Scotty Cameron Classic Mini

[HOHO]

[quote name='Venno' post='1853697' date='Jul 30 2009, 04:42 PM']Dan aka HOHO how easily you forget the nice dinner Mr Bettinardi treated you to in Orlando 2 years ago. Oh and the solid copper BB1 lefty we made for you, because scotty wouldnt make a solid copper lefty BBC. Hope you are well!
Venno[/quote]


Hey Venno ,
Things are great up here , thanks for asking !
How are things with you ?

I haven't forgotten about dinner AT ALL ...
Bob and you guys were truly gracious hosts with some fabulous stories !
It was a wonderful evening , one that I appreciate and won't soon forget !
Say hi to BB and Bull for me !

Dan

(PS... Thanks for the belts as well , I wear them every round !)

[HOHO]

[quote name='Venno' post='1853697' date='Jul 30 2009, 04:42 PM']Dan aka HOHO how easily you forget the nice dinner Mr Bettinardi treated you to in Orlando 2 years ago. Oh and the solid copper BB1 lefty we made for you, [b]because scotty wouldnt make a solid copper lefty BBC[/b]. Hope you are well!
Venno[/quote]

And I'm still waiting for a Lefty BBC ... LOLOL
I guess this will have to hold me over !

[spring70]

[quote name='HOHO' post='1853739' date='Jul 30 2009, 05:03 PM'][quote name='Venno' post='1853697' date='Jul 30 2009, 04:42 PM']Dan aka HOHO how easily you forget the nice dinner Mr Bettinardi treated you to in Orlando 2 years ago. Oh and the solid copper BB1 lefty we made for you, [b]because scotty wouldnt make a solid copper lefty BBC[/b]. Hope you are well!
Venno[/quote]

And I'm still waiting for a Lefty BBC ... LOLOL
I guess this will have to hold me over !


[/quote]


Again, I am not up to speed on the world of putter designers, but I cannot believe that he would put Scotty Dale on a putter. That is one gaudy putter, unless your Elton John:)

[RobotDoctor]

Cameron has put "Scotty Dale" on many putters. There really isn't anything wrong with that as far as I am concerned. Yes, it is a take off the Scottsdale moniker but this is Cameron's spin on the original design. To be honest, I like the 009 version of the Scotty Dale. As far as the stampings go, I prefer the minimalist approach whether it is a Cameron, a Byron Morgan, TP Mills, or any putter. However, some people love the bling and that is a personal choice as well.

[mrupndown]

maybe that's why he changed his name...."Donald Dale" doesn't sound right

[Rambler]

... and this is why I'm glad I play a Ping

[scottym]

[quote name='Huntingchris0000' post='1853186' date='Jul 30 2009, 10:03 AM']Someone from the Cameron side please provide some proof that the things said here aren't true. I have yet to see any proof from the Cameron side but I have seen a lot of speculation.[/quote]


Whoa,

Guilty until proven innocent??


How do I prove that I'm not Vog?

How do I prove that Scotty isn't a racist?

How do I prove that Scotty wasn't the cause of his split with BB?

How do I prove what was said or not said in a closed door meeting ten years ago?


I have yet to hear a first hand account from somebody that is not hearsay or conjecture.

Instead of asking to disprove these accusations, why not ask for real proof in the first place?

[HOHO]

[quote name='spring7' post='1854274' date='Jul 30 2009, 09:29 PM']That is one gaudy putter, unless your Elton John:)[/quote]
[b]
Well I guess I'm Elton ! [/b]

[biscuity]

[quote name='Redman' post='1852961' date='Jul 30 2009, 08:35 AM'][b]there has been no posts from the Cameron side to dispute the stories and say that it happened another way.[/b] All there has been from TCC side are posts trying to defend why Cameron screwed people over whether it be the website, putters, etc. I think this has been the most frustrating part for me is that Foregasim, RobotDoctor, Geo, etc keep getting called haters but they are telling a story. Of course it is one sided because it is their stories of first hand knowledge they know. If you choose not to believe it that is fine. But instead of just defending Cameron to the death for his practices can we hear a different side to the story? I don't think we can because I think it all went down as it has been explained on here over and over. That is why Cameron supporters are so quick to defend and trying to discredit Foregasim et al. What does an attorney do when they don't have very good evidence of their own? They spend the majority of the time trying to find ways to discredit the other side's witnesses so as to create doubt.[/quote]

Read back through the thread, I've posted quotes from two of the Classic Mini owners, quotes from the owner of TCC, quotes from Scotty, the name/address/phone # of Rick Cooper, sales volume numbers.

