Ping Eye 2, Eye 2 plus, Eye 2 plus-no plus

[billj]

I know what the Ping Eye 2 is, I have a set of them, and keeping them! I have tried a few of the Eye 2 plus irons, and although they are a good club I hit the Eye 2 much better. Now if I understand correctly, the Eye 2 plus-no plus is a later limited edition of the Eye 2 plus. My question is how is the Eye 2 plus-no plus marked on the head to so as to tell it from the original Eye 2 (I have never seen a plus-no plus....as far as I know)

[birly-shirly]

Didn't the "plus no plus" precede the Eye2+?

I believe that it had the same head shape as the Eye2+, in which case probably the easiest way to identify one would be finding a club with the distinctive scalloped sole grind of the Eye2+, without the + in the cavity.

Personally, I wouldn't expect any playing advantage over the Eye2+. If you already prefer the Eye2s, then the only value of the + no + is their perceived rarity.

[dan360]

+ no + is the Eye2+ head shape without the + sign after Eye2

They came in between the regular Eye2 and the Eye2+


There are five (5) "generations" of the Eye2.

[billj]

Thanks for the information. I know the look of the Eye 2 plus, so that explains a lot. Now you have me wondering about the different generations of Eye 2's. I know some have Pat. Pend. on the heads, and others will have pattend number(s). My Eye 2 is not a matched set by serial number, but all have the same style head (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, W, S and I think I'll pick up a 4 and maybe a 3 because I tend to get under the ball too often.

[NRJyzr]

Needlessly running through the whole thing

[size=4]Original Eye 2 irons have V grooves. They are stamped with Patent Pending, and the stamp is upside down, compared to the Eye 2 in the cavity.[/size]

Eye 2 square groove irons came out in 1984, and are stamped with the Patent number (D276644), and the stamping is reversed from the above in that they are in the same orientation as the Eye 2 in the cavity. These were never non-conforming.

The Eye 2 set that were the center of all the hoopla were different from the above only by having the edges of the grooves radiused slightly, to alleviate ball damage. These should have a second patent number (D4512577).

The +no+ sets had the changes to the new Eye2+ shape, and slightly stronger lofts (48.5° PW vs the original Eye 2 50.5° PW), but still had the radiused square grooves. The only way of knowing these is the Eye2+ scalloped sole with the Eye2 stamp in the cavity. Eye2+ and +no+ are said to be slightly larger in head shape than the Eye 2. FWIW, I've never compared them myself to see how visible that difference is.

There's also an Eye 2 dot set, they'll be the same as the Eye 2, but have the slightly wider distance between the grooves. Have a raised dot in the cavity as an identifying mark.

Then the Eye 2+, after all the dust settled.

[cowboynjungle1]

The Ping Eye 2 Plus No Plus will have "U.S. PAT. 4.512.577" and "4.621.813" stamped below PING in the back cavity, but will not have the " + " stamp. I had a set verified by PING with serial numbers and confirmed they were manufactured during the six month window between late 1989 and April 1990.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='billj' timestamp='1408226034' post='9948375']
Thanks for the information. I know the look of the Eye 2 plus, so that explains a lot. Now you have me wondering about the different generations of Eye 2's. I know some have Pat. Pend. on the heads, and others will have pattend number(s). My Eye 2 is not a matched set by serial number, but all have the same style head (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, W, S and I think I'll pick up a 4 and maybe a 3 because I tend to get under the ball too often.
[/quote]

In a 3 or 4 iron, I would be amazed if you saw much difference in either looks or playability between the original and the + head shapes. There's allegedly 0.5 degree difference in lofts in the 4 iron, and none in the 3. The + scalloped sole isn't really a noticeable feature on the long irons. By all means try and find heads that match the rest of your set, but I wouldn't hesitate to pick up "+" heads to complete your set if that's what presents itself.

[sdandrea]

I have 3 sets of PING irons - all with matching serial numbers and all 3 get regular play. PING Eye 2+ that I recently shafted with PING CFS Distance shafts, PING i3+ with the stock CS Lite Cushin and a set of PING i3 O-Size with the Aldila 350 Series graphites. The heads in all 3 of these models are very similar with the biggest difference being the sole camber on the Eye 2+ irons vs the two i3 series heads. These are my favorite sized PING heads, having owned and played i5, i10, i20, G5, G10, G15 and ISI. Love the company, love the products! I just wrote PING and asked to purchase some Cushin shaft labels and they refused to sell them to me, but they did send me a set for FREE!

