have to own a cue to qualify to comment?

[poolqjunkie]

I would like to start a new thread discussing the topic of

1. whether a person needs to have own and touch a certain cue in order to judge it in terms of workmanship.

2. Also, if a person has owned a cue by a certain cue maker, does that make his comment on this cuemaker's workmanship automatically more credible than someone who doesn't?

With regard to 1. I think in order to judge a cue's playability, yes, one would have to tried the cue; but to judge workmanship, especially on the lack of such, looking at pictures could be sufficient in the eyes of those who know what to look for.

For example, if I see a picture of a cue with very uneven splice, I don't see why I would not be qualified to comment that the cue maker's splicing technique is not perfect. It is not necessary for me to have the cue right in front of me to realize that.

If I look at the picture of a cue and the ferrule is not even symmetically fitted, I dont see why I am not qualified to comment on the poor ferrule job. i simply do not need to have the cue in my hands to see that it is a poor job.

With regard to 2. I would say it depends on the knowledge and experience of the owner of the cue.

Some people have had very little knowledge or experience with cues. They could be holding a cue with major flaws and not know it. I have seen people holding cues with poor joint/finish/taper/tip job that have no idea they were poorly done.

Some first time owner of cues simply do not know what to look for. As they gathered more info and experience, they opinion on their cues change. They start to know what they want, and would become more decerning. A lot of them will move up and order more expensive cue and sell the cue they once thought was perfect.

Therefore, if a person does not have the experience and knowledge, even when he has the cue in his hand, he still may not be able to make a fair accessment on the workmanship of the cue. His opinion should not carry more weight than that from someone more experienced and knowledgable who do not have the cue physically but have access to many pictures of the cue.

In conclusion, I would say it is not necessarily true that a person needs to have the cue in his procession or have even seen the cue live to make a qualified comment--it depends more on how much experience and knowledge the person has rather than if he owns the cue; comment from someone who does not own the cue is not necessarily less creditable than from someone who owns it.

Do you agree? Please discuss.

[burwatchampion]

God man your really ****ed off at that mod! lol

Yes i would agree but just because the cover looks crap dosent mean the book is no good
If you know what i mean

[totlxtc]

Here you go PJ...

[Mellow Yellow]

blah blah blah!

sore fingers?????????????

i aint bothered to read that epic but i understand someone has spoken their mind to poo-junkie?.............. how very dare they?

but in answer to your question............

is a ferrari a good car? i say yes, i would love one!

have i ever driven one? of course not!

i can say it is good on word of mouth (or word of type ;-)) but am i qualified to pit it up against a morgan or other such cars made by the smaller companies - certainly not!

some people are turning this forum into bitchy banter at every chance (me included) and to be honest i'm getting sick of it.

[poolqjunkie]

Here you go PJ...

Thanks buddy, now I feel much better.
Anymore?

[noel]

Here you go PJ...

Look at those blue things!
I didn't know you have to screw them in!
Where?




Noel

[totlxtc]

Thanks buddy, now I feel much better.
Anymore?

Try this...should be no worries for about 16-20 hours....Good for horses too

[poolqjunkie]

Very funny.

Actually, joking aside I was really hoping to have a serious discussion on this topic.

[poolqjunkie]

Very often, we will see members posting pictures of their beloved cues, and others will look at those pictures, and comment how nice they felt the cues were. I have never once heard anyone telling these people they were not qualified to make such comment because they did not actually own the cue. So, obviously, it is acceptable to comment on a cue based on pictures.

If one is allowed to say how nice a cue is based on some pictures, should one be allowed to say how poor a cue is based on what are shown in the pictures as well?

I agree that one should not judge the content of a book based on its cover, but can't one judge the cover when the cover shown is very poorly and unprofessionally binded and prepared?

Besides, is it possible that a person in the book business could probably spot more flaws on a poorly made book cover from pictures than someone holding that actual book who has no clue about books?