Foregasim started this whole thing by incorrectly saying "In fact in a post on another site, [b]Jim butler[/b] .... [b]stated that 8 were made[/b]." Jim Butler didn't post that, it was a second hand story told by georgiat01336: "me and jim had a talk about classic putters, he told me 8 were made but [b]only 5 were actually finished heads[/b], rumors about some being destroyed he wasnt sure on."

And even if it was a direct quote from Jim Butler, he stated there were only 5 finished Classic Minis.

It would make perfect sense to destroy some heads if Scotty ordered 5 putters and XCel milled 8 heads to make sure they had enough to produce 5 perfect putters. It's called production over-run, happens all the time on production runs for milled products.

The putter on Bob Bettinardi's desk is [url="http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=240794&view=findpost&p=1574833"]quoted[/url] as a "Classic I Mini [b]Prototype[/b]". The back view has no Cameron stampings like the finished Classic Minis. The bumpers and flare into the top line are not the same as an official Cameron Classic Mini.

[attachment=443097:mini_comp.jpg]

I don't think you can count that as one of the finished Classic Minis.

We've only seen photos of 3 Classic Minis with Cameron stampings. Only 2 are in the COA registry. Given the possibility that some of the putters were destroyed, it's entirely possible that the "1 of 5" stamping and "fewer than 5" are both correct.

[RobotDoctor]

Well what I hated to see back in April 2008 has definitely happened in this thread.

[rrkman]

[quote name='foregasim' post='1854918' date='Jul 31 2009, 08:17 AM']There were, as far as I am concerned, at least 8 mini Anser heads made back in 1993 - 1994. According to the Cameron contingent there may even have been more made at some point after that time once Cameron sold his name to Acushnet. How many, who did the milling, and where they are today is unknown, or at least no one in the Cameron camp is talking about it.[/quote]


Foregasim. Did someone from the cameron world mention a second run. I could only find a couple early 'theories' from myself and xxio......which is certainly no Cameron contingent. And I can only speak for myself but I've completely thrown that guess out the window. If there were 8 (and that seems pretty easy to accept)....and all 8 made it throught the milling, the finishing process, and weren't destroyed (I'm not sure if this happened - I think that we only have reasonable proof of 5 right now)....it is possible that some of them weren't made into putters until after the merger which is why SC.com specifies 'before the merger'. Just curious if it was mentioned by other Cameron fans (besides myself) that actually know something about this.

Thanks.

Sorry - I hope adding this in edit doesn't get it lost. You also said in your first post that the cameron people claimed only 5 existed but it was found that bettinardi has one and 2 more were accounted for......I don't want to ask for proof but could you atleast tell me what these other 2 were? Who has them?

[blkdiamond]

[quote name='foregasim' post='1852201' date='Jul 29 2009, 09:12 PM'][quote name='geogolf' post='1852181' date='Jul 29 2009, 11:01 PM'][quote]the relationship flourished until Doug decided to start another website to promote Scotty's competitors.[/quote]

Almost. TCC had some threads regarding other putters. In an effort to keep TCC strictly Cameron- PT was formed. Then..... things went wacko.
[/quote]
The final straw that made Cameron take the action he did regarding TCC was the fact that TCC had a fund raising thread to collect donations for T.P. Mills funeral. At a lunch meeting in California with Doug, Cameron, Margaret (Cameron's personal assistant) I believe Hank and [b]a really nice collector[/b], Cameron express how inappropriate it was for a Cameron forum to raise money for T.P. Mills funeral. That there should be no talk what so ever about any other putter makers on TCC. Cameron was irate that Doug would use "Cameron's" name in association with collecting donations for the Mills funeral.

That was when PutterTalk was formed so that there would not be any discussions on TCC about any other putter makers, dead or alive. Cameron never got over that situation and decided to pull all support from TCC and gave ultimatums to those involved with overseeing the site.

That told me a lot about what type of guy Cameron is.
[/quote]

Sorry to go back a bit, but I am just now catching up on my daily Cameron rants and raves.

So Foregasim, can we assume that you are the [i]"really nice collector"[/i] referenced above?

[rrkman]

Foregasim,

I'm not trying to get this back to a heated debate. Earlier in this thread I posted a list of 5 mini putters that are 'known' to exist. Bettinardi's, Scotty's, Japanese collector, the 1/5, the other one pictured by Nick.

In your first post in this thread, you said that before, when the cameron guys claimed that only 5 exist, 2 additional mini's were accounted for - as well as bettinardi's. Just curious as to what those 2 are? Are they part of that list and 2 of the original claim of 5 aren't...and do you know what those were? Are they in addition to that list and are you willing to tell us a little about them?

The cameron guys only list 4 plus one unknown - maybe that is the Bettinardi one, I don't know. All I know is that they didn't add to this list and I just want to know if you can add to that list? Do you know of other putters outside of those 5.....from your first post, it sounds like you do or at least was told that more existed.......and I wouldn't mind hearing about them.

Thanks,

Randy

[rrkman]

[quote name='Venno' post='1855465' date='Jul 31 2009, 12:09 PM']Randy
I have seen an unfinished Mini head Scotty had at his studio.

How did I see it? He showed it to me. That makes 6![/quote]


Thanks....I'm assuming that this was after the other '5' were already out and about so that this isn't possibly one of those, right? And this is in addition to the one that he supposedly has, right? I would also assume that he didn't destroy it since then.....although someone could argue that, I'm not going to.

That makes 4 finished complete putters. Japanese collector, 1/5, Scotty's, the other one pictured. The head that Bettinardi has - finished or at least finished a little. And one unfinished head that Scotty has.

[psd]

[quote name='foregasim' post='1855340' date='Jul 31 2009, 11:27 AM']The argument that a putter head was milled but never had a shaft or grip added to it means that it was not a putter or never made" is baloney. Earlier I posted a link to the Registry entry for a 1996 Newport Twisty. This "putter" was nothing but an unfinished head sitting in a box for over a decade. It was never made into a "putter" until 2007 or so. If a putter head is NOT a putter then this is not a 1996 S. Cameron. It is a 2007(?) S. Cameron that is stamped 1996.

This thread started off talking about the mini Anser heads that were originally made. The Cameron fanatics tried to change the facts by claiming that a putter head is not a putter unless it is completed, shafted and has a grip installed. This was how they justified the statement that only 5 were ordered, or only 5 were made, or only 5 existed.

Personally I do not give a rats a** about the number of Cameron Mini's that are out there. Perhaps the guys that claim they are buying them for $35,000+ or not selling them at $40,000 do not care either. I know for a fact if there were more available that the price paid for them would not be as high: simple supply and demand.

For those that want to claim that a putter head is not a putter until such time that it is finished, shafted and a grip put on it, then please feel free to voice your disdain at the statement in the Registry that the putter below is claimed by Cameron to be a 1996 putter.

[url="http://www.scottycameron.com/authentication/registrysearch.asp?registry=A006487#"]http://www.scottycameron.com/authenticatio...gistry=A006487#[/url]

"1996 S. Cameron Newport Beach in a black oxide finish with a twisted welded long neck. Scotty demonstrated in the tour department the pliability of his putters by twisting the neck. "[/quote]

Sorry, but this is inflammatory. It doesn't take a "Cameron fanatic" to realize a putter is comprised of a grip, shaft, and head. The reference to the 1996 twisty has absolutely nothing to do with this.

The object in that registry is clearly a putter. It is arguably comprised of a 13-year old putter head that has had its neck modified, stamps added, and shafted and gripped with new materials. If that's too vague or you believe is purposely misleading it is up to how you interpret the description. The key being each individual's interpretation. Does this provide the putter's owner with some piece of mind? You'd have to ask him/her that. Does it provide absolute assurance for investment purposes if a buyer was interested in that particular piece? Once again, you would have to ask why someone was investing in this type of commodity in first place.

[rrkman]

[quote name='foregasim' post='1855544' date='Jul 31 2009, 12:43 PM']Just because a putter can not be accounted for at this time or was destroyed does not mean that it was not made. Was the Tiger WOods TeI3 Bullseye that was thrown out in the trash by a collectors wife when he left it in a box in the garage, mean that that putter never existed because it can not be accounted for and by all accounts was destroyed at the landfill?

Have I heard of other heads in existence? Yes. Can I provide the proof that would be demanded if I referenced where those heads are now? Maybe I can and maybe I can not. Maybe I can not or will not because the people that own them do not want others to know.

Like I said it makes no difference to me how many exist. It should concern everyone who has a Cameron collection that the Registry and the Cameron web site is full of inconsistencies and false and misleading information. The registry was suppose to document the putters. According to some of the quotes Cameron fans have posted here Cameron can tell you everything about a putter when he sees it. Look at the registry and tell me what percentage of the special putters ("tour" or custom or putters specifically made for a person) have the Date when the putter was made? That is VERY important information for all collectables, especially Cameron's putters.

The inaccurate, false and misleading information is what the Cameron Mini Anser "story" is all about.[/quote]

For Tiger's putter....no, to me it means that currently it is gone (maybe some miracle will make it show up some day but for the most part it no longer exists)....but I still believe that it once did. And for all I know, the collector could still have it packed away with 2 mini's....just a joke.

Ok....thanks. It is most likely that 8 heads were made. We have an idea of where 6 are. 2 are not known to the general public and could still exist, could have been destroyed, etc....and for all I know, any of those 6 could be gone forever as well. But at least I know a little about 6 of them.

Thanks,

Randy

[psd]

[quote name='Venno' post='1855585' date='Jul 31 2009, 12:58 PM'][quote name='psd' post='1855574' date='Jul 31 2009, 11:52 AM'][quote name='foregasim' post='1855340' date='Jul 31 2009, 11:27 AM']The argument that a putter head was milled but never had a shaft or grip added to it means that it was not a putter or never made" is baloney. Earlier I posted a link to the Registry entry for a 1996 Newport Twisty. This "putter" was nothing but an unfinished head sitting in a box for over a decade. It was never made into a "putter" until 2007 or so. If a putter head is NOT a putter then this is not a 1996 S. Cameron. It is a 2007(?) S. Cameron that is stamped 1996.

This thread started off talking about the mini Anser heads that were originally made. The Cameron fanatics tried to change the facts by claiming that a putter head is not a putter unless it is completed, shafted and has a grip installed. This was how they justified the statement that only 5 were ordered, or only 5 were made, or only 5 existed.

Personally I do not give a rats a** about the number of Cameron Mini's that are out there. Perhaps the guys that claim they are buying them for $35,000+ or not selling them at $40,000 do not care either. I know for a fact if there were more available that the price paid for them would not be as high: simple supply and demand.

For those that want to claim that a putter head is not a putter until such time that it is finished, shafted and a grip put on it, then please feel free to voice your disdain at the statement in the Registry that the putter below is claimed by Cameron to be a 1996 putter.

[url="http://www.scottycameron.com/authentication/registrysearch.asp?registry=A006487#"]http://www.scottycameron.com/authenticatio...gistry=A006487#[/url]

"1996 S. Cameron Newport Beach in a black oxide finish with a twisted welded long neck. Scotty demonstrated in the tour department the pliability of his putters by twisting the neck. "[/quote]

Sorry, but this is inflammatory. It doesn't take a "Cameron fanatic" to realize a putter is comprised of a grip, shaft, and head. The reference to the 1996 twisty has absolutely nothing to do with this.

The object in that registry is clearly a putter. It is arguably comprised of a 13 year old putter head that has had its neck modified, stamps added, and shafted and gripped with new materials. If that's too vague or you believe is purposely misleading is up to how you interpret the description. The key being each individual's interpretation.
[/quote]

No the argument is that this putter was not made in 1996 or stamped in 1996 yet it says 1996 on it! That is the BS!
[/quote]

I agree that the description is too vague. Some of the materials (most if based on the weight of the head as a % of the total putter) are from 1996, correct? I don't know anything about the history to know when it was stamped.

This is where is gets vague. The authentification process reads in part "...the process defines original Scotty Cameron designs and document alterations". Have alterations to this putter been made? No. It is what it is when registered in its current state. But wait you say, it's a relatively new putter isn't it? How can the registry claim it to be a 1996 putter? Well, go back to my previous description (assuming it is correct). It's comprised of materials that can arguably be tracked back to 1996.

BS? Probably yes to the discerning collector and clearly to the investor.

[stage1350]

[quote name='psd' post='1855629' date='Jul 31 2009, 12:18 PM'][quote name='Venno' post='1855585' date='Jul 31 2009, 12:58 PM'][quote name='psd' post='1855574' date='Jul 31 2009, 11:52 AM'][quote name='foregasim' post='1855340' date='Jul 31 2009, 11:27 AM']The argument that a putter head was milled but never had a shaft or grip added to it means that it was not a putter or never made" is baloney. Earlier I posted a link to the Registry entry for a 1996 Newport Twisty. This "putter" was nothing but an unfinished head sitting in a box for over a decade. It was never made into a "putter" until 2007 or so. If a putter head is NOT a putter then this is not a 1996 S. Cameron. It is a 2007(?) S. Cameron that is stamped 1996.

This thread started off talking about the mini Anser heads that were originally made. The Cameron fanatics tried to change the facts by claiming that a putter head is not a putter unless it is completed, shafted and has a grip installed. This was how they justified the statement that only 5 were ordered, or only 5 were made, or only 5 existed.

Personally I do not give a rats a** about the number of Cameron Mini's that are out there. Perhaps the guys that claim they are buying them for $35,000+ or not selling them at $40,000 do not care either. I know for a fact if there were more available that the price paid for them would not be as high: simple supply and demand.

For those that want to claim that a putter head is not a putter until such time that it is finished, shafted and a grip put on it, then please feel free to voice your disdain at the statement in the Registry that the putter below is claimed by Cameron to be a 1996 putter.

[url="http://www.scottycameron.com/authentication/registrysearch.asp?registry=A006487#"]http://www.scottycameron.com/authenticatio...gistry=A006487#[/url]

"1996 S. Cameron Newport Beach in a black oxide finish with a twisted welded long neck. Scotty demonstrated in the tour department the pliability of his putters by twisting the neck. "[/quote]

Sorry, but this is inflammatory. It doesn't take a "Cameron fanatic" to realize a putter is comprised of a grip, shaft, and head. The reference to the 1996 twisty has absolutely nothing to do with this.

The object in that registry is clearly a putter. It is arguably comprised of a 13 year old putter head that has had its neck modified, stamps added, and shafted and gripped with new materials. If that's too vague or you believe is purposely misleading is up to how you interpret the description. The key being each individual's interpretation.
[/quote]

No the argument is that this putter was not made in 1996 or stamped in 1996 yet it says 1996 on it! That is the BS!
[/quote]

I agree that the description is too vague. Some of materials (most of it based on weight) are from 1996, correct? I don't know anything about the history to know when it was stamped.

This is where is gets vague. The authentification process reads in part "...the process defines original Scotty Cameron designs and document alterations". Have alterations to this putter been made? No. It is what it is when registered in its current state. But wait you say, it's a relatively new putter isn't it? How can the registry claim it to be a 1996 putter? Well, go back to my previous description (assuming it is correct). It's comprised of materials that can arguably be tracked back to 1996.

BS? Probably yes to the discerning collector and clearly to the investor.
[/quote]

Another quality justification. I noticed that you didn't want to touch the issue where Venno discussed the JAT stamp which was not even in existance in 1996.

Based on your logic, whatever he stamps is legit, so had he stamped 1986, that would be okay, even though CGI wasn't even formed.

What if he stamped 1/5 on a putter when he knew there were more than 5?

[RobotDoctor]

This topic is not nearly as big of a waste in time than reading your [i]"nice and respectful"[/i] post. I hope you don't waste any more of your time reading the responses you are getting.

[quote name='ProPaul' post='1855431' date='Jul 31 2009, 09:58 AM'][quote name='Johwak121' post='1804826' date='Jul 8 2009, 06:25 AM']ummmm wow $40,000 for a PUTTER!

That guy that didnt sell must be a DIE HARD FAN/COLLECTOR

I could get a new car and set of dream clubs with all that and still have some left over [/quote]


F***!! With $40K, I'd stop buying Scotty Cameron putters, open my own shop, get all the equipment, 100 lbs. of 1025 select carbon steel, and put all these guys to shame. Sounds to me like the population likes to obsess over Scotty, why not have the obsess over me!? Unless the putter is magicaly blessed to make every putt what the heck is the difference between a "mini" and my SS Newport? Nothing!, I still drain the occaisonal 50+ foot putt, and miss 4 foot putts all the time. This topic is a waste of energy. I can't imagine Scotty Cameron feels good when hes surrounded, in room, at one of his collector conventions, with a bunch of lonely, obsessed old men who have spent thier life savings on his, ugly putter creations! Don't believe me?, just look at his videos, why would anyone want to buy anything as ugly as the "froot loop" putter? I'd rather own a 69 Sting Ray.
[/quote]

[psd]

[quote name='stage1350' post='1855634' date='Jul 31 2009, 01:23 PM']Another quality justification. I noticed that you didn't want to touch the issue where Venno discussed the JAT stamp which was not even in existance in 1996.

Based on your logic, whatever he stamps is legit, so had he stamped 1986, that would be okay, even though CGI wasn't even formed.

What if he stamped 1/5 on a putter when he knew there were more than 5? [/quote]

I did touch the issue about the stamping. I said I did not know. And my logic is not whatever he stamps is legit. I cited the authentification process. Like it or not, it allows for a lot of latitude to the document author. I agreed that if I was a serious collector I would ask a lot of questions about this piece rather than trusting the COA outright.

[add1]

[quote name='psd' post='1855649' date='Jul 31 2009, 01:31 PM'][quote name='stage1350' post='1855634' date='Jul 31 2009, 01:23 PM']Another quality justification. I noticed that you didn't want to touch the issue where Venno discussed the JAT stamp which was not even in existance in 1996.

Based on your logic, whatever he stamps is legit, so had he stamped 1986, that would be okay, even though CGI wasn't even formed.

What if he stamped 1/5 on a putter when he knew there were more than 5? [/quote]

I did touch the issue about the stamping. I said I did not know. And my logic is not whatever he stamps is legit. I cited the authentification process. Like it or not, it allows for a lot of latitude to the document author. I agreed that if I was a serious collector I would ask a lot of questions about this piece rather than trusting the COA outright.
[/quote]
Isn't this one of the points you can't ask that sort of question.The registry is taken as gospel by the fans,people who question it get called haters or say Scotty is to big to remember every putter made,so the registry is the TRUTH so you can't question it.

[psd]

[quote name='Venno' post='1855782' date='Jul 31 2009, 02:47 PM']PROBABLY YES? So if scotty has a solid block of steel from 1993 and he decides to make a putter tomorrow the head being that it is 100% from a 1993 block of steel can be stamped 1993? Give me a #%@ !(!*& Break! I seriously cant take it anymore, how can you defend this blatant attempt to stamp and predate a putter! If I find 51% of the parts to an original 1963 Rolex and I then manufacture the rest to fit today, it sure as hell aint a 1963 rolex, just because most of it is from 1963.[/quote]

"Probably" yes because I don't consider myself either collector or investor and don't want to speak for anyone but myself.

And what am I supposedly defending? I said the description was vague and the authentication author had plenty of latitude. The write up is not done in absolute terms.

How about something constructive. How about the certificate of authenticity program should be modified to list the dates a complete putter was finished and released in its pictured form?

[add1]

[quote name='psd' post='1855810' date='Jul 31 2009, 02:59 PM'][quote name='Venno' post='1855782' date='Jul 31 2009, 02:47 PM']PROBABLY YES? So if scotty has a solid block of steel from 1993 and he decides to make a putter tomorrow the head being that it is 100% from a 1993 block of steel can be stamped 1993? Give me a #%@ !(!*& Break! I seriously cant take it anymore, how can you defend this blatant attempt to stamp and predate a putter! If I find 51% of the parts to an original 1963 Rolex and I then manufacture the rest to fit today, it sure as hell aint a 1963 rolex, just because most of it is from 1963.[/quote]

"Probably" yes because I don't consider myself either collector or investor and don't want to speak for anyone but myself.

And what am I supposedly defending? I said the description was vague and the authentication author had plenty of latitude. The write up is not done in absolute terms.

How about something constructive. How about the certificate of authenticity program should be modified to list the dates a complete putter was finished and released in its pictured form?
[/quote]
More than happy if they modified the COA program but lets be honest it's not going to happen.The history of some putters is vague at best and the myth is what gives the mini this status and potential value,so the modifacation to the program can only be introduced from a future date for future putters and have no influence on any past putters.Therefore I can't see this idea being implimented ,although the idea is sensible.

[RobotDoctor]

[quote name='ProPaul' post='1855892' date='Jul 31 2009, 01:36 PM'][quote name='RobotDoctor' post='1855646' date='Jul 31 2009, 10:30 AM']This topic is not nearly as big of a waste in time than reading your [i]"nice and respectful"[/i] post. I hope you don't waste any more of your time reading the responses you are getting.[/quote]


HA, ha, ha, ha. It's a freakin PUTTER for crying out loud!, There are so many more important things in the game of golf, industry of golf and history of golf. My rant was only based on speculation over the $40K pass up!!!, and the obsession with these putters. Although my speculation is just that!, in my opinion, one Scotty Cameron should not cost as much as half a new set of clubs!!, and a collectors item Scotty should not be worth as much as a new Mercedes!! I putt with a SS Newport so I can say first hand, in my opinion....they're all hype! All golf balls roll the same, putt the same and loose the same. $300 for a name, and $40K for piece of mind is not worth it in my world. Then again I'm not loaded $$$, and I don't obsess over material things. Sorry if I offended you, I'll try to be more civil next time.
[/quote]


This thread is really not about putters more than it is about business ethics and integrity. By the way, have you read the entire thread? If so you will see that many who have posted believe that ethics and integrity is at the core of this issue.

