Kirkland Signature (Costco) golf balls (MERGED) (NO BST POSTS)

[jgonz69]

> @ShankLife said:

> > @jgonz69 said:

> > I guess I'm doing it wrong by not paying $50 bucks a dz. for golf balls. > @torbill said:

> > > > @ShankLife said:

> > > > > @gioreeko said:

> > > > > > @chisag said:

> > > > > > > @gioreeko said:

> > > > > > > > @ShankLife said:

> > > > > > > > Do you guys like the ball? I'm sensing a real split in people that hate it and people that love it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Depends on which ball you're talking about I guess, you know there's been 3 different models, correct? I've played all 3. The first generation KSig 4 piece is a great ball, kicked my ProV1's out of the bag, still have 7 dozen I'm sitting on. I play the 3 piece, it's a good ball, doesn't spin back on the green as much for me as the OG 4 piece did. The cover is thick and durable, never even scuffed one.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ... I find the KS3 a very unusual ball. I swing my driver around 100mph and it spins too much for me on iron shots and that just doesn't work in Chicago's winds. Spins much more than the original for me. The irony is it doesn't spin as well for my green side game. But my wife can use the added spin on full shots and it really works great for her. My son has a 115 swing but is also a low spin player and he loves the KS3. It clearly balloons for me but I watch him hit one into a 15mph wind and it bores right thru it. So you just can't say "it spins too much" unless you add "for me" because the spin is excellent for others. And as you and others have said, it is also very durable which is a nice bonus.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > I'm swinging around 115 when healthy too, and I hit a nice boring drive with them. That ball is built like a tank too, never even scuffed one...

> > > >

> > > > Yes sir. Owned and have played all of them well enough. OG 4 Piecer actually had a black eye with me because the cover seemed to get marked up considerably. I had a bout there where I was playing with the original TP5 (horrible cover that scuffed on any and every wedge shot) and a few other balls that showed wear quickly. The Kirkland 4 Piece also fit into that group. The cover was crap, period. It showed it's bruises too quickly for my liking.

> > > > The 3 piece did climb for me. It spun considerably. I didn't care for the glossy cover as well. Very decent ball for the price. But, just that, decent.

> > > > The new one, as stated before, soft feeling, good looking but cover issues. I bought the 2 dozen and was refunded the money. That's gonna go into the Srixons I know and love.

> > > > I, like you, swing fast. Always have. Couldn't hit a driver over 100 when I was 13 and my Dad swung for the fences so, like father like son, I got quick and hit the ball far, now. That speed can translate to seriously shredding covers. Especially with new grooves on a wedge.

> > > > I look forward to seeing how this might get corrected. I'll buy the deal again. But, I use and trust the name brands with a proven record.

> > >

> > > I think I have told this before, but when I read about the Titleist formal complaint against Costco there was one thing that caught my eye. Titleist claimed that the Kirkland 4-piece cover wasn’t as durable as claimed. I had been playing the original Kirkland 4-piece, and have played ProV1s forever, and I found this statement by Titleist to be silly.

> > >

> > > And I put the Kirkland to the test. I am a low handicap player and I don’t tend to hit trees or lose balls. I played the Kirkland for 10 rounds, and the ball was still perfectly playable. I retired it because it didn’t look very good anymore and I had proven to myself that Titleist’s complaint was ridiculous. I never, ever got good durability like this with a ProV1. I would normally get 1-2 rounds and by then the ball would have gouges from iron grooves, as well as scuffs.

> > >

> > > No complaints about ProV1’s as they are the gold standard, and 1-2 rounds on a premium ball like the ProV1 is fine w/me.

> > >

> > > As to the future of Costco and golf balls, I suspect it will be like the Terminator - they’ll be back:

> > >

> > > I know Costco better than most, having been a shareholder for over 20 years, and watching my investment like a hawk. Some of the comments about the company that I see here as I scan through the endless discussion are so uninformed. Why do you people who don’t seem to know the first thing about the way this company operates feel compelled to speculate about that of which you are ignorant? Don’t you suspect that there is something that is just a little different about a company that stands behind its product like you saw Costco step up to the new Kirkland ball quality problem?

> > >

> > > Costco is about low prices, high quality, and continuously surprising and delighting its members. It’s members are upscale - it was originally, and still is to an extent, the small business customer that was the backbone of the membership base, typically affluent and sharply focused on quality and good deals. The small business customer would buy at Costco for things that they would resell, and for the supplies that they needed to operate their businesses. Costco realized that this customer would like to have high quality, upscale goods and services for their own consumption. As to the Kirkland brand, it is about top quality at prices that eliminate name brand overhead and profit margins. Costco guards the quality of the Kirkland brand with all of its resources and management skill.

> > >

> > > Costco drives cost and price, relentlessly. Remember the old buck fifty dog and cola? Remember how it used to to be Hebrew National (“We answer to a higher authority”) kosher dogs and Polish? Hebrew National went away. Now it is Kirkland dogs and still a buck fifty. The rotisserie chicken for five bucks? Costco now has a chicken farm so that they can hold the price. Eggs? Costco just opened a huge egg operation in Nebraska. So, when they can no longer drive supplier pricing any lower on key commodities, they vertically integrate. Any questions about Costco’s commitment to driving prices? Try googling “costco eggs nebraska”. These people mean business.

> > >

> > > Also, Costco operates on very thin profit margins - last time I checked it was about 13% gross margin pretty much across the board which, if you know anything about how stuff is sold, is crazy low. They make a lot of their profit on membership fees. Ever wonder how Amazon Prime got to be? Did you know that Bezos and Jim Sinegal, the former Costco CEO, had lunch together one day (both are headquartered in the Seattle area) and Sinegal explained the Costco business model to Bezos and... as they say, a star was born.

