Elegantly_Wasted

Thanks Chris. Last night I took the club into a local retailer and after examining it they determined that it was a counterfeit. I emailed the seller and told him/her that I wanted my money back immediately and that I knew the club was a counterfeit. They responded within minutes by refunding my account - no questions asked. I'm taking that as an admission of guilt. Bottom line: buyer beware and make sure you receive complete photos of any item you purcahse on eBay. At least that was the take home message for me.

I should also add that the torque listed on TaylorMade Japan's site for a stiff flex shaft is 3.8 but this shaft says 4.0 and I can't tell if the shaft is supposed to be 56g for the Japanese version or the same 65g as the North American version (the shaft says 56).

I recently purchased a TM R7 425 on eBay from a Canadian seller (I'm in Canada as well). It wasn't advertised as being a Japanese club, and when it showed up today I almost lost it because there were obvious differences between this club and what I was familiar with so I immediately thought it was a knockoff. After a little bit of research I think it may be from Japan but I'm still a little concerned. It may be paranoia but I'd really appreciate some feedback. I've attached some pics showing some of the questionable things on the club/shaft and would appreciate any feedback from people who are familiar with the Japanese version of the club. I should add that the club does have a serial number engraved on the hosel and a TM customer service rep in the US said that while he can't verify a non-US serial number it was likely legitimate based on the sequence of the serial number and the fact that it is even there (according to him most knock-offs don't have any attempted serial number on them). Firstly, the movable weights seem to protrude further than I think they should when fully tightened. Secondly, the painted loft on the head seems to lack precision Thirdly the paint of the shaft is somewhat blistered and/or imperfect And finally, the stock grip on this shaft is not the same one pictured on the TaylorMade Japan site for this RE*AX Plus shaft

Yeah, here's the article to which I was referring: http://www.pga.com/news/equipment/otherequ...mbers042304.cfm Except that I stand corrected - they had lost ~ $20 million per year until the first quarter of 2004.

Before Callaway's Canadian headquarters left Victoria a couple of months ago a good friend of mine had worked for them for the past several years as the head of sales amongst other positions during his tenure. If I recall correctly, he told me that since Callaway's construction of the their ball manufacturing facility they've annually lost roughly $12 million on balls alone. I believe this information was also posted somewhere on PGA.com's Equipment News several months ago.

I should add that I'm looking for a 350g head as opposed to a cut down 330 or 340g head. But if all I can find are 330 and 340g heads with tungsten powder in the shaft then I'll obviously consider them.

Like the title says: looking to buy a SC SD 2.5 RH with head cover and pivot tool. Prefer something shorter than 35" And I reside in Canada, so potential sellers should be willing to ship to Canada.

I've blown all my grips on my clubs and those on my father's hooks and haven't had any problems. Nothing has ever loosened up or twisted. It's very fast and the huge benefit is being able to pop them off if need be without any difficulty. For instance, my sand wedge felt a little thin in the grip (small shaft diameter after being cut down) so I was able to just pop it off, add some build up tape, and use the same grip in less than 2 minutes without any mess. The other day I reshafted my putter with a Winn grip without too much difficulty as well. Just yesterday I decided to cut it down an inch and I was able to blow it off. It took some work to get it off due to the 3 wraps of build up tape I had under the grip but with some patience I eventually got it off. I was then able to blow it back on and didn't have to mangle it in the process.

Thanks for all the feedback guys. I searched online for several hours yesterday (literally) and finally found the only viable option based on my crappy clubmaker's abilities - a True Temper X-90 at 41" will fit the shaft head perfectly and is light weight (compared to the 135g DG S400 in the head now). The higher ball flight should be ok, and I can always control it by either playing it back in my stance or teed lower if hitting off the tee. I just didn't want to go with a TX-Tour and find that the ball flight was too low. The upside is that they're super cheap shafts so the experiment with ordering one from Golf Supply of America isn't going hurt if it turns out to be a lemon.

The 0.350 IROD is a special order from Golfsmith - 4-6 WEEKS turn around time. I even asked this guy if he'd put a 0.355/0.350 parallel tip shaft in the head and he said he wouldn't. So apparently I'm SOL unless I ship the club off to a clubmaker to reshaft. Boyce, I'm in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. It's really odd that there's such a shortage of clubmakers considering we have the most moderate climate in Canada and have over 20 courses in this city.

Thanks boyce, The major problem I'm running into is that there's only one clubmaker in this city (if you can call him that). He doesn't want to shim a 0.335 shaft because it's "sketchy." I went in and spoke with him today - he'll only install a 0.355 tapered shaft in the head and won't bend the lie. So I now have next to zero options for shafts. It's really frustrating.

Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm still at odds with this decision because a lot of the information I'm getting is diametrically different. On BSG it was suggested that I just go ahead and reshaft at 42" and worry about matching up the swing weight and lie after I've found a good fit in static shaft weight. However, another member told me not to reshaft longer than 41" or bend the hosel more than 1.5* or else I'll crack the hosel (based on his experience with a cracked RM hosel). So I'm still in limbo.

Jeff Jackson of Mitchell Golf in this article: (http://www.equip2golf.com/clubmaking/clubmaking_frameset.html?jackson_articles/swingweight.html~clubmaking) said that flattening the lie 3* increased SW 1 point (it makes sense intuitively to me because flattening the lie would move the center of mass further away from 14" pivot point thereby increasing the torque - which is essentially what SW is a measure of). I had also thought of back weighting to offset any increase in SW but was told that all it would do is fool the scale and not have a noticeable impact on actual play. I don't have any experience with clubmaking so I couldn't disagree. I've seen the inserts you've mentioned, but don't know much about them. Would they work with my Golf Pride Tour Velvet grips or do they also require a particular grip?

I want to reshaft my 14* RM TP to play at 42" with a graphite shaft. However several people have expressed concerns over the drastic change in swing weight I'll get. The steel model I have is D2 at 40.2" with a TT S400 shaft weighing 132g according to TM. So let me see if I understand this whole swing weight change. . . If I swapped the TT shaft to a UST IROD Fairway which weighs 73g at an uncut 44" I'd be looking at the following changes: Using shaft that's 1.8" longer --> +10.8SW Difference in uncut shaft weights (132g - 73g = 59g) --> -6.5SW Flatten Lie ~ 3* to account for lengthened shaft --> +1SW Total SW change --> 10.8 + 1 - 6.5 = +5.3SW so club will play at D7.3 (~D7) (I'd also have to shim the shaft so I suppose that will increase the SW a bit as well) So here's what I don't get - If I want this club to "feel" the same (D2) but play flatter and longer I need to go with an even lighter shaft right (less than 73g)? But the actual gram weight of this club will have to drastically decrease in order to maintain the same swing weight. So which is the more important weight to chase - swing weight or avoiding a huge change in gram weight?

I'm also interested in the VP 90 and would like to know how it was trimmed.