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

[OrangeGravy]

> @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.

 

The legal spat was about the original 4 piece ball. It has nothing to do with the current 4 piece ball. Why are you trying to relate the two?

[gioreeko]

> @OrangeGravy 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.

>

> The legal spat was about the original 4 piece ball. It has nothing to do with the current 4 piece ball. Why are you trying to relate the two?

 

Right? And why would Titleist care about the quality of any other ball? Costco NEVER mentioned Titleist in it's claims about the ball. Hell, Top Flight is a national brand, it's as good as that I'm sure even the trolls will agree with that.

[GoGoErky]

> @gioreeko said:

> > @OrangeGravy 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.

> >

> > The legal spat was about the original 4 piece ball. It has nothing to do with the current 4 piece ball. Why are you trying to relate the two?

>

> Right? And why would Titleist care about the quality of any other ball? Costco NEVER mentioned Titleist in it's claims about the ball. ****, Top Flight is a national brand, it's as good as that I'm sure even the trolls will agree with that.

 

Because titleist like any company is going to protect their product and intellectual property and patents.

 

And the comments about trolls coming

from you is getting obnoxious.

[bladehunter]

> @OrangeGravy 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.

>

> The legal spat was about the original 4 piece ball. It has nothing to do with the current 4 piece ball. Why are you trying to relate the two?

 

Both presumably used the same quality checks , yes? The issue is the claims of quality and performance. These claims are unsubstantiated. And that means that they could be true. But unproven and shouldn’t be made until proven. This is true for all balls. All. And was proven true with the last ball when it failed. It all does go together.

[bladehunter]

> @gioreeko said:

> > @OrangeGravy 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.

> >

> > The legal spat was about the original 4 piece ball. It has nothing to do with the current 4 piece ball. Why are you trying to relate the two?

>

> Right? And why would Titleist care about the quality of any other ball? Costco NEVER mentioned Titleist in it's claims about the ball. , Top Flight is a national brand, it's as good as that I'm sure even the trolls will agree with that.

 

 

First off. The name calling in this thread is past old and has been let go probably too long. The very fact that nobody has flagged those posts means that you’re not dealing with anyone who’s out to get you. So stop.

 

Second when you list “ leading brands, national brands “ etc you’re obviously talking about titleist. And third. The last ball can’t be called better today than topflight. It’s been recalled and refunded. And many many reports of cover delaminating. Topflight has no such recall or refund situation going on.

 

And I’m sure this post will enrage you. But stop for a second and think. I simply replied to your points.

 

The whole point about the Kirkland guarantee is that golf balls are not thought of or sold the same as say wine or paper towels. They are closer to tires . Wear items where performance matters. And tested similarly. If Kirkland made tires they’d have to be tested and rated to make such claims.

[GoGoErky]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @OrangeGravy 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.

> >

> > The legal spat was about the original 4 piece ball. It has nothing to do with the current 4 piece ball. Why are you trying to relate the two?

>

> Both presumably used the same quality checks , yes? The issue is the claims of quality and performance. These claims are unsubstantiated. And that means that they could be true. But unproven and shouldn’t be made until proven. This is true for all balls. All. And was proven true with the last ball when it failed. It all does go together.

 

Titleist has an extensive testing and qc process for their tour balls and I would imagine that when testing other competitors balls they put them thru similar tests. A ball made in Korea the first go around from overrun cores or whatever they were and now made in China from factories that are putting out numerous balls from several brands probably has nowhere near the same checks as titleist

[jj9000]

> @bladehunter said:

 

> Second when you list “ leading brands, national brands “ etc you’re obviously talking about titleist.

 

This is where you are wrong. You assume "leading brands" automatically means Titleist. It doesn't, and the gentleman referring to Top Flight is correct. Let's expound just to drive the point home. What does "leading brands" mean to you? Does it mean "The #1 Ball in Golf"? Or, is it broad enough to capture several potential meanings? Leading in what context?

 

Off the top of my head I can rattle off several areas in which the original KSIG ball was as good or better than the leading brands. Let's chew on Top Flight for a minute. We both agree that Top Flight is a leading brand. No? I would posit the KSIG feels better off the Driver than a Top Flite XL. Additionally, the original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's the standard by which the "as good or better than leading brands" slogan must live up to. No more, no less, and frankly, it's a really low threshold.

 

Now consider the Titleist TruSoft commercials where they call out specific balls (if you haven't seen it, Google it). Titleist can easily say "better feel than X ball". Why? Because just like wine, golf balls have a subjectivity element.

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @jj9000 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

>

> > Second when you list “ leading brands, national brands “ etc you’re obviously talking about titleist.

>

> This is where you are wrong. You assume "leading brands" automatically means Titleist. It doesn't, and the gentleman referring to Top Flight is correct. Let's expound just to drive the point home. What does "leading brands" mean to you? Does it mean "The #1 Ball in Golf"? Or, is it broad enough to capture several potential meanings? Leading in what context?

>

> Off the top of my head I can rattle off several areas in which the original KSIG ball was as good or better than the leading brands. Let's chew on Top Flight for a minute. We both agree that Top Flight is a leading brand. No? I would posit the KSIG feels better off the Driver than a Top Flite XL. Additionally, the original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's the standard by which the "as good or better than leading brands" slogan must live up to. No more, no less, and frankly, it's a really low threshold.

>

> Now consider the Titleist TruSoft commercials where they call out specific balls (if you haven't seen it, Google it). Titleist can easily say "better feel than X ball". Why? Because just like wine, golf balls have a subjectivity element.

>

>

 

I’d agree with that whole hog if.... they had any test data at all that they produced. Not m-g_s nonsense. Just put in the overhead that everyone else has. Then you can claim same same. It’s that simple.

 

What you’re missing is that the claim is made before the ball is in play .... it just happened to perform. But it wasn’t tested and known to perform before the claim. So the claim is unfounded at the time of product launch. It’s a small thing really. Except the $thousands it cost to test it. But I don’t blame those that spend the $ to test, if they want others to do so before claiming their product equal. And no. The standard is not at all feel off putter and driver. It has to do with all the quality control checks , and supply chain checks and consistency for all that process. You know with titleist or Bridgestone that you will get the same ball anywhere you buy one. Made in the same few plants for eons. And checked to the nnnth degree.

 

Kirkland can’t say that. We’ve seen so many short runs then out of stock it’s nuts. Same balls with different cover finishes , fonts , or ink etc. 2-3 different manufacturers, and now a cover issue where it’s able to be peeled off by hand. ( see pics earlier in this thread ). So I can sometimes get it , it maybe one or two finishes , and now it’s recalled. How does a sane person not see how that does not live up to the promise that was given ? Even Costco knows it. They refunded every ball.

 

And no. I’m not bashing Costco. I’m not. I’m explaining why titleist has issue with their claim. Costco can get it right. Im not sure the end cost.

[jj9000]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @jj9000 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> >

> > > Second when you list “ leading brands, national brands “ etc you’re obviously talking about titleist.

> >

> > This is where you are wrong. You assume "leading brands" automatically means Titleist. It doesn't, and the gentleman referring to Top Flight is correct. Let's expound just to drive the point home. What does "leading brands" mean to you? Does it mean "The #1 Ball in Golf"? Or, is it broad enough to capture several potential meanings? Leading in what context?

> >

> > Off the top of my head I can rattle off several areas in which the original KSIG ball was as good or better than the leading brands. Let's chew on Top Flight for a minute. We both agree that Top Flight is a leading brand. No? I would posit the KSIG feels better off the Driver than a Top Flite XL. Additionally, the original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's the standard by which the "as good or better than leading brands" slogan must live up to. No more, no less, and frankly, it's a really low threshold.

> >

> > Now consider the Titleist TruSoft commercials where they call out specific balls (if you haven't seen it, Google it). Titleist can easily say "better feel than X ball". Why? Because just like wine, golf balls have a subjectivity element.

> >

> >

>

> I’d agree with that whole hog if.... they had any test data at all that they produced. Not m-g_s nonsense. Just put in the overhead that everyone else has. Then you can claim same same. It’s that simple.

 

The entire point of my post rests on the fact that Costco didn't need to provide test data for the original KSIG. They don't need to provide anything to live up the the "as good or better than the leading brands" claim.

 

The original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's it. Claim confirmed and validated. It's the exact same concept and logic you've been using for wine.

 

It's also the same benchmark Titleist uses in their latest Tour Soft commercials. No difference. None.

[Girevik]

> @bladehunter said:

> But I still think that Costco is riding the rail with the Kirkland promise vis-à-vis golf balls.

>

>

 

I don't see how. It's simply a money back guarantee, so as long as they give you your money back if you don't think it measures up seems to me they're find. Plus it just says "national brands". What ball do they compare against? How does it compare to a Slazenger or Max-Fli two piece ball? I think it's far too vague to be actionable.

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @jj9000 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @jj9000 said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > >

> > > > Second when you list “ leading brands, national brands “ etc you’re obviously talking about titleist.

> > >

> > > This is where you are wrong. You assume "leading brands" automatically means Titleist. It doesn't, and the gentleman referring to Top Flight is correct. Let's expound just to drive the point home. What does "leading brands" mean to you? Does it mean "The #1 Ball in Golf"? Or, is it broad enough to capture several potential meanings? Leading in what context?

> > >

> > > Off the top of my head I can rattle off several areas in which the original KSIG ball was as good or better than the leading brands. Let's chew on Top Flight for a minute. We both agree that Top Flight is a leading brand. No? I would posit the KSIG feels better off the Driver than a Top Flite XL. Additionally, the original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's the standard by which the "as good or better than leading brands" slogan must live up to. No more, no less, and frankly, it's a really low threshold.

> > >

> > > Now consider the Titleist TruSoft commercials where they call out specific balls (if you haven't seen it, Google it). Titleist can easily say "better feel than X ball". Why? Because just like wine, golf balls have a subjectivity element.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I’d agree with that whole hog if.... they had any test data at all that they produced. Not m-g_s nonsense. Just put in the overhead that everyone else has. Then you can claim same same. It’s that simple.

>

> The entire point of my post rests on the fact that Costco didn't need to provide test data for the original KSIG. They don't need to provide anything to live up the the "as good or better than the leading brands" claim.

>

> The original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's it. Claim confirmed and validated. It's the exact same concept and logic you've been using for wine.

>

> It's also the same benchmark Titleist uses in their latest Tour Soft commercials. No difference. None.

 

Please see my above edit to my opinion on the claim and why it doesn’t work.

[bladehunter]

> @Girevik said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > But I still think that Costco is riding the rail with the Kirkland promise vis-à-vis golf balls.

> >

> >

>

> I don't see how. It's simply a money back guarantee, so as long as they give you your money back if you don't think it measures up seems to me they're find. Plus it just says "national brands". What ball do they compare against? How does it compare to a Slazenger or Max-Fli two piece ball? I think it's far too vague to be actionable.

>

>

 

 

That maybe true depending on the court that sees it. But. I think it’s fine that’s true then customers should take offense at the purposeful side step that it is. Sure. Money back is fine. But if they buy on them claim of “ just as good” vs money back then it’s a shady claim. My opinion. I’m not a money back guarantee buyer. To me free pooop is still pooop. I’m a quality buyer. And I’ll support a small brand in a second. So it’s not that I’m a brand w-h-o-r-e either. Example. I own some Cameron putters that are expensive. I hate the way a lot of those collectors act. And quality is spotty at times. I’m not loyal to that brand. I think that Lamont Mann is the best putter maker on earth. Period.

[jj9000]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @jj9000 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @jj9000 said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > >

> > > > > Second when you list “ leading brands, national brands “ etc you’re obviously talking about titleist.

> > > >

> > > > This is where you are wrong. You assume "leading brands" automatically means Titleist. It doesn't, and the gentleman referring to Top Flight is correct. Let's expound just to drive the point home. What does "leading brands" mean to you? Does it mean "The #1 Ball in Golf"? Or, is it broad enough to capture several potential meanings? Leading in what context?

> > > >

> > > > Off the top of my head I can rattle off several areas in which the original KSIG ball was as good or better than the leading brands. Let's chew on Top Flight for a minute. We both agree that Top Flight is a leading brand. No? I would posit the KSIG feels better off the Driver than a Top Flite XL. Additionally, the original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's the standard by which the "as good or better than leading brands" slogan must live up to. No more, no less, and frankly, it's a really low threshold.

> > > >

> > > > Now consider the Titleist TruSoft commercials where they call out specific balls (if you haven't seen it, Google it). Titleist can easily say "better feel than X ball". Why? Because just like wine, golf balls have a subjectivity element.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I’d agree with that whole hog if.... they had any test data at all that they produced. Not m-g_s nonsense. Just put in the overhead that everyone else has. Then you can claim same same. It’s that simple.

> >

> > The entire point of my post rests on the fact that Costco didn't need to provide test data for the original KSIG. They don't need to provide anything to live up the the "as good or better than the leading brands" claim.

> >

> > The original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's it. Claim confirmed and validated. It's the exact same concept and logic you've been using for wine.

> >

> > It's also the same benchmark Titleist uses in their latest Tour Soft commercials. No difference. None.

>

> Please see my above edit to my opinion on the claim and why it doesn’t work.

 

Sorry man. You and I are completely talking past each other. You mentioned the need to provide test data for Costco to be able to claim "better than the leading brands" claim. They don't, for the reasons I've stated above.

 

All other claims you've made relative to Supply Chain, Testing, Availability, etc. are just noise. I get the point you're trying to make, but you're all over the place in determining and defining what being "as good or better than leading brands" means. It doesn't need to mean anything objective, and passes the red-faced test on subjectivity alone. It doesn't need to mean everything you've laid out.

 

Frankly, it's a very very low benchmark to hit. Several of which I've Iisted above. One of which Titleist uses in the Tour Soft here:

 

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/IEEn/titleist-tour-soft-better-distance

 

 

[DavePelz4]

> @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.

 

Whoa...Earth round? > @bladehunter said:

> > @jj9000 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> >

> > > Second when you list “ leading brands, national brands “ etc you’re obviously talking about titleist.

> >

> > This is where you are wrong. You assume "leading brands" automatically means Titleist. It doesn't, and the gentleman referring to Top Flight is correct. Let's expound just to drive the point home. What does "leading brands" mean to you? Does it mean "The #1 Ball in Golf"? Or, is it broad enough to capture several potential meanings? Leading in what context?

> >

> > Off the top of my head I can rattle off several areas in which the original KSIG ball was as good or better than the leading brands. Let's chew on Top Flight for a minute. We both agree that Top Flight is a leading brand. No? I would posit the KSIG feels better off the Driver than a Top Flite XL. Additionally, the original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's the standard by which the "as good or better than leading brands" slogan must live up to. No more, no less, and frankly, it's a really low threshold.

> >

> > Now consider the Titleist TruSoft commercials where they call out specific balls (if you haven't seen it, Google it). Titleist can easily say "better feel than X ball". Why? Because just like wine, golf balls have a subjectivity element.

> >

> >

>

> I’d agree with that whole hog if.... they had any test data at all that they produced. Not m-g_s nonsense. Just put in the overhead that everyone else has. Then you can claim same same. It’s that simple.

>

> What you’re missing is that the claim is made before the ball is in play .... it just happened to perform. But it wasn’t tested and known to perform before the claim. So the claim is unfounded at the time of product launch. It’s a small thing really. Except the $thousands it cost to test it. But I don’t blame those that spend the $ to test, if they want others to do so before claiming their product equal. And no. The standard is not at all feel off putter and driver. It has to do with all the quality control checks , and supply chain checks and consistency for all that process. You know with titleist or Bridgestone that you will get the same ball anywhere you buy one. Made in the same few plants for eons. And checked to the nnnth degree.

>

> Kirkland can’t say that. We’ve seen so many short runs then out of stock it’s nuts. Same balls with different cover finishes , fonts , or ink etc. 2-3 different manufacturers, and now a cover issue where it’s able to be peeled off by hand. ( see pics earlier in this thread ). So I can sometimes get it , it maybe one or two finishes , and now it’s recalled. How does a sane person not see how that does not live up to the promise that was given ? Even Costco knows it. They refunded every ball.

>

> And no. I’m not bashing Costco. I’m not. I’m explaining why titleist has issue with their claim. Costco can get it right. Im not sure the end cost.

 

Blade I have to disagree with you on testing because the ball was tested by the only common testing agency to test all balls, the USGA. They found the ball to be conforming to all of their standards hence the position on the USGA approved ball list.

[Philomathesq]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @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.

>

> Whoa...Earth round? > @bladehunter said:

> > > @jj9000 said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > >

> > > > Second when you list “ leading brands, national brands “ etc you’re obviously talking about titleist.

> > >

> > > This is where you are wrong. You assume "leading brands" automatically means Titleist. It doesn't, and the gentleman referring to Top Flight is correct. Let's expound just to drive the point home. What does "leading brands" mean to you? Does it mean "The #1 Ball in Golf"? Or, is it broad enough to capture several potential meanings? Leading in what context?

> > >

> > > Off the top of my head I can rattle off several areas in which the original KSIG ball was as good or better than the leading brands. Let's chew on Top Flight for a minute. We both agree that Top Flight is a leading brand. No? I would posit the KSIG feels better off the Driver than a Top Flite XL. Additionally, the original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's the standard by which the "as good or better than leading brands" slogan must live up to. No more, no less, and frankly, it's a really low threshold.

> > >

> > > Now consider the Titleist TruSoft commercials where they call out specific balls (if you haven't seen it, Google it). Titleist can easily say "better feel than X ball". Why? Because just like wine, golf balls have a subjectivity element.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I’d agree with that whole hog if.... they had any test data at all that they produced. Not m-g_s nonsense. Just put in the overhead that everyone else has. Then you can claim same same. It’s that simple.

> >

> > What you’re missing is that the claim is made before the ball is in play .... it just happened to perform. But it wasn’t tested and known to perform before the claim. So the claim is unfounded at the time of product launch. It’s a small thing really. Except the $thousands it cost to test it. But I don’t blame those that spend the $ to test, if they want others to do so before claiming their product equal. And no. The standard is not at all feel off putter and driver. It has to do with all the quality control checks , and supply chain checks and consistency for all that process. You know with titleist or Bridgestone that you will get the same ball anywhere you buy one. Made in the same few plants for eons. And checked to the nnnth degree.

> >

> > Kirkland can’t say that. We’ve seen so many short runs then out of stock it’s nuts. Same balls with different cover finishes , fonts , or ink etc. 2-3 different manufacturers, and now a cover issue where it’s able to be peeled off by hand. ( see pics earlier in this thread ). So I can sometimes get it , it maybe one or two finishes , and now it’s recalled. How does a sane person not see how that does not live up to the promise that was given ? Even Costco knows it. They refunded every ball.

> >

> > And no. I’m not bashing Costco. I’m not. I’m explaining why titleist has issue with their claim. Costco can get it right. Im not sure the end cost.

>

> Blade I have to disagree with you on testing because the ball was tested by the only common testing agency to test all balls, the USGA. **They found the ball to be conforming to all of their standards hence the position on the USGA approved ball list.**

 

I'm not sure I want to dive into this pool, but maybe this is an answer that both sides can accept? Specifically, based on the language imputed to Costco ("as good or better than national leading brands"), all Costco has to _legally_ show is that the ball is at least _as good_ as some ball from a national leading brand (which, by the way, is such a vague term as to make it nearly meaningless); that is all Costco has to show. I can see a legal argument (whether or not you like the argument is irrelevant, so long as the argument has some logical support) that says that the ball's inclusion on the USGA approved list is de facto proof that the ball is at least _as good_ as balls from national leading brands.