[MANthrax]

[quote name='billj' timestamp='1408226034' post='9948375']
Thanks for the information. I know the look of the Eye 2 plus, so that explains a lot. Now you have me wondering about the different generations of Eye 2's. I know some have Pat. Pend. on the heads, and others will have pattend number(s). My Eye 2 is not a matched set by serial number, but all have the same style head (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, W, S and I think I'll pick up a 4 and maybe a 3 because I tend to get under the ball too often.
[/quote]

The first 2 generations eye 2 were the smallest heads. So you might wanna check all of yours. You can pick up a set for $100 with matching serial numbers. You just can't get the matching wedges for under a fortune unless the groves are all worn out.

[MANthrax]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1408288114' post='9951189']
Needlessly running through the whole thing

Original Eye 2 irons have V grooves. They are stamped with Patent Pending, and the stamp is upside down, compared to the Eye 2 in the cavity.

Eye 2 square groove irons came out in 1984, and are stamped with the Patent number (D276644), and the stamping is reversed from the above in that they are in the same orientation as the Eye 2 in the cavity. These were never non-conforming.

The Eye 2 set that were the center of all the hoopla were different from the above only by having the edges of the grooves radiused slightly, to alleviate ball damage. These should have a second patent number (D4512577).

The +no+ sets had the changes to the new Eye2+ shape, and slightly stronger lofts (48.5° PW vs the original Eye 2 50.5° PW), but still had the radiused square grooves. The only way of knowing these is the Eye2+ scalloped sole with the Eye2 stamp in the cavity. Eye2+ and +no+ are said to be slightly larger in head shape than the Eye 2. FWIW, I've never compared them myself to see how visible that difference is.

There's also an Eye 2 dot set, they'll be the same as the Eye 2, but have the slightly wider distance between the grooves. Have a raised dot in the cavity as an identifying mark.

Then the Eye 2+, after all the dust settled.
[/quote]There is a Eye2 Lite models introduced in 1984, identified by PAT. PENDING in cavity and KARSTEN PHOENIX AZ 85068 U.S.A. right-side-up on back of top rail. Followed directly after original eye 2. They differ in the KARSTEN wording direction.

[painter]

To add to the topic/confusion, I recently bought a set that Ping said were manufactured in 1995. No +, regular head and sole shapes, and the W in the same position as the other numbers. So, they are plain, vanilla Eye 2s made on 1995 - long after plus and no plus.

[scruffynick]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1408288114' post='51189']
Needlessly running through the whole thing

[size=4]Original Eye 2 irons have V grooves. They are stamped with Patent Pending, and the stamp is upside down, compared to the Eye 2 in the cavity.[/size]

Eye 2 square groove irons came out in 1984, and are stamped with the Patent number (D276644), and the stamping is reversed from the above in that they are in the same orientation as the Eye 2 in the cavity. These were never non-conforming.

The Eye 2 set that were the center of all the hoopla were different from the above only by having the edges of the grooves radiused slightly, to alleviate ball damage. These should have a second patent number (D4512577).

The +no+ sets had the changes to the new Eye2+ shape, and slightly stronger lofts (48.5° PW vs the original Eye 2 50.5° PW), but still had the radiused square grooves. The only way of knowing these is the Eye2+ scalloped sole with the Eye2 stamp in the cavity. Eye2+ and +no+ are said to be slightly larger in head shape than the Eye 2. FWIW, I've never compared them myself to see how visible that difference is.

There's also an Eye 2 dot set, they'll be the same as the Eye 2, but have the slightly wider distance between the grooves. Have a raised dot in the cavity as an identifying mark.

Then the Eye 2+, after all the dust settled.
[/quote]
Great information, always wondered what year and make mine were. Mine are the 1984 version.......in fact your information is the clearest and most straightforward I've read on all the eye 2s!

[Oldplayer]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1408288114' post='9951189']
Needlessly running through the whole thing

Original Eye 2 irons have V grooves. They are stamped with Patent Pending, and the stamp is upside down, compared to the Eye 2 in the cavity.

