality of ash complete with small extension, telescopic extension and an aluminium case. Under those circumstances if I was in John's shoes I'd get them to make for me, get rid of the staff and overheads and put my name on the cue. However I'm not in John's shoes and don't have his orderbook and really wouldn't want it, as a businessman I can see his dilemma, he can't win whichever way he goes, because there's always a terrier (UK cuemaker) on his tail ready to chew him, so maybe accept it and say on a bulk order business go with a consistant quality and value, go Thai ! However,the most discerning of people, the Chinese market are buying from all over the world including Thailand, they are sending me cues from both UK cuemakers and Thai cuemakers asking me to run a taper on the cues that they have already bought and received. I sent an email to my Chinese distributor today saying that ' I've completed the retapers to the specs you asked for, and they the tapers are now actually exactly like my own cues that I'm sending out to you from your order , and do you want me to also re-do the taper on --------- so that it will also run true'. This is where the difference lies between the two makers and cultures and as I said in an earlier on another thread, UK cuemakers really have to sort out there own acts, if you're trying to compete on the bulk market, then you've got to have a lot of money to invest and expect little return, the best way is to stay small, reduce your costs and overheads, and offer a personal service and remain small however tempting it may be to join the big boys!!!!!!!!!!