PDA

View Full Version : Wilson manufacturing flaws


pauliewa
10-11-2012, 07:01 PM
Just switched to the blx 98 and am confused by a few issues between the two racquets I received. One of the racquets doesn't have the text on the butt, like the grip size and other wilson coding I assume. The same frame's red centering dot on the hoop is bigger than on the other. The same frame has no string rec text in the throat, the other does. And though they both have the pro hybrid grip, this same frame has a contoured, or riveted version. New to wilson, and needless to say, I have no idea what to make of all these differences. Thoughts?

themitchmann
10-11-2012, 07:25 PM
From where did you buy them?

pauliewa
10-11-2012, 07:33 PM
Right here, TW

UCSF2012
10-11-2012, 07:39 PM
Different manufacturing batches. Happens all the time, b/c they try out different things. Sometimes, one batch is matte while another is glossy. They're just experimenting. That's all it is.

slowfox
10-11-2012, 07:44 PM
Shouldn't all the experimenting be done in the development stages? I'm no business expert, but once mass production begins I would think that "trying out different things" is over.

pauliewa
10-11-2012, 07:54 PM
The only difference that frustrates me is the grip, as I'll have to replace the one with ridges. Now I'm out of pocket because they wanted to 'experiment' once their product is at market? Seems like an outlandish business move to me to say the least.

Bdarb
10-11-2012, 08:42 PM
I wonder how far off the static and SW are. Have you hit with them both, notice a difference?

Bartelby
10-11-2012, 08:51 PM
I've always wondered how many such batches there are as it would make sense to do an initial run that would satisfy a reasonable estimation of the market.




Different manufacturing batches. Happens all the time, b/c they try out different things. Sometimes, one batch is matte while another is glossy. They're just experimenting. That's all it is.

pauliewa
10-11-2012, 09:09 PM
I wonder how far off the static and SW are. Have you hit with them both, notice a difference?

I had TW spec match them. Both are 10.85oz and sw 303. Felt the same on court but once I noticed all these cosmetics differences I lost piece of mind there for a minute.

courtking
10-11-2012, 10:38 PM
Wilson spent most of time and $$ to hype up its products rather than QC.. I have 3 Wilson PS 90 with totally 3 difference specs.. one is way off.. one is head heavy.. and one has bigger grip.. at $200 a piece they should do a better job..

rlau
10-11-2012, 10:52 PM
I had TW spec match them. Both are 10.85oz and sw 303. Felt the same on court but once I noticed all these cosmetics differences I lost piece of mind there for a minute.

Hope you find it back!

Bdarb
10-12-2012, 08:09 PM
I had TW spec match them. Both are 10.85oz and sw 303. Felt the same on court but once I noticed all these cosmetics differences I lost piece of mind there for a minute.

I know what you mean. You just want two of the same racquet, you had them take the time and spec them out but they just aren't the same. To whoever said at 200 a racquet qc should be higher, absolutely right. Wilson used to be regarded for high standard of quality control didn't they?

travlerajm
10-12-2012, 09:35 PM
That's nothing. I bought a BLX Pro Tour earlier this year.

The pallet was misaligned so that it was about 2 degrees rotated along the long axis. That is, the wide flat bevels were not parallel to the racquet face.

Unless I concsiously concentrate on compensating, forehand volleys pop up too high, and backhand volleys go in the net. So the defect makes the racquet tough to play with. Totally unacceptable. I plan to ask TW for a refund.

Babolatbarry
10-12-2012, 09:41 PM
one of the red dots on mine is in the middle, while on the other the red dot is one string gap to the right...
on my six.one 95s

UCSF2012
10-12-2012, 10:14 PM
It's time we protest to Wilson about the QC problems. Unless they listen to customer complaints, I refuse to buy any more rackets from them. 50 and that's it. I refuse to buy a 51st. None of this Amplifeel bullshat.

ace0001a
10-12-2012, 10:39 PM
Shouldn't all the experimenting be done in the development stages? I'm no business expert, but once mass production begins I would think that "trying out different things" is over.

Not an expert here myself about but having dabbled in comics and collectibles, I think the differences in a product's manufacturing runs are usually termed or described as variants.

Broly4
10-13-2012, 01:23 AM
Wilson QC is dissapointing to say the least, no wonder since they don't make rackets in their own factory.

Anton
10-13-2012, 05:36 AM
Wilson spent most of time and $$ to hype up its products rather than QC.. I have 3 Wilson PS 90 with totally 3 difference specs.. one is way off.. one is head heavy.. and one has bigger grip.. at $200 a piece they should do a better job..

???? Head heavy PS90 is definitely a fake.

I've used many wilsons over the years and grip sizes were consistent once the new grip material breaks in (size gets a bit smaller after some use).

courtking
10-13-2012, 05:40 AM
???? Head heavy PS90 is definitely a fake.

I've used many wilsons over the years and grip sizes were consistent once the new grip material breaks in (size gets a bit smaller after some use).

Sorry, I meant head heavier compare to the other 2 I have.. like 2-3 points heavier..

db10s
10-13-2012, 06:13 AM
I played with Wilson for a short period of time, I dropped them and switched to Dunlop because I want all of my rackets to have the same weight, balance, etc... Straight out of the box; it's my zero tolerance policy. From my experience when Dunlop sends me my package, they are perfect.

guitarplayer
10-13-2012, 06:19 AM
Sorry, I meant head heavier compare to the other 2 I have.. like 2-3 points heavier..

I have the same problem with my 3 PS Six One 100's.

BreakPoint
10-13-2012, 09:44 AM
Many racquet manufacturers (especially Wilson) will make minor changes in the graphics on their racquets throughout its product life cycle so they can easily tell around when a particular racquet was manufactured for warranty purposes.

It also throws off the counterfeiters making fakes if they are constantly changing the graphics on the authentic ones.

ollinger
10-13-2012, 09:51 AM
^^ If racquet graphics were constantly changing, I think it would make life easier for counterfeiters. They could then explain inconsistencies by saying that the company had changed the graphics again. And information about when a racquet was manufactured would be part of the holgraphic sticker.

Chotobaka
10-13-2012, 10:24 AM
Many racquet manufacturers (especially Wilson) will make minor changes in the graphics on their racquets throughout its product life cycle so they can easily tell around when a particular racquet was manufactured for warranty purposes.

It also throws off the counterfeiters making fakes if they are constantly changing the graphics on the authentic ones.

If this actually is their reason for doing this, it would be better to go back to using serial numbers which once upon a time were pretty much standard. Oh, I forgot, Wilson's processes have nothing to do with improving the quality of their products. Even the PJ quality became noticeable lower quality and lower durability with the BLX's.

tistrapukcipeht
10-13-2012, 11:16 AM
^^ If racquet graphics were constantly changing, I think it would make life easier for counterfeiters. They could then explain inconsistencies by saying that the company had changed the graphics again. And information about when a racquet was manufactured would be part of the holgraphic sticker.

Exactly, because one could claim: This is the first cycle of the racquets, it's the same racquet as the newer which would even be easier to sell the fakes since would harder to ID the fakes.

UCSF2012
10-13-2012, 03:59 PM
Wilson doesn't care when you bought your racket. I returned one KPS88 2 years after it was discontinued, and Wilson still honored the warranty, knowing full well that it was impossible to have bought it within the last year. I love Wilson....but if you're reading this, Wilson, no 51st racket unless QC improves.

....actually, I wanted to tinker with the Juice 100. So, no 53rd racket unless you improve!!!

BreakPoint
10-13-2012, 05:36 PM
^^ If racquet graphics were constantly changing, I think it would make life easier for counterfeiters. They could then explain inconsistencies by saying that the company had changed the graphics again. And information about when a racquet was manufactured would be part of the holgraphic sticker.
Riiiight....that's why the U.S. Treasury changes the graphics on U.S. currency so that it would make it easier for counterfeiters to tell people that this is just the newer version of the $100 bill. LOL No, once the people who make the fake racquets think they have the graphics the same as the authentic ones, Wilson changes the graphics so that you can easily go to a pro shop or to Wilson's website and see that the latest version does not match exactly like the fake. It's harder for the counterfeiters to keep up because they never know when Wilson will make a change and what those changes will be.

As far as the hologram, those often fall off or go missing. Plus, you can take the hologram off of one racquet and put it on another racquet, just like some people do with butt caps. Having different graphics on the frame is a sure way to tell what year a racquet was manufactured.

Hi I'm Ray
10-13-2012, 05:46 PM
Good ol Wilson won't give up the poor QC crown to Babs without a fight.

UCSF2012
10-13-2012, 06:09 PM
I don't see why Wilson would actually care their rackets are being faked. If they really cared, they would've sued e Bay a long time ago. For all we know, Wilson may take a cut in the counterfeit racket sales. Hell, some manufacturers manufacture fakes and sell them on the side. Historically, Wilson doesn't seem to care about the fakes market. At least, they havn't done anything about it.

UCSF2012
10-13-2012, 06:13 PM
....and string age matters more than racket spec differences. On the court, these "different" rackets generally hit the same.

BreakPoint
10-13-2012, 07:22 PM
I don't see why Wilson would actually care their rackets are being faked. If they really cared, they would've sued e Bay a long time ago. For all we know, Wilson may take a cut in the counterfeit racket sales. Hell, some manufacturers manufacture fakes and sell them on the side. Historically, Wilson doesn't seem to care about the fakes market. At least, they havn't done anything about it.
Um...because Wilson loses sales to the fakes? And why would they sue the Bay? They didn't make the fakes. No other company that makes any kind of product that has counterfeits has sued the Bay, either, because it's not legally feasible.

mctennis
10-13-2012, 07:26 PM
Wilson spent most of time and $$ to hype up its products rather than QC.. I have 3 Wilson PS 90 with totally 3 difference specs.. one is way off.. one is head heavy.. and one has bigger grip.. at $200 a piece they should do a better job..

