Thinking about going with clones

[Shambles]

Shambles,

 

That was what I was trying to say a few posts ago, however, you said it a lot better than I.

 

My apologies MattF.

 

I actually saw your post the first time and just read it again. It was something |I had initially planned on responding to but a bit more thought made me realize my response would be rather long and a bit convoluted with a suspicious lack of verifiable proof so I decided it would be better left unsaid. My reply would have been way too subject to spirited disagreement. In any case, it didn't really have a place because it was a tangent and not on topic.

 

BTW, ever notice how swing instructions are endlessly repeated in different words ? It's the kind of thing that makes finding the new ideas in golf club design so difficult. For a long time playing pros were filing down the leading edge of their irons before manufacturers finally began producing them with rounded leading edges as a standard feature. You would expect someone to have gotten credit for such a great feature but I've never been able to find any mention or even hint of a name.

 

 

Shambles

[Kanoito]

Ok. I guess the problem have with that is that if I were capable of designing and producing a cheaper, higher quality club that outperformed oem clubs I don't think my first thought would be "hey, lets call these "taylor fit braisers" and make them look as close as we can to someone else's product!"

 

They don't have to outperform. They could be the same head and shaft combo and perform just like an OEM.

But a clone company might not have all the resources to market their own brand, so it's easier to jump on TM's back and say "hey! if you like TM's R9, play our T9! same performance, 1/4 the price"

 

Look at SCOR (obviously they are not a clone company). They have clubs that outperform any big name out there. But what's their market share?

[ZenGolfer]

I was at a friend's driving range and a guy had Pinemeadow wedges & I went over & introduced myself and asked if I could hit em.

 

He said sure, if he could hit mine, which struck me as kinda strange since my bag was down in the grass part of the range and he had no idea what I hit. But what the hell, he answered so naturally, I figured he deserved to hit the best, though it was gonna be off the grass..lol

 

Anyway, I hit his 52* & 60* wedges. They felt fine. A little lite & "hollow," if there is such a description, though they really felt no different than a lot of the other cast wedges that I've hit. And I hit 25 balls apiece.

It seems like a solid wedge. Felt fine. I could play em if I had to, though for my game, they would not be my wedge of choice.

 

He said that this was his second set. First set lasted 3 seasons & he said that the only worn piece was the grip, which obviously could've been replaced. He said that he was a GHIN 25 which made sense cuz the least worn area was center face and the grooves as a whole..lol

 

BTW, he did hit mine, said that they "nice, but not worth almost three times mine." And ya know what, he was right. For the right player(him), these clubs are fine.

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever

Well said, R.P.

[ZenGolfer]

And if everyone above the age of 8years would stop using the "but (dad), everyone is doing it", the world would be a much better place.

My point was that everyone copies everyone else. Is it any less copying if TM or Scotty Cameron make an Anser style putter than if Pinemeadow does?

Do you think that all of the OEMs dont buy each others' new clubs, disect them and steal whatever technology or designs they like, change them just slightly and call it their own?

I work in the auto industry and I can tell you that each and every automaker does it, so Id be highly surprised if it isnt the same in the golf industry.

[xxio]

Again I'm not talking about performance alone because every club (clone, OEM, component) will probably perform differently for anyone.

 

I'm talking about a specific clone vs the OEM model it is copying.

 

Let us examine a Pinemeadow product.

 

The R7CGB max has ICT, we all know that almost any modern driver has some sort of variable face technology. It has been proven to increases forgiveness=ball speeds across the face.

 

The Pinemeadows version has no mention of any face tech. Does it have it? We don't know. Will that mean the Pinemeadow clone will not work? Of Course not, the 983K I used to have did not have it but I hit that driver pretty good.

 

However I would rather ante up the extra $40 dollars for that additional proven technology.

[Shambles]

My point was that everyone copies everyone else. Is it any less copying if TM or Scotty Cameron make an Anser style putter than if Pinemeadow does?

Do you think that all of the OEMs dont buy each others' new clubs, disect them and steal whatever technology or designs they like, change them just slightly and call it their own?

I work in the auto industry and I can tell you that each and every automaker does it, so Id be highly surprised if it isnt the same in the golf industry.

 

I'll grant that it's a very small canvas in much the same way there are only so many notes on a scale and most cars have four wheels. Frank Thomas appears to be convinced his Frog was copied by the Spider. Utility fairly well dictates design and creativity is relegated to the particular aspect that needs emphasis. Bottom line, differences can become miniscule and it's a matter of the buyer assigning degrees of importance to those miniscule differences and how much he is willing to pay for them. The great new idea is something I have not yet found, but I keep looking.

 

Closest I've found is the Sword, which is a forged blade with a large portion of the flange in Tungsten. It plays like the Eye 2 in many ways but is a lot better at the short game because it's easier to point. Too bad the company closed down.

 

 

Shambles

[ZenGolfer]

I hope that you don't take my post as takin a shot at you or your views on clones, because I agree with a lot of your statements, it's just that I wanted to relate my experience. And if not for this thread, I wouldn't even of thought of Pinemeadow, much less asked this guy to hit his..

 

Hell I bought him a large bucket so that I could hit half of em with his wedges...Lol. Forget $40, I would pay hundreds(I think I have & do already..lol) for the right technology..

 

I could hit components, however I couldn't hit clones because I've found only two other irons that feel like a Mizzy 68(Staff 59s & 62s). Now I understand that there are quite a few Japanese OEMs(Miura, Royal Collection, etc) that make a great muscle back, but I just can't see a clone putting out that kinda iron.

 

However, for a guy like this 25 hdcper I saw at the range, Punemeadow was fine. For a certain type of player, they are the best choice. I would think that if you we're going from "sh*ts & giggles" golf to serious, you really start playing frequently & you want to improve kinda golf, then you're probably gonna move into a better "feeling" club.

 

But I would think, if you're gonna play a SGI iron, why not play a clone, if the weighting & specs are accurate. Because a SGI is an SGI, and how much "feel" is any one gonna have, nomatter who makes it. I mean, a shovel's a shovel.

 

Just one man's opinion.

 

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever

Agree with you 100%. Honestly, when you talk about feel its such a subjective thing that Im not sure its all that important for even a low-capper.

[ZenGolfer]

Again I'm not talking about performance alone because every club (clone, OEM, component) will probably perform differently for anyone.

 

I'm talking about a specific clone vs the OEM model it is copying.

 

Let us examine a Pinemeadow product.

 

The R7CGB max has ICT, we all know that almost any modern driver has some sort of variable face technology. It has been proven to increases forgiveness=ball speeds across the face.

 

The Pinemeadows version has no mention of any face tech. Does it have it? We don't know. Will that mean the Pinemeadow clone will not work? Of Course not, the 983K I used to have did not have it but I hit that driver pretty good.

 

However I would rather ante up the extra $40 dollars for that additional proven technology.

I'll give you that. It would be nice if they went more into detail about exactly what technology they used.

Conversely though, Im not sure that all of that technology makes all that much of a difference that Id fuss over whether or not my new driver has it.

[xxio]

I'll give you that. It would be nice if they went more into detail about exactly what technology they used.

Conversely though, Im not sure that all of that technology makes all that much of a difference that Id fuss over whether or not my new driver has it.

 

 

So you don't think VFT, ICT, etc have an effect on forgiveness/ballspeeds across the face. I hope designers chime in because even the bigger name components use that technology. I noticed it during my initial switch from a 975D to a TM300. Toe hits just carried further.

[xxio]

Feel is subjective. I know some who look for the dense thwack of the Callaway forged composites, some prefer the metallic Cobra sound.

 

Whichever gives them confidence. Again that could be a clone, but it doesn't mean the clone has the same technology as the "similar to" product. Some people may need that added help of technology. Some people like GG may not need it.

 

I struggle with the driver but when I went to the weight forward and low on the face RBZ my driving improved considerably (same shaft). I the technology of that alone is lowering my handicap by a projected 2-3 strokes in about 2 months (currently 9, but based on my last 5 rounds and my current driving I should be a 7 by end of October). I have even started playing the tips again because I am confident I can hit fairways with decent length now.

[Kanoito]

So you don't think VFT, ICT, etc have an effect on forgiveness/ballspeeds across the face. I hope designers chime in because even the bigger name components use that technology. I noticed it during my initial switch from a 975D to a TM300. Toe hits just carried further.

 

True, it could be the way you described

 

OR

 

a clone company not mentioning the technology could simply be trademark related. Can't use ICT explicitly the same way they can't say they are selling TM R7. But stating that they perform like the R7 could imply that the ICT is included.

 

On the other hand, look at us (especially here at MGS), every time a big OEM comes up with a new technology, a new driver that promises 17 more yards, more forgiveness, yada yada... how do we react? Most of us remain skeptical and just agree that is pure marketing bullshit. Like someone else in the forums said, with all these new technologies coming out every year, we should be hitting 400 yards by now.

 

So would it matter if a clone had (or didn't have) the VFT, ICT, ABC, XYZ technology? Hard to say...

[ZenGolfer]

True, it could be the way you described

 

OR

 

a clone company not mentioning the technology could simply be trademark related. Can't use ICT explicitly the same way they can't say they are selling TM R7. But stating that they perform like the R7 could imply that the ICT is included.

 

On the other hand, look at us (especially here at MGS), every time a big OEM comes up with a new technology, a new driver that promises 17 more yards, more forgiveness, yada yada... how do we react? Most of us remain skeptical and just agree that is pure marketing bullshit. Like someone else in the forums said, with all these new technologies coming out every year, we should be hitting 400 yards by now.

 

So would it matter if a clone had (or didn't have) the VFT, ICT, ABC, XYZ technology? Hard to say...

Kind of my thoughts exactly. In the hands of a tour pro where every last year matters those things are a big deal but in the hands of a weekend golfer who never practices and has an over the top swing, mmmmm, Im not so sure that its that big of a deal.

Clubhead size and COR has been maxed out for a while now, so Im not all that convinced that all this new driver tech isnt more than smoke and mirrors and marketing hype.

[ZenGolfer]

So, anyways, as much fun as this has been, heres my thoughts on this issue. In the case of woods, Ive read quite a few comments on Pinemeadow's site complaining about driver heads cracking (several times in some cases). So, IMO its probably better to go OEM with woods, especially drivers.

Also, in the case of putters, based upon comments that complained about poor paint durability and inserts falling out, Im thinking OEM might also be the way to go on putters.

However, unless you are hitting forged irons, Im thinking that clone irons may be just as good as OEM irons. If youre hitting shovels, feel isnt going to be much better with an OEM club over a clone, IMO.

[xxio]

Callaway calls it vft, TM calls it ICT there are many ways to call it. I'm sure if they can come up with Taylor Fit they can come up with Variable Cone Technology, Face Thickness Technology, Etc.

[ZenGolfer]

Callaway calls it vft, TM calls it ICT there are many ways to call it. I'm sure if they can come up with Taylor Fit they can come up with Variable Cone Technology, Face Thickness Technology, Etc.

The thing is though that they would have to get those names copyrighted, which costs money and since it isnt their technology anyways, why bother? It probably makes more sense just to say, "compare to blah blah blah".

[MattF]

My apologies MattF.

 

I actually saw your post the first time and just read it again. It was something |I had initially planned on responding to but a bit more thought made me realize my response would be rather long and a bit convoluted with a suspicious lack of verifiable proof so I decided it would be better left unsaid. My reply would have been way too subject to spirited disagreement. In any case, it didn't really have a place because it was a tangent and not on topic.

 

BTW, ever notice how swing instructions are endlessly repeated in different words ? It's the kind of thing that makes finding the new ideas in golf club design so difficult. For a long time playing pros were filing down the leading edge of their irons before manufacturers finally began producing them with rounded leading edges as a standard feature. You would expect someone to have gotten credit for such a great feature but I've never been able to find any mention or even hint of a name.

 

 

Shambles

 

There's probably as many different explanations as there are people explaining it.

[xxio]

The thing is though that they would have to get those names copyrighted, which costs money and since it isnt their technology anyways, why bother? It probably makes more sense just to say, "compare to blah blah blah".

 

 

No they don't have to have it copyrighted. You only copyright something if you want to protect it from being copied. Why would a company that copies find the need to protect itself from being copied?

 

Again my point is that there is nothing legally wrong their copying, since they toe the legal line. To say however they are just as good or superior is subjective because there is no proof that they carry/use the same technology.

 

However tests by different club companies and tests have shown that a lot of modern technology, VFT/ICT or putting the weight low and in the back improve a club's performance. The OEM's using these technologies are taking advantage of research and devlopment to make the game easier for hacks like me.

 

Is the technology superior or worth it? Those are subjective especially "worth" BUT if did not make an actual difference why would they copy the outside technology="MWT" of the R7CGB max on one of their clones?

[RookieBlue7]

I think I know that picture, if I remember correctly, it was a TM counterfeit.

Yes, if the clones go for a cheaper manufacturing process, that could happen.

But what if they use the same process as the big OEMs and the only thing that makes them cheaper is not using their brand?

 

Lower cost doesn't automatically mean cheaper process, it could just mean no need to pay millions of endorsement deals.

 

R&D costs money as does many manufacturing processes. Clones are cheaper for a reason, they don't have the R&D and don't have some of the internal technology because the margins aren't there to afford it. There's a reason clones come and go and OEM's stick around.

 

The picture referenced was a Taylor Made R9.

[ZenGolfer]

No they don't have to have it copyrighted. You only copyright something if you want to protect it from being copied. Why would a company that copies find the need to protect itself from being copied?

 

Again my point is that there is nothing legally wrong their copying, since they toe the legal line. To say however they are just as good or superior is subjective because there is no proof that they carry/use the same technology.

 

However tests by different club companies and tests have shown that a lot of modern technology, VFT/ICT or putting the weight low and in the back improve a club's performance. The OEM's using these technologies are taking advantage of research and devlopment to make the game easier for hacks like me.

 

Is the technology superior or worth it? Those are subjective especially "worth" BUT if did not make an actual difference why would they copy the outside technology="MWT" of the R7CGB max on one of their clones?

They still have to copyright the NAME of the club.

[ZenGolfer]

R&D costs money as does many manufacturing processes. Clones are cheaper for a reason, they don't have the R&D and don't have some of the internal technology because the margins aren't there to afford it. There's a reason clones come and go and OEM's stick around.

 

The picture referenced was a Taylor Made R9.

You do realize that Pinemeadow has been around since 1985?

[xxio]

They still have to copyright the NAME of the club.

 

 

Don't they have an EXISTING/their own name for the product? The Pinemeadow "R7CGB Max" has a name...Commander BK Driver. The Pinemeadow "TM Burner" is called a Commander Q Ti driver. They are not just called "similar to R7CGB max driver" or "similar to TM Burner" driver. They have actual model names.

 

Did they copyright those?

 

If they did then they were willing to spend money then? If they didn't because they are not scared of a copier being copied then no issue either. Same goes for the technological name.

[BK in TEXAS]

The Pinemeadow "R7CGB Max" has a name...Commander BK Driver.

That has a nice ring to it

[RookieBlue7]

You do realize that Pinemeadow has been around since 1985?

 

That's 1 company, how many others have come and gone in the clone world?

 

Buy whatever you want, it's your money, but I won't buy clones. I like having a warranty, the R&D and the other stuff that goes with buying OEM clubs, such as customer support that knows what a golf ball is and the object of the game as well as knowing their product. Course over 50% of my stuff is off the tour van, and has no warranty, but I like knowing the companies I support stand behind their retail product longer than 30 days(most are 2 years).

[xxio]

That has a nice ring to it

 

 

Better copyright the Top Secret Agent BK driver ......white, forged composite, and mwt....but no need for discretionary internal weighting, CoG placement, and face technology.

[ZenGolfer]

Don't they have an EXISTING/their own name for the product? The Pinemeadow "R7CGB Max" has a name...Commander BK Driver. The Pinemeadow "TM Burner" is called a Commander Q Ti driver. They are not just called "similar to R7CGB max driver" or "similar to TM Burner" driver. They have actual model names.

 

Did they copyright those?

 

If they did then they were willing to spend money then? If they didn't because they are not scared of a copier being copied then no issue either. Same goes for the technological name.

Exactly my point. All that costs money and it could be money that a company like Pinemeadow doesnt have.

[ZenGolfer]

That's 1 company, how many others have come and gone in the clone world?

 

Buy whatever you want, it's your money, but I won't buy clones. I like having a warranty, the R&D and the other stuff that goes with buying OEM clubs, such as customer support that knows what a golf ball is and the object of the game as well as knowing their product. Course over 50% of my stuff is off the tour van, and has no warranty, but I like knowing the companies I support stand behind their retail product longer than 30 days(most are 2 years).

Im not going to lie, if I had access to gear off the tour van Id go that route, no question.

The more I think about clones, the more I think its not the way I want to go. Id rathar buy clubs because I think theyre the best, not because the price is right.

[RookieBlue7]

Im not going to lie, if I had access to gear off the tour van Id go that route, no question.

The more I think about clones, the more I think its not the way I want to go. Id rathar buy clubs because I think theyre the best, not because the price is right.

 

I like finding bargains on slightly used gear in rarely used flex (senior, lite, etc) and reshafting and getting to flex myself. I've found that's the best way to save money when buying retail.

[xxio]

Exactly my point. All that costs money and it could be money that a company like Pinemeadow doesnt have.

 

So did they copyright the names, it is only another step to copyright the technology name. They don't have to patent the technology, that is the expensive and hard to do task.

 

If they didn't copyright the name then you brought up a non issue. Either way no cost to them to come up with a paraphrased name for the technology they copied and put it on their website. Unless it doesn't exist or they don''t want the added cost of 15-20 words on their webpage that already has a couple hundred words expounding on the visibly copied technology like the mwt.

 

You just strenghthened our ( me and Tyk) argument that the clone companies are trying to get the most similar LOOKING product out their in the CHEAPEST way. The end goal of their product is to look similar, performing similar /using the same technology inside is an afterthought at best.

 

Why would they spend the extra money for face technology, plasma welding, etc..... That costs money..."money that Pinemeadow doesn't have".

[xxio]

This has turned into an excellent thread. Great posts.

 

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever

 

 

I do wish however that the clones would indicate their technology.

 

What if I were like GG and did not need internal weighting or since I go thru 2 drivers a year I don't need them to be durable so I don't need things like plasma welding and may prefer a really thin crown instead as a component of cost/manufacturing.

 

It would take a lot of guess work out of buying them. I have nothing against them, it is only counterfeits that I think should be burned.

 

I am happy that GG has found a club he can hit really well regardless of whether it is an OEM or a clone. I just wish there was less guesswork in buying clones, I would probably set up my friends starting out with clones just to reduce their expenses in trying out the game.