Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
slimeberry

"Classic" Ping Eye 2 + 's (Are they really "classics") and should I sell my set???

11 posts in this topic

Let me throw this out to you all...

First of all, are Ping Eye 2's really "The Classic Golf Club" everyone says they are? They are the #1 selling irons in history, according to Ping, and the only set of irons on ebay still commanding a price tag of half to full retail compared to a new set of sticks. Do they deserve this high praise or has it all been over hyped?

Second, I have a set of Ping Eye 2 + Blue Dot (1.o Upright and 1" over standard shaft length) (Stiff Flex ZZ Lite) w/ matching serial #'s. I am in the process of switching to a set of Titleist 775.CB's that are 2.0 Upright and 1/2" over standard length (my true Titleist fitting). Since the Eyes are just a little off my specs, I will more than likley not play them much after the Titleist switch. I also have a set of Bertha Irons that I am using until my 775's arrive. They too are off the shelf and not fitted to me personally.

I'd like to have a back up set of clubs for an emergency (golf emergency???), friends, travel, etc, but don't know if I should keep the "classic" Eye 2's (some say they will only go up in value) or hang on to the 2004 Bertha's (a set that will probably sell for under $100 on ebay in the near future).

Both are "game improving" irons. Both are cast instead of forged. Both are considered great "beginner" clubs. Our club champion still has 2 sets of Eye 2's, and although he plays Callaway Fusions now, he swears he has never hit a club that is any better that the Eye 2. Plus, Lumpy just won on tour with them just a few weeks ago.

What is your opinion?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

I don't know about them being beginner clubs. Like you pointed out, Tim Herron still plays them. Other pros do too (at least singles like the sand wedge). I guess the question is, do you play them well? The second question is, will you sell them to me cheap?

Kidding. You should get a good chunk of change out of both sets on eBay.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just keep them both. You can still order brand new Ping Eye 2 sets (see our site today, Bag Drop column).

But then again, I've never liked selling things to people. Usually someone feels they could have gotten more or paid less.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

keep them for sentimental value... you'll be glad you did later on in life

I sold away my original r7 quad and now everyone has the 425 and 460 models with fancy colors and a bunch of crap made to appeal to the daily hacker where I had the original badASS model... stainless steel with a single red 7... those days are now long gone in golf it seems (aside from Titleist)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hang on to them. They're not that far off your specs and they are a great baseline club to return to when the swing goes off. Plus they really are a classic... and virtually indestructible!

I have a set of Ping Eye's that I once sold to a friend. After experimenting with several weird and weirder sets of irons I bought them back... to his profit. I'm glad I still have them.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

My buddy has the "classic" Pings the original Karsten One's and they are worth much more now then when they were new.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decided to keep the Pings as a 2nd set (see below). Think I would regret it if I ever let them go. Besides, you can never have too many golf clubs, right? Thanks all.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a set 3 - SW of Eye 2+ and my original set of Eye2 1 - L missing the 2 iron. I found the Eye 2+ in old/brand new condition in a garage sale and bought it. The original owner bought it about 20+ years ago, tried the 5 and 7 in the range, and decided he did not want to take up Golf. I'm bagging it now and it feels like old home week. Fresh grooves really have a flavor that's attractive. My foges and blades are now in storage.

Shambles

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love my old Eye 2 irons! I would never get rid of mine even if I did switch to something newer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a good topic about Ping Eye 2's over in the clubhouse>golf talk forum!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't believe it-it's only a troll thread.  But I agree that you should keep 'em, just as I agree that the 775s are superior sticks.  Sell the Berthas for what you can get and be happy with the PINGs as a backup set.  They hold their value well, but they're not so valuable that you need to sell 'em, and they're enough sets out there that they're not going to jump up in value anytime soon.  And if they ever do and you never play 'em, sell 'em in the future.

Originally Posted by Roy Munson

There's a good topic about Ping Eye 2's over in the clubhouse>golf talk forum!



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
  • 2017 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    Leupold Golf
    Snell Golf
    Talamore Golf Resort
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • One. July of 2015 had it in front of my wife (and 7 strangers) the one and only time she's ever watched me play. Long story short I was supposed to play with a friend he cancel and I ended up with an ace. I was a foot short of another one on the same hole last year.  It's definitely luck but so are most of my good shots.
    • As someone said, the golfers who can hit it longer than everybody else will always have an advantage. Just like tall guys in basketball and fast guys in the 100 meter dash! Let's face it, pros and better amateurs have always been longer than the herd. And the public will always love the big bombers. Why do you think John Daly got so popular? And, If you want to hit a PW 150 yards, just get your clubhead speed to about 110 MPH and you can do that. If you can't, well I guess that just sucks for you! But Blackjack Don's and Natureboy's last comment are still valid. We now routinely see courses on Tour that are 7,400, 7,500 yards long. And isn't there that otherwordly looking course in French Lick, Indiana that is 8,000 yards from the tips? Heck, I have a 7,500+ yard course right here in my back yard not a 15 minute drive away. And just last Spring I read a "Letter to the Editor" in the local paper where some environmentalist nutlog referred to the local Metroparks course (36 holes of Donald Ross design) as a toxic waste dump, and a waste of water!
    • I don't have much to add to the conversation, I just wanted to say I don't like this guy at all. I think his comments crossed way over the line. I think he has always been a cry baby like during his whole process of switching to side saddle. I feel its been a huge distraction towards his game. It might have made him more popular or given him more sponsor opportunities because everyone kept talking about him. For 2017 I feel his game is on the decline. I don't see it coming back up this year.
    • It's tough to say it is just one thing. I will put it is as a this, optimizing spin rate to launch angle.  Peak height. Those who swing slower struggle to keep the ball in the air long enough to get optimal distances on their irons.   
    • I've been revisiting this endless belt concept and imho it does seem flawed. If I just imagined I was an adjustable camera that could continue pointing normal to the changing swing plane (ie. formed by the front of the left forearm and clubshaft - left arm flying wedge) from the top of the backswing to impact, the real hand path would look different to these 'face on' views. 1. From the top of the backswing to maybe end of the early downswing (left arm horizontal to the ground, right arm/wrist still still retaining  its angles) , the radius of the hand arc would probably be the distance from the hands to the sternum notch. 2. From the end of the early downswing to impact - the right arm would have progressively extended somewhat. Therefore that 'camera'  would see a hand arc path whose radius (if we used the sternum notch as the centre of the swing) is getting progressively longer.  So if I was that camera , I would see a tighter hand arc radius in the early swing but getting longer into impact which is the complete opposite of what we are seeing from a face-on view (an optical illusion?). Have I got this correct or completely wrong? So is all this theory about 'Aiming Point' flawed from both a geometric and physics perspective?  Maybe just learning to sequence the passive unhinging  of one's wrists for various types of strokes makes more sense than concentrating on an  'Aiming Point'.      
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Dragondrake
      Dragondrake
      (57 years old)
    2. Mistabigevil
      Mistabigevil
      (36 years old)
    3. Taylor56
      Taylor56
      (61 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon