Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 3622 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

  • Moderator
Posted

Product Name:GolfTags
Product Type: Customized Ball Marking Stencil
Product Website/URL: http://www.customgolftags.com/
Cost: $35

Ratings (out of 5):
Quality: 2
Value: 2
Effectiveness: 2
Durability: 2 (first impression, will increase the score if it is more durable than I think it is)
Esthetic Appeal: 1

Link to Discussion Thread

 


My Member Review

GolfTag is a customized ball marking stencil made by 3D printing. You submit a picture and they work with it to make a design that works within the limitations of the manufacturing process. Once the design is finalized, they make it and you have a stencil that allows you to mark your golf ball in your own unique pattern. It's a pretty simple concept and I was excited for the opportunity to try it out.

The design process was quick and easy for me (the hardest part was actually deciding on the design itself). Once I had my picture, I submitted it to them and they were prompt with their response. It wasn't long before I had approved a design for the final product, it was made, and then shipped to my house.Tag-Original.thumb.jpg.cbd2a86cffee9b990

Unfortunately, I was not impressed with the product itself. It's made from a really thin plastic that looked like it could break fairly easily. In fact, I squeezed it a bit on one side to test it and I heard something crack. While I didn't find any visible signs of damage, I have been handling it fairly carefully since. The company has assured me that it is durable and can withstand the trauma of being inside a golf bag. I will see how it fares in mine during the season.Underside-Original.thumb.jpg.947263a8d38

Durability was not my only concern. The whole product has an unfinished quality to it. There are rough edges around the sides and globs of excess polymer all over the bottom of it. The top surface has these odd ring formations which I'm assuming comes from the printing process. That's purely cosmetic and shouldn't affect the function. The stencil itself however is not as clean and detailed as I would have liked. My design was a simple formation of 5-point stars. The stars themselves are odd looking - they're not symmetrical, the points aren't even, and there is excess material in them that shouldn't be there.Ball-Original.thumb.jpg.67e01d23ed41813d

In terms of function, it does exactly what it is supposed to do. It was very easy to get on and off of a golf ball, requiring little force. I was able to use an ultrafine sharpie (per the instructions on their website) and trace out every nook and cranny of the stencil. Unfortunately, since the stencil was less than perfect, it meant my stars were less than perfect. Also it did slide a bit on me when I was marking. It didn't mess up my design at the time, but it could have. I pay more attention to how I hold it now.

I could end my review here and be generally unhappy with the product. However, I took out my micro file set and modified it. First, I cleaned up the stars on the stencil. Then I smoothed out the rough edges on the bottom. Finally, I filed down the excess polymer. The whole process probably took about 30 minutes.Tag-Modified.thumb.jpg.b021cc4a03d7ad770

Once I did that, I liked it much better. The durability of it still remains a question mark, but I'm going to let it be part of my golf accessories and see how it fares. The whole thing cleaned up pretty nicely and easily, though my design is pretty simple and therefore was easy to fix. More complicated stencils might pose a greater challenge.Underside-Modified.thumb.jpg.fb83151ed24

The whole process left me wondering why it wasn't done before I received it. The GolfTag that I received felt like it was still in a raw stage of production. The one I have now feels much closer to finished, though it could probably use some more filing and a couple of thin coats of polymer just to touch it up (which I won't do). You'll see in the picture below, the marking made with the original tag on the left compared to the one I made after I modified it on the right.Ball-Comparison.thumb.jpg.39d1d918a41a27

Overall, I feel the GolfTag (as is) is an unfinished product with durability concerns and design limitations. I can see it being improved upon in the future, but in its current incarnation, I am unsatisfied with the product. I would not be happy if I paid $35 for it and it is unlikely that I would recommend it to anyone else, either.

  • Upvote 1

Bill

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” - Confucius

My Swing Thread

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Sad to hear it didn't come out as expected. I have a steel one but it is just a stock design, custom ones were a lot more money ($125) . A quality custom option at a lower price point would've been nice.

0211162138_zpsz04rctao.jpg

:callaway: Big Bertha Alpha 815 DBD  :bridgestone: TD-03 Putter   
:tmade: 300 Tour 3W                 :true_linkswear: Motion Shoes
:titleist: 585H Hybrid                       
:tmade: TP MC irons                 
:ping: Glide 54             
:ping: Glide 58
:cleveland: 588 RTX 62

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
Posted
7 hours ago, SavvySwede said:

A quality custom option at a lower price point would've been nice.

Agreed. I can see the potential in GolfTags, unfortunately I found the execution lacking. Hopefully they will continue to work and improve on the design.

Bill

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.” - Confucius

My Swing Thread

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3622 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).
  • 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.