> > >

> > > So, this is the Costco financial model - drive the cost of goods to the limit (and manage overhead costs), operate the business at minuscule net profit margins, and keep signing up new members and hanging on to the current ones. Add to this the other features of the business model - treat your employees like human beings and pay them well, minimize SKUs, keep bringing in goods and services that will delight an upscale membership, etc. - and you can see a company that is relentlessly focused on excellence and competitiveness.

> > >

> > > And how does this model relate to golf balls? We don’t know for sure, as they don’t televise their product strategies. But it seems as though Costco did not get into golf stuff on a whim. Nobody is going to go to the mat with Titleist on a treasure hunt sort of one-off golf ball hot deal. And we can see that Costco is likely to be getting into upscale putters and wedges. So, it is my opinion that we have not seen the last of a tour quality Kirkland ball.

> > >

> > > As to what is feasible for pricing and how much it actually costs to produce a golf ball... I cannot say. I am betting that they can do it for fifteen bucks a dozen, or something on that order. If Snell can do an outstanding tour quality ball for thirty bucks, who are you, or who am I, to claim that the company that can sell me an exceptionally large and good broasted chicken for five bucks can’t find a way to sell a tour quality four piece ball for fifteen bucks?!

> > >

> > Pretty good for a “grocery store”. LOL.

> >

>

> No one is doing anything wrong. Don't feel so attacked. At the end of it all, to each their own. No one can deny that Kirkland made a ball which turned a lot of heads and turned a market upside down. A very impressive feat. The ball just isn't my jam. Case closed. Nuff said. But, I'm excited to see what changes and what the follow up is because I'll probably buy it and if it performs better than my gamer, then I'll stock up. That's golf.

 

That 1st quote was for someone who was whining big stores like costco selling premium balls was hurting smaller operations, like your club pro shop. It was saved in my reply section for some reason.

 

 

[Break81]

So took the new ball out for a spin.

Hole #1 pulled my drive a little on the dogleg left par 4 and hit a tall pine tree pretty square. No real damage. Hole 2 I thinned a 3/4 wedge from 75 yards. Hole 3 I bladed a bunker shot that had very little sand. 3 shots that could damage almost any ball and still was in good shape. Hole 5 when getting on the green I could see a small crack starting to form. So finished the hole and pulled ball #2 from the sleeve for hole 6. Played this abll with no issues until it met a watery grave on 11 , but was looking near mint. Dopped ball #3 on the 11th hole and played out through 18 with no issues. Ball is now in the bag with plenty of life left on it.

 

So maybe ball 1 has some durability issue, but it also was punished more than usual with 3 punishing blows . My feeling is the batch I got, under normal play they are fine, if I hit trees ot cemet cart path of blade a couple shots, then gotta inspect the ball for cuts.

 

Good ball and hopefully they get them a little better for those who had more issues than myself.

[gioreeko]

Played my second round with the new 4 piece today. Only played 2 balls again today, lost the first one in some long weeds, second ball lasted 15 holes. Some very light scuffing, looks just like a ProV1 after that many holes. Good test in the wind today, very gusty between 15-20 mph. Ball has a nice low, boring flight. Hit some second shots with a ProV1 to compare as much as I could. Off the tee with a driver, the distance was about the same, usually within 5 yards of each other. Kirkland flew a little lower for me, which was great in the wind. Pitching is where I could see the biggest difference. The Kirkland hopped and stopped on a dime, the ProV1 hopped and rolled a few feet further. My swing is coming back, hit a nice drive around 330 today, with the wind at my back. My son is a bit of a Titleist snob, and he took some ribbing about being outdriven a few times, but he tried the K Sig and really liked it too. For those that got the new balls, make sure you try it before you return them, it seems as there's good and bad batches out there, and if you got a good batch, it's a great ball.

[Hateto3Putt]

I did my own little science project this past weekend.

 

Get away boys weekend trip, all money games...

 

* 27 holes Friday (pro V1) Won $$, 2 birds, one lucky bounce greenie (I'll take it)

* 27 Holes Saturday (New "free" Kirklands) Won $$$, 2 birds and one tough par held up, 1 "wow, stuck that one" greenie

* 18 Holes Sunday (Srixon Z-Star, Tour Yellow if you please) Won $, bird... (and that's my go-to ball)

 

All balls were fresh out of the sleeve, lost 1 ProV, and 1 Srixon, both were replaced with identical balls

 

Bottom Line, for me... All balls performed great, the only thing I don't like about the Kirkland is the fact I can't buy any more! The thing just flat out performs. Durable, tee ball long, and I'll say it again, this thing putts like no other. If the same reiteration of this ball returns, I'll buy more without hesitation.

 

This would be my 4th or 5th round with a new Kirkland, and I've had zero cutting issues.

[snagy2000]

> @gioreeko said:

> Played my second round with the new 4 piece today. Only played 2 balls again today, lost the first one in some long weeds, second ball lasted 15 holes. Some very light scuffing, looks just like a ProV1 after that many holes. Good test in the wind today, very gusty between 15-20 mph. Ball has a nice low, boring flight. Hit some second shots with a ProV1 to compare as much as I could. Off the tee with a driver, the distance was about the same, usually within 5 yards of each other. Kirkland flew a little lower for me, which was great in the wind. Pitching is where I could see the biggest difference. The Kirkland hopped and stopped on a dime, the ProV1 hopped and rolled a few feet further. My swing is coming back, hit a nice drive around 330 today, with the wind at my back. My son is a bit of a Titleist snob, and he took some ribbing about being outdriven a few times, but he tried the K Sig and really liked it too. For those that got the new balls, make sure you try it before you return them, it seems as there's good and bad batches out there, and if you got a good batch, it's a great ball.