[Watford]

We'll there is a difference between someone showing a pic of there cue an people saying that's nice and criticising a cue from a pic.
If someone showed you a picture of there child you would never say "you should have called him Quasimodo would you?"

You are on shaky territory if you make comment on something you haven't had in your hand but that doesn't mean you can never have an opinion.
It's also similar that if you've seen one cue from a maker you can't make comment on them all.
You just need to be clear on what you are basing the statements on I think.

[ADR147]

i think to have your opinion taken seriously you need to have seen the cue but for some of us a picture tells a pretty good story.

[poolqjunkie]

If I have seen several pictures of say a cue with horrible splicings, am I allowed to comment on that particular cue, on that particular job shown in the pictures, is what I am talking about. So, Can I say, "this is a very poor splicing job."

I am not talking about saying all the guy's cues are junk because I have seen some pictures of his cues; I am not saying all his splicings are horrible; I am not even saying anything about anything but the splicings. Is that acceptable?

Morever, how about if a guy says, "I have put a secret ingredient on my cue so you will never miss a shot again." Do I need to have actually tried this cue to know that this is a false and ridiculous claim? Am I allowed to express my opinion as such? In other words, could I base on my common sense and knowledge to express my opinion on the validity or the lack thereof of a claim from a certain cue maker without owning his cue?

My other point is that having a cue in one's cue does not necessarily make one's comment more credible because it really depends on whether the person holding the cue knows what he is looking for, and what he is talking about. A first time cue owner may think he has the best cue in the world when he buys a Peradon with painted black splices--he will not be able to see major flaws that a pair of trained eyes can see miles away or even from a good picture. So, although he has a cue in his cue, will you take his comment seriously when he said a 50 pounds peredon features top notch workmanship?

[ADR147]

yes i guess there needs to be a degree of common sense applied.

[noel]

A picture is a picture is a picture.*



A cue is an instrument - a creative tool.


=o)

Noel

* apologies to Gertrude (Rose) Stein

[poolqjunkie]

yes i guess there needs to be a degree of common sense applied.

You know, ADR147. I remember when I first came to this forum, I had very little knowledge on snooker cues, and I was very interested in the Accuerate cue.

I was this close to ordering one, but I thought I should check some feedback first.

I am so very glad that I have heard from you and several others that this cue is not as it claimed. Several of the comment were from people who judged the cue solely from reading the patent info, and make their conclusion based on simple physics and common sense. You I know have had the cue and did not like it, but not everyone who made the comment had actually tried the cue.

What made me decide not to buy that cue was not the fact that you had the cue and did not like it--if you do not like the hit, it could be purely subjective--some like a cue stiff and some like it whippy--but because of the logical points you and others who have a lot of knowledge on cues have brought forth that have convinced me. And the fact that when I read the reply of the maker I felt that he was not the kind of guy who respects his customers, nor welcome suggestions.

Now mind you this issue with accuerate is a bit different because it is about the performance, which should really require a person to have tried the cue, and my issue is purely on workmanship or visual cosmetic blemishes, which could be seen clearly on pictures.

Interestingly, I have, since your review, seen lots of members here who have not tried the accuerate or have the accuerate in their physical procession told others that this cue is not as it claims--based on you and others' evaluation. I did not see the mod jump in to accuse them for making " unqualified " comment without having the cues in their hands.

I suppose the members trust the professional evaluation of you and others enough that they feel they should not waste their money or time. So, this once again shows me that it is possible to make an acceptable and credible comment without having held the cue in one's hand.

If such comment is acceptable when it comes to performance claim of a cue which really should require a hand on trial, how could it be considered "unqualified" when it is only about visual cosmetic issues?

This also shows me what i original stated, that the validity of a comment depends more on the knowledge and experience in the eyes of those who made the comment. In the case of Accuerate, it was your knowledge and that of those others who made the comment that have convinced me. The fact that you have tried the cue and not liked it was secondary.

So, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, for willing to speak out your honest opinion about the accuerate, so I will not make the mistake of wasting my money.