General Cue Description-
Circa 1980- This ornate cue was deisnged and built by Bob Meucci for the legendary Minnesota Fats. Meucci cues are typically regarded as production cues, but many are also made by Bob himself. The cue is decorated with opals, rubies and silver filigree, which required hours of hand-work to inlay. The points appear to be Micarta or a similar material. The design is one-of-a-kind and one of the more inspired Meucci originals. Fats used the cue in various exhibitions for about a year and a half during the early 1980s. The cue has sold for $16,000, making it one of the most expensive Meucci’s ever built. Hall of Fame cuemaker made for a Hall of Fame player.
Here’s what the experts think- they are limited to 500 characters!
 |
Dick AbbottBob Meucci is one of the early innovators of cue construction and design that carries on into the 21st century. This thirty year old one of a kind custom made cue, for the legendary Ralph “Minnesota Fats” Wanderone, typifies both Mr. Meucci‘s talent and Fatty’s flamboyance. The result is a perfect match. The handmade silver filigree, accented with rubies and opals, is ahead of its time in cue artisanship. Hall of Fame cuemaker’s cue for a Hall of Fame player, I deem it a great collectible but not quite a monster. |
|
|
Fred AgnirIt’s nice to see some of the fancier work created by Bob Meucci’s own hands. Even in his production cues, Meucci has been ground-breaking yet is often under-rated design-wise. He is probably the most innovative mass production cue maker in the world. On this cue, the filigree work and ruby inlays were pioneering, while the Fats provenance increases the cues overall status. However, artistically, the cue isn’t balanced as there seems to be no connection from the butt sleeve to the handle. Although there are a few Meucci cues that possibly deserve monster status, this one isn’t for me. |
|
|
Deno AndrewsWrapping filigree work adorned with precious and semi-precious stones demonstrates an ‘ability’ to execute a unique design. Disqualifying this cue from M-status include mixing high-end materials with low-end materials, a random and non-cohesive color palette, and point designs that do not connect to the design on the butt. Not checking spelling of Minnesota makes me wonder what else was rushed on the cue. It’s the details that give us insight into the construction of the cue. Monster? not even close. |
|
|
JimBoIMO Bob Meucci along with Richard Black are the top 2 guys when you talk about coming up with innovative designs and sheer volume of unique designs. This for me is not one of Bob’s best yet it is different and elaborate for the time period. This cue is a great piece of pool history and I can relate to Bob’s spelling issues. I don’t believe Fats is a big enough name to pull this one over the top. For me it’s Not a Monster. |
|
|
Jim StadumBob Meucci is in the ICA HOF and deservingly so. I give him a lot of credit for many things he has accomplished in his lengthy career. I can’t help wondering why he didn’t use Ivory especially when making a cue for the legendary Minnesota Fats. The silver filigree that is set in liquid polyurethane looks like it was very time consuming and a real pain to build. Obviously collectable and worth a fair amount of $$, however, with the word Minnesota incorrectly spelled, (I realize there was no spell check in 1980, but there were dictionaries and Rand McNally maps) hardly a monster IMO. In a word….Yawn. |
I was speechless when I first saw this cue! I am not familiar with Bob’s early work, since I did not start playing pool until 1987. During the ’90′s, a lot of the players I encountered swore by their “Moochies”.
Really I have not ever seen a “custom” Meucci before. I have just seen the production-line stuff. that is what is great about this site.
This is one of those cues that I have to remember to evaluate on its merits, not on whether I like the design or not.
I have to agree with Deno on this… it is just too mismatched to be a monster. I love its historical value and the inlay at the bottom is eye-catching. I just think the vision of the artist got lost somewhere in the various materials… Not a monster for me. I would like to see a monster Meucci… for me that would be like spotting Bigfoot! I have heard of them, but never sighted one…
The work in the butt sleeve is interesting, but otherwise this is a very routine cue. Not a monster.
I lived in Memphis and visited Meucci’s late 70s and early 80s location on Getwell BLVD in south east Memphis. Bob had a small shop there with just him and a few laborers. He was always busy working on a special cue. At that time his line consisted of the MO-1 thru MO-8 and I was fortunate enough to afford the MO-7. I also was able to custom order one of his early Road Agent models and still own it.
His Fats custom cue is truly a labor of love and I am sure Bob spent more time than necessary for this cue, but his King James and Rifleman cues are much better IMO. The Fats cue is short of being a MONSTER.
This cue is incoherent. It looks like Bob found a brooch and decided to embalm it in plastic. As Meucci designs go this one is all over the place and not close to his best work.
I’d love to see the original Taj Majal reviewed here.
This cue with it’s misspelling is not only not a Monster it’s a monstrosity because it should NEVER have been allowed out of the shop. It’s an education to all cue makers that if you are going to make a special cue for a special person then you ought to give it the special attention it deserves.
