Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 4264 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

I bought myself a scotty cameron newport 2.0 about 10 months ago and I'm getting lots of little scratches on the sole of the putter. I use a clean towel every week so am unsure as to why its looking so bad. I'm just curious whether anyone else has had this problem. I treat it very well and make sure never to putt it on sand, mud etc in case of damage. i can only assume the paint is a bit thin. i don't guess there is anywhere i can get it re painted or would going back to where i bought it be worth it. Any feedback would be most appreciated.


Posted

Ya I think all Scotty putters get those scratches on the bottom. I bought a new one in 2012 and there is a few scratches on it, but its not bad. I treat mine very well also, only removing the cover when I'm putting.

Do you have one of those oil rags? I use the oil rag you can buy from the Scotty Cameron site. I use it about every other round or so.

Oil rag: https://www.scottycameron.com/store/product.aspx?zpid=572

Driver: Callaway Big Bertha 10.5* 

3WD:  Callaway Big Bertha 15* / X2 Hot H4 Hybrid
Irons:  Callaway Apex 4-PW Project X 5.5 shafts

Wedges: Callaway MackDaddy 2  52/58
Putter: Odyessey Metal X Milled 1


Posted

All putters get scratched on the sole unless you top every putt. What's the issue?

In the race of life, always back self-interest. At least you know it's trying.

 

 


Posted
The issue is that for such an expensive putter I would expect it to be more durable. I had a odyssey for a lot longer and it was still far less scratched than the scotty.

Posted

Good choice buying the oil rag, that will help keeping it look good.

The metals that are used on Scotty putters are soft, so they are prone to scratches. Thats why they feel so great on impact.

Driver: Callaway Big Bertha 10.5* 

3WD:  Callaway Big Bertha 15* / X2 Hot H4 Hybrid
Irons:  Callaway Apex 4-PW Project X 5.5 shafts

Wedges: Callaway MackDaddy 2  52/58
Putter: Odyessey Metal X Milled 1


Posted

Good choice buying the oil rag, that will help keeping it look good.

The metals that are used on Scotty putters are soft, so they are prone to scratches. Thats why they feel so great on impact.

Just like every other milled putter out there.

They feel no different. If they did, every pro would use one.

In the race of life, always back self-interest. At least you know it's trying.

 

 


  • Moderator
Posted
thank you shorty for your massively impressive contribution to this thread.

He is a bit of a grumpy cat, just to warn you!

Some putters have a coating on base that may reduce scratching.  I don't think Scottys do.  My Scotty, I got used, had fine scratches, but I got used to it.  I actually have lead tape on the base for a bit of added weight now.  It is protecting the base as well.  Bare metal will get hairline scratches unfortunately.

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

You could also try some of that chrome wheel polish from the auto parts store. Get the Mothers Wheel polish, that will get rid of the tiny scratches. Then use the oil rag on it.

Driver: Callaway Big Bertha 10.5* 

3WD:  Callaway Big Bertha 15* / X2 Hot H4 Hybrid
Irons:  Callaway Apex 4-PW Project X 5.5 shafts

Wedges: Callaway MackDaddy 2  52/58
Putter: Odyessey Metal X Milled 1


Posted
thank you shorty for your massively impressive contribution to this thread.

Says the person who starts a thread about minute scratches on the sole of a putter and thinks there is a "problem".

In the race of life, always back self-interest. At least you know it's trying.

 

 


Note: This thread is 4264 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.