Eye 2 square groove irons came out in 1984, and are stamped with the Patent number (D276644), and the stamping is reversed from the above in that they are in the same orientation as the Eye 2 in the cavity. These were never non-conforming.

The Eye 2 set that were the center of all the hoopla were different from the above only by having the edges of the grooves radiused slightly, to alleviate ball damage. These should have a second patent number (D4512577).

The +no+ sets had the changes to the new Eye2+ shape, and slightly stronger lofts (48.5° PW vs the original Eye 2 50.5° PW), but still had the radiused square grooves. The only way of knowing these is the Eye2+ scalloped sole with the Eye2 stamp in the cavity. Eye2+ and +no+ are said to be slightly larger in head shape than the Eye 2. FWIW, I've never compared them myself to see how visible that difference is.

There's also an Eye 2 dot set, they'll be the same as the Eye 2, but have the slightly wider distance between the grooves. Have a raised dot in the cavity as an identifying mark.

Then the Eye 2+, after all the dust settled.
[/quote]
Thanks for the post. that's the first time I have heard about the original eye 2's with the non- radiused grooves with the D276644 pat. number.
Do you happen to know whether that model is legal under R&A rules? I was under the impression that all original eye 2 models were illegal for play under the R&A.

[bermuda]

I believe it was the radiusing of the grooves that caused the grooves to be ruled as too close together (as measured from edge of radius to edge of radius), so those are the non-conforming clubs.

[Tab373]

[quote name='Oldplayer' timestamp='1436002525' post='11885928']
[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1408288114' post='9951189']
Needlessly running through the whole thing

Original Eye 2 irons have V grooves. They are stamped with Patent Pending, and the stamp is upside down, compared to the Eye 2 in the cavity.

Eye 2 square groove irons came out in 1984, and are stamped with the Patent number (D276644), and the stamping is reversed from the above in that they are in the same orientation as the Eye 2 in the cavity. These were never non-conforming.

The Eye 2 set that were the center of all the hoopla were different from the above only by having the edges of the grooves radiused slightly, to alleviate ball damage. These should have a second patent number (D4512577).

The +no+ sets had the changes to the new Eye2+ shape, and slightly stronger lofts (48.5° PW vs the original Eye 2 50.5° PW), but still had the radiused square grooves. The only way of knowing these is the Eye2+ scalloped sole with the Eye2 stamp in the cavity. Eye2+ and +no+ are said to be slightly larger in head shape than the Eye 2. FWIW, I've never compared them myself to see how visible that difference is.

There's also an Eye 2 dot set, they'll be the same as the Eye 2, but have the slightly wider distance between the grooves. Have a raised dot in the cavity as an identifying mark.

Then the Eye 2+, after all the dust settled.
[/quote]
Thanks for the post. that's the first time I have heard about the original eye 2's with the non- radiused grooves with the D276644 pat. number.
Do you happen to know whether that model is legal under R&A rules? I was under the impression that all original eye 2 models were illegal for play under the R&A.
[/quote]. I have eye2 with D276644 pat number but mine were sent back to Ping and re grooved to the legal spec and Ping supplied a letter and card to say they are legal to use

[Oldplayer]

[quote name='Tab373' timestamp='1436868649' post='11944694']
[quote name='Oldplayer' timestamp='1436002525' post='11885928']
[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1408288114' post='9951189']
Needlessly running through the whole thing

Original Eye 2 irons have V grooves. They are stamped with Patent Pending, and the stamp is upside down, compared to the Eye 2 in the cavity.

Eye 2 square groove irons came out in 1984, and are stamped with the Patent number (D276644), and the stamping is reversed from the above in that they are in the same orientation as the Eye 2 in the cavity. These were never non-conforming.

The Eye 2 set that were the center of all the hoopla were different from the above only by having the edges of the grooves radiused slightly, to alleviate ball damage. These should have a second patent number (D4512577).

The +no+ sets had the changes to the new Eye2+ shape, and slightly stronger lofts (48.5° PW vs the original Eye 2 50.5° PW), but still had the radiused square grooves. The only way of knowing these is the Eye2+ scalloped sole with the Eye2 stamp in the cavity. Eye2+ and +no+ are said to be slightly larger in head shape than the Eye 2. FWIW, I've never compared them myself to see how visible that difference is.