Design is only half the puzzle with execution being the other half. Bob falls short on design here and fails completely on the execution in my opinion.
In the words of Donald Trump when one of the aspiring Aprrentices put the wrong phone number on the brochure for Trump Towers – “You’re Fired!”.
And of course I misspelled Apprentices…
I love it, and the history that goes with it.
However history isnt enough to make it a monster, though it is something I would enjoy owning.
not a monster, but a great cue with fantastic history, I wonder if Fatty ever used it? the wrap looks like its been played with.
best
eric
PS: Great choice for a cue for Cuezilla
meucci “custom for fats”
uuuhhhhh, yyeaeahhh . . . hhhhmmmmm . . . certainly interesting design! : )
this would be an example where original and unique, does not always translate into good design.
very nice that it has the history of use by a legendary player, and would make a nice collectible conversation piece!
but don’t think many conversations will be centered around the topic of good design.
status – mortal design . . . collectible history
Being a novice cue collector of five years I’m starting to wonder what you all consider the elements of a Monster Cue?
I personally think the availability, or a one of a kind should be taken into consideration , as well as the workmanship, and most importantly the history/stories behind the cue. Material is important as well as overall condition. If this cue isn’t a Monster than tell me what is? Or better yet what elements make a cue a Monster.
I’m REALLY not trying to ruffle any feathers but come on. This is definitely a Monster cue! Help educate me so I can become a better cue aficionado.
Prove to me why it isn’t.
Respectfully,
Larry Denney
PS: let the fun start…
Larry,
For me the context of this site has to do with the design and execution of the cue more than the provenance. Provenance can’t make a cue into a Monster cue otherwise every cue Willie Mosconi ever touched would be one. Provenance can make a cue a monster collectible. Such as having the cue that Paul Newman used in the Hustler. Not a Monster Cue but certainly on the list of most desired cues to own due to it’s history.
To me a Monster cue is one where the cue maker takes a bunch of parts that don’t want to be together and successfully puts them all together in a 29″ tapered piece that is functional and does this with a high degree of precision approaching perfection.
I have seen a lot of pretty cues in my life. A lot of them way nicer than this one that did not make monster status because although the designs were nice the execution was subpar.
To me a Monster Cue is one that makes me gasp and think “how did they do that?” If I see it and I think that’s nice, but……then it’s not a monster cue in my eyes.
Larry,
I would love to take a stab since I didn’t have space above to truly get into this cue
1. I appreciate Meucci’s using precious and semi-precious stones, and gold. However, what they are inlaid into is insulting to the materials. My perspective on the use of materials is that they should reflect and compliment each other. This means that if a cuemaker uses gold, fine stones, etc., the other material on the cue should not be cheap plastic or some other synthetic. To me, this was a major strike against it. A Monster cue would have had that design inalaid into ivory, or ebony, or some exotic high-end material. And don’t get me wrong, the design and filigree work on the butt is VERY cool.
2. Color palette- when you look at the best paintings and art in the world, most of them have a cohesive color palette. Colors should compliment each other and there should be a conscious use of color and texture. On this cue, there are white, red, purple, off-white, brown, yellow, gold, etc…and there is no design to it all…just different materials put together with either no thought, or if there was thought, a poor artistic vision.
3. Overall design- a Monster cue would have a cohesive element of design. Please look at the design inside the points. There is barely a single common threat that would connect that design to the one on the butt. To me, it looks like the forearm belongs on a different cue. The design up there in the points should have been more in-tune with the butt design. This would tie the cue together across that long wrap and create a singular piece of art or design.
4. Little Details- Not spelling a state name correctly is just a MAJOR red flag. I have always believed, and have had it proved to me several times, that the little details that we CAN see reflect the construction integrity which we CAN’T always see. There are exceptions to ever rule, but if the state is not spelled correctly, I would not be surprised if the cue was built to sub-standard tolerances and fits to what a Monster cue would be. This cue could be the exception, but we will never know unless it is cut apart. If I were the cue maker, the moment I found out that I spelled anything incorrectly, I would have taken the cue back and fixed it, or built another one.
To sum it up, all this cue really has is a very cool design, inlaid into the wrong material, and attached to what looks to be a very standard Meucci cue. The fact that it belonged to Fats raises it’s appeal as a collectible. However, he didn’t play any of his famous matches with it, nor did he do anything of note while he owned it. Therefore, it doesn’t put it over the top as a collectible. The price has to be ignored because of the use of gold and rubies; they raise the value only because they can be plucked and sold as is.
