If Blake is indeed sponsored by Prince, shouldn't he have a stencil on his strings. I'm just wondering. I could never figure out why Dunlop dropped Blake from there endorsement deal, since he is a popular player. If I'm not mistaken I think he is still using the 300G with a paint job. I can certainly see why, since it is such a solid frame. Anyway, Prince must not be paying him any endorsements since there is no P on his racquet. Any thoughts?
Question About Blake's Racquet
- Thread starter Thrasher
- Start date
Richie Rich
Legend
sorry if this sounds harsh, BUT read what you just wrote. think about it for a while. the lightbulb may go on. hint - since he's using a dunlop racquet (or variation thereof) he can't put the P stencil on his strings. that would be a no-no.
I think you are wrong dude. In the mid 90's when Mark Phillipousis was dropped by head, he had a Dunlop stencil painted on his old Head Prestige. And you could clearly see that it was a Head. Ivan Lendl had a Adidas stencil painted on his Kneissl frame. So either you're wrong, or that must have been breaking the rules.
Redflea
Hall of Fame
He's got "Prince" painted on the side of his blacked out Dunlop racquet. I don't think a stencil would be a big deal. Maybe he and Prince are holding off until they unveil Blake's new racquet to go to the stencil.
Also, I would expect that Prince lured Blake away with $, rather than Dunlop dropping him.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Dunlop will do that as they also did the same thing with Safin when he used a Head Prestige Classic with a Dunlop MW200G paintjob and stencil. But Prince won't do that as they think it's unethical.
BTW, Blake never used a real Dunlop 300G anyway. It's was always a custom mold with a 300G paintjob over it.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Actually, Dunlop did drop Blake when his ranking dropped due to all of his problems. Remember at the '05 US Open when he played Agassi in the QF, he had no racquet sponsor so nothing stenciled on his strings. He was still using his leftover custom Dunlop racquets with the M-Fill 200 paintjob. It was only after his breakthrough performance at the '05 US Open that was was able to get a racquet contract. I guess Prince gave him the best deal.
P
PrestigeClassic
Guest
Actually, Philippoussis did not have that Dunlop-painted Prestige for very long. Head forced Dunlop to do what they did soon thereafter, as was the case with Blake's frames.
As for Lendl, didn't adidas buy molds from Kneissl or something like that? If that was the case, then adidas likely paid for the ability to stencil those frames. Do you know what the case was? Every case is different.
If Prince pays Dunlop what they want, then Prince, too, might be able to stencil the frames.
It's what's known as copyright infringement or something.
P
PrestigeClassic
Guest
You think Prince placed their stencil on Blake's frames and later blacked it out because they changed their mind and thought it unethical?
Excellent posts. You guys cleared it up for me. I guess it's anyones's guess as to why Blake doesn't have the P on it. Do you think that all of the top pro's use racquets that aren't stock, and are specially built for them. Or do you think that they are just modified stock racquets?
Stringer_Steve
Rookie
Actually that is exactly what happened. At the Phoenix launch of the Speedport frames back in November, the VP of Prince made it a point to tell us about the situation due to all the speculation. He stated that it is no secret that James was using a "non-Prince' frame. However, he had been extensively play testing new prototypes. In the meantime, his ranking skyrocketed and his coach, agent and everyone around him told him not to change anything while he was doing so well. Prince and Blake both had contract "outs," and the company was split on whether to keep him or drop him. They mutually agreed to continue the relationship with the understanding that James would not be using O3 technology after all. Instead, Prince is in the process of creating a traditional technology frame from scratch for him. At the time, we were told that they hoped to have him switched over during the 1st quarter of 2007. I'm sure that will depend largely on his results.
I have posted this info on TT before and there are numerous posts that discuss it ad nauseum.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I don't recall Blake ever having the Prince stencil on his blacked-put frames, but if he did, then yes, that's what happened. I was told directly by a Prince product design guy involved with the situation that they didn't want to have the Prince stencil on his strings because they said it was unethical to do so when he was not using a real Prince racquet.
Phillipoussis (who was never dropped by Head - he signed with Dunlop) did for some time use a genuine Dunlop racquet (it was in the late, not early 90's). When he ultimately changed back to a painted Prestige he used a Dunlop logo on the strings but was forced to remove it (I think Head did the same thing to Safin while he was with Dunlop). Ivan Lendl used a racquet made by Kneissel for Adidas so there was no conflict at all.
Richie Rich
Legend
prince claims they removed the stencil because it was unethical but they knew if Blake kept it on his racquets they would get sued by Dunlop or whoever owns the mold of the racquet Blake plays with. they made it look like they are above all this paint job crap but they are just as bad as all the other racquet co's
Richie Rich
Legend
i remember the frame. it had some green in it. held a cracked one that Mark broke at the Toronto tournament. i remember it being around mid 90's. thought nothing of having a pro's broken racquet and threw it in the garbage :sad:
P
PrestigeClassic
Guest
Centuries after the wheel was invented, it is just downright scary to consider that this thread was now put together by humans. Prince not placing a stencil because the VP or "a product design guy" says how it's unethical to make shareholders money? LOL. Nevermind unforeseen future events, that never happens in business, nor damage control. And by Prince stencil, I meant the actual white "Prince" stencil on the side of the actual frame that was there in the beginning before Dunlop likely became antsy, not a "P" stencil on a stringbed, which was probably never there anyway for reasons already stated. Not that it matters, apparently.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Well, you need to be more specific. When one refers to the "stencil" on a racquet, it almost ALWAYS means the stencil on the strings as that's the only place you would use a stencil. The "Prince" name on the beam of the frame is a decal and not a stencil.
Of course, everything I posted above was regarding the "P" stencil on the strings and NOT the "Prince" decal on the frame, which was always and still is there.
P
PrestigeClassic
Guest
You're right--once or twice in my life I confused the terms "stencil" and "decal." I might not be good with names or definitive words at all times. At any rate, if you look at the context of my use of [stencil] in this thread, it might have helped you understand what I meant.
In any case, I wrote that the distinction didn't matter because it appeared that you thought there was a white "Prince" decal on the frame anyway. Show recent pics with a Prince *decal* and I'll eat my words.
P
PrestigeClassic
Guest
I took the liberty of searching for you and everyone else that thinks the world is flat.
Richie Rich
Legend
funny how they just painted a line through prince but left just enough that you can still make out "prince". wonder if they did that to the "dunlop" on his grommets too? obviously prince feels they are being "ethical" by doing that since it's clearly not deceiving people, right? what a crock
P
PrestigeClassic
Guest
Haha, yeah, it seems Prince made sure that the paint they were told to use would easily rub off.
I don't understand why Prince has to pay Dunlop anything, or even get permission to do whatever. Blake is not under contract with Dunlop. Heres an example that comes to mind. I purchase a K90. I then paint it black and put "prince" on it with spray paint. Wilson can't do anything about it. Now unless i start selling or using it for commercial reasons I doubt Prince would care either. So Prince can and will paint a racket and put Prince all over it. They can Stencil the strings.
The only argument i see as stated above is an ethical issue of marketing. But they just painted a Dunlop and put prince on it. Do you think Prince is ethical in doing that? Misrepresentating that it is a prince racket? How about wilson and their paintjobs. Theres no law about these things.
Has anyone ever even read these compainies mission statement or code of ethics?
The only argument i see as stated above is an ethical issue of marketing. But they just painted a Dunlop and put prince on it. Do you think Prince is ethical in doing that? Misrepresentating that it is a prince racket? How about wilson and their paintjobs. Theres no law about these things.
Has anyone ever even read these compainies mission statement or code of ethics?
Last edited:
Is blake even on the prince team anymore. His pic isnt on tenniswarehouse in the pros that use prince column or the prince team page.
jackcrawford
Professional
Wrong - Dunlop already lost a lawsuit to Head after trying just that trick with Marat Safin in 2002 - you have to own the rights to a frame to stencil it.
P
PrestigeClassic
Guest
Yup, for the 1000th time, that's why Blake has a blacked-out Prince decal and does not have a Prince stencil. There is no opinion about it--it is a fact. In the beginning of sponsorship, Prince tried to get away with a decal, but Prince was shot down by Dunlop.
But can't Joe Blow stencil their Dunlop as a Prince? Do you know where the line is where a player or his party is breaking the law, or is there no line? Is there a line at whether spectators are watching for free or paying? Whether there is television/photographic coverage? Whether the player accepts prize money? Are pros that are not sponsored by any company able to use a mis-matched stencil?
jackcrawford
Professional
Those are excellent questions - Joe Blow at the club who buys his own racquets can black out his racquet and stencil it as something else, but once the player is accepting compensation (even including reduced prices on racquets) in return for promoting a product, it likely would not be OK anywhere there were spectators who could theoretically be influenced. Infringements on, say, the futures tour, of course, as a practical matter would be less likely to be pursued than with a star player.
Similar threads
