• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
GeorgiaLefty87

If you have ever purchased PING irons from the factory...

8 posts in this topic

Hello all, I'm happy to be making my first post here at the sand trap. I just ordered a set of PING G25s from my local Golf Exchange. I was fitted and ordered the yellow dot irons 5 through gap. When the clubs arrived at the retailer from the PING factory, I was surprised at the packaging. My last set of clubs, Taylormade Rocketballs, came very nicely wrapped in foam sheets and place holders with all of the club heads individually shrink wrapped in plastic. After opening the box, I found my G25s "floating" individually in the box with only brown paper in between them. There were thin black fabric covers over each head, but there was no plastic on the club heads. I noticed a few blemishes on the neck of the club heads. Is this standard packaging for PING? Having spent $700 on these irons, I expected much better packaging. I love the clubs all the same, but I'm curious if others who have purchased PING irons have experienced similar packaging. Thanks in advance!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Hello all, I'm happy to be making my first post here at the sand trap. I just ordered a set of PING G25s from my local Golf Exchange. I was fitted and ordered the yellow dot irons 5 through gap. When the clubs arrived at the retailer from the PING factory, I was surprised at the packaging. My last set of clubs, Taylormade Rocketballs, came very nicely wrapped in foam sheets and place holders with all of the club heads individually shrink wrapped in plastic. After opening the box, I found my G25s "floating" individually in the box with only brown paper in between them. There were thin black fabric covers over each head, but there was no plastic on the club heads. I noticed a few blemishes on the neck of the club heads. Is this standard packaging for PING? Having spent $700 on these irons, I expected much better packaging. I love the clubs all the same, but I'm curious if others who have purchased PING irons have experienced similar packaging. Thanks in advance!

First of all, welcome!! Secondly ... I don't remember how my i20s were packaged, though I do know that they were in a box from the fitter, not a Ping box. I love my irons too!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I have a set of G25s. They came in a couple of boxes with each iron individually wrapped in plastic bubblewrap.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My last set was G20s and your description of the packaging rings a definite bell, particularly about the little head "booties" that I recall pitching.  I understand that some clubs come with fancier packaging, but from a pragmatic perspective just about all of them are fated to be dropped into a bag and carted around in a car trunk.

Congrats on the G25s, nice sticks for sure!  And welcome to the forum.  Let us know how the clubs work out for you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bridgstone has a test drive program for the clubs they sell. I got a J40 Pocket Cavity test set containing:

  • 5i and 9i with NS Pro 1150GH Regular
  • 5i and 9i with DG R300 SL

The clubs came in a long box, about 6" square. Each clubhead was inserted into itsr own individual slot in a gray, soft foam cushion bloc. At the grip end, the clubs were held about 1/2" apart from the stabilization of the cushion. Very interesting packaging scheme!

Inside the box was a UPS return-address label sticker. After the tryout, I just had to put the clubs back in the box, tape it shut, put on the label and drop it off at UPS.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

I'm happy to be making my first post here at the sand trap. I just ordered a set of PING G25s from my local Golf Exchange. I was fitted and ordered the yellow dot irons 5 through gap.

When the clubs arrived at the retailer from the PING factory, I was surprised at the packaging. My last set of clubs, Taylormade Rocketballs, came very nicely wrapped in foam sheets and place holders with all of the club heads individually shrink wrapped in plastic. After opening the box, I found my G25s "floating" individually in the box with only brown paper in between them. There were thin black fabric covers over each head, but there was no plastic on the club heads. I noticed a few blemishes on the neck of the club heads.

Is this standard packaging for PING? Having spent $700 on these irons, I expected much better packaging.

I love the clubs all the same, but I'm curious if others who have purchased PING irons have experienced similar packaging. Thanks in advance!

Yes that is standard for PING now. They aren't wrapped in plastic because they have to work on your clubs, add the paint fill, weight ports and hammer them to get the lie and loft correct. Previously they came wrapped in bubble wrap and paper towels, always liked that best.

BTW I use those "booties" as club covers when I travel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Welcome aboard! I also play the G25's and received them exactly the same way. Mine had the booties as well, I kept them like mvmac for traveling. They're resilient clubs and you're going to love them.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, mine came the same.  Just the booties, direct from PING.  It seemed sufficient to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Where they let Rickie take that drop from is some BS. He should've been further back.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      He said something like "even your typical PGA Tour player these days would have been a superstar in my day." His point was that there are a TON more talented players who are far better than the guys he played against. I don't think it's quite as exaggerated as you might, but I also really don't care to get into it too deeply. The strength of field is multiple times stronger today than in 1968. There weren't that many overseas players. Or players in the U.S., for that matter. That alone accounts for strength of field differences. Very few foreign players came over to play on the PGA Tour. The money wasn't that good, unless you were one of the top players. It wasn't like it is today, and travel was still expensive. There's a reason players back then had to carpool, share hotel rooms, etc. Just look at the basic numbers. Once you get past the top one, two, maybe three players… it's folly to suggest it was likely that the top 15 players out of 1.5 million players is at all on the same level as the top 15 players from 100 million golfers. It's possible but highly, highly, highly unlikely. Furthermore, golf has attracted more and better athletes recently, too, which wasn't anywhere near as true in the 1960s. I get it. People like to romanticize the past. But the games and athletes move on and get better. That's irrelevant. He could only beat who he played against, and the truth is, he didn't beat weaker competition more often than Tiger Woods except in majors, he didn't win more money titles, more scoring titles, more individual awards, have higher margins of victory, etc. than Tiger Woods, all against weaker (Nicklaus's) competition. Jack might have chosen football if he grew up today. He might have been a career Web.com Tour player. Or he might have won 23 majors because he was that good and the modern advancements would have helped him that much. We don't know. It's pointless to speculate, IMO. I think the depth of field still matters and mattered in the majors. Even in the Opens. Even in events including only the top 50 players, there's still a big gap in depth from the 60s to the 00s.
    • 2016 Waste Management Phoenix Open Discussion
      Come on guys, I'm missing the 1st quarter of the Super Bowl. That being said, I think Fowler just sent his chances to a watery grave.
    • The Films and Movies Thread
      A little late finding this - X-Men, Days of Future Past Quicksilver scene in realtime.   
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      I'd be curious to see just what Jack said. I think "10 or 15" having a chance to win for typical PGA Tour events in any era is an exaggeration of the relative weakness of the fields. Even before there was a depth of talent in the U.S. and the 'golf craze' here took off, the money drew top level golfers from overseas who were following the better money available here in tournaments and pro positions. I accept there's been a general strengthening of fields as the expansion in prize money and the total population of competitive golfers (see chart below) have forced top golfers to have more preparation and polish, but I don't think there's really ever been a lack of generally elite level competition on the PGA tour or at the Majors since about the 20's or 30's. I think if the effect of a tiny number of truly top level competitors taking on a bunch of club pro relative 'dubs' was as strong as you seem to think that most of the top multiple Major winners would be golfers from the early days of the tour. But to me it looks pretty balanced across eras. I'll see if I can work up some actual numbers. By the 1920s there were likely about 1.5 million golfers (in the U.S. alone), which is a pretty healthy base from which to draw potential 'top talent'. Total participation in golf from when Jack started to when Tiger started roughly tripled. As far as rating 'achievement' you play in the era you play with the existing disadvantages and advantages. IMO, if Jack had grown up as a contemporary of Tiger with the same advantages of technology and swing instruction / coaching and the same disadvantages of a greater number of potential competitors that they would both have risen to elite levels and would have regularly been battling for Amateur and Major Championships. I don't think the potential ranges of human abilities / talent really change much in a few generations. Would I consider Tiger more competitively vetted, yes. Do I think that means his talent level and achievements were automatically greater than Jack's? No. I could see valuing Tiger's win total more than Jack's (and certainly Snead's with some 'iffy' events in the total) because of the relative talent base depth, but not sure that transfers as readily to the performance in Majors, particularly the Opens. I think it would have been amazing and exciting to be able to see them compete at their peaks rather than a boring foregone conclusion.  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries