Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Brad W

Kirkland (Costco) Premium Golf Ball?

Note: This thread is 731 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!

572 posts / 65158 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

4 hours ago, OSSO BUCCO said:

COSTCO NET INCOME:

I will give you a "mulligan" on your statement.  Note that COSTCO's membership fees as a percentage of their pre-tax income is about 68.8% for the past 5 years

That's very arbitrary.  Aren't you going to allocate any of their costs against the membership fees?  You couldn't have membership fees unless you have a Costco and all the associated costs.  You need to look at it as a percentage of gross profit not pretax income.  (I am an accountant, a CPA)

Share this post


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

1 hour ago, No Mulligans said:

That's very arbitrary.  Aren't you going to allocate any of their costs against the membership fees?  You couldn't have membership fees unless you have a Costco and all the associated costs.  You need to look at it as a percentage of gross profit not pretax income.  (I am an accountant, a CPA)

Still not the topic guys.

Share this post


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

We moved our Thursday play date up due to approaching weather. 

We both played 18holes, with the Kirkland ball,  in the wind, and our opinions are unchanged. Our results were the same as yesterday's play.

 That Kirkland ball is a decent ball. It's an individual choice as to play it or not. Again, remember. This is the opinion of a couple of older dudes who are distance challenged. .....lol

BTW, we shot 84, and 81 respectively. My partner had to buy the grub, and beverages this time. :beer:

Share this post


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

4 hours ago, Patch said:

We moved our Thursday play date up due to approaching weather. 

We both played 18holes, with the Kirkland ball,  in the wind, and our opinions are unchanged. Our results were the same as yesterday's play.

 That Kirkland ball is a decent ball. It's an individual choice as to play it or not. Again, remember. This is the opinion of a couple of older dudes who are distance challenged. .....lol

BTW, we shot 84, and 81 respectively. My partner had to buy the grub, and beverages this time. :beer:

I hit the Kirkland further than the ProV1x.  By 5-10 yards.  It's the best ball for playing late in the year when you don't want to lose a Pro V1 in the leaves.

Share this post


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

1 minute ago, jsgolfer said:

I hit the Kirkland further than the ProV1x.  By 5-10 yards.  It's the best ball for playing late in the year when you don't want to lose a Pro V1 in the leaves.

Good for you. Be glad you have a better swing than we do. :beer: It's a great ball, even at double the price. 

Share this post


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

4 minutes ago, Patch said:

Good for you. Be glad you have a better swing than we do. :beer: It's a great ball, even at double the price. 

Don't you mean at 1/3 the price?  :-D

Share this post


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

12 minutes ago, Patch said:

Good for you. Be glad you have a better swing than we do. :beer: It's a great ball, even at double the price. 

 

8 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

Don't you mean at 1/3 the price?  :-D

He's saying that the Costco ball is great even if it were twice as expensive as it is now. :beer:

Share this post


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

8 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

 

He's saying that the Costco ball is great even if it were twice as expensive as it is now. :beer:

Ah!  :beer:

Although at double the price, I'd probably play the Snell

Share this post


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

On 10/12/2016 at 4:40 PM, newtogolf said:

He swears their scotch and vodka is better than the brands I named, so I guess he knows his booze.  

The Kirkland vodka is actually distilled and bottled at Grey Goose.

Share this post


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

On 11/17/2016 at 10:46 AM, OSSO BUCCO said:

Here's the data:

 

Here is some comparison data. The balls according the USGA Conforming list are made by Nassau Golf Co

Kirkland Signature with Signature in red white 4P-SC-3c M-H 360 KOR Nassau Golf Co., Ltd.  Tour Performance  

http://www.usga.org/ConformingGolfBall/gball_list.pdf

Posted Image

SM Global is the listed manufacturer of ksig but I keep seeing people refer to Nassau Golf. Any idea why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, waldo said:

SM Global is the listed manufacturer of ksig but I keep seeing people refer to Nassau Golf. Any idea why?

SM Global is the import / export company Costco is using, they are the same company that they used to purchase the balls from Callaway which is leading to speculation that their is some relationship between Nassau, SM Global and Callaway.  The balls are still being made by Nassau Golf.  

Share this post


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

12 hours ago, rehmwa said:

Costco today - No Kirkland's in the house.

But - Callaway HEx Softs were $25 for TWO dozen 

http://troymcfarland.blogspot.com/2015/05/are-costco-exclusive-callaway-balls.html

I don't think they sell them in any stores. I think it's an online only product. I could be wrong.

 

Of note, these are back in stock. Right on time for their anticipated 11/21 restock :) Got myself another 4 dozen. Hopefully that will last me quite a while.

Share this post


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

12 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

I bought 2 dozen again.   This time they charged sales tax and shipping.   2 dozen cost $36.55 w/o a Costco membership.

Yea I noticed that too. I was a little peeved but still bought them anyways because I do like them and the price is still fine. But if they're going to creep the price like this I will eventually not buy them and will just go back to buying used balls. But I guess they aren't really creeping the price... just shipping and tax. So hopefully it stops there.

Share this post


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

Note: This thread is 731 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!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2019 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
  • Posts

    • I thought about this a while, and then had an epiphany last night.  Without a perfect test, the answer is almost definitely no. It's a fairly simple statistical calculation called Bayes' Theorem. The end result is that you'll end up preventing more people from driving when they aren't drunk than preventing drunk drivers. I'm going to plug in numbers, but since I'm (likely correctly!) assuming drunk driving is a rare event, the numbers don't really matter that much. I'm also going to assume the test is extremely accurate. Let's say that in 1/10,000 car trips, the driver is too drunk to legally drive. This is probably an underestimation by a factor of 100, if not more, if you think about how many car trips there are in a day. Let's assume that the when the test is positive, the driver is drunk 99.9% of the time. And then assume that when the test is negative, the driver is sober 99.9% of the time (in other words, if the test is negative, the driver is drunk 0.1% of the time). We can use this to plug in probabilities for each event. Probability that a driver is drunk: .0001 Probability that a driver is sober: .9999 Probability that a drunk driver gets a positive test: .999 Probability that a drunk driver gets a negative test: .001 Probability that a sober driver gets a positive test: .001 Probability that a sober driver gets a negative test: .999 Bayes' Theorem applies here. It says: The probability that someone is drunk driver given a positive test is equal to the probability of a drunk driver gets a positive test times the probability of a drunk driver; that divided by the following: the probability of a drunk getting a positive test times probability of a drunk driver plus the probability of sober driver getting a positive test times the probability of a sober driver. In mathematic terms (DD=drunk driver; SD = sober driver; + = positive test): P(DD | +) = (P(+ | DD)*P(DD))/((P+ | DD)*P(DD)+P(+ | SD)*P(SD)) Plug in the numbers: P(DD | +) = ((.999)*(.0001))/((.999)*(.0001)+(.001)*(.9999)) P(DD | +) = .0908 In other words, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is only 9%. Meaning that out of a 100 people that test positive under this test, 91 of them would actually be sober. Because the test is imperfect and drunk driving is rare, it's going to impact more sober drivers than drunk drivers. Even if the test is 99.99% accurate and as a false positive rate of 0.01%, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is only 50%. Note that I'm assuming that 1/10,000 car trips is one by a drunk driver. If you assume 1/100,000 car trips are by a drunk driver, the probability of a drunk driver given a positive test is 0.9%. (You can also use this calculate to find out the odds that a drunk driver will have a negative test, but I have other stuff to do now...) So, without a nearly perfect test, it's a bad idea for the entire population. If drunk drivers were more frequent, then it would make more sense. Hence, it makes sense for someone who is more likely to drive drunk, and why the current policy probably makes sense. 
    • Hey Ben, good to see you’re still around!   I remember those irons. They’re beautiful! Sorry, I can’t help with the driver though…
    • Sometimes this is called a Telehandler, and sometimes its called a Rough Terrain Fork Lift. It all depends on where you live. 
    • Dragging the handle without the correct wrist movements to go with it can lead to an open clubface at impact. But without a video it's hard to determine the underlying cause of your problem.
    • I'd go with this system over either of those. I have seen automatic braking systems malfunction before and it turns catastrophic in an instant. The incredibly unfortunate part is that automatic braking systems also have a disturbingly high number of ways they can be fooled. The two I have seen personally were leaves covering up the sensor (slammed the brakes on someone in town and caused a collision) and bugs from I-70 covering the sensor (the car locked up and the brakes remained engaged until the sensor covering could be cleaned). As far as GPS-enforced speed limits, this also introduces danger on the roads. It prevents drivers from making effective evasive maneuvers when driving at the speed limit. Malfunctions for this system would also be incredibly dangerous, considering the number one cause of traffic accidents is a differential in speed between the two cars that collided. If one car is limited to 10mph under the speed limit because their GPS glitched out then they just became a sitting duck on the road, though not as bad as the automatic braking malfunction. I'm fine with mandatory safety measures that don't risk lives compared to the alternative of not having them, such as seat belts and air bags. If those fail you may die, but if they fail you are no worse off than you would have been if the safety measures were never installed. I draw the line at mandatory safety measures that will actively risk your safety or life when they fail. Automatic braking systems that will slam the brakes in highway traffic. GPS-enforced speed limits that can hamper evasive maneuvers and cause the same symptoms as automatic braking system failures (if an error displays a limit lower than the true limit). And yes, mandatory BAC interlock devices for law-abiding citizens that can leave them stranded and stuck with a very costly repair bill in the best case scenario and death in the worst case scenario. If we want to talk about personal anecdotes about why it's incredibly important to be able to start you vehicle at any time, I've got the perfect example of how this can risk lives in real scenarios that actually happen. When I was 17 I took the bus with my friends down to the annual Denver Avalanche game and we hung out at the 16th Street Mall afterwards until we caught the last bus back to where our cars were parked. Having parked in opposite corners we parted ways getting off the bus and went to our cars, my friends having no issues driving home. I, on the other hand, had some trouble with starting my vehicle. You see that year the temperature was 15 degrees below zero and my car was an old (1979) Mercedes 240D diesel. Diesel engines don't particularly like the cold, so I cycled the glow plugs several times before trying to start. No dice, so I repeated that. This went on until my car battery died at around 2 AM, and the worst part of it was that stupidly I was only wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and a sweatshirt with no jacket or coat. The buses had finished their schedules and the park and ride was empty (I was the last car) in the middle of nowhere without areas I could take shelter nearby. I was lucky to have a mylar blanket and a comforter in the trunk of my car that I kept there only because my Grandpa insisted I'd need them if I was ever stranded in the cold. I wasn't able to get assistance at my location until 5:30 that morning because it was located in the mountain, a lovely cell phone dead zone. 3.5 hours spent in -15 degree weather with only jeans and a sweatshirt. Even sitting in my car without exposure to wind I would have risked frostbite in 30 minutes or less, and that temperature presents a high risk of hypothermia even with proper winter clothing. While wearing winter clothing at that temperature you'll lose one degree of core body temperature about every 30 minutes, sooner if you have no hat. Below 95 degrees (2 hours) is the beginning of hypothermia, below 93 degrees (3 hours) is when amnesia sets in. Profound hypothermia is 90 degrees (4.5 hours) and you'll find yourself no longer even shivering to keep warm. At 86 degrees (6.5 hours) your heart starts to pump arrhythmically. At 85 degrees (7 hours) you'll rip off your clothes for your final minutes of life. Those times are for proper winter clothing. When an ignition interlock device fails, it WILL kill people in the mountains every single year. People who went camping, skiing, hiking, or hunting and get back to their car in the evening only to have it refuse to start. Cell service is sparse at best in these areas, meaning only those prepared with extra blankets/gear and the ability to start fires will survive through the night without heat from their vehicle. I say when, not if, because the failure rate will be above 0%. 15 million new cars are sold each year, and if the failure rate is 0.01% annually then you'd see 1,500 failures in the first year, growing by another 1,500 every year and providing 1,500 more opportunities to kill in either what was described or other scenarios. This is exactly why using emotional arguments is dumb, because realistically the number of deaths would be small but a personal anecdote carries additional weight. The point is that any deaths that directly result from a safety device are unacceptable even if that safety device may save lives in other circumstances. Trading lives of innocent and law-abiding citizens because of a small number of criminals is morally reprehensible on every level.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Edsland
      Edsland
      (65 years old)
    2. KingHack82
      KingHack82
      (37 years old)
    3. snowbeast
      snowbeast
      (32 years old)

×
×
  • 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.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...