 

I get both sides of the argument. However, the legal system we have allows for so much latitude in making claims in advertising that it is nearly impossible to find someone liable for false advertising unless they outright lie. If you ever read the fine print in car commercials, you'll see that ABC Truck is the longest-lasting truck in its segment... and its segment is defined as something ridiculous like "all trucks purchased in the town of Pocatello, ID, the week of May 13th, 2001." Also, at least in my opinion, "feel" is a factor in golf ball performance, despite what M-G-S decries. As such, because feel is subjective, any ball manufacturer can run around and say their ball performs "as good or better" than other balls if they can get at least one person to state that the ball feels better. I'm a data guy, so I would love it if ball companies actually had to report hard data to back up their claims, but that will never happen. Also, as I'm sure everyone is aware, you can manipulate data so much that I'm not sure that it would matter, because the data set could be defined in such a limited way (see my above example re: Pocatello, ID) as to be utterly useless.

[Nessism]

> @GoGoErky said:

> Titleist has an extensive testing and qc process for their tour balls and I would imagine that when testing other competitors balls they put them thru similar tests. A ball made in Korea the first go around from overrun cores or whatever they were and now made in China from factories that are putting out numerous balls from several brands probably has nowhere near the same checks as titleist

 

Your post is full of the typical supposition and guessing that pervades among the haters. We have no proof that the first Ksig was born out of "overrun cores" nor do we have any facts comparing "checks" performed at Titlest and Costco's ball manufacturer in China.

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > @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.

> >

> > Whoa...Earth round? > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @jj9000 said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > >

> > > > > Second when you list “ leading brands, national brands “ etc you’re obviously talking about titleist.

> > > >

> > > > This is where you are wrong. You assume "leading brands" automatically means Titleist. It doesn't, and the gentleman referring to Top Flight is correct. Let's expound just to drive the point home. What does "leading brands" mean to you? Does it mean "The #1 Ball in Golf"? Or, is it broad enough to capture several potential meanings? Leading in what context?

> > > >

> > > > Off the top of my head I can rattle off several areas in which the original KSIG ball was as good or better than the leading brands. Let's chew on Top Flight for a minute. We both agree that Top Flight is a leading brand. No? I would posit the KSIG feels better off the Driver than a Top Flite XL. Additionally, the original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's the standard by which the "as good or better than leading brands" slogan must live up to. No more, no less, and frankly, it's a really low threshold.

> > > >

> > > > Now consider the Titleist TruSoft commercials where they call out specific balls (if you haven't seen it, Google it). Titleist can easily say "better feel than X ball". Why? Because just like wine, golf balls have a subjectivity element.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I’d agree with that whole hog if.... they had any test data at all that they produced. Not m-g_s nonsense. Just put in the overhead that everyone else has. Then you can claim same same. It’s that simple.

> > >

> > > What you’re missing is that the claim is made before the ball is in play .... it just happened to perform. But it wasn’t tested and known to perform before the claim. So the claim is unfounded at the time of product launch. It’s a small thing really. Except the $thousands it cost to test it. But I don’t blame those that spend the $ to test, if they want others to do so before claiming their product equal. And no. The standard is not at all feel off putter and driver. It has to do with all the quality control checks , and supply chain checks and consistency for all that process. You know with titleist or Bridgestone that you will get the same ball anywhere you buy one. Made in the same few plants for eons. And checked to the nnnth degree.

> > >

> > > Kirkland can’t say that. We’ve seen so many short runs then out of stock it’s nuts. Same balls with different cover finishes , fonts , or ink etc. 2-3 different manufacturers, and now a cover issue where it’s able to be peeled off by hand. ( see pics earlier in this thread ). So I can sometimes get it , it maybe one or two finishes , and now it’s recalled. How does a sane person not see how that does not live up to the promise that was given ? Even Costco knows it. They refunded every ball.

> > >

> > > And no. I’m not bashing Costco. I’m not. I’m explaining why titleist has issue with their claim. Costco can get it right. Im not sure the end cost.

> >

> > Blade I have to disagree with you on testing because the ball was tested by the only common testing agency to test all balls, the USGA. **They found the ball to be conforming to all of their standards hence the position on the USGA approved ball list.**

>

> I'm not sure I want to dive into this pool, but maybe this is an answer that both sides can accept? Specifically, based on the language imputed to Costco ("as good or better than national leading brands"), all Costco has to _legally_ show is that the ball is at least _as good_ as some ball from a national leading brand (which, by the way, is such a vague term as to make it nearly meaningless); that is all Costco has to show. I can see a legal argument (whether or not you like the argument is irrelevant, so long as the argument has some logical support) that says that the ball's inclusion on the USGA approved list is de facto proof that the ball is at least _as good_ as balls from national leading brands.

>

> I get both sides of the argument. However, the legal system we have allows for so much latitude in making claims in advertising that it is nearly impossible to find someone liable for false advertising unless they outright lie. If you ever read the fine print in car commercials, you'll see that ABC Truck is the longest-lasting truck in its segment... and its segment is defined as something ridiculous like "all trucks purchased in the town of Pocatello, ID, the week of May 13th, 2001." Also, at least in my opinion, "feel" is a factor in golf ball performance, despite what M-G-S decries. As such, because feel is subjective, any ball manufacturer can run around and say their ball performs "as good or better" than other balls if they can get at least one person to state that the ball feels better. I'm a data guy, so I would love it if ball companies actually had to report hard data to back up their claims, but that will never happen. Also, as I'm sure everyone is aware, you can manipulate data so much that I'm not sure that it would matter, because the data set could be defined in such a limited way (see my above example re: Pocatello, ID) as to be utterly useless.

 

Absolutely agree.

 

And never once suggested that titleist could sue the pants off them and win. But. I do get why they tried to bluff their way into the discussion about the claim. Because the claim is built on shifting sand. Which is what I’ve been trying to say. It’s a literally meaningless claim that their members seem to gobble up. Now as I say that I mean anyone who’s buying based on quality claims. If you buy purely on a money back guarantee , by all means , buy and return away. But the guarantee based on quality isn’t based on anything. If I’m reading you correctly that’s exactly what you’re saying too. It’s literally based on whether or not the USga says “ it’s a golf ball , and legal for play”. Assuming all Kirkland balls are on the USga list I get that. ( I’m not sure if they are or not ). Because they don’t test for minimum performance or durability.

[bladehunter]

> @Nessism said:

> > @GoGoErky said:

> > Titleist has an extensive testing and qc process for their tour balls and I would imagine that when testing other competitors balls they put them thru similar tests. A ball made in Korea the first go around from overrun cores or whatever they were and now made in China from factories that are putting out numerous balls from several brands probably has nowhere near the same checks as titleist

>

> Your post is full of the typical supposition and guessing that pervades among the haters. We have no proof that the first Ksig was born out of "overrun cores" nor do we have any facts comparing "checks" performed at Titlest and Costco's ball manufacturer in China.

>

>

 

 

Sure. But isn’t that the gripe? That zero facts of their process chain are known. It’s a ball with Kirkland on it that just appears. And then disappears. Can’t call out one side for lack of facts. Not when you can’t tell anyone how the first and subsequent balls came to be branded by Costco. Speculation is fair game for anyone until facts are known.

[GoGoErky]

> @Nessism said:

> > @GoGoErky said:

> > Titleist has an extensive testing and qc process for their tour balls and I would imagine that when testing other competitors balls they put them thru similar tests. A ball made in Korea the first go around from overrun cores or whatever they were and now made in China from factories that are putting out numerous balls from several brands probably has nowhere near the same checks as titleist

>

> Your post is full of the typical supposition and guessing that pervades among the haters. We have no proof that the first Ksig was born out of "overrun cores" nor do we have any facts comparing "checks" performed at Titlest and Costco's ball manufacturer in China.

>

>

 

Weird thing is I’m not a hater. I could care less what other people play or why they play it. I don’t doubt the original was better than prov or other balls on the market for some but that goes for lots of balls and gear.

 

The claims from the fanatics are filled with as much as you say “supposition and guessing.” The fanatics don’t like that their ball was limited in supply and has now changed twice and the latest run has issues no matter how big or small. Also no guarantee the next batch will be the same ball as this one or even if there will be one

 

 

[Philomathesq]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > > @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.

> > >

> > > Whoa...Earth round? > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @jj9000 said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > Second when you list “ leading brands, national brands “ etc you’re obviously talking about titleist.

> > > > >

> > > > > This is where you are wrong. You assume "leading brands" automatically means Titleist. It doesn't, and the gentleman referring to Top Flight is correct. Let's expound just to drive the point home. What does "leading brands" mean to you? Does it mean "The #1 Ball in Golf"? Or, is it broad enough to capture several potential meanings? Leading in what context?

> > > > >

> > > > > Off the top of my head I can rattle off several areas in which the original KSIG ball was as good or better than the leading brands. Let's chew on Top Flight for a minute. We both agree that Top Flight is a leading brand. No? I would posit the KSIG feels better off the Driver than a Top Flite XL. Additionally, the original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's the standard by which the "as good or better than leading brands" slogan must live up to. No more, no less, and frankly, it's a really low threshold.

> > > > >

> > > > > Now consider the Titleist TruSoft commercials where they call out specific balls (if you haven't seen it, Google it). Titleist can easily say "better feel than X ball". Why? Because just like wine, golf balls have a subjectivity element.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I’d agree with that whole hog if.... they had any test data at all that they produced. Not m-g_s nonsense. Just put in the overhead that everyone else has. Then you can claim same same. It’s that simple.

> > > >

> > > > What you’re missing is that the claim is made before the ball is in play .... it just happened to perform. But it wasn’t tested and known to perform before the claim. So the claim is unfounded at the time of product launch. It’s a small thing really. Except the $thousands it cost to test it. But I don’t blame those that spend the $ to test, if they want others to do so before claiming their product equal. And no. The standard is not at all feel off putter and driver. It has to do with all the quality control checks , and supply chain checks and consistency for all that process. You know with titleist or Bridgestone that you will get the same ball anywhere you buy one. Made in the same few plants for eons. And checked to the nnnth degree.

> > > >

> > > > Kirkland can’t say that. We’ve seen so many short runs then out of stock it’s nuts. Same balls with different cover finishes , fonts , or ink etc. 2-3 different manufacturers, and now a cover issue where it’s able to be peeled off by hand. ( see pics earlier in this thread ). So I can sometimes get it , it maybe one or two finishes , and now it’s recalled. How does a sane person not see how that does not live up to the promise that was given ? Even Costco knows it. They refunded every ball.

> > > >

> > > > And no. I’m not bashing Costco. I’m not. I’m explaining why titleist has issue with their claim. Costco can get it right. Im not sure the end cost.

> > >

> > > Blade I have to disagree with you on testing because the ball was tested by the only common testing agency to test all balls, the USGA. **They found the ball to be conforming to all of their standards hence the position on the USGA approved ball list.**

> >

> > I'm not sure I want to dive into this pool, but maybe this is an answer that both sides can accept? Specifically, based on the language imputed to Costco ("as good or better than national leading brands"), all Costco has to _legally_ show is that the ball is at least _as good_ as some ball from a national leading brand (which, by the way, is such a vague term as to make it nearly meaningless); that is all Costco has to show. I can see a legal argument (whether or not you like the argument is irrelevant, so long as the argument has some logical support) that says that the ball's inclusion on the USGA approved list is de facto proof that the ball is at least _as good_ as balls from national leading brands.

> >

> > I get both sides of the argument. However, the legal system we have allows for so much latitude in making claims in advertising that it is nearly impossible to find someone liable for false advertising unless they outright lie. If you ever read the fine print in car commercials, you'll see that ABC Truck is the longest-lasting truck in its segment... and its segment is defined as something ridiculous like "all trucks purchased in the town of Pocatello, ID, the week of May 13th, 2001." Also, at least in my opinion, "feel" is a factor in golf ball performance, despite what M-G-S decries. As such, because feel is subjective, any ball manufacturer can run around and say their ball performs "as good or better" than other balls if they can get at least one person to state that the ball feels better. I'm a data guy, so I would love it if ball companies actually had to report hard data to back up their claims, but that will never happen. Also, as I'm sure everyone is aware, you can manipulate data so much that I'm not sure that it would matter, because the data set could be defined in such a limited way (see my above example re: Pocatello, ID) as to be utterly useless.

>

> Absolutely agree.

>

> And never once suggested that titleist could sue the pants off them and win. But. I do get why they tried to bluff their way into the discussion about the claim. Because the claim is built on shifting sand. Which is what I’ve been trying to say. It’s a literally meaningless claim that their members seem to gobble up. Now as I say that I mean anyone who’s buying based on quality claims. If you buy purely on a money back guarantee , by all means , buy and return away. But the guarantee based on quality isn’t based on anything. If I’m reading you correctly that’s exactly what you’re saying too. It’s literally based on whether or not the USga says “ it’s a golf ball , and legal for play”. Assuming all Kirkland balls are on the USga list I get that. ( I’m not sure if they are or not ). Because they don’t test for minimum performance or durability.

