Scotty Cameron Classic Mini

add1 · July 18, 2009

Hey if scotty can get his hands on that plastic prototype I'm sure it will get stamped 1/1 and a COA some mug will pay $25000 for it.

jick · July 18, 2009

I am not positive but the plastic prototype looks to be a full size Anser head and not the Mini Anser head. In any event, the plastic prototype would not be considered a putter in my book, and I doubt in anyone else's opinion either.

If an unmilled block of steel can get a COA there is no reason a plastic mold can't....

Please elaborate. I'm not sure exactly what unmilled block ot steel getting a COA you refer to. Thanks.

RobotDoctor · July 18, 2009

Jick, here they are:

http://www.scottycameron.com/authenticatio...egistry=A010226

http://www.scottycameron.com/authenticatio...egistry=A010227

If a ball marker can get a COA then certainly the original polycarbonate prototype should be able to get one as well. Good grief, I bet that even a signed poster could get a COA if someone was willing to send it in to the Studio and pay for it.

****************************

Going in another direction here, one this was mentioned earlier. If I were the maker of a line of putters for anyone, you could bet I would have it in the agreement that I would retain at least one copy of every putter and version of the putter that I produced. Of course I would have no problem signing in the agreement that I would never sell or give away the putters but you can bet I would have a copy of each and every one. I have to believe that this was most likely the agreement that Cameron and Bettinardi had so I definitely would count Bob's Mini as one of less than 5. If Cameron knows Bettinardi has one (because of a possible agreement) then he has to count it, no matter how he feels about Bettinardi.

jick · July 18, 2009

Jick, here they are:

http://www.scottycameron.com/authenticatio...egistry=A010226
http://www.scottycameron.com/authenticatio...egistry=A010227

If a ball marker can get a COA then certainly the original polycarbonate prototype should be able to get one as well. Good grief, I bet that even a signed poster could get a COA if someone was willing to send it in to the Studio and pay for it.

First time I have ever seen this. Wow this collector cult is truly bordering on absurd sometimes.

glenwayputters · July 18, 2009

Jick, here they are:

http://www.scottycameron.com/authenticatio...egistry=A010226
http://www.scottycameron.com/authenticatio...egistry=A010227

If a ball marker can get a COA then certainly the original polycarbonate prototype should be able to get one as well. Good grief, I bet that even a signed poster could get a COA if someone was willing to send it in to the Studio and pay for it.

****************************

Going in another direction here, one this was mentioned earlier. If I were the maker of a line of putters for anyone, you could bet I would have it in the agreement that I would retain at least one copy of every putter and version of the putter that I produced. Of course I would have no problem signing in the agreement that I would never sell or give away the putters but you can bet I would have a copy of each and every one. I have to believe that this was most likely the agreement that Cameron and Bettinardi had so I definitely would count Bob's Mini as one of less than 5. If Cameron knows Bettinardi has one (because of a possible agreement) then he has to count it, no matter how he feels about Bettinardi.

Sam

that second COA is hysterical.

He actually wants someone to believe that he attached the hosel before he ever cut the head out of the block.????

That is a good one.

How would he know where the balance point is when he was cutting the head?

Jay

ps - marketing anyone???

hodges · July 19, 2009

WOW! When I joined GolfWRX, and later The Cameron Club, I had no idea that there was so much contentiousness between the two. Actually, I had read that BombSquad was the tough crowd to stay away from. I joined anyway. However, I have never seen on BombSquad a thread as vicious as this one. I think now that GolfWRX is the new tough guy in town. The Cameron Club always seemed much more calm. However, TCC must have done something really bad to you to create such animosity. Anything specific?

This thread has had its moments, I can agree with that. However, there is much that people are not aware of.

I will say that Cameron was most kind to donate his time in refinishing a couple of putters a couple of years ago for a couple of kids that were nominated as "Cameron Kids" and a video was produces. That was a tremendous, and selfless, act of kindness. The following thread made me proud to be a member of TCC and appreciate Cameron.

http://www.cameroncollector.com/forum/inde...,103210.65.html

Then there is the other side. This thread is discussing a specific putter and the refusal of Cameron fans to acknowledge that more putters, of an extremely rare putter, existed. To acknowledge this might reduce the value of the putter and that is not what Cameron or the high roller collectors are willing to do. I have seen friendships discarded by Cameron collectors because of the refusal of acknowledging certain things (try NASA head cover reissue for example). When people find out the truth of the business side of Cameron then their perception changes. This is the side that disturbs me and why I chose the path I took.

There is where the division between Cameron fans and the rest of putter fans. Of course when people question Cameron issues, we are quickly branded Cameron Haters when most of us are not. However, instead of opening a constructive dialog to persuade the rest of the putter fan group to accept the stance from the Cameron camp, mud is slung and generally no substantive facts are offered. This is why there is a division. You will never see this side from TCC. If you think TCC is such a calm place then ask an uncomfortable question. Here are a few to ask:

1) There is a rumor that the NASA head cover was reintroduced after the initial run. Is this true?
2) Is the Rising Sun engraving on the Inspired by Ryuji Imada putter copied from David Mills' sun engraving?
3) Were any putters cast or made out of the United States then imported back in and finished in the US?

Try asking these questions, or some other that is uncomfortable, and see how calm your experience at TCC is. With GolfWRX or PT you can ask these questions on any board, to anyone, at any time.

As my buddy Forrest Gump says, "And that is all I have to say about that."