 

You don't have to return them, they're free...Glad you liked it, so do I...

[darredondo09]

Played my first round (9 holes) with the new ball on Saturday. First ball was scuffed a little after a full wedge on hole 4, but I experience that with Pro V's as well. Kept that ball in play but lost it on hole 8 with no other damage; finished up with another ball that was mint after a hole and a half. Performance wise it was basically the same as the OG 4 piece, on most greens I hit jumped back about a foot and a half and stopped. I did notice on one greenside pitch that there was a lot of spin, especially coming out of the rough, but I only got 2 chances to pitch the ball with spin. Overall happy with the ball but my sample size is really small (2 balls from 1 sleeve). I'll keep playing them for now until they give me a reason not to.

[Dysfunkshun]

I finally put some in play this weekend, basically rotated a pair throughout my round. I'm a 12 handicap, and am usually pretty steep on wedges, but no cuts, scuffs or tears in either ball. I'll give em another go this weekend, ball feels pretty good and even better since they're free, lol

[DavePelz4]

For some historical perspective on Titleist and lawsuits, please consider the following:

 

1. In 2006/2007, Titleist's parent company sued Callaway over patent infringement in a suit that lasted 6 years, cost tens of millions in lawyer fees for both parties and was eventually "settled."

2. In 2016, Titleist's parent company sued 10 direct to consumer ball companies over patent infringement. Several of those companies have since gone out of business lacking the financial ability to defend themselves again the deep pockets of TItleist. In some of those suits, the balls alleged to infringing on patents has dimple counts and patterns and Titleist did not have a comparable ball so the suits went to the materials of the ball composition. Basically they sued over using urethane.

3. In 2017, Titleist sent a "lawyer letter" to Costco, but it was Costco that filed suit against Titleist predicated on the claims in that letter and then Titleist's patent company counter-sued Costco.

 

Not sticking up for Costco or Titleist here, just making sure we're working off historical facts.

[bladehunter]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> For some historical perspective on Titleist and lawsuits, please consider the following:

>

> 1. In 2006/2007, Titleist's parent company sued Callaway over patent infringement in a suit that lasted 6 years, cost tens of millions in lawyer fees for both parties and was eventually "settled."

> 2. In 2016, Titleist's parent company sued 10 direct to consumer ball companies over patent infringement. Several of those companies have since gone out of business lacking the financial ability to defend themselves again the deep pockets of TItleist. In some of those suits, the balls alleged to infringing on patents has dimple counts and patterns and Titleist did not have a comparable ball so the suits went to the materials of the ball composition. Basically they sued over using urethane.

> 3. In 2017, Titleist sent a "lawyer letter" to Costco, but it was Costco that filed suit against Titleist predicated on the claims in that letter and then Titleist's patent company counter-sued Costco.

>

> Not sticking up for Costco or Titleist here, just making sure we're working off historical facts.

 

Sounds accurate, and makes one wonder why anyone is shocked that titleist would work to protect their market ? And like you said. Costco sued. I wonder on what grounds ? And then apparently dropped suit , since it didn’t go to court. Now has refunded all who’ve bought current ball because of quality concerns. Seemingly making titleists original letter that prompted suit, seem warranted. Or at least well in bounds for questions and concerns over the claims of the balls quality.

 

Like you said. No dog in the fight really. Just a great curiosity when you see these giant pissing contests.

[DavePelz4]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > For some historical perspective on Titleist and lawsuits, please consider the following:

> >

> > 1. In 2006/2007, Titleist's parent company sued Callaway over patent infringement in a suit that lasted 6 years, cost tens of millions in lawyer fees for both parties and was eventually "settled."

> > 2. In 2016, Titleist's parent company sued 10 direct to consumer ball companies over patent infringement. Several of those companies have since gone out of business lacking the financial ability to defend themselves again the deep pockets of TItleist. In some of those suits, the balls alleged to infringing on patents has dimple counts and patterns and Titleist did not have a comparable ball so the suits went to the materials of the ball composition. Basically they sued over using urethane.

> > 3. In 2017, Titleist sent a "lawyer letter" to Costco, but it was Costco that filed suit against Titleist predicated on the claims in that letter and then Titleist's patent company counter-sued Costco.

> >

> > Not sticking up for Costco or Titleist here, just making sure we're working off historical facts.

>

> Sounds accurate, and makes one wonder why anyone is shocked that titleist would work to protect their market ? And like you said. Costco sued. I wonder on what grounds ? And then apparently dropped suit , since it didn’t go to court. Now has refunded all who’ve bought current ball because of quality concerns. Seemingly making titleists original letter that prompted suit, seem warranted. Or at least well in bounds for questions and concerns over the claims of the balls quality.

>

> Like you said. No dog in the fight really. Just a great curiosity when you see these giant pissing contests.

 

Costco sued to protect their ability to continue to sell the ball and disputed the statements made in lawyer letter. Titleist countersued based upon patent violation and false advertising. Titleist claimed, they did the same robotic testing on the original 4 piece KSigs as they did on their own ProV's of both flavors. On driver testing, TItleist claimed the KSig, "Went a shorter distance" but did not provide any quantitative data. On 8 iron and wedge testing Titleist claimed there was "Less backspin" but again provided no quantitative data. In durability testing they stated the KSigs had a "50% failure rate" and BTW that the ProV's had a 5.5% failure rate. **Personal comment/question**...for the ProV1 users, does that 5% failure rate concern you? Every other dozen is going to have a bad ball. Hmmm.

 

One of the many claims in the patent infringement was the KSig had at least 1 dimple on the cover which could be covered by the Catenary Curve. For those not familiar with the Catenary Curve (starting with me) it's defined as the curve in the xy-plane of such a chain suspended from equal heights at its ends and dropping at x = 0 to its lowest height y = a is given by the equation y = (a/2)(ex/a + e−x/a). It can also be expressed in terms of the hyperbolic cosine function as y = a cosh(x/a). Ummmm....yeah, gotcha on that one.

 

Titleist also claimed that the KSigs have "recessed dimples" and Titleist owns a patent on that. **Personal comment - I haven't played a golf ball in 50 years that didn't have recessed dimples and it would seem every ball violates this patent, if true.**

 

Again personal opinion is that Titleist wanted to protect itself in the direct to consumer space. Individually, I don't see Costco or any individual DTC ball impacting their revenues but collectively, it could have a slight impact on their revenues.

 

 

 

 

[gioreeko]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > For some historical perspective on Titleist and lawsuits, please consider the following:

> > >

> > > 1. In 2006/2007, Titleist's parent company sued Callaway over patent infringement in a suit that lasted 6 years, cost tens of millions in lawyer fees for both parties and was eventually "settled."

> > > 2. In 2016, Titleist's parent company sued 10 direct to consumer ball companies over patent infringement. Several of those companies have since gone out of business lacking the financial ability to defend themselves again the deep pockets of TItleist. In some of those suits, the balls alleged to infringing on patents has dimple counts and patterns and Titleist did not have a comparable ball so the suits went to the materials of the ball composition. Basically they sued over using urethane.

> > > 3. In 2017, Titleist sent a "lawyer letter" to Costco, but it was Costco that filed suit against Titleist predicated on the claims in that letter and then Titleist's patent company counter-sued Costco.

> > >

> > > Not sticking up for Costco or Titleist here, just making sure we're working off historical facts.

> >

> > Sounds accurate, and makes one wonder why anyone is shocked that titleist would work to protect their market ? And like you said. Costco sued. I wonder on what grounds ? And then apparently dropped suit , since it didn’t go to court. Now has refunded all who’ve bought current ball because of quality concerns. Seemingly making titleists original letter that prompted suit, seem warranted. Or at least well in bounds for questions and concerns over the claims of the balls quality.

> >

> > Like you said. No dog in the fight really. Just a great curiosity when you see these giant pissing contests.

>

> Costco sued to protect their ability to continue to sell the ball and disputed the statements made in lawyer letter. Titleist countersued based upon patent violation and false advertising. Titleist claimed, they did the same robotic testing on the original 4 piece KSigs as they did on their own ProV's of both flavors. On driver testing, TItleist claimed the KSig, "Went a shorter distance" but did not provide any quantitative data. On 8 iron and wedge testing Titleist claimed there was "Less backspin" but again provided no quantitative data. In durability testing they stated the KSigs had a "50% failure rate" and BTW that the ProV's had a 5.5% failure rate. **Personal comment/question**...for the ProV1 users, does that 5% failure rate concern you? Every other dozen is going to have a bad ball. Hmmm.

>

> One of the many claims in the patent infringement was the KSig had at least 1 dimple on the cover which could be covered by the Catenary Curve. For those not familiar with the Catenary Curve (starting with me) it's defined as the curve in the xy-plane of such a chain suspended from equal heights at its ends and dropping at x = 0 to its lowest height y = a is given by the equation y = (a/2)(ex/a + e−x/a). It can also be expressed in terms of the hyperbolic cosine function as y = a cosh(x/a). Ummmm....yeah, gotcha on that one.

>

> Titleist also claimed that the KSigs have "recessed dimples" and Titleist owns a patent on that. **Personal comment - I haven't played a golf ball in 50 years that didn't have recessed dimples and it would seem every ball violates this patent, if true.**

>

> Again personal opinion is that Titleist wanted to protect itself in the direct to consumer space. Individually, I don't see Costco or any individual DTC ball impacting their revenues but collectively, it could have a slight impact on their revenues.

>

>

 

 

 

>

>

 

And some people wonder why a lot of people hate Titleist? I noticed this morning on the main page that a bunch of drivers the pros were using were tested as non conforming. Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I thought the whole point of Titleist was their perfect manufacturing, with zero mistakes ever.

[arbeck]

> @gioreeko said:

>

> And some people wonder why a lot of people hate Titleist? I noticed this morning on the main page that a bunch of drivers the pros were using were tested as non conforming. Hmmmmmmmmmmm, I thought the whole point of Titleist was their perfect manufacturing, with zero mistakes ever.

The whole conforming driver thing is so dumb. The limit is 239 microseconds. There was a buffer put in place to allow for tolerance in manufacturing and testing. So the real limit is 257 microseconds. The PGA testing will either have your driver come back as green, yellow, or red. Green is at or below 239. Yellow is over 239 but below 257. Red is above 257. Allegedly a tour player asked is equipment rep what would happen during the testing. The rep told him that the driver would come back red or yellow, and if came back red, they'd replace it. He asked about green. The rep said if it came back green they'd also replace it.

 

At one time, the buffer for tolerance was needed. But now, the manufacturing and testing are so good, we don't need such a large buffer. Every company on tour is testing the heads before they give them to the players and they're all testing as close to 257 as they can. Which just makes a mockery of the 239 limit.

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > For some historical perspective on Titleist and lawsuits, please consider the following:

> > >

> > > 1. In 2006/2007, Titleist's parent company sued Callaway over patent infringement in a suit that lasted 6 years, cost tens of millions in lawyer fees for both parties and was eventually "settled."

> > > 2. In 2016, Titleist's parent company sued 10 direct to consumer ball companies over patent infringement. Several of those companies have since gone out of business lacking the financial ability to defend themselves again the deep pockets of TItleist. In some of those suits, the balls alleged to infringing on patents has dimple counts and patterns and Titleist did not have a comparable ball so the suits went to the materials of the ball composition. Basically they sued over using urethane.

> > > 3. In 2017, Titleist sent a "lawyer letter" to Costco, but it was Costco that filed suit against Titleist predicated on the claims in that letter and then Titleist's patent company counter-sued Costco.

> > >

> > > Not sticking up for Costco or Titleist here, just making sure we're working off historical facts.

> >

> > Sounds accurate, and makes one wonder why anyone is shocked that titleist would work to protect their market ? And like you said. Costco sued. I wonder on what grounds ? And then apparently dropped suit , since it didn’t go to court. Now has refunded all who’ve bought current ball because of quality concerns. Seemingly making titleists original letter that prompted suit, seem warranted. Or at least well in bounds for questions and concerns over the claims of the balls quality.

> >

> > Like you said. No dog in the fight really. Just a great curiosity when you see these giant pissing contests.

>

> Costco sued to protect their ability to continue to sell the ball and disputed the statements made in lawyer letter. Titleist countersued based upon patent violation and false advertising. Titleist claimed, they did the same robotic testing on the original 4 piece KSigs as they did on their own ProV's of both flavors. On driver testing, TItleist claimed the KSig, "Went a shorter distance" but did not provide any quantitative data. On 8 iron and wedge testing Titleist claimed there was "Less backspin" but again provided no quantitative data. In durability testing they stated the KSigs had a "50% failure rate" and BTW that the ProV's had a 5.5% failure rate. **Personal comment/question**...for the ProV1 users, does that 5% failure rate concern you? Every other dozen is going to have a bad ball. Hmmm.

>

> One of the many claims in the patent infringement was the KSig had at least 1 dimple on the cover which could be covered by the Catenary Curve. For those not familiar with the Catenary Curve (starting with me) it's defined as the curve in the xy-plane of such a chain suspended from equal heights at its ends and dropping at x = 0 to its lowest height y = a is given by the equation y = (a/2)(ex/a + e−x/a). It can also be expressed in terms of the hyperbolic cosine function as y = a cosh(x/a). Ummmm....yeah, gotcha on that one.

>

> Titleist also claimed that the KSigs have "recessed dimples" and Titleist owns a patent on that. **Personal comment - I haven't played a golf ball in 50 years that didn't have recessed dimples and it would seem every ball violates this patent, if true.**

>

> Again personal opinion is that Titleist wanted to protect itself in the direct to consumer space. Individually, I don't see Costco or any individual DTC ball impacting their revenues but collectively, it could have a slight impact on their revenues.

>

>

>

>

 

Hmm. Didn’t know that titleist actually counter sued. I’m assuming that counter suit is what backed Costco off ? As in doesn’t make sense to counter sue , then settle. If you counter sue I’d guess you intend to go the distance unless the first party backs up to a place you want them to be in the first place. No? Of course that’s my opinion.

 

As far as testing. 5% vs 50 is huge. But moreso , doesn’t it show the lack of testing on this ball ? As in did or can Costco dispute that 50 % claim. Even if it’s totally made up. Can they dispute it ? Not without their own testing. So likely a vague test just to show this point and to wake Costco up to titleists real gripe. That they can’t claim to sell a ball that isn’t a proven equal while claiming it to be equal ( in their vague “ as good or better than leading brands “ speak ).

 

And on the 5% titleist ball failure. I’d bet anything this includes X outs that are sold. This is when they find microscopic flaws in paint , cover or a dimple etc. as in cosmetic flaws. They sell loads of x-outs. If you’re talking 5% total rejects from perfection , and you can still sell and play half those , you’re not talking a huge amount of actual bad balls. If someone ever claimed near zero I’d immediately think it was a lie.

 

Again. That’s my opinion mixed with MY observations.

[tennistim777]

After today's M G S podcast, it seems as though the new Kirkland ball has tested out to be very spinny, and worse VERY inconsistent. This is not good. It's an interesting podcast. Almost like back to the drawing board type findings. "IF" Costco dare rerelease this ball again, they better have all their T-s crossed and I-s dotted or else their Kirkland golf ball brand could take a major hit. Hopefully they will hire an independent company to put their new release through the rigorous testing before releasing it to the public and not just take the "factories word for it".

[DavePelz4]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > > For some historical perspective on Titleist and lawsuits, please consider the following:

> > > >

> > > > 1. In 2006/2007, Titleist's parent company sued Callaway over patent infringement in a suit that lasted 6 years, cost tens of millions in lawyer fees for both parties and was eventually "settled."

> > > > 2. In 2016, Titleist's parent company sued 10 direct to consumer ball companies over patent infringement. Several of those companies have since gone out of business lacking the financial ability to defend themselves again the deep pockets of TItleist. In some of those suits, the balls alleged to infringing on patents has dimple counts and patterns and Titleist did not have a comparable ball so the suits went to the materials of the ball composition. Basically they sued over using urethane.

> > > > 3. In 2017, Titleist sent a "lawyer letter" to Costco, but it was Costco that filed suit against Titleist predicated on the claims in that letter and then Titleist's patent company counter-sued Costco.

> > > >

> > > > Not sticking up for Costco or Titleist here, just making sure we're working off historical facts.

> > >

> > > Sounds accurate, and makes one wonder why anyone is shocked that titleist would work to protect their market ? And like you said. Costco sued. I wonder on what grounds ? And then apparently dropped suit , since it didn’t go to court. Now has refunded all who’ve bought current ball because of quality concerns. Seemingly making titleists original letter that prompted suit, seem warranted. Or at least well in bounds for questions and concerns over the claims of the balls quality.

> > >

> > > Like you said. No dog in the fight really. Just a great curiosity when you see these giant pissing contests.

> >

> > Costco sued to protect their ability to continue to sell the ball and disputed the statements made in lawyer letter. Titleist countersued based upon patent violation and false advertising. Titleist claimed, they did the same robotic testing on the original 4 piece KSigs as they did on their own ProV's of both flavors. On driver testing, TItleist claimed the KSig, "Went a shorter distance" but did not provide any quantitative data. On 8 iron and wedge testing Titleist claimed there was "Less backspin" but again provided no quantitative data. In durability testing they stated the KSigs had a "50% failure rate" and BTW that the ProV's had a 5.5% failure rate. **Personal comment/question**...for the ProV1 users, does that 5% failure rate concern you? Every other dozen is going to have a bad ball. Hmmm.

> >

> > One of the many claims in the patent infringement was the KSig had at least 1 dimple on the cover which could be covered by the Catenary Curve. For those not familiar with the Catenary Curve (starting with me) it's defined as the curve in the xy-plane of such a chain suspended from equal heights at its ends and dropping at x = 0 to its lowest height y = a is given by the equation y = (a/2)(ex/a + e−x/a). It can also be expressed in terms of the hyperbolic cosine function as y = a cosh(x/a). Ummmm....yeah, gotcha on that one.

> >

> > Titleist also claimed that the KSigs have "recessed dimples" and Titleist owns a patent on that. **Personal comment - I haven't played a golf ball in 50 years that didn't have recessed dimples and it would seem every ball violates this patent, if true.**

> >

> > Again personal opinion is that Titleist wanted to protect itself in the direct to consumer space. Individually, I don't see Costco or any individual DTC ball impacting their revenues but collectively, it could have a slight impact on their revenues.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> Hmm. Didn’t know that titleist actually counter sued. I’m assuming that counter suit is what backed Costco off ? As in doesn’t make sense to counter sue , then settle. If you counter sue I’d guess you intend to go the distance unless the first party backs up to a place you want them to be in the first place. No? Of course that’s my opinion.

>

> As far as testing. 5% vs 50 is huge. But moreso , doesn’t it show the lack of testing on this ball ? As in did or can Costco dispute that 50 % claim. Even if it’s totally made up. Can they dispute it ? Not without their own testing. So likely a vague test just to show this point and to wake Costco up to titleists real gripe. That they can’t claim to sell a ball that isn’t a proven equal while claiming it to be equal ( in their vague “ as good or better than leading brands “ speak ).

>

> And on the 5% titleist ball failure. I’d bet anything this includes X outs that are sold. This is when they find microscopic flaws in paint , cover or a dimple etc. as in cosmetic flaws. They sell loads of x-outs. If you’re talking 5% total rejects from perfection , and you can still sell and play half those , you’re not talking a huge amount of actual bad balls. If someone ever claimed near zero I’d immediately think it was a lie.

>

> Again. That’s my opinion mixed with MY observations.

 

Neither Costco nor Titleist backed off the lawsuit. It was in Titleist's best interests to file their own suit because if they didn't, then the Costco filing is what the court decides on and Titleist doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning anything financially. By filing their own lawsuit based on their own facts, the lawsuits could be combined which is better for them, their suit could be the only one the judge decides to hear or if both suits go forward and they lose 1, they have their own suit to fall back on. My guess is they both realized the cost/benefit of the suits did nothing to benefit either party and agreed to walk away.

 

There was minimal actual data provided in the court filing/lawsuit. My guess on the Titleist side is "if" they showed the actual distance or spin differential numbers, it wouldn't have been material otherwise they'd have provided it. Costco could turn to the independent study done by "THAT OTHER SITE" and say that they provided actual data on spin rates, distance, etc. which validated the Costco Kirkland Signature premise. It's basically a P'ing contest at that point on whose testing is better and that's going to take a ton of time and expense to prove which testing is more accurate. Who wins other than lawyers and expert witnesses paid by the hour?

 

The 5% failure rate wasn't on paint or cosmetic flaws. It was on balls that failed the durability testing and split or cut during the testing process of being hit multiple times.

[gioreeko]

> @tennistim777 said:

> After today's M G S podcast, it seems as though the new Kirkland ball has tested out to be very spinny, and worse VERY inconsistent. This is not good. It's an interesting podcast. Almost like back to the drawing board type findings. "IF" Costco dare rerelease this ball again, they better have all their T-s crossed and I-s dotted or else their Kirkland golf ball brand could take a major hit. Hopefully they will hire an independent company to put their new release through the rigorous testing before releasing it to the public and not just take the "factories word for it".

 

So they get balls from a bad batch with the cover bonding issue, and they test them to be inconsistent? Hmmm, in other news, the earth is round. I've played two rounds so far with the new balls, and they're as awesome as the OG 4 piece.

[jgonz69]

> @tennistim777 said:

> After today's M G S podcast, it seems as though the new Kirkland ball has tested out to be very spinny, and worse VERY inconsistent. This is not good. It's an interesting podcast. Almost like back to the drawing board type findings. "IF" Costco dare rerelease this ball again, they better have all their T-s crossed and I-s dotted or else their Kirkland golf ball brand could take a major hit. Hopefully they will hire an independent company to put their new release through the rigorous testing before releasing it to the public and not just take the "factories word for it".

They have an agenda. Costco probably wouldn't send them free balls for testing.