Ditto this remark. I've always found Wilson QC to be spotty and always on the side of sloppy at best. Their commercials are always top notch. It shows.

pauliewa
10-13-2012, 07:52 PM
What was the warranty issue that caused you to return it?

Wilson doesn't care when you bought your racket. I returned one KPS88 2 years after it was discontinued, and Wilson still honored the warranty, knowing full well that it was impossible to have bought it within the last year. I love Wilson....but if you're reading this, Wilson, no 51st racket unless QC improves.

....actually, I wanted to tinker with the Juice 100. So, no 53rd racket unless you improve!!!

UCSF2012
10-13-2012, 08:49 PM
Um...because Wilson loses sales to the fakes? And why would they sue the Bay? They didn't make the fakes. No other company that makes any kind of product that has counterfeits has sued the Bay, either, because it's not legally feasible.

Not legally feasible? Louis Vuitton won 14 million in damages or something like that against e Bay. Don't remember the damage amount, but it was high. Really high.

UCSF2012
10-13-2012, 08:51 PM
What was the warranty issue that caused you to return it?

Frame slightly warped. Hoop wider from 3/9 o'clock compared to my other frames. Gut/poly tends to warp the racket, since the poly crosses are strung looser, but that's just a casualty of war.

UCSF2012
10-13-2012, 08:57 PM
Ditto this remark. I've always found Wilson QC to be spotty and always on the side of sloppy at best. Their commercials are always top notch. It shows.

Rackets are handmade. Every one's different, like a pair of designer jeans. Each one's made with love. Each is unique, and no two are exactly alike.

mctennis
10-15-2012, 04:51 PM
Rackets are handmade. Every one's different, like a pair of designer jeans. Each one's made with love. Each is unique, and no two are exactly alike.

I understand this issue. However, the sloppiness and finish should not be that much different. I've not noticed the sloppy fit and finish with my Kneissl or Volkl racquets over the years. With Wilson they come across as a middle of the line ( or lower) type racquet.

Sumo
10-15-2012, 05:23 PM
Um...because Wilson loses sales to the fakes? And why would they sue the Bay? They didn't make the fakes. No other company that makes any kind of product that has counterfeits has sued the Bay, either, because it's not legally feasible.

Yeaaahhh......nooooo.....never.......

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92022140

BreakPoint
10-15-2012, 07:28 PM
Yeaaahhh......nooooo.....never.......

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92022140
Well, of course a French court is going to rule in favor of their own companies. Let them try and sue the Bay in the U.S. where they are based.

BTW, not all fake racquets are sold on the Bay so Wilson suing the Bay is not going to stop the fakes so why bother suing the Bay?

UCSF2012
10-15-2012, 10:01 PM
Well, of course a French court is going to rule in favor of their own companies. Let them try and sue the Bay in the U.S. where they are based.

BTW, not all fake racquets are sold on the Bay so Wilson suing the Bay is not going to stop the fakes so why bother suing the Bay?

Do you not want money? If 20 million dollars were just sitting there in front of you, do you not want it? This is a trademark violation for Wilson, part of the reason why Wilson has "horrendous QC." They're taking the heat for rackets that they didn't even make.

PS, I do believe the owner of e Bay is French.

BreakPoint
10-16-2012, 12:00 AM
Do you not want money? If 20 million dollars were just sitting there in front of you, do you not want it? This is a trademark violation for Wilson, part of the reason why Wilson has "horrendous QC." They're taking the heat for rackets that they didn't even make.

PS, I do believe the owner of e Bay is French.
Huh? It's the AUTHENTIC racquets made by Wilson that have the "horrendous QC". I'd bet even the fakes have better QC than the real ones.

Yes, Wilson should sue, but not the Bay. They should sue the companies that are actually making the fakes. Suing the Bay won't stop the counterfeiters from making fake racquets. They will just find other channels to sell them.

Oh, and the Bay doesn't have an owner. It is a publicly traded company so it's owned by millions of shareholders.

Lilguy1456
10-16-2012, 12:37 PM
If you get a HeadHeavy PS, then yes, you have a fake. However, if you are concerned with your 'center dot'...then you should probably begin to concern yourself more with your technique. Inferior players often try to compensate for lack of skill by obsessing over slight differences in racquet spec/cosmetic.

UCSF2012
10-16-2012, 06:22 PM
If you get a HeadHeavy PS, then yes, you have a fake. However, if you are concerned with your 'center dot'...then you should probably begin to concern yourself more with your technique. Inferior players often try to compensate for lack of skill by obsessing over slight differences in racquet spec/cosmetic.

Chill out. The center dot bit was a joke.

UCSF2012
10-16-2012, 06:31 PM
Huh? It's the AUTHENTIC racquets made by Wilson that have the "horrendous QC". I'd bet even the fakes have better QC than the real ones.

Yes, Wilson should sue, but not the Bay. They should sue the companies that are actually making the fakes. Suing the Bay won't stop the counterfeiters from making fake racquets. They will just find other channels to sell them.

Oh, and the Bay doesn't have an owner. It is a publicly traded company so it's owned by millions of shareholders.

Wilson gets crap for their rackets and fake rackets posing as theirs. Most people can't even tell fakes apart from real. Truthfully, a great percentage of my friends use fake rackets, and only after I tell them that do they realize how crappy their racket is. It was gold until I told them.

Are you now some legal expert? A few days ago, you thought suing e Bay wasn't feasible, despite the 65 million e Bay lost in damages. Now you're giving legal advice.

And the CEO (or former CEO) and Founder of e Bay is French. Pierre something. It's the French suing the French in a French court. There comes a certain point when your claims are just infantile. Making up things as you go.

BreakPoint
10-16-2012, 08:00 PM
Wilson gets crap for their rackets and fake rackets posing as theirs. Most people can't even tell fakes apart from real. Truthfully, a great percentage of my friends use fake rackets, and only after I tell them that do they realize how crappy their racket is. It was gold until I told them.

Are you now some legal expert? A few days ago, you thought suing e Bay wasn't feasible, despite the 65 million e Bay lost in damages. Now you're giving legal advice.

And the CEO (or former CEO) and Founder of e Bay is French. Pierre something. It's the French suing the French in a French court. There comes a certain point when your claims are just infantile. Making up things as you go.
If people can't even tell fake Wilson racquets from real ones then what's the problem for users?

Um....the Bay "lost $65 million in damages"? They haven't lost a dime! Just because some judge rules that you have to pay $65 million doesn't mean you've paid a dime. It goes to appeal as most of these cases do. In fact, earlier this year, another judge in France overturned the earlier ruling on appeal. So as of today, the Bay hasn't lost a dime (other than on legal fees). So, no, it's not feasible to sue the Bay unless you want to spend tens of millions of dollars on legal fees for nothing.
http://www.4-traders.com/LVMH-4669/news/French-High-Court-Partly-Overturns-Rulings-In-LVMH-s-Case-Against-****-14311372/

The founder of the Bay, Pierre Omidyar, is an Iranian-American. He was only born in France because his Iranian parents were studying at university in France at the time he was born. He has lived in the U.S. from the age of six. So I would hardly call him "French" and I doubt he has any personal connections or allegiance to France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Omidyar

In any case, Omidyar has not been the CEO since 1998 when the Bay had only 30 employees.

UCSF2012
10-16-2012, 08:27 PM
If people can't even tell fake Wilson racquets from real ones then what's the problem for users?

Um....the Bay "lost $65 million in damages"? They haven't lost a dime! Just because some judge rules that you have to pay $65 million doesn't mean you've paid a dime. It goes to appeal as most of these cases do. In fact, earlier this year, another judge in France overturned the earlier ruling on appeal. So as of today, the Bay hasn't lost a dime (other than on legal fees). So, no, it's not feasible to sue the Bay unless you want to spend tens of millions of dollars on legal fees for nothing.
http://www.4-traders.com/LVMH-4669/news/French-High-Court-Partly-Overturns-Rulings-In-LVMH-s-Case-Against-****-14311372/

The founder of the Bay, Pierre Omidyar, is an Iranian-American. He was only born in France because his Iranian parents were studying at university in France at the time he was born. He has lived in the U.S. from the age of six. So I would hardly call him "French" and I doubt he has any personal connections or allegiance to France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Omidyar

In any case, Omidyar has not been the CEO since 1998 when the Bay had only 30 employees.

Your reading skills need work. What the article said isn't what you claimed.

The problem for Wilson is that they take the heat for someone else's product. So what if the racket cracks prematurely? Who does the buyer blame?....Wilson, and they didn't even make the racket. You should already know all this. What is it that you're arguing. Pretend for a second you're Wilson, and you can easily come up with a laundry list of things wrong. You don't need me to point them out to you. Do your own thinking.

BreakPoint
10-16-2012, 09:00 PM
Your reading skills need work. What the article said isn't what you claimed.

Has the Bay paid a dime to LVMH? No? That's exactly what I said. All LVMH did was lose millions of of dollars themselves in legal fees trying to sue the Bay. So do you still think it's feasible to sue the Bay for selling fake products? The courts in the U.S. have actually ruled in favor of the Bay on these same types of lawsuits.