Clones broke!!

[HytrewQasdfg]

You don't really know what goes on in the club making process do you? You;re probably just pissed that you spent $1200 on your clubs and still can;t break 100. Depending on where you buy them from, compnent clubs are just as reliable and just as high quality as OEM. More so if you get them custom fit...

I know what goes on in a manufacturing plant and quality control, not golf clubs per se, but product manufacture.

I also know that clones and component clubs are different (which from your comment you apparently don't udnerstand). I actually play components (Snake Eyes Viper woods and Golfsmith P2 irons), so as a matter of fact I probably paid less than you did for your clones and ended up with a superior compnent set. Compnent lines like Maltby or Golfsmith's Snake Eyes are legitimate, original designs that stand on their own. Pong irons or Callieway Big Berther woods? C'mon, that's in the same league as buying an Onega watch.

[delav]

8 out of 10 forum posters don't know what they are talking about.

Rather than a pissing match of who doesn't know what, I suggest you take your clone clubs to a clubfitter and have him check swingweight and lie. If they are indeed as great of a value as you believe, what do you have to lose?

This could be great information for the sake of the board and clear up several apparent "misconceptions" about the product quality of C-line clubs.

[nuck81]

I know what goes on in a manufacturing plant and quality control, not golf clubs per se, but product manufacture.

Seriously? Golfsmith is in the same category of Component manufacterer as GigaGolf.

You're complaining about the very same clubs you play on. Absolutely amazing.....

[nuck81]

Rather than a pissing match of who doesn't know what, I suggest you take your clone clubs to a clubfitter and have him check swingweight and lie. If they are indeed as great of a value as you believe, what do you have to lose?

Here is a comparison done by a Swedish Golf Show. Dubbed in English. Even though GigaGolf no longer makes Direct Comparison clubs and in the six years since this video was made.

http://www.gigagolf.com/index.jsp?dl...rightnav_video Be sure to read the description.

[shades9323]

I know what goes on in a manufacturing plant and quality control, not golf clubs per se, but product manufacture.

So your issue is more with the name of the club instead of the club itself? It would seem that way since your component clubs aren't exactly a completely original design.

[HytrewQasdfg]

Seriously? Golfsmith is in the same category of Component manufacterer as GigaGolf.

No I'm not. I've said I have no problem with anyone playing inexpensive clubs. I have not problem with anyone playing component clubs (even cheap component clubs). I have a problem with clones (which are different from components and inexpensive clubs). I have a problem with companies imitating a companies product to the point that they make them look identical and use virtually identical names.

This, imho, steps over a moral and ethical line:

[nuck81]

No I'm not. I've said I have no problem with anyone playing inexpensive clubs. I have not problem with anyone playing component clubs (even cheap component clubs). I have a problem with clones (which are different from components and inexpensive clubs). I have a problem with companies imitating a companies product to the point that they make them look identical and use virtually identical names.

Ahhhh, I'm clear now bro, we're in complete agreement.

I for one love my GigaGolf clubs, but I bought them knowing I was buying GigaGolf and not anything else. My apologies...

[sean_miller]

No I'm not. I've said I have no problem with anyone playing inexpensive clubs. I have not problem with anyone playing component clubs (even cheap component clubs). I have a problem with clones (which are different from components and inexpensive clubs). I have a problem with companies imitating a companies product to the point that they make them look identical and use virtually identical names.

No kidding. If a component company like Snake Eyes makes a muscleback blade that looks exactly like a 10 year old Titleist, I don't really care, because all blades look pretty much the same (TM and other goofy designes excluded) anyway. Snake Eyes isn't exactly giving away their blades either. Looking at the picture of the driver in your post, this is obviously a product meant to be confused with the original PING product. Whether the buyer is pretending to have a G10, or he/she just doesn't know the difference is irrelevant - it's fairly dishonest.

[HytrewQasdfg]

So your issue is more with the name of the club instead of the club itself? It would seem that way since your component clubs aren't exactly a completely original design.

Really? These are clones of what? When you look at them you immediatly mistake them for what? The company markets them as being similar to what?

Actually, they are original designs and the company makes no attempt whatsoever to associate their component offerings with an OEM brand. There are component companies that make clone components (Hireko comes to mind). Neither Golfsmith or Matlby fall into that category. There are component clone, but not all components are clones.

[sean_miller]

Really? These are clones of what? When you look at them you immediatly mistake them for what? The company markets them as being similr to what?

Are you kidding?

I'll give you a pass on the driver, but if that iron isn't an homage to a TP Forged iron, I don't know what is. At the very lease, it's what I immediately thought of when I saw it.

[shades9323]

Really? These are clones of what? When you look at them you immediatly mistake them for what? The company markets them as being similar to what?

Your irons look a lot like the Taylormade Forged Rac CBs

All you have to do is slap a "Failormade" label on your clubs and they are no different than the Pongs.

[nuck81]

So which one is the clone?

[alomar123]

I dont understand why this thread has become so big, it is completely off topic.

Everyone copies everyone. Just buy the one you like the most, regardless of brand and price.

[golfro]

are we really arguing specifics now? obviously there are irons that look similar, the same, inspired, etc. Let's not get caught up posting pictures of clubs and comparing them.

lets get back to the main topic at hand which is the concept and business model of creating visual replicas of OEM clubs. I really don't see the difference between cloned clubs and buying Roflex instead of Rolex.

[nuck81]

Isn't the main topic that the dudes ferrule broke?

And that was taken care of in the first reply

[shades9323]

are we really arguing specifics now? obviously there are irons that look similar, the same, inspired, etc. Let's not get caught up posting pictures of clubs and comparing them.

Well, when the dude bashing "clones" the most is in fact playing a "clone" club, he is going to get his. Just because it says golfsmith on it instead of failormade is of no difference.

[sean_miller]

They all seem to be pretty distinct wrt colours and badging - all similar, but uniquely fugly (that's an argument for another thread).

[delav]

Nuck, I think you are missing the point. It's not the sharing of ideas/technology... obviously the irons above are all cavity backs with multi material inserts and extreme perimeter weighting. The issue is the imitation of recognizable brands and products that have many people frustrated.

Ex: Product Imitation
Giga Golf



Callaway



Giga Golf


*notice the artful use of steal-and-blend techniques in simultaneously mimicking both the coloring/shape of the R9 iron, and the Inverted-Cone technology that Taylormade used in the TP and Burner irons*

Taylor Made



Sure, these aren't direct clones. But, they are deliberately designed to remind consumers of the much more expensive irons they are imitating.