 

[bladehunter]

> @gioreeko said:

> > @tennistim777 said:

> > After today's M G S podcast, it seems as though the new Kirkland ball has tested out to be very spinny, and worse VERY inconsistent. This is not good. It's an interesting podcast. Almost like back to the drawing board type findings. "IF" Costco dare rerelease this ball again, they better have all their T-s crossed and I-s dotted or else their Kirkland golf ball brand could take a major hit. Hopefully they will hire an independent company to put their new release through the rigorous testing before releasing it to the public and not just take the "factories word for it".

>

> So they get balls from a bad batch with the cover bonding issue, and they test them to be inconsistent? Hmmm, in other news, the earth is round. I've played two rounds so far with the new balls, and they're as awesome as the OG 4 piece.

 

I’m not at all going to argue with you about the balls quality.

 

But I think that post is a touch of fence riding isn’t it ? Can it be both ? As in obviously a bad batch of balls that nobody should test , and yet also claimed to be an awesome batch that you have had zero issue with and continue to praise with distance reports etc. if guys are going to continue to play a bad batch and brag on those balls , I’d think they’d have no issue with someone testing and reviewing them.

[bladehunter]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > > > For some historical perspective on Titleist and lawsuits, please consider the following:

> > > > >

> > > > > 1. In 2006/2007, Titleist's parent company sued Callaway over patent infringement in a suit that lasted 6 years, cost tens of millions in lawyer fees for both parties and was eventually "settled."

> > > > > 2. In 2016, Titleist's parent company sued 10 direct to consumer ball companies over patent infringement. Several of those companies have since gone out of business lacking the financial ability to defend themselves again the deep pockets of TItleist. In some of those suits, the balls alleged to infringing on patents has dimple counts and patterns and Titleist did not have a comparable ball so the suits went to the materials of the ball composition. Basically they sued over using urethane.

> > > > > 3. In 2017, Titleist sent a "lawyer letter" to Costco, but it was Costco that filed suit against Titleist predicated on the claims in that letter and then Titleist's patent company counter-sued Costco.

> > > > >

> > > > > Not sticking up for Costco or Titleist here, just making sure we're working off historical facts.

> > > >

> > > > Sounds accurate, and makes one wonder why anyone is shocked that titleist would work to protect their market ? And like you said. Costco sued. I wonder on what grounds ? And then apparently dropped suit , since it didn’t go to court. Now has refunded all who’ve bought current ball because of quality concerns. Seemingly making titleists original letter that prompted suit, seem warranted. Or at least well in bounds for questions and concerns over the claims of the balls quality.

> > > >

> > > > Like you said. No dog in the fight really. Just a great curiosity when you see these giant pissing contests.

> > >

> > > Costco sued to protect their ability to continue to sell the ball and disputed the statements made in lawyer letter. Titleist countersued based upon patent violation and false advertising. Titleist claimed, they did the same robotic testing on the original 4 piece KSigs as they did on their own ProV's of both flavors. On driver testing, TItleist claimed the KSig, "Went a shorter distance" but did not provide any quantitative data. On 8 iron and wedge testing Titleist claimed there was "Less backspin" but again provided no quantitative data. In durability testing they stated the KSigs had a "50% failure rate" and BTW that the ProV's had a 5.5% failure rate. **Personal comment/question**...for the ProV1 users, does that 5% failure rate concern you? Every other dozen is going to have a bad ball. Hmmm.

> > >

> > > One of the many claims in the patent infringement was the KSig had at least 1 dimple on the cover which could be covered by the Catenary Curve. For those not familiar with the Catenary Curve (starting with me) it's defined as the curve in the xy-plane of such a chain suspended from equal heights at its ends and dropping at x = 0 to its lowest height y = a is given by the equation y = (a/2)(ex/a + e−x/a). It can also be expressed in terms of the hyperbolic cosine function as y = a cosh(x/a). Ummmm....yeah, gotcha on that one.

> > >

> > > Titleist also claimed that the KSigs have "recessed dimples" and Titleist owns a patent on that. **Personal comment - I haven't played a golf ball in 50 years that didn't have recessed dimples and it would seem every ball violates this patent, if true.**

> > >

> > > Again personal opinion is that Titleist wanted to protect itself in the direct to consumer space. Individually, I don't see Costco or any individual DTC ball impacting their revenues but collectively, it could have a slight impact on their revenues.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Hmm. Didn’t know that titleist actually counter sued. I’m assuming that counter suit is what backed Costco off ? As in doesn’t make sense to counter sue , then settle. If you counter sue I’d guess you intend to go the distance unless the first party backs up to a place you want them to be in the first place. No? Of course that’s my opinion.

> >

> > As far as testing. 5% vs 50 is huge. But moreso , doesn’t it show the lack of testing on this ball ? As in did or can Costco dispute that 50 % claim. Even if it’s totally made up. Can they dispute it ? Not without their own testing. So likely a vague test just to show this point and to wake Costco up to titleists real gripe. That they can’t claim to sell a ball that isn’t a proven equal while claiming it to be equal ( in their vague “ as good or better than leading brands “ speak ).

> >

> > And on the 5% titleist ball failure. I’d bet anything this includes X outs that are sold. This is when they find microscopic flaws in paint , cover or a dimple etc. as in cosmetic flaws. They sell loads of x-outs. If you’re talking 5% total rejects from perfection , and you can still sell and play half those , you’re not talking a huge amount of actual bad balls. If someone ever claimed near zero I’d immediately think it was a lie.

> >

> > Again. That’s my opinion mixed with MY observations.

>

> Neither Costco nor Titleist backed off the lawsuit. It was in Titleist's best interests to file their own suit because if they didn't, then the Costco filing is what the court decides on and Titleist doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning anything financially. By filing their own lawsuit based on their own facts, the lawsuits could be combined which is better for them, their suit could be the only one the judge decides to hear or if both suits go forward and they lose 1, they have their own suit to fall back on. My guess is they both realized the cost/benefit of the suits did nothing to benefit either party and agreed to walk away.

>

> There was minimal actual data provided in the court filing/lawsuit. My guess on the Titleist side is "if" they showed the actual distance or spin differential numbers, it wouldn't have been material otherwise they'd have provided it. Costco could turn to the independent study done by "THAT OTHER SITE" and say that they provided actual data on spin rates, distance, etc. which validated the Costco Kirkland Signature premise. It's basically a P'ing contest at that point on whose testing is better and that's going to take a ton of time and expense to prove which testing is more accurate. Who wins other than lawyers and expert witnesses paid by the hour?

>

> The 5% failure rate wasn't on paint or cosmetic flaws. It was on balls that failed the durability testing and split or cut during the testing process of being hit multiple times.

 

Don’t disagree with the gist of your post. It’s a pointless deal for sure. Costco isn’t going to ever make a real impact on the golfball world.

 

But I still think that Costco is riding the rail with the Kirkland promise vis-à-vis golf balls. They need to have their own testing before hand to show this , not a golf rag test after the fact. It’s a little cart before the horse.

 

 

[GoGoErky]

> @jgonz69 said:

> > @tennistim777 said:

> > After today's M G S podcast, it seems as though the new Kirkland ball has tested out to be very spinny, and worse VERY inconsistent. This is not good. It's an interesting podcast. Almost like back to the drawing board type findings. "IF" Costco dare rerelease this ball again, they better have all their T-s crossed and I-s dotted or else their Kirkland golf ball brand could take a major hit. Hopefully they will hire an independent company to put their new release through the rigorous testing before releasing it to the public and not just take the "factories word for it".

> They have an agenda. Costco probably wouldn't send them free balls for testing.

>

 

They ordered them the day of release like everyone else.

[jgonz69]

They called them crap balls before they were even released

[trackcoach13]

TXG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m g s

[trackcoach13]

I have played 6 rounds with the new KSIG 4-pc and have had no issues with cutting or scuffing. I have lost 3 already and finished today with a fourth one. Ball is as long as ProV1 and spins nicely into and around the greens. I guess I have been lucky so far. Eventually, I will have to do a side-by-side with orig KSig. My guess absent that is I would prefer the orig slightly due to feel.

[snagy2000]

> @jgonz69 said:

> They called them crap balls before they were even released

 

Always running cover for their homie Snell...

[red5standingby]

I played my second round with the new KSIG 4 piece today. The balls were from the same dozen but a different sleeve. My first round had one split after six holes and one split after two shots. Today was better. First ball made it seven holes until I hooked it ob and lost it. Second ball made it through the rest of the round with a few horrific shots. One very thin 54’, pulled driver into a tree and a couple of cart paths. The ball held up well considering what I put it through. It was retired after the round but no splitting.

 

I am liking it better than the Z Star and Chrome Soft. For me it doesn’t spin as much off the tee and on approach shots. It was also a two club plus wind and it performed well compared to my usual ball.

[vietnameeh]

I enjoy reading MGS, but they are bi polar when it comes to the Kirkland Balls.... they liked them, then hated them, then posted up decent numbers about them, then brushed the numbers off, then they made claims about K3 them before they even tested them and now the new 4 piece. they are eating up the fact the balls have issues lol

Talk about snell.... and its different story for them...... best value ball!

[soregongolfer]

> @Hateto3Putt said:

> I did my own little science project this past weekend.

>

> Get away boys weekend trip, all money games...

>

> * 27 holes Friday (pro V1) Won $$, 2 birds, one lucky bounce greenie (I'll take it)

> * 27 Holes Saturday (New "free" Kirklands) Won $$$, 2 birds and one tough par held up, 1 "wow, stuck that one" greenie

> * 18 Holes Sunday (Srixon Z-Star, Tour Yellow if you please) Won $, bird... (and that's my go-to ball)

>

> All balls were fresh out of the sleeve, lost 1 ProV, and 1 Srixon, both were replaced with identical balls

>

> Bottom Line, for me... All balls performed great, the only thing I don't like about the Kirkland is the fact I can't buy any more! The thing just flat out performs. Durable, tee ball long, and I'll say it again, this thing putts like no other. If the same reiteration of this ball returns, I'll buy more without hesitation.

>

> This would be my 4th or 5th round with a new Kirkland, and I've had zero cutting issues.

Good summary. I'm going to pick them up next time assuming I hear about them soon enough.

[GoGoErky]

> @snagy2000 said:

> > @jgonz69 said:

> > They called them crap balls before they were even released

>

> Always running cover for their homie Snell...

 

And yet snell has one ball in the very good and the other in good category in their study

[PuttCurseRepeat]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> For some historical perspective on Titleist and lawsuits, please consider the following:

>

> 2. In 2016, Titleist's parent company sued 10 direct to consumer ball companies over patent infringement. **Several of those companies have since gone out of business lacking the financial ability to defend themselves again the deep pockets of TItleist.** In some of those suits, the balls alleged to infringing on patents has dimple counts and patterns and Titleist did not have a comparable ball so the suits went to the materials of the ball composition. Basically they sued over using urethane.

And some people gave the rationale that supporting Titleist was indirectly supporting "the little guy". Just as long as you're playing ball with Titleist, I guess.

 

[ethan380]

Damn. Should have bought some.