PDA

View Full Version : Dating racquets, a puzzle


mench
05-14-2011, 07:24 AM
I have a puzzle for my many fellow tennis maven colleagues.
I purchased 3 of the same racquet (a Wilson nCode 6.1) over the period Wilson was producing them. I bought 2 at an earlier date (~2006) and one later (~2008).
I am now changing to the BLX variety of this stick, but am only purchasing 2 right now. For this reason, I'd like to keep the newest of my nCodes.
So here's the question: Can anyone suggest a tactic for effectively dating these racquets?
I've rotated these, so the wear is about the same. I've also contacted Wilson and the merchants from which I bought the racquets. No luck.
Some thoughts - is there any information that can be gleaned from the holographic sticker on the frame? Or the stamp on the buttcap?
Any ideas here would be much appreciated!

mench
05-15-2011, 02:17 AM
To clarify: before the "smiley" intruded I had written that I purchased the second one in 2008.

pheonix6579
05-15-2011, 03:39 AM
any reason why you wouldn't just keep the one in best shape vs the newest?

goran_ace
05-15-2011, 04:32 AM
what about carbon dating? j/k

I agree with phoenix. just keep the one that appears to be in the best condition. if all three are in similar shape then what difference does it make? I don't remember the exact year that nCode was replaced with [k]factor, but I'm fairly certain it was before 2008 so the nCode 6.1 you bought new that year was still old stock.

zapvor
05-15-2011, 04:43 PM
Wilson couldn't tell you when you contacted them? another reason why not to get wilson

mench
05-16-2011, 05:40 AM
Thanks all.

Carbon dating seems to be the way to go. I'll contact my local geologist.

The reason I'd prefer to not simply eyeball them and take the least tattered, is that over time there seems to be a decent amount of depreciation that happens inside the frame. The cosmetics don't seem to give anything away.

I did contact Wilson, and they said that the stamp on the buttcap encoded the production date, but such information was highly confidential. Hmm.

Any more thoughts?