Your points that you make is something that many people can believe in. I do not have a problem with putters costing a few hundred dollars, especially for the small manufacturer. These people have bills to pay and mouths to feed. There is a cost associated with labor and the personal touch. However, when manufacturing is done in an automated manner then after the initial investment is paid, the cost per unit is relatively low, or at least much lower than it was. A putter is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. I would say that most people here are not willing to pay $40-$50K for a putter.

[RobotDoctor]

[quote name='ProPaul' post='1855990' date='Jul 31 2009, 02:23 PM'][quote name='add1' post='1855932' date='Jul 31 2009, 12:52 PM'][quote name='ProPaul' post='1855892' date='Jul 31 2009, 03:36 PM'][quote name='RobotDoctor' post='1855646' date='Jul 31 2009, 10:30 AM']This topic is not nearly as big of a waste in time than reading your [i]"nice and respectful"[/i] post. I hope you don't waste any more of your time reading the responses you are getting.[/quote]


HA, ha, ha, ha. It's a freakin PUTTER for crying out loud!, There are so many more important things in the game of golf, industry of golf and history of golf. My rant was only based on speculation over the $40K pass up!!!, and the obsession with these putters. Although my speculation is just that!, in my opinion, one Scotty Cameron should not cost as much as half a new set of clubs!!, and a collectors item Scotty should not be worth as much as a new Mercedes!! I putt with a SS Newport so I can say first hand, in my opinion....they're all hype! All golf balls roll the same, putt the same and loose the same. $300 for a name, and $40K for piece of mind is not worth it in my world. Then again I'm not loaded $$$, and I don't obsess over material things. Sorry if I offended you, I'll try to be more civil next time.
[/quote]
Yeh and a Rolex should only cost $10 as it only tells the time.Its worth what it is because someone is willing to pay that price.All putters aren't the same or we would still be playing a blade putter and even you have to admit modern putters can be more forgiving.
[/quote]


I agree and see your point. But only to the extent that the people who are obsessed with Scotty Cameron and are willing to spend the money, have ruined it for the rest of us. I remember the day that a brand new Ping Pal was $65. Now Ping is trying to compete with Scotty's prices and charging between $150 and $300, because that's what people pay. Perhaps inflation is to blame here I don't know I'm not a economical expert. But what I do know is that I miss the tour balata, and I miss my Ping Pal. Those two were the two best, "club to ball" feel combination I can remember.
[/quote]

Yes, Balata and any putter felt terrific, like butter! That said, I am neither obsessed with Cameron putters or am I a collector. However, in the past 14 years I have owned 14 Cameron putters. I have no issue paying the prices for the OTRs if I am truly getting a well designed and balanced putter.

The business ethics and integrity issue is going to determine whether I purchase a putter again from a person or not. I know there are some things I cannot control or even know about but this issue is one that I do. Therefore I chose to spend my monies with someone that I trust is ethical and has integrity. I am only holding this standard to myself. Anyone else has to make a decision for themselves.

[Tim Delgado]

[quote name='psd' post='1855810' date='Jul 31 2009, 01:59 PM'][quote name='Venno' post='1855782' date='Jul 31 2009, 02:47 PM']PROBABLY YES? So if scotty has a solid block of steel from 1993 and he decides to make a putter tomorrow the head being that it is 100% from a 1993 block of steel can be stamped 1993? Give me a #%@ !(!*& Break! I seriously cant take it anymore, how can you defend this blatant attempt to stamp and predate a putter! If I find 51% of the parts to an original 1963 Rolex and I then manufacture the rest to fit today, it sure as hell aint a 1963 rolex, just because most of it is from 1963.[/quote]

"Probably" yes because I don't consider myself either collector or investor and don't want to speak for anyone but myself.

And what am I supposedly defending? I said the description was vague and the authentication author had plenty of latitude. The write up is not done in absolute terms.

How about something constructive. How about the certificate of authenticity program should be modified to list the dates a complete putter was finished and released in its pictured form?
[/quote]



Wouldn't it be nice if people just admitted when they were wrong??

Good grief. Quit justifying this obvious nonsense, and call it what it is.

If people would just quit making excuses or saying "well I'm not a collector and don't want to speak for anyone....blah, blah, blah". Are you not capable of reading and understanding what you were just shown?

Are you incapable of understanding why it would be inappropriate to back-date a VERY highly-priced "collectable" putter?

Are you in San Fran and a Pelosi supporter too? I really am amazed (and saddened) at what people support and defend these days.

My goodness, what has happened to people's brains these days?

Tim

[spring70]

[quote name='HOHO' post='1854587' date='Jul 30 2009, 11:54 PM'][quote name='spring7' post='1854274' date='Jul 30 2009, 09:29 PM']That is one gaudy putter, unless your Elton John:)[/quote]
[b]
Well I guess I'm Elton ! [/b]

[/quote]


Ouch, that really is your putter. i thought you were kidding.

[CPSOX]

[quote name='funkyfedora' post='1856255' date='Jul 31 2009, 05:45 PM']Yet Scotty claims to have improved on the designs. [url="http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1025756/1/index.htm"]SI Vault[/url][/quote]

You don't think milling from a block of steel isn't an improvement on cast putters with hotspots? Sounds to me like Ping themselves have admitted that milling a putter is an improvement.

From Ping's website:

[i]The Redwood Series pays tribute to the home of the original PING putter—Redwood City, California. It was in Karsten Solheim's garage that his equipment revolution was born and with it came the [b]commitment to quality and innovation found in this 100% milled putter series[/b].[/i]

and

[i]With models featuring both traditional and non-traditional looks, there’s a PING putter that can help you save strokes on the green. Each putter is designed to be custom-fit to your individual putting stroke. PING provides putters featuring improved forgiveness, feel, and alignment options. So whether you prefer the feel of an insert putter, the feedback of a steel faced putter, or the [b]precision of a 100% milled putter[/b], PING has the technology you are looking for.[/i]

[bell812]

[quote name='CPSOX' post='1856269' date='Jul 31 2009, 05:54 PM'][quote name='funkyfedora' post='1856255' date='Jul 31 2009, 05:45 PM']Yet Scotty claims to have improved on the designs. [url="http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1025756/1/index.htm"]SI Vault[/url][/quote]

You don't think milling from a block of steel isn't an improvement on cast putters with hotspots? Sounds to me like Ping themselves have admitted that milling a putter is an improvement.

From Ping's website:

[i]The Redwood Series pays tribute to the home of the original PING putter—Redwood City, California. It was in Karsten Solheim's garage that his equipment revolution was born and with it came the [b]commitment to quality and innovation found in this 100% milled putter series[/b].[/i]

and

[i]With models featuring both traditional and non-traditional looks, there’s a PING putter that can help you save strokes on the green. Each putter is designed to be custom-fit to your individual putting stroke. PING provides putters featuring improved forgiveness, feel, and alignment options. So whether you prefer the feel of an insert putter, the feedback of a steel faced putter, or the [b]precision of a 100% milled putter[/b], PING has the technology you are looking for.[/i]
[/quote]

I can't figure out if you're saying Scotty should be recognized for bringing milled putters to the world, or that all he's done is mill copies of classic designs. Either way he has a long way to go before he can be compared to Karsten. Unlike Scotty, Karsten actually did revolutionize the golf equipment industry.

[HeadonaStick]

[quote name='CPSOX' post='1856269' date='Jul 31 2009, 06:54 PM'][quote name='funkyfedora' post='1856255' date='Jul 31 2009, 05:45 PM']Yet Scotty claims to have improved on the designs. [url="http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1025756/1/index.htm"]SI Vault[/url][/quote]

You don't think milling from a block of steel isn't an improvement on cast putters with hotspots? Sounds to me like Ping themselves have admitted that milling a putter is an improvement.

From Ping's website:

[i]The Redwood Series pays tribute to the home of the original PING putter—Redwood City, California. It was in Karsten Solheim's garage that his equipment revolution was born and with it came the [b]commitment to quality and innovation found in this 100% milled putter series[/b].[/i]

and

[i]With models featuring both traditional and non-traditional looks, there’s a PING putter that can help you save strokes on the green. Each putter is designed to be custom-fit to your individual putting stroke. PING provides putters featuring improved forgiveness, feel, and alignment options. So whether you prefer the feel of an insert putter, the feedback of a steel faced putter, or the [b]precision of a 100% milled putter[/b], PING has the technology you are looking for.[/i]
[/quote]
I agree that milled is better than cast, but that is an opinion, and that is certainly NOT what Ping is saying. The first paragraph is only saying that the commitments that Karsten had when he started have continued in the Redwood series, and the second is simply saying the putter is a precise tool. It isn't a comment on any other product

Of course, Mills was milling putters before Scotty was born. It wasn't an idea that Scotty came up with.