Well after a little reading trying to catch up, I am going to jump in here because I like Sam.

to offer my umble opinion on your 3 questions,

1. quite possible, because I am sure more than a few customers complained that their headcovers finish flaked off after only a few used. Remember back then people used their covers. Maybe ( I don't know for sure) some replacement covers were order to try and make these people happy. Selling replacement covers or having them available for warranty replacement doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Tablerock sold replacement covers for the classic series for a few years. Heck people lost their original headcover and wanted another one. Back then they weren't as valuable as they later became. The first My Girls had extra headcovers produced also so that if a golfer lost their cover they might be able to get a replacement. A couple years later these were sold by Jim at the PGA show. It became another bullet in the argument that you can't trust how many limited edition putters there are. But it is what it is. I have never heard of extra my girl putters.

2. As I understand the owner of the Museum had lots of input on the putter design. Isn't the rising sun kind of a Japanese thing that has been around a while?

3. The answer to this question will be provided right after the details to the lawsuit that Scotty filed against Bob to end their relationship. Just kidding I don't know the answer to either and probably never will.

A few other random thoughts. Bill owns TCC but I don't think he runs it. There is a group of Mods that seem to carry out his request that the website he owns function as a fan club. It is not a sounding board for Titleist or Scotty, it is not a discussion group for any make of putter, it isn't even the written History of Scotty according to Bill. It is a fan club. Fans denoting someone who enjoys the focus of the club. I know for a fact that on occasion the mods have acted without Bill's imput and not always how he would have done it.

Mr. F back in #809 you posted

"I understand that Cameron sent back a box of TeI3 heads that he claimed were defective. The problem was that a majority of the heads that were sent back were never made by Bettinardi. It seemed that most of the heads that were returned were made by someone else without the knowledge or approval of Bettinardi and outside the contractual agreement between Cameron and Bettinardi.

"

Are you saying that Bob made some defective heads? If this was outside the contractual agreement why didn't Bob sue Scotty?

Mr. TM in post #836 you write "Don't you mean why would he continue posting in a thread where he has no facts to refute what they are saying"

I haven't seen any facts that support the existence of more than 5 mini's and if Scotty said there are fewer maybe he knows where the other is and he ain't talking to you or me. I would guess the first one he stamped would be #1. Maybe he didn't like the looks of it and just decided not to stamp the rest. Who knows why he didn't stamp the rest. No one here does. And where exactly does it say that he stamped his child’s name on a putter. Where does it say he ever gave those putters out as gifts. Maybe none of his friends had kids. ( I know someone is going to say, maybe he doesn't have any friends :rolleyes: )

Sorry you got kicked off TCC but what did you expect. You came at the request of Mr. F to ask questions that no one knows the answers to. You should have known that Mr. F has burned most his bridges there and your motives would be judged in that light.

Back to you Sam, post #864

What’s your thought? I am sure you have read mine.

Varsityhacker the answer to your question in post #866

is in TM guys thread he started on TCC. Here I will help and post it for you. From Vog "Well, obviously more than 5 heads were made"

Mr F in post #880 your explanation of calling Nick's story BS is based on you accepting the Bob has a Mini putter, sorry he has a mini putter head, not a putter. Please post pictures of other Mini putters that are not known and I will believe that there are more than 5. You are quoting Jim as an expert source of facts because of something that was posted on TCC. The entire post is reply 66 here http://www.cameroncollector.com/forum/inde...c,52164.65.html

"i know this is old but was at table rock today and got some good info on this putter, me and jim had a talk about classic putters, he told me 8 were made but only 5 were actually finished heads, rumors about some being destroyed he wasnt sure on. just bring back a great thread.

mat"

Looks like to me what Mat reports Jim saying is that there are 5 finished heads, not 8 putters.

"Cameron policy is that NO tour putter will have initials welded up, EVER. " is this a written policy somewhere? Can policies never be changed?

MR. F you also write

"Remember these putters were made for friends of Cameron who had newborns (4 of them) and Cameron still has the 5th from his wife. If this is true where are the putters with "...You can see the black markings on the putter where Scotty would handstamp the corresponding names and markings..."

Do you know of any of these being given out?

Do you stage1350? I guess you still have all the gifts you were ever given?

XXio in post #920 you write

"No....... but would you say "fewer than 5", when you have stamped one 1/5?"

The time line would seem to be, stamp a putterhead 1 of 5, later decide not to stamp the rest of them 2/5, 3/5 ect.

And then lose or destroy the 5th head so that you now know there are fewer than 5.

Just a guess

But again I ask where does it say that the other putters were given out with kids names stamped on them? It may have been the intent but it doesn't look like it happen.

Sam read #936

Always thought Willie Ogg should have got more credit for starting the revolution towards perimeter weighting.

1933 design of the Wilson Ogg-mented irons

http://www.wilson.com/wilson/staff/history.jsp

Headonastick in post #939 you write

"I think I said this, but there is a difference between building on another design and simply cranking out copies of a someone else's successful design. On top of it, Scotty has failed to produce a successful design of his own."

If you are suggesting that Scotty's newport is a copy and not a refinement of the anser putter, you probably need new glasses. OK just kidding but look more closely at the 2 putters and you will see some differences.

There are so few designs that are successful but should that stop all puttermakers from trying? The 2 ball is one of the most successful designs of all time. Was that Dave’s first design? Should he have quit after the Teacher putter?

Sixpints you write in #646

"I'm just looking for one of the Cameron clan to admit to the fact that they worked together" I guess it would depend on your defintion of "worked together". Bob was employed by Scotty. Do you work together for your boss ?

Plus is you have read the whole thread you would see mention of that fact that Bill, myself and others acknowledge that Bob was the subcontractor that did the milling for Scotty putters for a period of time.

