Kirkland (Costco) Premium Golf Ball

[DeadMan]

35 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

Um, how many dimples does that ball have? Is it within regulation? Kind of looks like it's got less. Maybe just my eyes though

It's on the conforming golf ball list, so it's within regulation. You're right, though, it does look weird.

I'm really curious about these balls. Great price, especially if it performs anywhere close to a Pro V1.

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, jkelley9 said:

Um, how many dimples does that ball have? Is it within regulation? Kind of looks like it's got less. Maybe just my eyes though

360 dimples, here's a review if you're interested.  http://www.golfballtest.org/2016/10/bench-test-2016-kirkland-signature/

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, jkelley9 said:

Um, how many dimples does that ball have? Is it within regulation? Kind of looks like it's got less. Maybe just my eyes though

There's no regulation on the number of dimples on a golf ball.

[Golfingdad]

On 10/15/2016 at 9:56 AM, newtogolf said:

I want to do some more testing, but I have to say the Kirkland ball is right there with the Chrome Soft around the green and might be even a little better off the tee.   I shot a 90 with it, which is a good score for me so it' definitely didn't hurt my game.

I played well enough to only use one ball for the round, which is unusual for me on my home course.  The ball held up well, despite a few hits into trees and a run in with the cart path.  The cut was direct impact with a tree on the 18th hole but otherwise the cover was in great condition and I'd have played it again.  

Wife is at Costco as I read this - so i texted her to grab me a box if they have them in stock.  At $15/dozen, the worst case scenario if I don't like them is my son is set for a long while. :)

[Hardspoon]

On 10/12/2016 at 3:32 PM, newtogolf said:

I'm sure the name "Kirkland" will scare many away out of fear of being asked "What ball are you playing?"  or someone yelling out "Who's playing the Kirkland?".   

I think this will scare some off, but if these truly perform as well as premium balls, it's such a good deal that it won't matter.

At my skill level, it's still a better bargain for me to play recycled balls (just got 96 Hex Chrome yellow in near-mint condition for $100)...and I prefer yellow.

But...I bet these sell really well. 

[dennyjones]

I was tempted and placed an order.   It will be interesting to see how they handle the colder weather.    thanks for sharing this information.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Wife is at Costco as I read this - so i texted her to grab me a box if they have them in stock.  At $15/dozen, the worst case scenario if I don't like them is my son is set for a long while. :)

Not in stock. :(

[AbsoluteTruths]

I placed an order. They should be here this week.

[iacas]

I think at some point "you get what you pay for" is going to come into play.

Now, it may not matter if you're a 12 handicapper, but I don't know that the quality control will be there. If you hit a ball that should be good but goes 10 yards short and cuts a little more than it should have, because the ball was not uniform or something, will you blame your swing?

I think Snell MTB balls are great, but they're still $27/dozen (with a small volume discount)… and that's about the limit to what I think a golf ball could cost and still be pretty believably good.

Is it possible that these balls are 95% of what a Pro V1x is for 1/3 the price? Yes. Likely? No way. But 80%? Maybe yes to both…?

(The Snell I'd rate as 100% - it's just as good as a Pro V1x/V1.)

[newtogolf]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

I think at some point "you get what you pay for" is going to come into play.

Now, it may not matter if you're a 12 handicapper, but I don't know that the quality control will be there. If you hit a ball that should be good but goes 10 yards short and cuts a little more than it should have, because the ball was not uniform or something, will you blame your swing?

I think Snell MTB balls are great, but they're still $27/dozen (with a small volume discount)… and that's about the limit to what I think a golf ball could cost and still be pretty believably good.

Is it possible that these balls are 95% of what a Pro V1x is for 1/3 the price? Yes. Likely? No way. But 80%? Maybe yes to both…?

(The Snell I'd rate as 100% - it's just as good as a Pro V1x/V1.)

For the most part, I agree with your "you get what you pay for" but there are some industries, like golf balls that have tremendous markup.  

If you believe Snell can produce a ball that's equivalent to a Pro V1 at 40% of the Pro V1 cost, why can't Costco with their better economies of scale and lack of retail channel produce comparable balls at 66% of the Pro V1 cost?  Wholesalers and retail make up a huge part of the final product cost which Costco completely eliminates as these balls are produced for Costco and only sold by Costco.  

I'm not prepared to say Kirkland Signature golf balls are as good as a Pro V1 or Chrome Soft but I do believe the margins are so inflated on the Pro V1 someone could produce an equivalent ball at that price.

What may be lacking is the quality control testing that Titleist claims to utilize so there's potential for one Kirkland ball to perform differently than another in the same box.  

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

For the most part, I agree with your "you get what you pay for" but there are some industries, like golf balls that have tremendous markup.

There are still costs to produce golf balls, and there's a limit to how cheaply you can make a good golf ball with good QC.

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

If you believe Snell can produce a ball that's equivalent to a Pro V1 at 40% of the Pro V1 cost

27/45 is 60% of the cost, and like I said… there's a limit.

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

If you believe Snell can produce a ball that's equivalent to a Pro V1 at 40% of the Pro V1 cost, why can't Costco with their better economies of scale and lack of retail channel produce comparable balls at 66% of the Pro V1 cost?

I doubt Costco sells enough golf balls to have economies of scale… Snell might out-sell them… not to mention Pinnacle, Top-Flite, etc. And if Top-Flite could produce a top-tier golf ball for $1.25 retail per ball in 12-pack volume…  why wouldn't they?

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Wholesalers and retail make up a huge part of the final product cost which Costco completely eliminates as these balls are produced for Costco and only sold by Costco.  

Snell doesn't sell at retail or via wholesalers.

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I'm not prepared to say Kirkland Signature golf balls are as good as a Pro V1 or Chrome Soft but I do believe the margins are so inflated on the Pro V1 someone could produce an equivalent ball at that price.

$15? I don't. $27? Sure.

---

And… I'm just using Snell as an example. I don't have a bunch of insight into their business, but I do know a bit about Dean Snell, and his history, as well as Titleist's costs (way more patents than most of us would think).

[jkelley9]

Here's my take:

This is just like any other product out there with various degrees of performance, quality, quality control, marketing, and price.

This ball may be identical performance to a ProV1, but highly unlikely. But let's assume it is 95% of the way there (a stretch)? I believe that Titleist will certainly have a better quality control department to Kirkland. 

Now, if this is a 95% ProV1 performance and feel but I find a bum ball 1 out of every dozen. Would I still buy them @ $1.25 per ball? If I were a ProV1 type of guy (which I'm not, actually) you bet your butt I would be buying these. 

I'm not playing in tournaments, I'm not a < 5 HC player, and I'm not going to get all butt-hurt if a dud ball messes up a shot every now and then. When I play golf I do like the "feel" of the ball as an aspect of enjoyment of the game. Sound and feel make me feel good about my game. 

I've been playing ProV1's the past few rounds because I won a couple dozen in a tournament this spring and finally got around to using them. I think they're okay but not my favorite, but I'll definitely switch off of these to the Kirklands next time I'm at Costco to get an immediate comparison between the two.

But then again, I'm a friggin 12 HC player and it'll be like 18 holes of golf I'll play with them. Not EXACTLY statistically representative of any parameter of the golf ball lol. So take with a grain of salt of course.

 

[newtogolf]

15 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

Here's my take:

This is just like any other product out there with various degrees of performance, quality, quality control, marketing, and price.

This ball may be identical performance to a ProV1, but highly unlikely. But let's assume it is 95% of the way there (a stretch)? I believe that Titleist will certainly have a better quality control department to Kirkland. 

Now, if this is a 95% ProV1 performance and feel but I find a bum ball 1 out of every dozen. Would I still buy them @ $1.25 per ball? If I were a ProV1 type of guy (which I'm not, actually) you bet your butt I would be buying these. 

I'm not playing in tournaments, I'm not a < 5 HC player, and I'm not going to get all butt-hurt if a dud ball messes up a shot every now and then. When I play golf I do like the "feel" of the ball as an aspect of enjoyment of the game. Sound and feel make me feel good about my game. 

I've been playing ProV1's the past few rounds because I won a couple dozen in a tournament this spring and finally got around to using them. I think they're okay but not my favorite, but I'll definitely switch off of these to the Kirklands next time I'm at Costco to get an immediate comparison between the two.

But then again, I'm a friggin 12 HC player and it'll be like 18 holes of golf I'll play with them. Not EXACTLY statistically representative of any parameter of the golf ball lol. So take with a grain of salt of course.

 

Kirkland also isn't going to be paying professional golfers to play their golf balls which I'm sure is a huge reason why Pro V1's cost as much as they do and are the #1 ball on Tour.  

Kirkland seems to have had their ball designed after the 2015 version of Pro V1 which means at a 96.8 compression, it's not the best ball for everyone, but if you're playing a Pro V1, it's worth trying as the savings are significant.   

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Kirkland also isn't going to be paying professional golfers to play their golf balls which I'm sure is a huge reason why Pro V1's cost as much as they do and are the #1 ball on Tour.  

Kirkland seems to have had their ball designed after the 2015 version of Pro V1 which means at a 96.8 compression, it's not the best ball for everyone, but if you're playing a Pro V1, it's worth trying as the savings are significant.   

Well since you're sure…

Truth is you're guessing. Advertising and sponsorship might account for 5% of the cost for all you know. I'm not saying I know, either, but I'd wager a good amount the truth is closer to what I'm saying.

Other premium ball makers don't pay as many PGA Tour players yet their balls also cost quite a bit. Other ball makers like KickX or Vice or Monsta or whatever that make a ProV1-like ball also charge ~$30. Not $15.

I think it's highly unlikely that paying  players accounts for even a majority of the $30 difference in cost per dozen. it's probably not even close.

That said as a high handicapper, again, I doubt the likely performance gap is going to affect you much.

[newtogolf]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

Well since you're sure…

Truth is you're guessing. Advertising and sponsorship might account for 5% of the cost for all you know. I'm not saying I know, either, but I'd wager a good amount the truth is closer to what I'm saying.

Other premium ball makers don't pay as many PGA Tour players yet their balls also cost quite a bit. Other ball makers like KickX or Vice or Monsta or whatever that make a ProV1-like ball also charge ~$30. Not $15.

I think it's highly unlikely that paying  players accounts for even a majority of the $30 difference in cost per dozen. it's probably not even close.

That said as a high handicapper, again, I doubt the likely performance gap is going to affect you much.

You're guessing as well, and you're also ignoring consumer psychology and corporate pricing strategies.  I'm not guessing that Titleist pays substantially more for marketing their golf balls compared to Kirkland, it's pretty obvious.  

Each manufacturer has to decide on the target market they want to attract and that gets factored into their pricing strategies. For instance, PXG went after the boutique golf club manufacturers and set a price point for their clubs that was representative of that strategy.  I don't believe their clubs cost an additional $100 per club to build.  

KickX, Vice, Snell, MG are targeting the Pro V1 market with golf balls that they believe are equivalent to Titleist but at a lower price.  People are skeptical when the price is too low, so their price point was ideal in that it was less than Pro V1's, high enough for them to make a decent margin but wasn't so low that golf snobs would potentially dismiss them as viable golf balls.  

Kirkland has a huge distribution channel through their Costco warehouses, they are accustomed to selling bulk products at lower margins.  Kirkland could be selling these balls at a lower than desired margin right now with expectations that they will raise the price once the products establish a following.  

Price doesn't always tell you about cost.  A $100,000 Mercedes doesn't cost $70,000 more to make than a $30,000 Mercedes, a big part of pricing is to reach a price point that attracts target demographics.  

[kpaulhus]

18 hours ago, iacas said:

I think at some point "you get what you pay for" is going to come into play.

Now, it may not matter if you're a 12 handicapper, but I don't know that the quality control will be there. If you hit a ball that should be good but goes 10 yards short and cuts a little more than it should have, because the ball was not uniform or something, will you blame your swing?

I think Snell MTB balls are great, but they're still $27/dozen (with a small volume discount)… and that's about the limit to what I think a golf ball could cost and still be pretty believably good.

Is it possible that these balls are 95% of what a Pro V1x is for 1/3 the price? Yes. Likely? No way. But 80%? Maybe yes to both…?

(The Snell I'd rate as 100% - it's just as good as a Pro V1x/V1.)

This is kind of how I feel about it. I bought 10 dozen Vice balls that I use on a weekly basis. When I have a big tournament coming up I will only play ProV1x the week before and during the tournament. I just feel it is the best performing ball for me and its all I play during tournaments. For the normal Saturday game, I dont mind playing Vice or any other ball as long as it is somewhat comparable. 

[drmevo]

Obviously Kirkland doesn't manufacture these directly, so the question in my mind is, who does?  And who else does the manufacturer make golf balls for? Kirkland is just putting their stamp on a ball that was probably already in production under another brand, right?

[newtogolf]

18 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Obviously Kirkland doesn't manufacture these directly, so the question in my mind is, who does?  And who else does the manufacturer make golf balls for? Kirkland is just putting their stamp on a ball that was probably already in production under another brand, right?

It was already posted in this thread on the first page.

Quote

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