TT Monaco - is this normal? Shaft codes/lengths mismatch

[AdamMH]

Hey folks,

 

I just got a set of Monaco's, 3-PW, X-Flex, taper tip.

The shaft codes show length and go as follows...

40-40-39-385-38-38-37-365

 

However the actual measured lengths are...

40-39.5-39-38.5-38-37.5-37-36.5

 

The shorter of the two duplicate coded shafts have the copper color missing from the tips (see photo). I get the feeling I got sent some bad stuff but wanted to check in here first. I know these are flighted but I can't imagine this is right.

 

Paging @Howard_Joness as I assume you'll know about these.

 

EDIT: In order for me to sound less crazy, let me clarify that the shafts that are a mismatch between code and length appear to be factory sealed.

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by AdamMH

[Howard_Jones]

Check tip to first step and sceen code for the number on each

Here is a set i had on my desk, pay attention to how the number moves

[TrueTemper]

41" 1 iron to 36.5" Wedge, half inch increments.

 

DB

[AdamMH]

To clarify these are brand new uncut. The tip-to-logo lengths are all appropriately 0.5" difference from shaft to shaft.

 

I guess my concern here is the 3/4 iron shafts have the exact same silk screen code (L16718785-1:MT1X-40-BC) but one is 40in with color on the tip and the other is 39.5in and is missing some copper from the tip as pictured.

 

I removed the one that looks cut from the plastic and the tip measures 0.368-0.369, same as the wedge shaft. This is also the case for the 8/7 shafts that share the silk code (L16720676-1:MT1X-38-BC).

 

Sounds like they're okay? The silkscreen made me doubt them.

[AdamMH]

Here's all the serials for reference.

P - L14710207-1:MT1X-365-BC

9 - L14710208-1:MT1X-37-BC

8 - L16720676-1:MT1X-38-BC

7 - L16720676-1:MT1X-38-BC

6 - L14710211-2:MT1X-385-BC

5 - L14710212-2:MT1X-39-BC

4 - L16718785-1:MT1X-40-BC

3 - L16718785-1:MT1X-40-BC

[Howard_Jones]

1 hour ago, AdamMH said:

Here's all the serials for reference.

P - L14710207-1:MT1X-365-BC

9 - L14710208-1:MT1X-37-BC

8 - L16720676-1:MT1X-38-BC

7 - L16720676-1:MT1X-38-BC

6 - L14710211-2:MT1X-385-BC

5 - L14710212-2:MT1X-39-BC

4 - L16718785-1:MT1X-40-BC

3 - L16718785-1:MT1X-40-BC

#8 should be 37.50", L number is identical with #7 (cant be)

[TrueTemper]

It should be:

 

3- MTIX-40

4-MTIX-395

5-MTIX-39

.......

9-MTIX-37

P-MTIX-365

Edited October 18, 2022 by TrueTemper

[AdamMH]

2 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

#8 should be 37.50", L number is identical with #7 (cant be)

Not a typo - I even took a photo to make sure I wasn't crazy.
 

1 minute ago, TrueTemper said:

It should be:

 

3- MT1X-40

4-MT1X-395

5-MT1X-39

.......

9-MT1X-37

P-MT1X-365

I figured.

Thanks to both of you -- I will get in touch with the seller and see if they'll make this right for me. Clearly something is up.

[Nessism]

It's been quite a while since we have had a Monaco thread here.  Those shafts had a somewhat small, but faithful following.

[AdamMH]

12 minutes ago, Nessism said:

It's been quite a while since we have had a Monaco thread here.  Those shafts had a somewhat small, but faithful following.

I'm hoping I'll like them as well, assuming I can get this issue resolved! Haha.

[MFBach]

I’ve got a set of the exact same makeup sitting around at home waiting on a winter project. I’ll check the shaft codes, steps, and lengths some time tonight. 
 

From the information you’ve provided, it looks like you got some trimmed blanks to replace the missing shafts. They should be 0.5” increments all the way through and the screened codes should reflect that. 

[MFBach]

Interestingly, I found some unexpected results when i pulled the remaining grips. Most of the set is in sequence with the screened codes provided above. The 5-7 iron shafts were screened on the opposite side of the shaft from the logo, but the matching screens were all on the bottom side of the shaft (same side as the logo). Perhaps, @TrueTemper can provide some insight on that one. Otherwise, the specs lined up with the information I expected. Details below.

 

SHAFT	SCREENED BUTT CODE	FIRST STEP (" FROM TIP)
3	L99676372-1 : MTIX-40-BC	7.5
4	L14710213-2 : MTIX 395-BC	7
5	L99665977-1 : ZRDKI29IX-39	6.5
6	L99665977-1 : ZRDKI29IX-385	6
7	L99665977-1 : ZRDKI29IX-38	5.5
8	L14710209-2 : MTIX-375-BC	5
9	L14710208-2 : MTIX-37-BC	4.5
W	L15716177-1 : MTIX-365-BC	4

 

 

ETA: Not sure I can't remove this additional table from the post, but it can be ignored. It was edited from it's original size for easier viewing.

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by MFBach

[MFBach]

On 10/18/2022 at 11:24 AM, Howard_Jones said:

Check tip to first step and sceen code for the number on each

Here is a set i had on my desk, pay attention to how the number moves

Your 9i and PW shaft’s serials numbers seem to match the same sequencing pattern as my 5-7i shafts. Do you have any information about alternate Brand ID codes after the serial number on yours? Or have you ever seen “ZRDKI29IX” referenced on any other shafts? I can’t find anything remotely close to matching that code from TT or any other manufacturer. 
 

5	L99665977-1 : ZRDKI29IX-39	6.5
6	L99665977-1 : ZRDKI29IX-385	6
7	L99665977-1 : ZRDKI29IX-38	5.5

The rest of my set match the MTIX-RAW LENGTH-BC format I’ve seen on other TTM sets. 

[Howard_Jones]

20 minutes ago, MFBach said:

Your 9i and PW shaft’s serials numbers seem to match the same sequencing pattern as my 5-7i shafts. Do you have any information about alternate Brand ID codes after the serial number on yours? Or have you ever seen “ZRDKI29IX” referenced on any other shafts? I can’t find anything remotely close to matching that code from TT or any other manufacturer. 
 

 

5	L99665977-1 : ZRDKI29IX-39	6.5
6	L99665977-1 : ZRDKI29IX-385	6
7	L99665977-1 : ZRDKI29IX-38	5.5

The rest of my set match the MTIX-RAW LENGTH-BC format I’ve seen on other TTM sets. 

I never saw those ZRD codes before, so i dont know what that is

[MFBach]

6 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

never saw those ZRD codes before, so i dont know what that is

Interesting. I may have to reach out to TT to see if I can get any info to verify those. 

[MFBach]

Not sure that anyone else is interested, but I figured I would post the response I got from TT anyway. Maybe it will help someone else down the road.
 

Apparently, it’s possible to have some deviation from the “MTIX” Shaft ID within the Monaco serial numbers. It still seems odd, but given the accuracy of the other measurements I’ve taken, I’ll accept it. 
 

Accra Aerotech Golf (True Temper Golf)

 

Oct 20, 2022, 8:01 AM CDT 

 

After doing some digging you have 3 iron shaft through PW in X flex. The length from the last step to the tip on the #3 is 7.5". Then to 7" for the 4 and decreases a half inch until you get to the wedge which should be 4" from the bottom step to the tip. I do not have a whole lot more information outside of the step pattern from what I found in the archives. I would confidently say you have a set from 3-PW.

 

True Temper Golf Specialist

[Howard_Jones]

13 minutes ago, MFBach said:

Not sure that anyone else is interested, but I figured I would post the response I got from TT anyway. Maybe it will help someone else down the road.
 

Apparently, it’s possible to have some deviation from the “MTIX” Shaft ID within the Monaco serial numbers. It still seems odd, but given the accuracy of the other measurements I’ve taken, I’ll accept it. 
 

Accra Aerotech Golf (True Temper Golf)

 

Oct 20, 2022, 8:01 AM CDT 

 

After doing some digging you have 3 iron shaft through PW in X flex. The length from the last step to the tip on the #3 is 7.5". Then to 7" for the 4 and decreases a half inch until you get to the wedge which should be 4" from the bottom step to the tip. I do not have a whole lot more information outside of the step pattern from what I found in the archives. I would confidently say you have a set from 3-PW.

 

True Temper Golf Specialist

Quite possible, this was a small series with only 1000 sets made, 333 of each flex, and to be honnest, the shafts delivered was not fully as expected, i had to adjust tips on many shafts, they was about 1/8 off on many, they was not even strait cut at the tip. (yes my folks at TT got a PM from me back then about it)...so they needed a little extra attention vs other TT products, so im not surpriced if those strange numbers is shafts used to replace others that was too far off specs.

[TrueTemper]

ZRD codes are what we use during prototype and pre-production runs.  Once production is approved we move to a final part code.  You have some shafts from the first run mixed in with your production shafts

 

 

[MFBach]

2 hours ago, TrueTemper said:

ZRD codes are what we use during prototype and pre-production runs.  Once production is approved we move to a final part code.  You have some shafts from the first run mixed in with your production shafts

 

That's awesome information to have. Thanks for the response. If only the full set was ZRD, I'd have Prototype Prototype's 😆

 

I appreciate it though. I'm still working out the details for the build, so I wanted to confirm the legitimacy of the products before I moved forward and those codes were throwing me for a loop because I couldn't find them referenced anywhere. Out of curiosity, were the production set issued/distributed sequentially? As in, the serial numbers for a full set would match the other shafts in the set +/- 1? Or were they just matched to the best possible orientation within the series to get closer progressions?

 

Basically, could the shafts have been originally issued this way? Or is it possible they were pieced together after the fact, given the pre-production serials mixed in?

 

9 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

Quite possible, this was a small series with only 1000 sets made, 333 of each flex

 

I had considered this also. Given the limited production numbers, I thought it was possible the sets were produced in specific runs, which could have explained the discrepancies in the shaft codes.

 

9 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

i had to adjust tips on many shafts, they was about 1/8 off on many, they was not even strait cut at the tip

 

I actually had to clean up two tips, so it's funny that you mentioned this. The original media release (I think) mentions something along the lines of the shafts being handmade. I'm guessing here, but since they only made 333 of each specific shaft, it's possible they were hand trimmed and someone got a little lazy with their cleanup work. I thought they might have been tipped originally, but the measurements were on point. It almost looked like they were cut to final length with a cutoff wheel without cleaning up any burrs or high spots.

 

Either way, I've been impressed with the product so far. The finish is amazingly durable compared to most of the stuff we see today. When I picked these up, they had a slight, spotty patina... I was afraid I was going to ruin the finish if i cleaned them, so I started under the grip with BKF and they took it without as much as a smudge to the original copper finish. They look great now. They also have very consistent specs, so maybe I got lucky. All +/- < 1g in weight and < 1/16" in the two tips I smoothed out.

 

Appreciate all the help and info @Howard_Jones and @TrueTemper.

 

One last question that I should have asked sooner... Howard - the specs you listed had the uncut weight for a set of X flex TTM listed as ~134-136g. The data I've found suggested the raw weight for X flex was 127g. Were the shafts you referenced potentially TX @ ~133g? Seems unlikely with your record keeping, but possible. Or were the weight discrepancies indicative other TTM set you used for builds? I only ask because I'm trying to get a decent baseline for an MOI build and a 6g weight change would obviously alter those calculations pretty significantly.

[Howard_Jones]

Yes the header on my spec sheet say X, but that set was TX flex

[TrueTemper]

The numbers aren't really serial numbers, they are lot numbers assigned as raw steel goes into the mill, so no significance there.  

[AdamMH]

Update: The seller went through their inventory and told me they don't have the correct length blanks to complete my set, yet still have multiple sets listed on eBay...

Anyways - I've been offered a small partial refund (35$ or about 1/8th of my total purchase price) to keep the set, or the option to return them. What would you guys do?

[MFBach]

9 hours ago, AdamMH said:

Update: The seller went through their inventory and told me they don't have the correct length blanks to complete my set, yet still have multiple sets listed on eBay...

Anyways - I've been offered a small partial refund (35$ or about 1/8th of my total purchase price) to keep the set, or the option to return them. What would you guys do?

I’d s*** on their eBay feedback and see if I got a better result after you note the fact that they’re selling a fraudulent product. 
 

As far as the shafts go, it wouldn’t really serve the intended purpose of that shaft series to play trimmed blanks instead of the matching shaft. Each club in the set had a different step sequence, which supposedly optimizes launch and spin for each club head. It’s not like you can find an easy replacement for them either. I’m guessing you would get some frustratingly inconsistent results in the “replacement” shafts they sent instead of the correct sequence.
 

Personally, I would return them. You absolutely did not get what you ordered. They knew that when they sold them. They shipped you a deceivingly inaccurate set. They offered a crap option to you, the buyer, even after they knowingly sold you an unsatisfactory product. Not the kind of people I like to do business with. 
 

 

[AdamMH]

8 hours ago, MFBach said:

I’d s*** on their eBay feedback and see if I got a better result after you note the fact that they’re selling a fraudulent product. 
 

As far as the shafts go, it wouldn’t really serve the intended purpose of that shaft series to play trimmed blanks instead of the matching shaft. Each club in the set had a different step sequence, which supposedly optimizes launch and spin for each club head. It’s not like you can find an easy replacement for them either. I’m guessing you would get some frustratingly inconsistent results in the “replacement” shafts they sent instead of the correct sequence.
 

Personally, I would return them. You absolutely did not get what you ordered. They knew that when they sold them. They shipped you a deceivingly inaccurate set. They offered a crap option to you, the buyer, even after they knowingly sold you an unsatisfactory product. Not the kind of people I like to do business with. 
 

 

 

 

Thats what I was thinking as well. Just going to send them back. Unfortunately I can't drop anything into their eBay ratings since I bought them direct from their website for a bit cheaper...

 

[Howard_Jones]

13 hours ago, AdamMH said:

 

 

Thats what I was thinking as well. Just going to send them back. Unfortunately I can't drop anything into their eBay ratings since I bought them direct from their website for a bit cheaper...

 

If you want a set with Dynamic Gold X100, but as FLIGHTED to use instead, you can modify a set like this: The full set up here is a "poor mans MOI match" and made as 3/8", but we can build it with standard play lengths and flat SW if we wants to. Its Soft stepping combined with tip trim who makes the set FLIGHTED, and if we move on to 3/8", it even becomes slightly Ascending wgt with about 6.5 grams from #3 to PW.


 

[MFBach]

21 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

If you want a set with Dynamic Gold X100, but as FLIGHTED to use instead

Was that the goal when TT released the Monaco? A constant weight, flighted DG shaft?
 

I just finished assembling a set with TPM X in 4-G (SSx1) and I’ve been debating the options for my wedges. I might just stick with X100’s and see how it goes, since they obviously didn’t make any TPM wedge shafts. 

[Howard_Jones]

8 hours ago, MFBach said:

Was that the goal when TT released the Monaco? A constant weight, flighted DG shaft?
 

YES it was, and the production model based on Monaco was DG PRO

[MFBach]

7 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

YES it was, and the production model based on Monaco was DG PRO

Thanks Howard. I stuck with the X100 in my wedges for now, mostly to keep weight in a similar range. I’ve considered trying to find a way to continue the progression from TPM to my “full swing” wedges (50/52-54/56).

In the table you posted above, you’re already tipping the PW (9i) shaft 3/8”, so there’s no “progression” to be gained from that shaft. Have you ever tried combining the Spinner/Tiger Step ideas into a single wedge? In other words, since I can’t move up in flex (within DG series), is there a problem trying an X100 8i shaft that’s also tipped 1/4-3/8”? 
 

Or would I better better off going with a standard Tiger Step and moving to a tipped S400? Currently playing X100 “Spinners”, which I do like, so all of this is just an experiment in continuing TPM design into two wedge shafts. 

[Howard_Jones]

17 hours ago, MFBach said:

Thanks Howard. I stuck with the X100 in my wedges for now, mostly to keep weight in a similar range. I’ve considered trying to find a way to continue the progression from TPM to my “full swing” wedges (50/52-54/56).

In the table you posted above, you’re already tipping the PW (9i) shaft 3/8”, so there’s no “progression” to be gained from that shaft. Have you ever tried combining the Spinner/Tiger Step ideas into a single wedge? In other words, since I can’t move up in flex (within DG series), is there a problem trying an X100 8i shaft that’s also tipped 1/4-3/8”? 
 

Or would I better better off going with a standard Tiger Step and moving to a tipped S400? Currently playing X100 “Spinners”, which I do like, so all of this is just an experiment in continuing TPM design into two wedge shafts. 

We are pulling the OPs tread off topick, but a X100 player CAN go stronger and use DG X7
Using a tip trimmed X100 #8 makes no sense at all, a #9 strait in is stronger, and a #9 tip trimmed even stronger than that.

So, we use "Tiger stepping / tip trim on tapers", in cases we CANT find a stronger option, and we combine soft stepping and tip trim ONLY, when we wants to alter flight pattern like the example above, OR to take advantage of the weight loss soft stepping gives.

Example
- The player just loves DG S300 and wants a set " DG S 300 Tour issue"
He want find that option from TT, only S400 and they are those 2 grams above what he likes.
NO PROBLEM - Take a set DG S400 Tour Issue, Soft stepp them once (loose 1.8 grams) and tip trim them all 4/8", and you have a set "DG S300 Tour Issue", since both weight, weight tolerance and flex will be just like a set DG S300 Tour issue would have been. If you wanted S200 Tour Issue, soft stepp them 2x and tip trim 1.0" and you get "S200 Tour Issue". (hosels need a ream job to 0.370).

Look at this small chart who shows us SHAFT WALL THICKNESS, here expressed as "grams per inch". A set of constant wgt, has a progression to grams per inch when we go shorter.

Now look at 132 (S400), vs 130 (S300) vs 128 grams (S200) or those 2 grams we almost loose per time we soft step


When we "offset" the chart, we get to see that we move equal to "1 sub flex pr step" AS SHAFT WALL THICKNESS) by soft stepping, so when we alter it all with 4/8" tip trim, we get back to the same tip length we came from, AND with the same shaft wall thickness the actual sub flex would have been.

Thats how we can modify S400 Ti to become S300 or S200 TI


  

The reason for why tip trim on a X100 #8 is "walking over the river to get water" vs #9 strait in should be clear now?
We can get the tip length of a #9, but you will play a shaft with about 3.41 grams pr inch instead of 3.51 as the #9 shaft has. (thinner shaft walls, = softer)

We simply make a X100 "1 SUB FLEX  softer", (when starting from #8 and tip trim 4/8") so compared, we talk "S400 vs S300", or "X200 to X100"....we go both lighter and slightly softer, equal to "1 sub flex", ALL due to the thinner shaft walls.

Wall thickness itself is FLEX when step pattern is the same, and thats why S200 is softer than S300, and S400 slightly stronger than S300 

We can as a general guideline for all STEEL shafts for IRONS, say
1 gram = 1 CPM stronger
if we say 10 grams is "1 full flex " (FCM 5.0 to 6.0)
we can see the system KBS is based on

5 grams uncut shaft wgt = 5 CPM or "half a flex" here R becomes R+
and 10 grams = 10 CPM or from R to S, or S to X

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by Howard_Jones

[AdamMH]

Don't worry about going off topic, this information is valuable to me too 🙂