So calling people anklebiters, is that something that only real men do?

MR F you write "I have never stated who I am or am not and that is irrelevant to my posts" in post #960.

Many people accept Mr. F as a Cameron expert because they believe he is JR. It is not irrelevant. There are a few of us here that were Cameron collectors before you. We watch you come in and soar like an eagle. You outbid me on many classic putters. You moved past classics and started collecting customs and handmades. You somehow made that connection that provide you the best grip collection ever assembled. You made quite an impression and worked your way to that "the inner circle" Your collection was outstanding. There were a lot of great memories made. Your writing style and intelligence is quite destictive. If Mr. F wants to remain anonymous so be it, but to me he is a lot less of an expert that JR because I know who JR is and I know how he gained his knowledge.

Matthewb can you post some examples of vileness in this thread?

Finally off to bed, looking forward to replies.

Greg

tangojay · July 19, 2009

No matter what it is said, most us have our minds made up about SC, others will continue to support SC because they like his products and yet others will continue to defend him believing that by doing so they will be allowed in the inner sanctum while others will continue to wonders what drives us to be so passionate about this,,, just like NASCAR,MLB,NFL and NHL.

xxio · July 19, 2009

XXio in post #920 you write
"No....... but would you say "fewer than 5", when you have stamped one 1/5?"

The time line would seem to be, stamp a putterhead 1 of 5, later decide not to stamp the rest of them 2/5, 3/5 ect.
And then lose or destroy the 5th head so that you now know there are fewer than 5.
Just a guess
But again I ask where does it say that the other putters were given out with kids names stamped on them? It may have been the intent but it doesn't look like it happen.

Greg

I'll just address the part quoted to me the other can reply to the ones they were quoted specifically in.

http://www.scottycameron.com/putters/archi...amp;seasonID=16

Oh I see it now....."fewer than 5 produced before the merger with Titleist"....... whether it was lost or destroyed it was still produced :) ...... so the 5th one was made after the merger with Titleist yet one was stamped 1/5 already........ meaning:

a.) when the "fewer than 5 produced before the merger with Titleist" were being made there was already a plan to make a 5th that is why they were able to stamp one 1/5 yet still say that fewer than 5 were produced?

or

b.)There is an entire different line of Minis from those made before the merger with Titleist. So there was a "fewer than 5" before the merger (probably given to friends/gift for births) then produced at least another 5 after one of which was stamped 1/5?

There is a mention of where he is stamping names and such since there is no visible stamping on the 1/5 I will vote B that there is an entire different line/production run after the merger with Titleist that have no stamps just the 1/5 on the first of the 5.

Just to add if it was the intention to stamp then yet it was not done then why is such info on the site? The adding of stamps as a personalization is such a heart warming story to mention it and not actually have done it makes it worse than not mentioning the act at all.

stage1350 · July 19, 2009

Do you stage1350? I guess you still have all the gifts you were ever given?

Greg,

I promise you a very direct and honest answer to your question, but I would like to hear your honest opinion first to my original point. Do you think that it is or is not tacky to SELL something that was given to you as a gift? And to be very specific, something that is very personal from a close friend that is given to comemmorate and celebrate the birth of your first child. As I posted before, I can understand one person being hard up for money and selling, but EVERY gift ends up in the hands of collectors?

Please don't watse your or my time coming up with hypotheticals, maybes, or what ifs. I'd really just like your honest opinion. And if we disagree, so be it.

I'll give you my answer later today, though I may wait until the end of the Open.

-Brad

RobotDoctor · July 19, 2009

WOW! When I joined GolfWRX, and later The Cameron Club, I had no idea that there was so much contentiousness between the two. Actually, I had read that BombSquad was the tough crowd to stay away from. I joined anyway. However, I have never seen on BombSquad a thread as vicious as this one. I think now that GolfWRX is the new tough guy in town. The Cameron Club always seemed much more calm. However, TCC must have done something really bad to you to create such animosity. Anything specific?

This thread has had its moments, I can agree with that. However, there is much that people are not aware of.

I will say that Cameron was most kind to donate his time in refinishing a couple of putters a couple of years ago for a couple of kids that were nominated as "Cameron Kids" and a video was produces. That was a tremendous, and selfless, act of kindness. The following thread made me proud to be a member of TCC and appreciate Cameron.

http://www.cameroncollector.com/forum/inde...,103210.65.html

Then there is the other side. This thread is discussing a specific putter and the refusal of Cameron fans to acknowledge that more putters, of an extremely rare putter, existed. To acknowledge this might reduce the value of the putter and that is not what Cameron or the high roller collectors are willing to do. I have seen friendships discarded by Cameron collectors because of the refusal of acknowledging certain things (try NASA head cover reissue for example). When people find out the truth of the business side of Cameron then their perception changes. This is the side that disturbs me and why I chose the path I took.

There is where the division between Cameron fans and the rest of putter fans. Of course when people question Cameron issues, we are quickly branded Cameron Haters when most of us are not. However, instead of opening a constructive dialog to persuade the rest of the putter fan group to accept the stance from the Cameron camp, mud is slung and generally no substantive facts are offered. This is why there is a division. You will never see this side from TCC. If you think TCC is such a calm place then ask an uncomfortable question. Here are a few to ask:

1) There is a rumor that the NASA head cover was reintroduced after the initial run. Is this true?
2) Is the Rising Sun engraving on the Inspired by Ryuji Imada putter copied from David Mills' sun engraving?
3) Were any putters cast or made out of the United States then imported back in and finished in the US?

Try asking these questions, or some other that is uncomfortable, and see how calm your experience at TCC is. With GolfWRX or PT you can ask these questions on any board, to anyone, at any time.

As my buddy Forrest Gump says, "And that is all I have to say about that."

Well after a little reading trying to catch up, I am going to jump in here because I like Sam.

to offer my umble opinion on your 3 questions,
1. quite possible, because I am sure more than a few customers complained that their headcovers finish flaked off after only a few used. Remember back then people used their covers. Maybe ( I don't know for sure) some replacement covers were order to try and make these people happy. Selling replacement covers or having them available for warranty replacement doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Tablerock sold replacement covers for the classic series for a few years. Heck people lost their original headcover and wanted another one. Back then they weren't as valuable as they later became. The first My Girls had extra headcovers produced also so that if a golfer lost their cover they might be able to get a replacement. A couple years later these were sold by Jim at the PGA show. It became another bullet in the argument that you can't trust how many limited edition putters there are. But it is what it is. I have never heard of extra my girl putters.
2. As I understand the owner of the Museum had lots of input on the putter design. Isn't the rising sun kind of a Japanese thing that has been around a while?
3. The answer to this question will be provided right after the details to the lawsuit that Scotty filed against Bob to end their relationship. Just kidding I don't know the answer to either and probably never will.

A few other random thoughts. Bill owns TCC but I don't think he runs it. There is a group of Mods that seem to carry out his request that the website he owns function as a fan club. It is not a sounding board for Titleist or Scotty, it is not a discussion group for any make of putter, it isn't even the written History of Scotty according to Bill. It is a fan club. Fans denoting someone who enjoys the focus of the club. I know for a fact that on occasion the mods have acted without Bill's imput and not always how he would have done it.

[/quote/

Greg, here are my replies:

Question #1:

I suppose this is where I have to disagree (only this? :D )

If a headcover is a limited or out of production (which potentially commands higher resale value) it should never be reproduced. I am sorry that sometimes a cover may be defective or that people lose their original Milled by Scotty Cameron covers. To protect the integrity of the original run, especially on limited covers, new covers should not be produced unless a notice is made by Cameron that they are producing more of a said cover.

Question #2:

Yes, the Japanese have used the Rising Sun as a symbol but it is not really like the one used by David Mills or on the IBRI putter. A quick search can reveal the design and the rays of sun are more bold than that of the TP Mills version which appears in a very thinly veiled differing version on the IBRI putter.

What would happen if some designer has an affinity to a Bull Terrier or a Jack Russell Terrier and used that dog stamp on their putters. Would Cameron fans scream foul? I would bet every penny I have they would. Different dog, different take, maybe slight differences in muzzle or tail or slightly longer legs but none-the-less essentially a blatant copy of someone else's idea. That might be an issue for another thread.

Back to you Sam, post #864
What’s your thought? I am sure you have read mine.

Ok, back on topic.

Does a putter have to be shafted and gripped to be considered a putter? If so, I can understand why BB's is not counted. If the head is all that matters then this might be why there are 8 reported by Jim Butler. Maybe at the end of the day it is a matter of definition as to what constitutes a putter and what does not.

I would love to see one of the Mini putters and think these are very collectible, especially why they were produced and that only 8 (again, reportedly) are known to have been produced. In either case, 8 is a very small number for a putter that was produced 15-16 years ago.

I believe that a putter head can be constituted as a putter. Adding a shaft and grip is such an easy thing to do but creating a putter head is not as easy. Is a car not a car because it is in the driveway supported on cinder blocks? Is a house not a house because it is missing a front door?

I understand that a putter is difficult to use without a shaft or grip. If this is all-to-important then give me 5-7 minutes and I can have a putter shafted and gripped.

Sam read #936
Always thought Willie Ogg should have got more credit for starting the revolution towards perimeter weighting.
1933 design of the Wilson Ogg-mented irons
http://www.wilson.com/wilson/staff/history.jsp

Hmmmm, I would like to see pictures of this design. I did not know about this and will give appropriate credit to Willie Ogg. :)

Finally off to bed, looking forward to replies.
Greg

Good grief Greg, you must have worked on this post for the whole evening. ;)

geogolf · July 19, 2009

I am not positive but the plastic prototype looks to be a full size Anser head and not the Mini Anser head. In any event, the plastic prototype would not be considered a putter in my book, and I doubt in anyone else's opinion either.

If an unmilled block of steel can get a COA there is no reason a plastic mold can't....

My guess is that is a milled piece of Delrin. It's an engineering plastic you can test mill....without wasting material (metal).

hodges · July 19, 2009

Mr. F back in #809 you posted
"I understand that Cameron sent back a box of TeI3 heads that he claimed were defective. The problem was that a majority of the heads that were sent back were never made by Bettinardi. It seemed that most of the heads that were returned were made by someone else without the knowledge or approval of Bettinardi and outside the contractual agreement between Cameron and Bettinardi."

Are you saying that Bob made some defective heads? If this was outside the contractual agreement why didn't Bob sue Scotty?

A perfect example of how selective reading comprehension occurs when you have a belly full of Kool-Aid and are wearing Cameron colored glasses. How could anyone with any intelligence at all read what was said and then post their interpretation that is so backwards?

"...sent back a box of TeI3 heads that he claimed were defective." and "...a majority of the heads that were sent back were never made by Bettinardi."

and you read it and conclude

"...that Bob made some defective heads?"

People need to remember how you interpret the information you read and are told when they read what you post when you are regurgitating your version of that information.

Perhaps you are trying to get back in the good graces of Cameron and Acushnet for your past violations of your Titleist Account contract. Perhaps you can share your "version" of the story where Cameron personally in a face to face conversation told you to discontinue selling his products at a discount from the MSRP to your friends and members of TCC because that was a violation of Acushnet policy and your Titleist Account terms and conditions or something like that. I am sure your version will be interesting, like a putter is not a putter and was never made unless it currently has a shaft and grip in it. lol

What does selecctive reading comprehension have to do with anything.

You wrote "a majority of the heads", that would mean a minority of the heads were made by Bob. Otherwise you should have said that Scotty sent back a batch of heads that Bob didn't make.

Websters defines "majority" as "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total" It is not defined as 100%

Sorry if your story didn't come out how you liked, I was just reading your words. But the whole story would be more interesting if someone connected to Bob repeated it instead of an anonymous internet writer.

Yes at the ICC 07 I was the last person in line to talk to Scotty that day. I asked him if he had any problems with me buying club cameron merchandise through my Titleist account and reselling it to my friends for a discount. He did get a quizical look on his face and replied, "I would rather you did do that". I said Ok. I never asked him why. It isn't a violation of any Titleist contract as club cameron merchandise is not cover by any minimum advertised price policy. And my friends still get special pricing.

And as for "a putter is not a putter and was never made unless it currently has a shaft and grip in it", well I am just going by the USGA rules.

You can read them here.

http://www.usga.org/bookrule.aspx?id=14617#general

If you read Appendix II, 1a

A club is an implement designed to be used for striking the ball and generally comes in three forms: woods, irons and putters distinguished by shape and intended use. A putter is a club with a loft not exceeding ten degrees designed primarily for use on the putting green.

1a goes on to state that:

The club must not be substantially different from the traditionally and customary form and make. The club must be composed of a shaft and a head. All parts must be fixed so that the club is one unit, and it must have no external attachments except as otherwise permitted by the Rules.

So by definition of the Rules of Golf a putter has a shaft and grip. That is why what Bob has is a putterhead. Unless you play by some other rules.

g

hodges · July 19, 2009

LOL

Boy was I ever up past my bedtime.

See the information from above why according to the Rules of Golf a golf club (ie putter) must have a grip and shaft to be defined as a golf club. No one is saying Bob's mini couldn't be made into a golf club. But I don't think Scotty would coa it or acknowledge it because he didn't ordain it. Just like like those Taylormade and Callaway clubs on ebay. Parts from the original factory but not ordered and sold (or gave away) by the comapny that ordered them.

The original classics have never had production numbers attached to them. Heck there was no rime or reason to which headcover you got with them. Thats why I never saw anything wrong with Jim selling replacement headcovers. As for the poodles, I wish I would have bought as many as JR did from Jim when they were offered for sale.

I google images for wilson ogg-mented and found

http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-Original-Pat-Pend...S:B:SRCH:US:101

Pretty interesting how the toe is thicker than the rest of the iron head. Not sure it is visiable in the pics but the design included adding 3 small slugs of lead into the toe. An attemp at perimiter weighting I think

G

WOW! When I joined GolfWRX, and later The Cameron Club, I had no idea that there was so much contentiousness between the two. Actually, I had read that BombSquad was the tough crowd to stay away from. I joined anyway. However, I have never seen on BombSquad a thread as vicious as this one. I think now that GolfWRX is the new tough guy in town. The Cameron Club always seemed much more calm. However, TCC must have done something really bad to you to create such animosity. Anything specific?

This thread has had its moments, I can agree with that. However, there is much that people are not aware of.

I will say that Cameron was most kind to donate his time in refinishing a couple of putters a couple of years ago for a couple of kids that were nominated as "Cameron Kids" and a video was produces. That was a tremendous, and selfless, act of kindness. The following thread made me proud to be a member of TCC and appreciate Cameron.

http://www.cameroncollector.com/forum/inde...,103210.65.html

Then there is the other side. This thread is discussing a specific putter and the refusal of Cameron fans to acknowledge that more putters, of an extremely rare putter, existed. To acknowledge this might reduce the value of the putter and that is not what Cameron or the high roller collectors are willing to do. I have seen friendships discarded by Cameron collectors because of the refusal of acknowledging certain things (try NASA head cover reissue for example). When people find out the truth of the business side of Cameron then their perception changes. This is the side that disturbs me and why I chose the path I took.

There is where the division between Cameron fans and the rest of putter fans. Of course when people question Cameron issues, we are quickly branded Cameron Haters when most of us are not. However, instead of opening a constructive dialog to persuade the rest of the putter fan group to accept the stance from the Cameron camp, mud is slung and generally no substantive facts are offered. This is why there is a division. You will never see this side from TCC. If you think TCC is such a calm place then ask an uncomfortable question. Here are a few to ask:

1) There is a rumor that the NASA head cover was reintroduced after the initial run. Is this true?
2) Is the Rising Sun engraving on the Inspired by Ryuji Imada putter copied from David Mills' sun engraving?
3) Were any putters cast or made out of the United States then imported back in and finished in the US?

Try asking these questions, or some other that is uncomfortable, and see how calm your experience at TCC is. With GolfWRX or PT you can ask these questions on any board, to anyone, at any time.

As my buddy Forrest Gump says, "And that is all I have to say about that."

Well after a little reading trying to catch up, I am going to jump in here because I like Sam.

to offer my umble opinion on your 3 questions,
1. quite possible, because I am sure more than a few customers complained that their headcovers finish flaked off after only a few used. Remember back then people used their covers. Maybe ( I don't know for sure) some replacement covers were order to try and make these people happy. Selling replacement covers or having them available for warranty replacement doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Tablerock sold replacement covers for the classic series for a few years. Heck people lost their original headcover and wanted another one. Back then they weren't as valuable as they later became. The first My Girls had extra headcovers produced also so that if a golfer lost their cover they might be able to get a replacement. A couple years later these were sold by Jim at the PGA show. It became another bullet in the argument that you can't trust how many limited edition putters there are. But it is what it is. I have never heard of extra my girl putters.
2. As I understand the owner of the Museum had lots of input on the putter design. Isn't the rising sun kind of a Japanese thing that has been around a while?
3. The answer to this question will be provided right after the details to the lawsuit that Scotty filed against Bob to end their relationship. Just kidding I don't know the answer to either and probably never will.

A few other random thoughts. Bill owns TCC but I don't think he runs it. There is a group of Mods that seem to carry out his request that the website he owns function as a fan club. It is not a sounding board for Titleist or Scotty, it is not a discussion group for any make of putter, it isn't even the written History of Scotty according to Bill. It is a fan club. Fans denoting someone who enjoys the focus of the club. I know for a fact that on occasion the mods have acted without Bill's imput and not always how he would have done it.

[/quote/

Greg, here are my replies:

Question #1:

I suppose this is where I have to disagree (only this? :D )

If a headcover is a limited or out of production (which potentially commands higher resale value) it should never be reproduced. I am sorry that sometimes a cover may be defective or that people lose their original Milled by Scotty Cameron covers. To protect the integrity of the original run, especially on limited covers, new covers should not be produced unless a notice is made by Cameron that they are producing more of a said cover.

Question #2:

Yes, the Japanese have used the Rising Sun as a symbol but it is not really like the one used by David Mills or on the IBRI putter. A quick search can reveal the design and the rays of sun are more bold than that of the TP Mills version which appears in a very thinly veiled differing version on the IBRI putter.

What would happen if some designer has an affinity to a Bull Terrier or a Jack Russell Terrier and used that dog stamp on their putters. Would Cameron fans scream foul? I would bet every penny I have they would. Different dog, different take, maybe slight differences in muzzle or tail or slightly longer legs but none-the-less essentially a blatant copy of someone else's idea. That might be an issue for another thread.

Back to you Sam, post #864
What’s your thought? I am sure you have read mine.

Ok, back on topic.

Does a putter have to be shafted and gripped to be considered a putter? If so, I can understand why BB's is not counted. If the head is all that matters then this might be why there are 8 reported by Jim Butler. Maybe at the end of the day it is a matter of definition as to what constitutes a putter and what does not.

I would love to see one of the Mini putters and think these are very collectible, especially why they were produced and that only 8 (again, reportedly) are known to have been produced. In either case, 8 is a very small number for a putter that was produced 15-16 years ago.

I believe that a putter head can be constituted as a putter. Adding a shaft and grip is such an easy thing to do but creating a putter head is not as easy. Is a car not a car because it is in the driveway supported on cinder blocks? Is a house not a house because it is missing a front door?

I understand that a putter is difficult to use without a shaft or grip. If this is all-to-important then give me 5-7 minutes and I can have a putter shafted and gripped.

Sam read #936
Always thought Willie Ogg should have got more credit for starting the revolution towards perimeter weighting.
1933 design of the Wilson Ogg-mented irons
http://www.wilson.com/wilson/staff/history.jsp

Hmmmm, I would like to see pictures of this design. I did not know about this and will give appropriate credit to Willie Ogg. :)

Finally off to bed, looking forward to replies.
Greg

Good grief Greg, you must have worked on this post for the whole evening. ;)

goinglow72 · July 19, 2009

Nice piss'n match you two have going..... :offtopic2:

RobotDoctor · July 19, 2009

Greg,

That is the first time I saw the Wilson Ogg iron. While Willie Ogg did indeed add weight to the toe, I am not sure I would call this perimeter weighting. Couldn't this be considered in the same vein as many irons that added the weight lower on the blade for a higher trajectory or higher on the blade for lower trajectory? To me, perimeter weighting is weigh distribution around the perimeter of the club for true benefit. That said, Ogg's iron just may have been the catalyst for perimeter weighting.

xxio · July 19, 2009

Hodges,

Since you answered Foregasim already can you answer mine that addressed what you quoted/directed at me.

hodges · July 19, 2009

If B works for you go for it. All you got to do is find some proof. :D

XXio in post #920 you write
"No....... but would you say "fewer than 5", when you have stamped one 1/5?"

The time line would seem to be, stamp a putterhead 1 of 5, later decide not to stamp the rest of them 2/5, 3/5 ect.
And then lose or destroy the 5th head so that you now know there are fewer than 5.
Just a guess
But again I ask where does it say that the other putters were given out with kids names stamped on them? It may have been the intent but it doesn't look like it happen.

Greg

I'll just address the part quoted to me the other can reply to the ones they were quoted specifically in.

http://www.scottycameron.com/putters/archi...amp;seasonID=16

Oh I see it now....."fewer than 5 produced before the merger with Titleist"....... whether it was lost or destroyed it was still produced :) ...... so the 5th one was made after the merger with Titleist yet one was stamped 1/5 already........ meaning:

a.) when the "fewer than 5 produced before the merger with Titleist" were being made there was already a plan to make a 5th that is why they were able to stamp one 1/5 yet still say that fewer than 5 were produced?

or

b.)There is an entire different line of Minis from those made before the merger with Titleist. So there was a "fewer than 5" before the merger (probably given to friends/gift for births) then produced at least another 5 after one of which was stamped 1/5?

