Aesthetics

[NiftyNiblick]

Let’s, for a moment, forget about blades and “players’” cavity backs that are almost blades, and concentrate instead on high quality clubs aimed at the mid-handicap recreational player.

If you check out the domestic offerings, you’ll see garish graphics, brightly colored inserts and appliqués, and any number of visual effects that make expensive sporting goods look not terribly unlike children’s toys.

In contrast, check out the Epon AF-701, the Fourteen TC-770, The Honma-Beres MG-703, and the Miura MC-102. Can you see what I’m getting at?

I would be interested to read opinions as to why some of you think this is so.

[gus]

I personally like very clean aesthetics; I'm big into paintfill work so I will personalize my look through creative colors (usually earthy) and grips. However; I DO NOT like flashy badging and toyish looks either; aka. Taylormade.

Edited December 28, 2008 by BigBen

[TBone]

Let’s, for a moment, forget about blades and “players’” cavity backs that are almost blades, and concentrate instead on high quality clubs aimed at the mid-handicap recreational player.

If you check out the domestic offerings, you’ll see garish graphics, brightly colored inserts and appliqués, and any number of visual effects that make expensive sporting goods look not terribly unlike children’s toys.

In contrast, check out the Epon AF-701, the Fourteen TC-770, The Honma-Beres MG-703, and the Miura MC-102. Can you see what I’m getting at?

I would be interested to read opinions as to why some of you think this is so.

Yes, aesthetics do matter, but it is one of many factors I consider when choosing a club. Also, the "garish graphics" are not exclusive to the USDM, there are many examples of JDM equipment that would fit that description.

It is always good to remember that those of us that frequent internet golf forums are a very small percentage of the consumers. I would guess that OEM's spend millions on market research coming up with their ideas for the graphics, colors, etc. I would also guess their decisions are based on ways to distinquish themselves in the marketplace and to highlight their percieved technology differences. I personally like a "clean" look, but I realize I am (like many of you) a very, very small part of the targeted consumer base.

I'm sure I've bypassed many products that "may" have helped my game because of aesthetics. If I have the opportunity to demo a product that is not aesthetically pleasing, I can overlook those aesthetics if the club performs and feels good....the problem is getting me to even try it. This is where the OEM marketing machines need to convince me that there is some sort of a performance gain through their technology.

[Randy]

Aesthetics used to matter a lot to me, but now I can get past looks as long as the club performs. For the most part, most all the "garish" stuff is in the cavity and can't see when swinging the club.

Aloha

Randy

[gus]

Valid point!

[golfbuddy]

A club has to look good to me, both in the bag and in my hands. I use the TS-202 irons which are pretty clean looking to my eye. I just picked up a second set as back up as I do not like the current trend in iron graphics. I dislike badges and things just glued onto the club.

[idrive]

A club has to look good to me, both in the bag and in my hands. I do not like the current trend in iron graphics. I dislike badges and things just glued onto the club.

I couldn't agree more. I'm even to the point that I remove shaft labels...

One of these new UGLY irons could very well be better for my game but I can't get myself to even hit/try one because they are so ugly, they just don't appeal to me.

[xxio]

Look at address is extremely important. The back not so much. Although some of the phrases that they have on some JDM clubs makes me smile :)