Diamana 'ahina "For Titleist"

Currently playing a S+ 72g X-Stiff in my 913F. Just added an 818 H2 to the bag, with a Tensei Pro White 90S. The Tensei is a great shaft, and makes me wonder if I'd do better with the stiffer profile of the 82g 'ahina in my 913F. Not ready to upgrade to the TS line just yet, and I like the feel of the 913 better than either the 915 or 917 (both feel tinny and hollow to me).

Have read a number of posts here that the D+/S+ shafts are NOT the same as the 'ahina or Kai'li. So I go on the bay and see some 82g 'ahina shafts, but they have "designed exclusively for Titleist" on the shaft. Are these the real deal? I've always assumed that "designed for [enter brand name]" is not the same. Are these better than the D+ I see elsewhere?

Thanks in advance for any feedback. Greatly appreciate the expertise I am finding in these forums.

It is my understanding that the "designed for Titleist" versions that are designated at 72, 82, etc. as opposed to 70, 80, etc. are the watered down versions of the real deal 'ahina shafts. They don't have the ultra-premium composition of the aftermarket 'ahina shafts. I was doing some research of my own on this subject and that is what my interpretation is anyways.

That is correct, yes. "Ultra Premium" may be overstating it a bit, but the "Made for Titleist" Diamana shafts of that time period were softer, cheaper, and regarded overall as "inferior" products to the aftermarket versions. The aftermarket Ahina shafts are still fantastic and can be had quite cheaply given that they are several generations old now. https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-DIAMANA-AHINA-80-Stiff-Flex-SHAFT-335-MITSUBISHI-RAYON-AFTERMARKET-ION/333135087637?hash=item4d90660815:g:pc8AAOSw4KVbsrUL@rizz2 is correct in the weight designations as well; 62/72/82g were the cheaper "made for" shafts and 60/70/80 were the premium aftermarket versions. The "+PLUS" series ostensibly began the transition towards increasing the overall quality of the "made for" shaft and integrating it into their core lineup, combined with a premium "TX" flex version that would be considered the higher end, premium material version. It is all a bit hazy though and I plan to at some point attempt a large "History of OEM shafts" sort of thread in an attempt to detail all these nuances with the help of the community.

Eh, I think it is a practical performance vs. actual material value question. From a performance standpoint, I agree. Most people would fit into the OEM versions better. But from a material value standpoint we are looking at a more cheaply produced product that still attempts to bear the name and appearance of the more expensive counterpart, so I don't think referring to that product as "inferior" is elitist. If the marketing is allowed to try what is ostensibly a fairly thinly veiled bait and switch then we the consumer are allowed to call BS IMO.

I agree with Valtiel in that it's deceptive marketing to take a well respected and expensive aftermarket shaft and decontent it as it were for use into a "made for" that looks like the original. Doesn't matter how the shaft performs. If Titleist wanted a shaft that was softer than the original then that's fine, just make one but don't paint it to look like something it's not. Truth is though most customers don't even know what an Ahina is anyway, so original or "made for..." doesn't affect their purchase decision. The GolfWRX types that do know the difference could rebel against the "made for..." version so maybe that's why the practice seems to have left the marketplace?

As an aside, Cobra paint job Rogues can be had very cheaply these days. They are reputed to match the original design other than paint. So while they could be classified as "made for..." they are the real deal shaft under the paint (or so people here say.) Kind of the opposite of the Titleist example.

Understood, I think this is a fairly easy "agree to disagree" kind of topic as the ethical side IS interesting to me. I think there would be a decent amount of outrage if the shaft industry was completely honest about the basics of material usage and manufacturing origins these days. The entire debacle around the Rogue 125MSI from several years ago was a good example. BUT, I reckon we've hijacked the thread enough on that topic, heh.

As the OP, I appreciate both the feedback on my original question and the ethical debate on shaft materials and transparency by the manufacturing companies.

Clearly, I would not be getting the same quality of shaft if I added the "for Titleist" model, as opposed to the actual 'ahina. And it sounds as though the D+ is better than the "for Titleist", if for no other reasons than its a newer model. I'll keep an eye out for the real deal, but may just put a D+ in the 3W for the moment. Or just go get a Tensei Pro White fairway shaft, since I'm crushing the 818H2.

I see both sides of the argument regarding the ethics. Yes, the manufacturers are toeing the line between exaggeration and outright lying to the consumers, when they infer that the "for [insert brand name]" shaft is the same as the aftermarket model. But didnt Callaway and Taylor Made do this many years ago, when they started to strengthen lofts and then market their irons as the "longest ever"? I laughed when my buddy got a newer set and then proudly stated how much farther he hit his 6i than I did. I asked for his 6i on the tee, and blew my shot past his. Then explained about stronger lofts. LOL.

But you could also argue that the manufacturers couldnt make sufficient profits if they included the real deal in their clubs at the current price point. If current driver costs x, and real deal shaft cost y, then actual cost should be x + y, not x + $10 for upgraded "inferior" shaft. Most golfers probably dont have that in their budget. And if the "inferior" model is still an upgrade over the minimum basic shaft that comes with the club, everybody wins.

So thanks for the reading, I've enjoyed the back and forth. Greatly appreciate this community.

I have a real 70x pull in my basement ....

I have Diamana whiteboards (same flexes/weight ranges/length profiles for the same model drivers and woods) of every generation (except for the original flowerband and the newest gen as waiting for newest to come down in price (even though I can get at $220 per shaft)). It’s not as though certain ones are inherently better or worse; they’re all just slightly different. I have a tendency to block the gen 2.5 (the gray whiteboard) right more often; I have a tendency to hit the gen 3 W-Series whiteboard more left. I like the gen 3 feel the best, but I produce the best results with the gen 2 ‘ahina and the gen 3.5 D+PLUS.

I am also a fan of the blueboards.

The Diamana whiteboards and blueboards are my all time favorite shafts and are presently somewhat underrated.

There was only one version of the 1st gen Diamana +Plus line, the S+/D+ 62/72/82 that came stock with the Titleist 913 line were the same that were sold aftermarket. The same could be said about the 2nd and 3rd gen +Plus lines with exception to the TX versions which were very different.

My memory tells me differently - but then it's also been wrong before so it's not like I'd place any bets on it :-)

I love those older shafts as well, specifically the Blueboards. That is interesting as well that you liked the W-Series the best as it is a very different profile than most of the rest of the "White/D" lineup. Actually extremely similar to the Motore .2 Speeders based on EI Profile information. Apologies for the derail, i'm glad you found it useful though! I agree with your breakdown as well, it is very much a constant battle between maximizing profitability while maintaining some degree of "prestige". Always a give and take.
I'm a bit hazy on this one too, to be honest. My basic understanding was what @storm319 stated, that the 1st Gen +PLUS line was the first move towards offering the same stock shaft as an aftermarket upgrade as well, and I don't recall there being any different versions. Same thing with the 2nd Gen and 3rd Gen with the "TX" flex versions being the premium "tour shafts". It seemed like three "generations" of shaft that were designed to incrementally inch away from the negative "made for" stigma and legitimize the product in the eyes of the more picky consumers.