There is a mention of where he is stamping names and such since there is no visible stamping on the 1/5 I will vote B that there is an entire different line/production run after the merger with Titleist that have no stamps just the 1/5 on the first of the 5.

Just to add if it was the intention to stamp then yet it was not done then why is such info on the site? The adding of stamps as a personalization is such a heart warming story to mention it and not actually have done it makes it worse than not mentioning the act at all.

hodges · July 19, 2009

Selective reading means you ignored the part that said that "claimed" that they were defective. That does not mean that they actually were defective. Of course you believe that everything that Cameron says is the same as if it was spoken from God so if he or one of his minions sent back some putter heads and claimed they were defective, putter heads that were not even manufactured by Bettinardi, and decided to throw in a few perfectly good putter heads that Bettinardi did mill, then that means that all of them were made by Bettinardi and they all were defective.

Good spin on the hand slapping story. Glad to hear you somehow get boat loads of Club Cameron goods to sell to your friends at a lower price. I guess that means you put the screws to all the other TCC members?

You are slow on the draw in reference to the rules of golf and what constitutes a club. I already pointed that out here:
http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=1828837

Your right. I was focusing on only the part of your statement because you like your posts to be accepted as fact.

So are you saying you were repeating a story which has no basis in fact or are you saying the heads he returned were never defective?

I will try to aim downwind

xxio · July 19, 2009

If B works for you go for it. All you got to do is find some proof. :D

XXio in post #920 you write
"No....... but would you say "fewer than 5", when you have stamped one 1/5?"

The time line would seem to be, stamp a putterhead 1 of 5, later decide not to stamp the rest of them 2/5, 3/5 ect.
And then lose or destroy the 5th head so that you now know there are fewer than 5.
Just a guess
But again I ask where does it say that the other putters were given out with kids names stamped on them? It may have been the intent but it doesn't look like it happen.

Greg

I'll just address the part quoted to me the other can reply to the ones they were quoted specifically in.

http://www.scottycameron.com/putters/archi...amp;seasonID=16

Oh I see it now....."fewer than 5 produced before the merger with Titleist"....... whether it was lost or destroyed it was still produced :) ...... so the 5th one was made after the merger with Titleist yet one was stamped 1/5 already........ meaning:

a.) when the "fewer than 5 produced before the merger with Titleist" were being made there was already a plan to make a 5th that is why they were able to stamp one 1/5 yet still say that fewer than 5 were produced?

or

b.)There is an entire different line of Minis from those made before the merger with Titleist. So there was a "fewer than 5" before the merger (probably given to friends/gift for births) then produced at least another 5 after one of which was stamped 1/5?

There is a mention of where he is stamping names and such since there is no visible stamping on the 1/5 I will vote B that there is an entire different line/production run after the merger with Titleist that have no stamps just the 1/5 on the first of the 5.

Just to add if it was the intention to stamp then yet it was not done then why is such info on the site? The adding of stamps as a personalization is such a heart warming story to mention it and not actually have done it makes it worse than not mentioning the act at all.

Same as your proposal I guess.......lack of proof........so in the end since we cannot find proof that makes my proposals A or B and your proposals true we will just have to stick with what is presented the 1/5 stamp and the Cameron website which unfortunately conflict.

So one of them is a lie I guess :)

BTW I think there is mention of stampings of name on the Cameron site if you take a look.

hodges · July 19, 2009

LOL ok I ain't that slow.

In fact I posted in this thread over a week ago (post 339) that the rules of golf say a putterhead in not a golf club.

Looks like with your recent post you finally agree me. I don't blame you for taking a week to agree with me, it was complicated.

So is there someone to collaborate you claim that this story of the defective heads actually happened or are we just suppose to accept it as fact because you posted it? Did you see the box of heads? Were you there when they were returned?

Bob? Nick? Jimmy?

Off to bed, its been fun

G

I thought what I said was pretty clear but let me elaborate for your benefit. Let me see if I can type slower for you.

C a m e r o n c l a i m e d t h e h e a d s w e r e d e f e c t i v e . T h e o n l y d e f e c t i v e h e a d s i n t h e b o x w e r e n o t m a d e b y B e t t i n a r d i . C a m e r o n w a s t r y i n g t o m a n i p u l a t e w h a t a c t u a l l y o c c u r r e d . D o e s t h a t s o u n d f a m i l i a r ?

D i d I g o s l o w e n o u g h f o r y o u t o f o l l o w a l o n g t h i s t i m e ?

hodges · July 19, 2009

If B works for you go for it. All you got to do is find some proof. :D

XXio in post #920 you write
"No....... but would you say "fewer than 5", when you have stamped one 1/5?"

The time line would seem to be, stamp a putterhead 1 of 5, later decide not to stamp the rest of them 2/5, 3/5 ect.
And then lose or destroy the 5th head so that you now know there are fewer than 5.
Just a guess
But again I ask where does it say that the other putters were given out with kids names stamped on them? It may have been the intent but it doesn't look like it happen.

Greg

I'll just address the part quoted to me the other can reply to the ones they were quoted specifically in.

http://www.scottycameron.com/putters/archi...amp;seasonID=16

Oh I see it now....."fewer than 5 produced before the merger with Titleist"....... whether it was lost or destroyed it was still produced :) ...... so the 5th one was made after the merger with Titleist yet one was stamped 1/5 already........ meaning:

a.) when the "fewer than 5 produced before the merger with Titleist" were being made there was already a plan to make a 5th that is why they were able to stamp one 1/5 yet still say that fewer than 5 were produced?

or

b.)There is an entire different line of Minis from those made before the merger with Titleist. So there was a "fewer than 5" before the merger (probably given to friends/gift for births) then produced at least another 5 after one of which was stamped 1/5?

There is a mention of where he is stamping names and such since there is no visible stamping on the 1/5 I will vote B that there is an entire different line/production run after the merger with Titleist that have no stamps just the 1/5 on the first of the 5.

Just to add if it was the intention to stamp then yet it was not done then why is such info on the site? The adding of stamps as a personalization is such a heart warming story to mention it and not actually have done it makes it worse than not mentioning the act at all.

Same as your proposal I guess.......lack of proof........so in the end since we cannot find proof that makes my proposals A or B and your proposals true we will just have to stick with what is presented the 1/5 stamp and the Cameron website which unfortunately conflict.

So one of them is a lie I guess :)

BTW I think there is mention of stampings of name on the Cameron site if you take a look.

Damn, that looks like it going to leave us Hatfields and McCoys arguing about who's the prettiest girl in the woods forever.

I enjoy a good debate and you have been fun. It isn't always about winning or losing, sometimes it is just fun to play.

All the best

Greg

MarkCuranovic · July 19, 2009

I saw in another forum a picture from a Bettinardi spring social gathering, he had two minis that were unshafted. One was a regular version with Scotty Cameron stamped in the face, while another seemed to be something milled from plastic (or wax?) which was the first one ever produced or prototyped. If you search diligently you will find that pic. Not sure if those count as among the "less than 5" that exist.
From PT. I think the top one at least was already posted earlier.

The Fantastic plastic Classic was not a Mini... and depending on who you ask, the Mini on the photo doesnt exist either... or at least it doesnt count... I guess its an "oops" mini

MarkCuranovic · July 19, 2009

I heart Greg!

mr_dizzy_dean · July 19, 2009

this is by far the lamest thread i've ever read.

:read:

xxio · July 19, 2009

Damn, that looks like it going to leave us Hatfields and McCoys arguing about who's the prettiest girl in the woods forever.

I enjoy a good debate and you have been fun. It isn't always about winning or losing, sometimes it is just fun to play.
All the best
Greg

Yes, it was a good debate and I guess if you want to leave the inconsistency of the stamping and the website at that there is nothing we can debate about.

Hopefully one of those inconsistencies will be addressed soon and Cameron history will be for the better. I'm hoping it is the website that is wrong. It would such a pity to have to weld over that 1/5 stamping.

Ian Nersesian · July 20, 2009

I just watched the video on Cameron's web site about the milling of the Kombi and Cameron make reference at the beginning of the video about all the work that goes into the milling of the putter. If Cameron is calling or making reference to the milling of the Kombi head as the work that goes into the putter I guess he feels the head is in fact a putter. If he is wrong perhaps someone needs to contact him and tell him that the head is not a putter.

Since you mentioned the Kombi milling it reminded me of a post earlier in this thread claiming the videos weren't shot at Scotty's studio.

Now, to be 100% clear, I am very pro Scotty Cameron, but I'd like to know the story about this. Does he mill his own heads and do his own finishing/refinishing/restorations, etc. in the Studio? Does he in fact sub this work out? If he does, can you substantiate this somehow? I was/am under the impression that he does the original milling, paintfill, shaft fitting, etc. in his California location and has full control and final say over everything. I realize Scotty Cameron did not do the paintfill on my Studio select or stitch the head covers I buy but you get what I'm saying.

drewspin · July 20, 2009

I posted above regarding the milling shops where Cameron/Acushnet have had their milled putters cut and finished:

XCell (no longer)

K-Tech

Western CNC.

Some of the Cameron putters are shown in the parts gallery of the K-Tech web site:

http://www.k-techmachine.com/partsgallery/partsgallery.html

I believe the Kombi video was shot at K-Tech or Western CNC, NOT at the studio.

If I'm wrong, someone will certainly correct me.

geogolf · July 20, 2009

I posted above regarding the milling shops where Cameron/Acushnet have had their milled putters cut and finished:

XCell (no longer)
K-Tech
Western CNC.

Some of the Cameron putters are shown in the parts gallery of the K-Tech web site:

http://www.k-techmachine.com/partsgallery/partsgallery.html

I believe the Kombi video was shot at K-Tech or Western CNC, NOT at the studio.

If I'm wrong, someone will certainly correct me.

Drew, correct on the Kombi. Also.... to add to the list: http://www.slivnikmachining.com/

jick · July 20, 2009

I just read through The Cameron Collector forum and found the following info about the mini and its 5 pieces:

1. from the Levine collection

2. owned by a certain Kaz

3. the one posted here by Nickpoz

4. in the possession of Scotty himself

5. unaccounted for

So there is the argument about two putters in one block of steel so how come this is an odd number?

That shouldn't be hard to figure out. The 6th putter was never delivered or assembled. It is just a head that is in Bettinardi's office.

Does that account for everything so far?

drewspin · July 20, 2009

I posted above regarding the milling shops where Cameron/Acushnet have had their milled putters cut and finished:

XCell (no longer)
K-Tech
Western CNC.

Some of the Cameron putters are shown in the parts gallery of the K-Tech web site:

http://www.k-techmachine.com/partsgallery/partsgallery.html

I believe the Kombi video was shot at K-Tech or Western CNC, NOT at the studio.

If I'm wrong, someone will certainly correct me.

Drew, correct on the Kombi. Also.... to add to the list: http://www.slivnikmachining.com/

Thanks Geo.

Right Silvnik too in the past. Surely Cameron will never use them again.

Sign In

Scotty Cameron Classic Mini

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites