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

[cardigan]

1 hour ago, Girevik said:

Yes, but there is only one ball with this stamp on the list right? And two "different" balls with that stamp.  Does that make both conforming?  Or, as is quite likely, am I missing something?

Any official trying to determine if a ball conforms can only go by the markings on the ball and the description on the conforming list which doesn't get into font clarity or cover brightness (unless you want to include matte vs glossy which is definitely differentiated).  In any case, that ship has already sailed unless someone thinks they can get Costco and/or the USGA to release an official statement this far after the fact.

[AlanC]

It's not a matter of conforming.  Both versions conform. The problem lies in the fact that the two versions are functionally different and therefore play different.. You need to know which version you are playing for yardage adjustments as well as accounting for spin rate.

[Girevik]

I guess I just don't fall into the "it's not illegal if you don't get caught" camp.

[snagy2000]

46 minutes ago, Girevik said:

I guess I just don't fall into the "it's not illegal if you don't get caught" camp.

Calling out those who DGAF and mostly struggle to break 100 for some BS rule which doesn't impact their play one way or another isn't very...

 

 

 

 

[cardigan]

19 minutes ago, Girevik said:

I guess I just don't fall into the "it's not illegal if you don't get caught" camp.

I personally don't think that playing either ball would be considered getting away with something but to each their own.  I suppose you can send examples of each of the balls to the USGA and ask them to make an official ruling on whether or not both are conforming and if it's only one, which one is it.  I doubt that you would get a response but if you did it would most likely be one of the below:

• I think most likely: both are conforming and are considered the same ball as far as submission requirements go.  I seem to recall hearing things about different models of balls like "durability was an issue but we've addressed that" without a stamp change so it's possible that the USGA has allowances for tweaking balls without requiring a new stamp. You can look at "Ball Type Definition" in the USGA golf ball submission guidelines to see what they look at but keep in mind that it's up to the USGA to make the determination of differences and it's not something that is going to be resolved in a forum.  You can use it for healthy discussion (and there was plenty of that in this very thread starting way back in October 2020) but you're not going to get a resolution.  
• Unlikely but possible: We consider these to be different balls with the same stamp which is confusing so we are removing the listing from the conforming list  

If the ambiguity is truly more than you can deal with, you can also just choose not to play the ball at all or just don't use it in competition or apply scores with it to your handicap.

[bekgolf]

1 hour ago, Girevik said:

I guess I just don't fall into the "it's not illegal if you don't get caught" camp.

 

Are you referring to an approved golf ball that's on the conforming list?  It's on the list, it's legal.

 

The 2.0 is <Performance+dot> 

 

The first 3 piece is <<Performance+>> 

 

 

 

Both images are on the USGA conforming list.

 

 

Now I ask the question:  Am I missing something?

 

[bhj83]

36 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

Are you referring to an approved golf ball that's on the conforming list?  It's on the list, it's legal.

 

The 2.0 is <Performance+dot> 

 

The first 3 piece is <<Performance+>> 

 

 

 

Both images are on the USGA conforming list.

 

 

Now I ask the question:  Am I missing something?

 

Interesting. Check out my post where I tested the durability. One was a V1 and one was a V2 and both have the same markings but clearly different covers. 

 

 

[cardigan]

50 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

Are you referring to an approved golf ball that's on the conforming list?  It's on the list, it's legal.

 

The 2.0 is <Performance+dot> 

 

The first 3 piece is <<Performance+>> 

 

 

 

Both images are on the USGA conforming list.

 

 

Now I ask the question:  Am I missing something?

 

AFAIK, the <<Performance+>> appears on the conforming list but was never sold. See below post from 2018.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Girevik]

1 hour ago, bekgolf said:

 

Are you referring to an approved golf ball that's on the conforming list?  It's on the list, it's legal.

 

The 2.0 is <Performance+dot> 

 

 

The V1 and V2 both were/are stamped <dot Performance+ dot>, but seem to have a different construction and playing characteristics.   I'm just wondering if that's a problem.  From my (very limited) understanding of the USGA conforming ball rules, I didn't think you could do that.  But I have to assume that they wouldn't release a ball that was illegal, so I'll keep playing them until I learn otherwise.

 

Bottom line, I'm a nerd.  I just want to understand stuff, including the conforming list and why or why not a ball would need to be resubmitted.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Girevik

[Girevik]

3 hours ago, snagy2000 said:

Calling out those who DGAF and mostly struggle to break 100 for some BS rule which doesn't impact their play one way or another isn't very...

 

 

 

 

I'm in that group myself, first of all.  And secondly I'm not calling anyone out.  Do what you want; guy I played with a lot last year was a huge vanity capper, but that's his business. I'm not calling him out for any of his mulligans.

 

As for it being a "BS rule", on that I disagree.  There are balls that are specifically designed to be longer because they are smaller or lighter or whatever than the USGA rules allow.  Having rules on what constitutes a "golf ball" is perfectly valid, as is a method to enforce it.  Otherwise we could just go out with a super ball and see how far that goes.  I don't think the Kirkland balls fall into that category (and as I said, I play them).  I just have one of the inquiring minds that wants to know.

[betarhoalphadelta]

5 hours ago, AlanC said:

It's not a matter of conforming.  Both versions conform. The problem lies in the fact that the two versions are functionally different and therefore play different.. You need to know which version you are playing for yardage adjustments as well as accounting for spin rate.

 

That only matters if you pick up a lost ball you find on the course, not if you purchase them at the store. The boxes are clearly labeled V2 and there are currently no longer V1 balls for sale. And heck, if you pick up a lost ball on the course, you don't know its history at all so other factors could affect yardages/spin. 

 

If Costco hadn't changed the box, and there were still V1 and V2 balls being sold alongside each other, then it would be a problem. But as long as you know that the ONLY ball Costco is selling is the V2, then you know what you're buying and thus what you're playing. 

[scotee]

11 hours ago, bekgolf said:

 

Are you referring to an approved golf ball that's on the conforming list?  It's on the list, it's legal.

 

The 2.0 is <Performance+dot> 

 

The first 3 piece is <<Performance+>> 

 

 

 

Both images are on the USGA conforming list.

 

 

Now I ask the question:  Am I missing something?

 

 

Mine new out of the boxes are not marked as you show here. 3 pc v-1 (green box) has<dot performance+dot>   3 pc v-2 (gold box) has the exact side stamp <dot performance+dot> in the same font and the same boldness. They cannot be distinguished until I cut them open. Since I have some of both I have to mark them to tell the difference. 

Edited January 8, 2022 by scotee
Add pics

[bekgolf]

4 minutes ago, scotee said:

 

Mine new out of the boxes are not marked as you show here. 3 pc v-1 (green box) has performance+dot. 3 pc v-2 (gold box) has the exact side stamp performance+dot in the same font and the same boldness. They cannot be distinguished until I cut them open. Since I have some of both I have to mark them to tell the difference. I posted pics some time ago.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

As you probably know the pics I posted are links from the USGA list.  According to them the list is updated every month with additions and deletions.  The current list is from January 5 2022.

 

I've only had the current model that comes in a silver and red box.  Prior to that I didn't bother with Costco golf products.

 

I tried to search for your post with the pics but I couldn't figure out how to search by user name.  It would be nice to see what you found and documented in the past.

[scotee]

5 minutes ago, bekgolf said:

 

Thanks for the info.

 

As you probably know the pics I posted are links from the USGA list.  According to them the list is updated every month with additions and deletions.  The current list is from January 5 2022.

 

I've only had the current model that comes in a silver and red box.  Prior to that I didn't bother with Costco golf products.

 

I tried to search for your post with the pics but I couldn't figure out how to search by user name.  It would be nice to see what you found and documented in the past.

I did an edit and added the pics

[Girevik]

On 1/8/2022 at 12:39 AM, scotee said:

 

Mine new out of the boxes are not marked as you show here. 3 pc v-1 (green box) has<dot performance+dot>   3 pc v-2 (gold box) has the exact side stamp <dot performance+dot> in the same font and the same boldness. They cannot be distinguished until I cut them open. Since I have some of both I have to mark them to tell the difference. 

Thanks.  It's great to have this all in one place to everyone who may not have followed the whole thread is on the same page.  I'm out of the V1 or would have posted something myself.  

[2Down]

584 pages, that's too much to go through don't you think?   Can any one provide a brief synopsis?

[bhj83]

3 minutes ago, 2Down said:

584 pages, that's too much to go through don't you think?   Can any one provide a brief synopsis?

I'll take a stab at it. Costco produces a 4 piece urethane ball, prices it at 2 for $29.99. Immediately becomes a success with reviews saying it's comparable with a ProV1. Ball sells out every time it gets stocked even with Costco limiting purchases to two per customer. Some sort of lawsuit is filed by a big ball company...4 piece disappears. Costco comes out with a 3 piece urethane ball at 2 for $24.99. Internet determines it's a good ball for the average golfer but it's no 4 piece OG Kirkland. Consensus seems to be you lose distance off the tee mostly and it spins a lot. Costco tries to release 4 piece v2.0. It was a disaster and the cover would cut/tear after minimal use. It was so bad that Costco refunded all purchases and told buyers there was no need to return the balls. Costco releases another 3 piece (V2.0) urethane ball. Similar to the original 3 piece but different type of urethane cover. Still not the 4 piece OG we impatiently wait for. This thread is still alive because we continue to impatiently wait for the unicorn 4 piece urethane Kirkland Signature golf ball for $15 per dozen. 

[2Down]

54 minutes ago, bhj83 said:

I'll take a stab at it. Costco produces a 4 piece urethane ball, prices it at 2 for $29.99. Immediately becomes a success with reviews saying it's comparable with a ProV1. Ball sells out every time it gets stocked even with Costco limiting purchases to two per customer. Some sort of lawsuit is filed by a big ball company...4 piece disappears. Costco comes out with a 3 piece urethane ball at 2 for $24.99. Internet determines it's a good ball for the average golfer but it's no 4 piece OG Kirkland. Consensus seems to be you lose distance off the tee mostly and it spins a lot. Costco tries to release 4 piece v2.0. It was a disaster and the cover would cut/tear after minimal use. It was so bad that Costco refunded all purchases and told buyers there was no need to return the balls. Costco releases another 3 piece (V2.0) urethane ball. Similar to the original 3 piece but different type of urethane cover. Still not the 4 piece OG we impatiently wait for. This thread is still alive because we continue to impatiently wait for the unicorn 4 piece urethane Kirkland Signature golf ball for $15 per dozen. 

thank you, cliff notes will probably be contacting you to help them with their  War and Peace in a nutshell version.  

[trackcoach13]

1 hour ago, bhj83 said:

I'll take a stab at it. Costco produces a 4 piece urethane ball, prices it at 2 for $29.99. Immediately becomes a success with reviews saying it's comparable with a ProV1. Ball sells out every time it gets stocked even with Costco limiting purchases to two per customer. Some sort of lawsuit is filed by a big ball company...4 piece disappears. Costco comes out with a 3 piece urethane ball at 2 for $24.99. Internet determines it's a good ball for the average golfer but it's no 4 piece OG Kirkland. Consensus seems to be you lose distance off the tee mostly and it spins a lot. Costco tries to release 4 piece v2.0. It was a disaster and the cover would cut/tear after minimal use. It was so bad that Costco refunded all purchases and told buyers there was no need to return the balls. Costco releases another 3 piece (V2.0) urethane ball. Similar to the original 3 piece but different type of urethane cover. Still not the 4 piece OG we impatiently wait for. This thread is still alive because we continue to impatiently wait for the unicorn 4 piece urethane Kirkland Signature golf ball for $15 per dozen. 

One small correction, Costco sued Titleist.

[bhj83]

1 minute ago, trackcoach13 said:

One small correction, Costco sued Titleist.

Did they sue or counter sue? My brain is fuzzy on that...and there was a lot of speculation too. 

[trackcoach13]

9 minutes ago, bhj83 said:

Did they sue or counter sue? My brain is fuzzy on that...and there was a lot of speculation too. 

Costco sued Titleist and then Titleist counter-sued Costco 5 months later.

 

https://golf.com/gear/ball-wars-titleists-parent-company-countersues-costco-for-patent-infringement-false-advertising-over-its-kirkland-ball/

Edited January 10, 2022 by trackcoach13

[bhj83]

24 minutes ago, trackcoach13 said:

Costco sued Titleist and then Titleist counter-sued Costco 5 months later.

 

https://golf.com/gear/ball-wars-titleists-parent-company-countersues-costco-for-patent-infringement-false-advertising-over-its-kirkland-ball/

Did Titleist not initially file the patent suit? Or maybe that doesn't require a lawsuit. 

 

"Five months after Costco filed a lawsuit against Acushnet Holdings Corp., maker of Titleist balls, seeking a judgment that its popular Kirkland-brand balls did not violate Titleist patents"

[trackcoach13]

25 minutes ago, bhj83 said:

Did Titleist not initially file the patent suit? Or maybe that doesn't require a lawsuit. 

 

"Five months after Costco filed a lawsuit against Acushnet Holdings Corp., maker of Titleist balls, seeking a judgment that its popular Kirkland-brand balls did not violate Titleist patents"

No, Titleist sent their standard scare letter saying your balls violate patents. Costco sued them to get them to stop sending the letters. I believe the standard letter says you ball violates patents and we ask you to stop making them or we will sue you if you don't. Unlike small guys, who usually fold up when Titleist does this, Costco said FU and sued them first. 

 

Here is an example of what Titleist does best:

https://Not allowed because of spam.com/dimplegate-titleist-sues-10-small-ball-companies-to-task/

 

 

The not allowed is M G S site

 

 

Also, I love this comment from someone who claims to have knowledge of results of Titleist 10 small ball suit suit:

 

FINAL WORD

Well here is an update for anyone who is looking for it, I happen to have some inside knowledge of the proceedings and results of these trials. Well anyone who doesn’t realize this was the big guys pushing around the little guys is wholly kidding themselves. The final result, all but one either left the golf ball industry or stopped making those questionable golf ball. The company manufacturing the ball (Foremost) defended successfully the absurdity of the claims. The only company left standing was Dixon Golf. The patent claims were found to be incorrect, as in similar cases between Apple and Samsung, as a design basis can not be used in patent infringement. As in no one can also patent a sphere over a cube for what you hit is better when it is commonly understood by the mass market to not be unique. In the case of Apple and Samsung, a tablet that had a touch screen was also found to be not defensible as a patent. To think that so many lost their jobs and worse over a big company doing whatever they wanted, only to be found incorrect. I hope those now out of business owners find a good legal argument of their aggressive noncompetitive nature.

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by trackcoach13

[bhj83]

Yeah that's the crazy part...they claimed false advertising by Costco right? I don't recall Costco ever advertising anything with the ball mentioning Titleist or anything. 

[dwboston]

13 minutes ago, bhj83 said:

Yeah that's the crazy part...they claimed false advertising by Costco right? I don't recall Costco ever advertising anything with the ball mentioning Titleist or anything. 

 

I believe it was related to some wording on the box and the Kirkland Signature claim of being equal to or better than comparable products, with no testing or data to back that claim up.

[scotee]

3 hours ago, dwboston said:

 

I believe it was related to some wording on the box and the Kirkland Signature claim of being equal to or better than comparable products, with no testing or data to back that claim up.

 

 

There was no claim by Costco of any comparison to Titleist. All that came from golf talk forums and independent testing. This is the only claim on the original packaging regarding comparison to other products and is on all Kirkland branded products.

 

 

[dwboston]

57 minutes ago, scotee said:

 

 

There was no claim by Costco of any comparison to Titleist. All that came from golf talk forums and independent testing. This is the only claim on the original packaging regarding comparison to other products and is on all Kirkland branded products.

 

 

 

I never said that Costco compared the balls directly to Titleist. Titleist objected to the Kirkland Guarantee.

 

"It also is suing Costco for false advertising of its Kirkland brand, specifically the “Kirkland Signature Guarantee” that promises to “meet or exceed the quality standards of leading national brands.  In the complaint, Acushnet says: “The Titleist Pro V1 and Pro V1x golf balls have all of these characteristics and are demonstrably superior to the Kirkland Signature Golf Ball, despite Costco’s claim that its ball ‘meet[s] or exceed[s] the quality standards of the leading national brands.’ … Acushnet Company has performed testing that conclusively shows that Titleist Pro V1 and Pro V1x golf balls are superior to the Kirkland Signature Golf Ball in performance and durability, and thus that Costco’s Kirkland Signature Guarantee is false with respect to its golf ball products.”

 

https://golf.com/gear/ball-wars-titleists-parent-company-countersues-costco-for-patent-infringement-false-advertising-over-its-kirkland-ball/

Edited January 11, 2022 by dwboston

[scotee]

17 minutes ago, dwboston said:

 

I never said that Costco compared the balls directly to Titleist. Titleist objected to the Kirkland Guarantee.

 

"It also is suing Costco for false advertising of its Kirkland brand, specifically the “Kirkland Signature Guarantee” that promises to “meet or exceed the quality standards of leading national brands.  In the complaint, Acushnet says: “The Titleist Pro V1 and Pro V1x golf balls have all of these characteristics and are demonstrably superior to the Kirkland Signature Golf Ball, despite Costco’s claim that its ball ‘meet[s] or exceed[s] the quality standards of the leading national brands.’ … Acushnet Company has performed testing that conclusively shows that Titleist Pro V1 and Pro V1x golf balls are superior to the Kirkland Signature Golf Ball in performance and durability, and thus that Costco’s Kirkland Signature Guarantee is false with respect to its golf ball products.”

 

https://golf.com/gear/ball-wars-titleists-parent-company-countersues-costco-for-patent-infringement-false-advertising-over-its-kirkland-ball/

 

That seems like a stretch to go for false advertising.  So do you know what became of the suit?  Settled?  I was under the impression that the demise of the 4pc ball was because of supply and demand issues and not the legal stuff.

[NRJyzr]

10 hours ago, scotee said:

 

That seems like a stretch to go for false advertising.  So do you know what became of the suit?  Settled?  I was under the impression that the demise of the 4pc ball was because of supply and demand issues and not the legal stuff.

 

I think stretch is a good word.  Might even be kind to the Evil Empire...

 

[Girevik]

11 hours ago, scotee said:

 

That seems like a stretch to go for false advertising.  So do you know what became of the suit?  Settled?  I was under the impression that the demise of the 4pc ball was because of supply and demand issues and not the legal stuff.

Not even a stretch.  Your classic nuisance lawsuit designed to get the other party to stop just because defending it would be too expensive.  Based on some of what's been posted here it sounds like that's a Titleist SOP when some upstart undercuts them.