 

Yep, we are on the same page. I think that so much gets lost in translation on this site, and in life.

 

On an interesting note, I don't necessarily want to put words into Dean Snell's mouth, but I take his recent comments to mean that the original KSIG 4-piece/OG KSIG was one of his designs and that it was a great ball. I also took from his comments that the new KSIG 4-piece/KP1 is an old Nike design that has a substandard thermoplastic urethane cover. But, don't let me convince you, see for yourself:

 

> Dean Snell said:

>As I had mentioned last year, the original Kirkland ball was made in limited inventory, and released in small batches from month to month. Great marketing by Costco to stay in the news, but this is why they sold out in just a few hours or days after release. The amounts were very small in the golf ball world. And yes, I do know the volumes, since I am very familiar with the factory, process, tooling and monthly capacities that can be produced. Great golf ball they originally released (if I do say so myself, hint hint)...but it is gone from Nassau and not being made and sold anymore... the new Kirkland balls are made in China, and are not thermoset urethane covers, they are thermoplastic covers... Same thermoplastic covers and same tooling that Nike used when they were in the ball business... there are several different thermplastic covers (formulations) out there used by Bridgestone and Srixon which are excellent, but this cover is not that same technology. Each company has their own technologies and formulations, so wanted to be clear that all thermoplastic urethanes are not the same.

https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/19156810#Comment_19156810

 

[bladehunter]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > > > @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.

> > > >

> > > > Whoa...Earth round? > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @jj9000 said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > Second when you list “ leading brands, national brands “ etc you’re obviously talking about titleist.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is where you are wrong. You assume "leading brands" automatically means Titleist. It doesn't, and the gentleman referring to Top Flight is correct. Let's expound just to drive the point home. What does "leading brands" mean to you? Does it mean "The #1 Ball in Golf"? Or, is it broad enough to capture several potential meanings? Leading in what context?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Off the top of my head I can rattle off several areas in which the original KSIG ball was as good or better than the leading brands. Let's chew on Top Flight for a minute. We both agree that Top Flight is a leading brand. No? I would posit the KSIG feels better off the Driver than a Top Flite XL. Additionally, the original KSIG feels better off the putter than the Top Flite XL. That's the standard by which the "as good or better than leading brands" slogan must live up to. No more, no less, and frankly, it's a really low threshold.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Now consider the Titleist TruSoft commercials where they call out specific balls (if you haven't seen it, Google it). Titleist can easily say "better feel than X ball". Why? Because just like wine, golf balls have a subjectivity element.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I’d agree with that whole hog if.... they had any test data at all that they produced. Not m-g_s nonsense. Just put in the overhead that everyone else has. Then you can claim same same. It’s that simple.

> > > > >

> > > > > What you’re missing is that the claim is made before the ball is in play .... it just happened to perform. But it wasn’t tested and known to perform before the claim. So the claim is unfounded at the time of product launch. It’s a small thing really. Except the $thousands it cost to test it. But I don’t blame those that spend the $ to test, if they want others to do so before claiming their product equal. And no. The standard is not at all feel off putter and driver. It has to do with all the quality control checks , and supply chain checks and consistency for all that process. You know with titleist or Bridgestone that you will get the same ball anywhere you buy one. Made in the same few plants for eons. And checked to the nnnth degree.

> > > > >

> > > > > Kirkland can’t say that. We’ve seen so many short runs then out of stock it’s nuts. Same balls with different cover finishes , fonts , or ink etc. 2-3 different manufacturers, and now a cover issue where it’s able to be peeled off by hand. ( see pics earlier in this thread ). So I can sometimes get it , it maybe one or two finishes , and now it’s recalled. How does a sane person not see how that does not live up to the promise that was given ? Even Costco knows it. They refunded every ball.

> > > > >

> > > > > And no. I’m not bashing Costco. I’m not. I’m explaining why titleist has issue with their claim. Costco can get it right. Im not sure the end cost.

> > > >

> > > > Blade I have to disagree with you on testing because the ball was tested by the only common testing agency to test all balls, the USGA. **They found the ball to be conforming to all of their standards hence the position on the USGA approved ball list.**

> > >

> > > I'm not sure I want to dive into this pool, but maybe this is an answer that both sides can accept? Specifically, based on the language imputed to Costco ("as good or better than national leading brands"), all Costco has to _legally_ show is that the ball is at least _as good_ as some ball from a national leading brand (which, by the way, is such a vague term as to make it nearly meaningless); that is all Costco has to show. I can see a legal argument (whether or not you like the argument is irrelevant, so long as the argument has some logical support) that says that the ball's inclusion on the USGA approved list is de facto proof that the ball is at least _as good_ as balls from national leading brands.

> > >

> > > I get both sides of the argument. However, the legal system we have allows for so much latitude in making claims in advertising that it is nearly impossible to find someone liable for false advertising unless they outright lie. If you ever read the fine print in car commercials, you'll see that ABC Truck is the longest-lasting truck in its segment... and its segment is defined as something ridiculous like "all trucks purchased in the town of Pocatello, ID, the week of May 13th, 2001." Also, at least in my opinion, "feel" is a factor in golf ball performance, despite what M-G-S decries. As such, because feel is subjective, any ball manufacturer can run around and say their ball performs "as good or better" than other balls if they can get at least one person to state that the ball feels better. I'm a data guy, so I would love it if ball companies actually had to report hard data to back up their claims, but that will never happen. Also, as I'm sure everyone is aware, you can manipulate data so much that I'm not sure that it would matter, because the data set could be defined in such a limited way (see my above example re: Pocatello, ID) as to be utterly useless.

> >

> > Absolutely agree.

> >

> > And never once suggested that titleist could sue the pants off them and win. But. I do get why they tried to bluff their way into the discussion about the claim. Because the claim is built on shifting sand. Which is what I’ve been trying to say. It’s a literally meaningless claim that their members seem to gobble up. Now as I say that I mean anyone who’s buying based on quality claims. If you buy purely on a money back guarantee , by all means , buy and return away. But the guarantee based on quality isn’t based on anything. If I’m reading you correctly that’s exactly what you’re saying too. It’s literally based on whether or not the USga says “ it’s a golf ball , and legal for play”. Assuming all Kirkland balls are on the USga list I get that. ( I’m not sure if they are or not ). Because they don’t test for minimum performance or durability.

>

> Yep, we are on the same page. I think that so much gets lost in translation on this site, and in life.

>

> On an interesting note, I don't necessarily want to put words into Dean Snell's mouth, but I take his recent comments to mean that the original KSIG 4-piece/OG KSIG was one of his designs and that it was a great ball. I also took from his comments that the new KSIG 4-piece/KP1 is an old Nike design that has a substandard thermoplastic urethane cover. But, don't let me convince you, see for yourself:

>

> > Dean Snell said:

> >As I had mentioned last year, the original Kirkland ball was made in limited inventory, and released in small batches from month to month. Great marketing by Costco to stay in the news, but this is why they sold out in just a few hours or days after release. The amounts were very small in the golf ball world. And yes, I do know the volumes, since I am very familiar with the factory, process, tooling and monthly capacities that can be produced. Great golf ball they originally released (if I do say so myself, hint hint)...but it is gone from Nassau and not being made and sold anymore... the new Kirkland balls are made in China, and are not thermoset urethane covers, they are thermoplastic covers... Same thermoplastic covers and same tooling that Nike used when they were in the ball business... there are several different thermplastic covers (formulations) out there used by Bridgestone and Srixon which are excellent, but this cover is not that same technology. Each company has their own technologies and formulations, so wanted to be clear that all thermoplastic urethanes are not the same.

> https://forums.golfwrx.com/discussion/comment/19156810#Comment_19156810

>

 

Excellent post. Most real info I’ve read in this thread yet. This ^ is what I’d love to read. Real stuff. Thanks !

[gioreeko]

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @Nessism said:

> > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > Titleist has an extensive testing and qc process for their tour balls and I would imagine that when testing other competitors balls they put them thru similar tests. A ball made in Korea the first go around from overrun cores or whatever they were and now made in China from factories that are putting out numerous balls from several brands probably has nowhere near the same checks as titleist

> >

> > Your post is full of the typical supposition and guessing that pervades among the haters. We have no proof that the first Ksig was born out of "overrun cores" nor do we have any facts comparing "checks" performed at Titlest and Costco's ball manufacturer in China.

> >

> >

>

> Weird thing is I’m not a hater. I could care less what other people play or why they play it. I don’t doubt the original was better than prov or other balls on the market for some but that goes for lots of balls and gear.

>

> The claims from the fanatics are filled with as much as you say “supposition and guessing.” The fanatics don’t like that their ball was limited in supply and has now changed twice and the latest run has issues no matter how big or small. Also no guarantee the next batch will be the same ball as this one or even if there will be one

>

>

 

The ball has never changed. They have different models, and didn't try to fool anyone by using the same packaging and name for the different models. Titleist just released a new ball. OMG, must be a problem with the ProV1.

[GoGoErky]

> @gioreeko said:

> > @GoGoErky said:

> > > @Nessism said:

> > > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > > Titleist has an extensive testing and qc process for their tour balls and I would imagine that when testing other competitors balls they put them thru similar tests. A ball made in Korea the first go around from overrun cores or whatever they were and now made in China from factories that are putting out numerous balls from several brands probably has nowhere near the same checks as titleist

> > >

> > > Your post is full of the typical supposition and guessing that pervades among the haters. We have no proof that the first Ksig was born out of "overrun cores" nor do we have any facts comparing "checks" performed at Titlest and Costco's ball manufacturer in China.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Weird thing is I’m not a hater. I could care less what other people play or why they play it. I don’t doubt the original was better than prov or other balls on the market for some but that goes for lots of balls and gear.

> >

> > The claims from the fanatics are filled with as much as you say “supposition and guessing.” The fanatics don’t like that their ball was limited in supply and has now changed twice and the latest run has issues no matter how big or small. Also no guarantee the next batch will be the same ball as this one or even if there will be one

> >

> >

>

> The ball has never changed. They have different models, and didn't try to fool anyone by using the same packaging and name for the different models. Titleist just released a new ball. OMG, must be a problem with the ProV1.

 

They have had 3 different balls. The original 4 piece no longer being sold and will never come back made in Korea. The next release was a 3 piece ball made in China and the new 4 piece ball made in China completely different from the original 4 piece. This is fact.

 

Titleist has a prototype ball out that doesn’t replace any ball in their lineup. Each of the balls have a 2 year release cycle and get tweaked for the next release but it’s never a completely different ball like the Kirkland have been.

 

 

[gioreeko]

> @GoGoErky said:

> > @gioreeko said:

> > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > > @Nessism said:

> > > > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > > > Titleist has an extensive testing and qc process for their tour balls and I would imagine that when testing other competitors balls they put them thru similar tests. A ball made in Korea the first go around from overrun cores or whatever they were and now made in China from factories that are putting out numerous balls from several brands probably has nowhere near the same checks as titleist

> > > >

> > > > Your post is full of the typical supposition and guessing that pervades among the haters. We have no proof that the first Ksig was born out of "overrun cores" nor do we have any facts comparing "checks" performed at Titlest and Costco's ball manufacturer in China.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Weird thing is I’m not a hater. I could care less what other people play or why they play it. I don’t doubt the original was better than prov or other balls on the market for some but that goes for lots of balls and gear.

> > >

> > > The claims from the fanatics are filled with as much as you say “supposition and guessing.” The fanatics don’t like that their ball was limited in supply and has now changed twice and the latest run has issues no matter how big or small. Also no guarantee the next batch will be the same ball as this one or even if there will be one

> > >

> > >

> >

> > The ball has never changed. They have different models, and didn't try to fool anyone by using the same packaging and name for the different models. Titleist just released a new ball. OMG, must be a problem with the ProV1.

>

> They have had 3 different balls. The original 4 piece no longer being sold and will never come back made in Korea. The next release was a 3 piece ball made in China and the new 4 piece ball made in China completely different from the original 4 piece. This is fact.

>

> Titleist has a prototype ball out that doesn’t replace any ball in their lineup. Each of the balls have a 2 year release cycle and get tweaked for the next release but it’s never a completely different ball like the Kirkland have been.

>

>

 

And Kirkland has had different models too, what's the issue? They're not a golf company, so having any consistency in golf products isn't their main focus, I've had other Kirkland products that either changed or were discontinued, and I bought them and enjoyed them when they were around. I loved the OG 4 piece so much that I bought 12 dozen, and still have over 8 dozen left. The new 4 piece feels very similar, and hopefully they figure out the manufacturing issue, and I'll get more, but I don't expect them to become a golf company, they aren't manufacturing anything, but I'll use what they release if it's good, more money to golf for me!