If you look at Monster cues, some of these strikes above may also be on some of those cues. Every cue has something about it that begins to disqualify it as a Monster. However, it is the sum of the things that disqualify it that make the determination. Let’s say this cue belonged to Mosconi and he won a World Championship with it…then some of the above are overshadowed by that attribute, which could push it to Monster status.
In my eyes, every cue has things that push it up in status, and things that pull it down in status. There is a line where it is a Monster. If above the line, then it’s a Monster. If below, it isn’t. This cue has four or five major things pulling it down, and only 1.5 things pushing it up. In my opinion, the cue is very cool, a fun collectible, unique, and valuable. However, the cue doesn’t come near Monster status IMO.
What’s really cool is that we are beginning to define the difference between Monster and Mortal just by having everyone comment and give their opinions week-to-week. I look forward to where this will go. I appreciate your thoughts and perspective as well.
Best regards,
Deno
A. For the period of time this cue was made, I actually like the originality Bob was striving for.
B. The colors are, well, odd (must agree with Deno) – but I also applaud this because he was going his own way. He wasn’t copying the Szamboti’s, Bushka’s, etc. When other great cuemakers started they copied a successful formula before finding their own voice. Joss copied Ginacue originally. Richard Black copied Bushka’s and Szamboti’s. Bob started off, unique in his cue design/construction.
C. Historical value. This was used by FATS. NO, he didn’t win a championship with it but he single-handedly (thanks to Walter Tevis) brought pool a lot of popularity.
D. Mis-spelling. Meucci sent a cue to Minnessota to use and it was mis-spelled (story of MY life). Well, maybe he figured that since FATS couldn’t read anyhow he would play a little joke on him. Hey, you never know?
To me, I have to vote MONSTER!
Junk.
Highly collectible junk… but junk nonetheless. Hideous, in fact. No matter whose name you misspell on it, a plain-Jane four-point with a plastic points, a plastic butt sleeve, and some mediocre engraving can NEVER be a “monster”. I think monsterdom is about the finished look and feel of a cue – not the value of the materials, not the “playability”, not how old it is, not who owned it… All of those things may give a cue value in the marketplace, but I believe a monster cue has to transcend those considerations and provoke a near-universal “Wow!” from the viewer. This cue fails to do that – on any level.
Bob Meucci accomplished a lot of interesting things in his career, and he may even have produced a monster or two over the decades. I know I – and all the cuemakers or that era – owe him a debt of gratitude for making it possible to eke out a living [in the early to mid 80’s] building custom cues. He did that by producing interesting, artful designs and putting a [relatively] high price on them. So it turned out I could get $700 for a cue that had a lot of work in it, because he was getting that kind of money. Before Meucci hardly anybody would pay more than $200 for a cue, not matter how much work it had in it – for example, in the year that he died (1975) George Balabushka was getting around $175 for his typical cue.
This cue is junk (did I mention that already?) but I do appreciate that it’s being shown here, because a primary goal of this website is obviously to try to define just exactly what a monster cue is – and what it is not. After all, labeling an earthquake as a “6.5 on the Richter Scale” only has significance to average person because there are also 2.0 earthquakes and we can compare the difference. In other words, in order for a scale of measurement to have an upper end (in this case, “MONSTER”) it also must have a lower end… such as this cue.
Given enough time or notoriety, anything can become collectible. Elvis Presley’s underwear is collectible. A broken shard of Indian pottery is collectible. Even fossilized dinosaur sh*t is collectible. However – as this cue clearly illustrates – you can’t polish a coprolite.
Thomas Wayne
There’s not a lot left to say here. Those that have weighed in have pretty much covered the “Monster” status of this cue. I do believe that to have the “WOW” factor a cue has to stand the test of time; regardless of when it was made there still should be a very positive appeal today.
Saying that one cuemaker copied another is subject to a great deal of debate. There was little documentation done 30 – 40 years ago so it is not always apparent who came forth with a particular cue design first and then who was given credit for originating it. Those makers that had a greater following often saw a design by a lesser known maker and when more people saw it from the more popular maker they thought it was his origination. Back when I started making cues (around the time those coprolites were being formed) the collar ring design was pretty much sacred to a maker. You didn’t step on another maker’s collar ring because that was his logo. We used to be able to identify a cue maker from across the room because of the collar ring.
I believe this may be one of the best weeks yet on this great cue site as it is eliciting discussion on what constitutes “Monster” status. If we’re not careful there may wind up being a yardstick definition with which we can identify.
Keep up the good work!
I’m a big fan of what I call continuity. I like to be able to look at a forearm and, despite the presence of a wrap, still be able to see how it flows effortlessly into the design in the buttsleeve. I like to be able to see the connection. And I’m a BIG fan of points being made of the same material that the buttsleeve is made from. Of course there are exceptions, but this is not one of them.