There's also an Eye 2 dot set, they'll be the same as the Eye 2, but have the slightly wider distance between the grooves. Have a raised dot in the cavity as an identifying mark.

Then the Eye 2+, after all the dust settled.
[/quote]
Thanks for the post. that's the first time I have heard about the original eye 2's with the non- radiused grooves with the D276644 pat. number.
Do you happen to know whether that model is legal under R&A rules? I was under the impression that all original eye 2 models were illegal for play under the R&A.
[/quote]. I have eye2 with D276644 pat number but mine were sent back to Ping and re grooved to the legal spec and Ping supplied a letter and card to say they are legal to use
[/quote]
Thanks for your reply.

[percymon]

Oh how I hate this forum

I'd read a few threads in the last week about Ping Eye 2s and the next thing I'm on fleebay browsing; 20 minutes later i had 20 sets in various guises in my watch list

My first Pings were a set of new Zing irons, fitted at Gainsborough, but i never got on with them (too upright in reality) so they got chopped for a set of ISI Nickel that I've gamed since '96 until a set of Vega prototypes kicked them into store.

Now these threads got me thinking (dangerous !), that whilst I've personally never had older Pings, my mother had a set of Ping Eye2+ irons from ca 1991 (that she still plays today) which, on the odd occassion that I'd hit balls on the practice ground with her, I always seemed to strike well with a nice feel and flight, despite the lie angle being about 5 colour codes flatter than I needed.

You know what happened next, yes the dreaded buy-it-now button !

A used, but far from abused set of Eye2+ arrived at the office yesterday, grips dried out and cracked but KT-M shafts in mint condition and the matching serial number heads displaying minimal marks. Couldn't wait to try them, so popped into Celtic Manor range on the drive home from work..

> well the ball flight is perhaps higher than I remember - no doubt my memory corrupted by my normal tour lofts & the trend to lower lofts on newer kit
> KT-M shafts felt good, nothing like as stiff as i thought they'd be
> heads sit well behind the ball, confidence inspiring if not the prettiest looking thing
> GROOVES - oh my, I'd forgotten how hungry these things are, every shot with the range ball had me cleaning shavings off the face

Very happy with my purchase, heads will be cleaned in the ultrasonic bath (dirt n grime in the corners of cavities), and some Ping grips that i reclaimed from a recent set of i3 blades will be fitted today; might even play them tomorrow

Thanks all for lightening my wallet by ca $100; I think i'll get more than my money's worth of pleasure from these

[oldschoolrocker]

Percy,
If the old girls are in decent condition not a bad price.

[percymon]

[quote name='oldschoolrocker' timestamp='1437476434' post='11990890']
Percy,
If the old girls are in decent condition not a bad price.
[/quote]

Very good condition, in fact not seen that much use i don't think (would explain the dried out, cracked grips). Battered short sets seem to make £40-60 in the UK, fuller sets £70-120 on ebay. Add £50 for BeCu versions.

All cleaned up, regripped and ready to go.

What ball are people using with Eye2s ? I have some Titleist Tour 90s, Maxfli Solid and Titlesit PTS of similar age - are these best matched to the irons, or just go with modern balls ?

[scomac2002]

While I don't have Eye 2s, percy, I do have a set of clones in BeCu. I have been using a selection of modern balls with good effect -- Wilson Staff Elite 50, WS Duo and Lady Pinnacle Gold. They are all low compression balls with reasonably soft covers that provide me with adequate spin and feel. I came from regular graphite shafts in moderns to firm flighted steel in vintage so the ball flight is definitely lower, but there's more than enough spin to hold greens even with a 4 iron. There are lots of folks who still play Eye 2s at my club using modern balls and I don't recall anyone pining for the balls of yesteryear.

[percymon]

[quote name='scomac2002' timestamp='1437484457' post='11991406']
While I don't have Eye 2s, percy, I do have a set of clones in BeCu. I have been using a selection of modern balls with good effect -- Wilson Staff Elite 50, WS Duo and Lady Pinnacle Gold. They are all low compression balls with reasonably soft covers that provide me with adequate spin and feel. I came from regular graphite shafts in moderns to firm flighted steel in vintage so the ball flight is definitely lower, but there's more than enough spin to hold greens even with a 4 iron. There are lots of folks who still play Eye 2s at my club using modern balls and I don't recall anyone pining for the balls of yesteryear.
[/quote]

That's good news!

Ive put some Titleist Tour 90 and modern Bridgestone B330S in the bag for tomorrow's game. Will see how they go, at least I won't have to break into my old stock of Rextars

[oldschoolrocker]

A lot of us are having good luck using the Wilson Duo with vintage clubs. I think most of us are finding any good quality lower compression ball fits the bill. And, have used the top shelf ones that perform exceptional as well.

[NRJyzr]

The whole "matching golf ball with clubs" is one of those pseudo urban myth things, similar to the whole "what shaft works with what clubhead" request-posts you see all the time.

It's really about finding balls that do what you want for your game, and then fine tuning the selection by the characteristics of the club(s) in question.

Meaning, what works for Fred Q. Golfer and his 75 mph 6 iron swingspeed is not likely to perform the same for George Z. Golfer and his 95 mph 6 iron swingspeed, even if both are playing Brand X, Model A, Irons.

Back in the day, I had huge success with the Precept U Tri Extra Spin. Gained a full club, if not more, off irons. It was great around the greens. But, not that many people got the same results, or liked the ball; most went for the U Tri Extra Distance, or maybe the U Tri Tour. The U Tri ES was really a niche ball.

Trying to say "the U Tri Extra Spin works amazing with Mizuno MS-11 blades" based on my experience would be kind of silly.

Sorry, it's something of a soapbox topic for me.

[Fellaheen51]

Play a certain range/style of ball that suits my game capabilities, After that, really doesn't make much difference what the brand is. Feel that differences are only marginal at best. Or that I do not have sufficient game to notice the difference. Assess that however you choose to.

FWIW, like OSR, playing and liking the Duo with all vintages lately.

[percymon]

Thanks guys, and apologies for pulling off topic for a while; given the amount of spin the grooves can generate I think its pointless going for anything super soft/high spin - just find something thats not too hard for chips and putts with a bit of feel. Cheers

 

[NRJyzr]

Another button topic in the urban myth category LOL

Grooves are not a primary cause of spin. It's only in the rough that the grooves will have an impact. Testing between the square groove Eye2 and conforming groove versions of the same showed a negligible difference in spin.

Golfball core composition, clubhead speed, swing path, quality of contact, cover material (when you get to short irons and wedges), all of these are well ahead of grooves in the hierarchy of spin determinants. Overall face texture is also well in advance of grooves.

I'm not sure where this whole "grooves cause spin" thing came from. Maybe because of the balls being cut with the initial square groove Eye2's, people just assumed that meant it was grabbing the ball more? <shrug>

As a side note: when grooveless faces were tested, they found the grooveless clubface they'd created produced more spin than the clubface with grooves. It turns out it was related to the process they used; they'd soldered the grooves on a standard clubhead and then filed the face smooth. In doing so, they'd created a perfectly flat club face. A perfectly flat club face produces more spin than one that is not perfectly flat.

Obviously, this was in clean lie situations.

So when your wedges are getting worn, it may merely be the integrity of the club face being compromised that's reducing your spin, and nothing to do with the grooves.

I'm just full of fun stuff today. lol at me

[oldschoolrocker]

Keep um coming NR. When on a roll, keep shooting when your hot.

[f5joe]

Just came across this older thread. I would appreciate a bit of help .......... thanks.

 

I have two full sets 1 thru L ........ one set stainless and the other BeCu. These are the first two shown. I believe these to be square grooved and the clubs banned from the PGA ....... having the two patent numbers on them.

 

My questions is "what" is the last club shown? It has Patent Pending on it but not upside down as described by one of the posters. Could this be an early "V" groove? Again, thanks for any incite.

 

20160401_151855 by f5joep, on Flickr

 

20160401_151825 by f5joep, on Flickr

 

20160401_151732 by f5joep, on Flickr

[NRJyzr]

According to what I found in a search, the BeCu patent pending are identical to the stainless square groove model.

 

The first BeCu didn't come out until after they'd switched to square grooves.

[f5joe]

According to what I found in a search, the BeCu patent pending are identical to the stainless square groove model.

 

The first BeCu didn't come out until after they'd switched to square grooves.

 

Interesting. Don't quite follow "why" they'd mark them patent pending unless it had to do with BeCu ....... thanks!