[Nessism]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Nessism said:

> > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > Titleist has an extensive testing and qc process for their tour balls and I would imagine that when testing other competitors balls they put them thru similar tests. A ball made in Korea the first go around from overrun cores or whatever they were and now made in China from factories that are putting out numerous balls from several brands probably has nowhere near the same checks as titleist

> >

> > Your post is full of the typical supposition and guessing that pervades among the haters. We have no proof that the first Ksig was born out of "overrun cores" nor do we have any facts comparing "checks" performed at Titlest and Costco's ball manufacturer in China.

> >

> >

>

>

> Sure. But isn’t that the gripe? That zero facts of their process chain are known. It’s a ball with Kirkland on it that just appears. And then disappears. Can’t call out one side for lack of facts. Not when you can’t tell anyone how the first and subsequent balls came to be branded by Costco. Speculation is fair game for anyone until facts are known.

 

Since when is it a manufacturers responsibility to tell their end users what their supply chain entails? Products come and go at Costco all the time, even some with the Kirkland brand hanging on them, so what happened shouldn't be too much of a surprise. It seems pretty clear, but speculation on my part, that demand spiked way beyond what Costco expected thus the fast sell out. Is there a problem, other than the haters demanding an explanation?

[gioreeko]

> @Nessism said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Nessism said:

> > > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > > Titleist has an extensive testing and qc process for their tour balls and I would imagine that when testing other competitors balls they put them thru similar tests. A ball made in Korea the first go around from overrun cores or whatever they were and now made in China from factories that are putting out numerous balls from several brands probably has nowhere near the same checks as titleist

> > >

> > > Your post is full of the typical supposition and guessing that pervades among the haters. We have no proof that the first Ksig was born out of "overrun cores" nor do we have any facts comparing "checks" performed at Titlest and Costco's ball manufacturer in China.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > Sure. But isn’t that the gripe? That zero facts of their process chain are known. It’s a ball with Kirkland on it that just appears. And then disappears. Can’t call out one side for lack of facts. Not when you can’t tell anyone how the first and subsequent balls came to be branded by Costco. Speculation is fair game for anyone until facts are known.

>

> Since when is it a manufacturers responsibility to tell their end users what their supply chain entails? Products come and go at Costco all the time, even some with the Kirkland brand hanging on them, so what happened shouldn't be too much of a surprise. It seems pretty clear, but speculation on my part, that demand spiked way beyond what Costco expected thus the fast sell out. Is there a problem, other than the haters demanding an explanation?

 

I guess they're not Costco members, and don't really know of the ins and outs of their business model. Why they care is beyond me.

[bladehunter]

> @Nessism said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Nessism said:

> > > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > > Titleist has an extensive testing and qc process for their tour balls and I would imagine that when testing other competitors balls they put them thru similar tests. A ball made in Korea the first go around from overrun cores or whatever they were and now made in China from factories that are putting out numerous balls from several brands probably has nowhere near the same checks as titleist

> > >

> > > Your post is full of the typical supposition and guessing that pervades among the haters. We have no proof that the first Ksig was born out of "overrun cores" nor do we have any facts comparing "checks" performed at Titlest and Costco's ball manufacturer in China.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > Sure. But isn’t that the gripe? That zero facts of their process chain are known. It’s a ball with Kirkland on it that just appears. And then disappears. Can’t call out one side for lack of facts. Not when you can’t tell anyone how the first and subsequent balls came to be branded by Costco. Speculation is fair game for anyone until facts are known.

>

> Since when is it a manufacturers responsibility to tell their end users what their supply chain entails? Products come and go at Costco all the time, even some with the Kirkland brand hanging on them, so what happened shouldn't be too much of a surprise. It seems pretty clear, but speculation on my part, that demand spiked way beyond what Costco expected thus the fast sell out. Is there a problem, other than the haters demanding an explanation?

 

The first sentence is beyond the point. No they don’t have to. Should they ? Why not ? Speculation on your part and speculation on anyone else’s part is equal. Both worthless and worth the same at the same time. That’s all I said. You can’t call out speculation when the truth isn’t known. You know this man. Why argue it ?

[bladehunter]

> @gioreeko said:

> > @Nessism said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @Nessism said:

> > > > > @GoGoErky said:

> > > > > Titleist has an extensive testing and qc process for their tour balls and I would imagine that when testing other competitors balls they put them thru similar tests. A ball made in Korea the first go around from overrun cores or whatever they were and now made in China from factories that are putting out numerous balls from several brands probably has nowhere near the same checks as titleist

> > > >

> > > > Your post is full of the typical supposition and guessing that pervades among the haters. We have no proof that the first Ksig was born out of "overrun cores" nor do we have any facts comparing "checks" performed at Titlest and Costco's ball manufacturer in China.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sure. But isn’t that the gripe? That zero facts of their process chain are known. It’s a ball with Kirkland on it that just appears. And then disappears. Can’t call out one side for lack of facts. Not when you can’t tell anyone how the first and subsequent balls came to be branded by Costco. Speculation is fair game for anyone until facts are known.

> >

> > Since when is it a manufacturers responsibility to tell their end users what their supply chain entails? Products come and go at Costco all the time, even some with the Kirkland brand hanging on them, so what happened shouldn't be too much of a surprise. It seems pretty clear, but speculation on my part, that demand spiked way beyond what Costco expected thus the fast sell out. Is there a problem, other than the haters demanding an explanation?

>

> I guess they're not Costco members, and don't really know of the ins and outs of their business model. Why they care is beyond me.

 

 

That’s what we’re looking for. An answer as to why they produced a good ball , then it went away never to return?

 

If you have a tutorial that pertains to Costco’s golf ball marketing plan , ball business model I’m all ears.

 

But we don’t need to hear about the overall business model. We get that. “ make money on memberships , sell things that are cheap till they run out , $5 coke Hebrew national dogs that now are replaced with Kirkland dogs and soda “ ( cause that’s the same thing ?‍♂️). Preemptive apology for that snark. But we don’t need a rehash of that.

 

It’s the golfball game that’s a mystery. If you have some insight there please do tell.

[DavePelz4]

I've often wondered why Costco only sells pumpkins and Halloween decorations in October and why they don't sell them year round. Same with Christmas trees, Poinsettias, holiday wrapping paper and 4 ton floor jacks. Will need to send them an email to understand these mysteries!

[bladehunter]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> I've often wondered why Costco only sells pumpkins and Halloween decorations in October and why they don't sell them year round. Same with Christmas trees, Poinsettias, holiday wrapping paper and 4 ton floor jacks. Will need to send them an email to understand these mysteries!

 

Lol. You know I enjoy and share your sense of humor mr Pelz. The more sarcastic and outlandish the better !

 

That being said. Is there a golfball holiday I’m unaware of ? I was under the idea that they’d sell all year long !?