To me, this cue is just not pretty. Historical, yes. Monster? Definitely not. The buttsleeve and forearm might as well have been pieces to two completely different cues. There is no connection between the two. And the fact that the name of the individual it was made for was spelled incorrectly, well… call it taking my work home with me, but that’s just not a good thing. At all.
Other than that. much of what Deno said in his 2nd post pretty much sums this cue up. No monster. Not even close.
To me, this cue is ho-hum not uh-ah…… There is no doubt that Bob Meucci has been an influence in pool for many years. Some of his ideas have been interesting, but this cue is not. The material are mismatched at best and the decoration is more appliqué than inlay. There isn’t a need to discuss monster status for this one.
i had hoped for more. Bob Meucci no longer worked for me in 1980 but he was still using occasional blanks from Burt Spain and had done some good clean work. this is not one of them as the sloppy point work attests. this was from the time when clear plastic butt sleeves with something underneath them was considered cool but no part of this cue goes with any other part. four or five mediocore parts mis-assembled. who nominated this as a potential monster?
dicksan
Deno you and the other member (Experts) have done a great job with this site. I agree with Richard Black, Thomas Wayne and John Bender on this particular Meucci cue. In my opinion the cue made for Jimmy Rempe with the Elephants wrapped around the cue and sold many years ago is a much better candidate than this cue to showcase Bob Meucci’s work. This cue is a great collectable and an excellent cue to discuss in depth what is not a monster cue.
I am a Cue Collector and have been for many years, what I would like to see is a book written that helps to define cue makers and create a written method of recognition for this Industry. In our society we have our PHDs, Masters, Bachelors Degree etc. in order to grow this wonderful art of collecting and cue building we need better written data and methods of describing what it takes to achieve certain accreditation. We all have our reasons for collecting and I’d like to here other peoples views on this topic.
Thanks
Dino, JB, and evryone else,
Great explanation! That’s what I was looking for. I really like cuezilla.com. It’s a great way to get an education on cues. Thanks for all the insight. I appreciate this forum and the feedback you can give as well.
Larry
Ha ha evryone (everyone)…I guess we can all miss a word now and then!
Im not sure I would use this as a plunger handle. After reading the previous posts, I see Im not alone. Great site, I love it here but please…no more eye poison.
I was talking with Deno, the other day, regarding the selection of this cue as a possible Monster, and I think you might all enjoy hearing the reasoning behind this.
If all cues put up here were Monsters, and they probably could do so for quite awhile, then the discussions would quickly become popularity contests and the guy with the most friends would be judged the Best of the Best. That’s not the purpose here. As I understand it the effort is to bring the closet experts out in the open and find out what their “push” buttons are. You are very possibly going to see 75% of the cues listed as “mortals”. – not Monsters. This creates healthy discourse when done on a level that is being exhibited here. Heavens knows I’ve created alot more mortals and submortals than I have Monsters.
I applaud the efforts these guys are putting forth as evidenced by my even signing on here. I would like to see this effort – as well as many things they have in the hopper – follow through to fruition. We can all help by maintaining the high standard of contribution we are seeing here. For a change you have contributors like Paul Drexler, Joel Hercek, Dick Helmstetter, Thomas Wayne, Jim Stadum, etc., etc., etc. You don’t get that when you have “flaming”.
As Larry Denny said above – “Let the fun begin” (I think it already has!)
RB
Steve I think it is very important to continue having cues like the Meucci posted on the site. The cue is a great collectable and Bob Meucci is in my opinion a Hall of Fame cue maker. In order to explain various views on the cues there has to be honesty and perhaps a little more care in written verbiage. This cue stands alone when it comes to collectables and fits many peoples collection well, including my own. Non the less we have to have the mix in cues to spark the interest and keep the site from becoming boring. This is one of the best sites I’ve viewed and is evolving nicely, reading the various posting by the experts along with the rest of the group is insightful. There is a great deal of past knowledge being shared here, never hurts to learn more about this industry. Keep the cues coming!!!!!
I for one (and I’m sure I speak for the others) appreciate the words Jim (and Richard, Thomas, Bill, ….) There are so many wonderful things about this site. For me, I also like the idea of showing and seeing cues that maybe aren’t monsters, but showcase the talents of other cue makers that aren’t typically known for ultra fancy cues. This might not only get them more hits for fancy cues, but also might inspire them to push it to the next level.
For the panel, we’re limited to 500 characters. Honestly, it’s a great challenge in of itself and I wouldn’t ask for it to be changed. It’s not quite like writing a Six Word Novel, but it’s a nice challenge nonetheless. Plus, it opens the doors for more elaborate discussion on the Comment follow-up. Like, “what the hell were you thinking calling this a monster?????”
Fred