The Lobster from the 80's

[retrowagen]

Yes, I remember those Scepters. Even in California in the mid-1980's, those were very rare. I only saw them in advertisements. It looks as though they were the most aerodynamic racquet ever made, with the thinnest beam cross-section too.

[Hannah19]

Yes, Retro, only a fraction thicker than the Durafiber's throat section but then all over the frame.
Nice slogan too on the insert: "By Royal Proclamation" etc.
Even had cross-sections from Head and Prince on it to show the difference....!!

[skhong248]

I used to be sponsored by Lobster as a junior back in the 80's.
This particular model was the Lobster Composite, sold for $75USD and was reviewed by World Tennis Magazine which gave it, if I remember, a 10.8 on Sweet Spot size. It had an 80/20 composition, and a synthetic grip.

They also had the second generation Lobster Graphite. If anyone remembers, the 1st generation Lobster Graphite looked like an elognated Wilson Sting.
The second generation Lobster Graphite was the same mold, was a black frame (vs dark brown for the Lobster Composite), and was a bit stiffer and sold for $90 USD.

And there was the Lobster Ceramic, which was the same mold but had a lobster Red frame.

Also, there was a Lobster Magnesium frame with a nylon/plastic neck much like the Prince Magnesium.

They moved into the widebodies with the Lobster Citation Comp and the Lobster Citation.

I miss these rackets, I used to sell a bunch of them to my friends for dirt cheap, since I was getting them for free.
If anyone knows where I can get ANY of the Lobsters, please inbox me!!!

[Sanglier]

As there doesn't appear to be a dedicated Scepter thread, and Hans had already hijacked this one for his Scepters months ago, I thought it would be ok to add these to the mix.

Both were harvested from the bay during my recent binge trawling.




Even after reading about these frames on this board, I was still surprised by how frail-looking they are in the flesh. The hoop on the XL was probably not quite so flat-topped and lopsided when it left the factory, but it is definitely less ovoid than that of the XL-2 by design. Both sticks seem to play fine however.

My question is, was the XL-2 introduced as a successor of the XL, or was it just a slightly heftier and more indolent stablemate of the latter? Also, did Scepter stay in business long enough to make any XL-3s or 4, 5, 6s?

[cork_screw]

Hmmm. I really like lobster. Too bad it was a racquet. It doesn't work in reverse for me.

[fortun8son]

Just got a Lobster Citation from the bay.
Havent seen it yet.

[Hannah19]

Originally Posted by Sanglier

As there doesn't appear to be a dedicated Scepter thread, and Hans had already hijacked this one for his Scepters months ago, I thought it would be ok to add these to the mix.

Both were harvested from the bay during my recent binge trawling.




Even after reading about these frames on this board, I was still surprised by how frail-looking they are in the flesh. The hoop on the XL was probably not quite so flat-topped and lopsided when it left the factory, but it is definitely less ovoid than that of the XL-2 by design. Both sticks seem to play fine however.

My question is, was the XL-2 introduced as a successor of the XL, or was it just a slightly heftier and more indolent stablemate of the latter? Also, did Scepter stay in business long enough to make any XL-3s or 4, 5, 6s?

I doubt it...!
Anyway, did you string these up and if so, do I see shared holes in the XL 2?

[Sanglier]

Originally Posted by Hannah19

I doubt it...!
Anyway, did you string these up and if so, do I see shared holes in the XL 2?

These came strung. The XL has two pairs of shared holes at the bottom and none at the top. The XL-2 has one pair of shared holes at the bottom and two pairs at the top, though the very top cross looks rather superfluous to me.

I finally managed to find a copy of Kuebler at a reasonable price last month, but it's the 1995 German edition, which is a third thinner than the 2000 American edition (423 pp instead of 635 pp). The book took six weeks to get here from Germany (I had already written it off as lost), but at least I can now look up obscure manufacturers and see what was produced when.

In this '95 edition, Kuebler seems to claim that all Scepter racquets were made in Taiwan and imported into the US circa 1984. This is quite a bit later than I had expected. I had also been under the impression that these frames were made in the US somehow, even though the cover on my XL is clearly labeled 'Made in Taiwan'.

I am curious whether Kuebler had expanded on what he had written about this maker in the 2000 American edition or the 2010 update.

Despite the frail appearance of the frames, both the XL and XL-2 seem to be solid performers that offer good control and surprising power, with virtually no vibration at all. Of the dozen or so oldies that I picked up at about the same time, only the MatchMate Graphite felt noticeably better on the court. The biggest disappointment of the bunch? Tony Trabert Big Bubba. I don't know if it's the old string job or what, but that thing was thoroughly sluggish and vibrated like a tuning fork.

[vsbabolat]

Originally Posted by Sanglier

These came strung. The XL has two pairs of shared holes at the bottom and none at the top. The XL-2 has one pair of shared holes at the bottom and two pairs at the top, though the very top cross looks rather superfluous to me.

I finally managed to find a copy of Kuebler at a reasonable price last month, but it's the 1995 German edition, which is a third thinner than the 2000 American edition (423 pp instead of 635 pp). The book took six weeks to get here from Germany (I had already written it off as lost), but at least I can now look up obscure manufacturers and see what was produced when.

In this '95 edition, Kuebler seems to claim that all Scepter racquets were made in Taiwan and imported into the US circa 1984. This is quite a bit later than I had expected. I had also been under the impression that these frames were made in the US somehow, even though the cover on my XL is clearly labeled 'Made in Taiwan'.

I am curious whether Kuebler had expanded on what he had written about this maker in the 2000 American edition or the 2010 update.

Despite the frail appearance of the frames, both the XL and XL-2 seem to be solid performers that offer good control and surprising power, with virtually no vibration at all. Of the dozen or so oldies that I picked up at about the same time, only the MatchMate Graphite felt noticeably better on the court. The biggest disappointment of the bunch? Tony Trabert Big Bubba. I don't know if it's the old string job or what, but that thing was thoroughly sluggish and vibrated like a tuning fork.

Where the cover was made and where the racquets was made dont usually have any correlation. Also that Kuebler book should not be taken as the gospel. Lots of errors in it.

[Hannah19]

Originally Posted by vsbabolat

Where the cover was made and where the racquets was made dont usually have any correlation. Also that Kuebler book should not be taken as the gospel. Lots of errors in it.

I agree, Kuebler got a lot of info from other collectors and copy/pasted most of it. There are plenty of errors in it but nothing major. It's still my "bible" and together with the knowledge I gained over the years it's a valuable source of information.

[Virginia]

Have you also got the Supplement?

[retrowagen]

Originally Posted by Hannah19

I agree, Kuebler got a lot of info from other collectors and copy/pasted most of it. There are plenty of errors in it but nothing major. It's still my "bible" and together with the knowledge I gained over the years it's a valuable source of information.

I still need to buy a copy of Kuebler's book. My memory banks are starting to fail, I need back-up!

[PBODY99]

Originally Posted by Sanglier

Tony Trabert Big Bubba. I don't know if it's the old string job or what, but that thing was thoroughly sluggish and vibrated like a tuning fork.

It wasn't the string job on the one I tried back in the day. The owner loved it, but at 6' 5" and a solid 265 lbs he played with a very different style, as his frame before this one was a 8 Heavy, Dunlop Fort. Yes,I mean the grip was a five inch handle.

[Sanglier]

I hope Virginia would not mind the continued dilution of this thread, but just to flesh out what had already been mentioned above, here are the two racquets that are outwardly similar, but which turned out to be night and day in terms of playing characteristics in my own experience:




The swing weight of both sticks significantly exceed their actual weight (as is expected for neutral or head-heavy frames). In the case of the MatchMate, the heftier swing weight seems to add stability to the strokes; whereas the Tony Trabert just feels like a softball bat with a wobbly head. However, it is undoubtedly true that someone with a different swing style may come away with a completely different impression than mine.

I was hoping that Kuebler would have some interesting stories to tell about these makers, but in the German edition at least, MatchMate, Tony Trabert and Scepter, as well as Lob-ster for that matter, were all among the brands that were given token coverage only, with little more than the address of the maker/distributor and a list of model names under each entry, and no illustration or descriptive text to go with them. My guess (hope?) is that he went into more detail about this class of makers in the later American edition; which would account for the massive page count inflation.

[Hannah19]

Originally Posted by Virginia

Have you also got the Supplement?

Yes, signed by the Master himself..

[retrowagen]

Originally Posted by Sanglier

I was hoping that Kuebler would have some interesting stories to tell about these makers, but in the German edition at least, MatchMate, Tony Trabert and Scepter, as well as Lob-ster for that matter, were all among the brands that were given token coverage only, with little more than the address of the maker/distributor and a list of model names under each entry, and no illustration or descriptive text to go with them. My guess (hope?) is that he went into more detail about this class of makers in the later American edition; which would account for the massive page count inflation.

I know Lob-Ster started as a manufacturer of ball machines, and diversified into tennis racquets briefly circa 1983-1987. Wasn't MatchMate a big manufacturer of ball machines or nets, or court equipment of some sort, before also making the leap into graphite racquet manufacture before then bowing out? When composite technology caught on, it was a madhouse with lots of "better mousetraps" coming from the freedom brought with the new material and manufacturing technology. Unfortunately, Prince Manufacturing held the patent to the headsize spectrum, so everybody had to license and pay royalties to Howard Head. That guy was a wickedly shrewd businessman! Of course, these smaller companies seldom could afford advertising, or giving sponsorships, and distribution was often quite sparse. At the same time, the bigger companies could afford more money for R&D for more favorable profit/overhead per unit, and pump in the money for advertising and sponsorship to get the name known and desired.

Even technically interesting and decent-playing frames like the Sceptre were doomed from the start.

[Hannah19]

Originally Posted by retrowagen

I know Lob-Ster started as a manufacturer of ball machines, and diversified into tennis racquets briefly circa 1983-1987. Wasn't MatchMate a big manufacturer of ball machines or nets, or court equipment of some sort, before also making the leap into graphite racquet manufacture before then bowing out? When composite technology caught on, it was a madhouse with lots of "better mousetraps" coming from the freedom brought with the new material and manufacturing technology. Unfortunately, Prince Manufacturing held the patent to the headsize spectrum, so everybody had to license and pay royalties to Howard Head. That guy was a wickedly shrewd businessman! Of course, these smaller companies seldom could afford advertising, or giving sponsorships, and distribution was often quite sparse. At the same time, the bigger companies could afford more money for R&D for more favorable profit/overhead per unit, and pump in the money for advertising and sponsorship to get the name known and desired.

Even technically interesting and decent-playing frames like the Sceptre were doomed from the start.

I have a Kneissl Aero...35 or something like that, that has several "Prince" patents incorporated but it's not an Oversized frame....wonder what those patents are..

[vsbabolat]

Originally Posted by retrowagen

I know Lob-Ster started as a manufacturer of ball machines, and diversified into tennis racquets briefly circa 1983-1987. Wasn't MatchMate a big manufacturer of ball machines or nets, or court equipment of some sort, before also making the leap into graphite racquet manufacture before then bowing out? When composite technology caught on, it was a madhouse with lots of "better mousetraps" coming from the freedom brought with the new material and manufacturing technology. Unfortunately, Prince Manufacturing held the patent to the headsize spectrum, so everybody had to license and pay royalties to Howard Head. That guy was a wickedly shrewd businessman! Of course, these smaller companies seldom could afford advertising, or giving sponsorships, and distribution was often quite sparse. At the same time, the bigger companies could afford more money for R&D for more favorable profit/overhead per unit, and pump in the money for advertising and sponsorship to get the name known and desired.

Even technically interesting and decent-playing frames like the Sceptre were doomed from the start.

MatchMate was ball machines too.

[Sanglier]

I have become quite a fan of these MatchMate racquets, and have begun hoarding them as a precautionary measure against their known fragility. As the size of my "spare reserve" has grown, so has the temptation to mess with these things.

The grommets on a couple of my frames have turned into crispy crunch, so I decided to see what it would be like to make a "Mad Match Mate" out of one. This is what I ended up with:




My goal was to use all the holes while minimizing the number of shared holes, keeping the string lengths relatively uniform, allowing some density gradient in the string bed but not too much, and avoiding sharp string exit angles as much as possible. As I had to rely on my Serrano for this, much of the job was done with creative (often awkward) fly-clamping, along with lots of tubing; which undoubtedly resulted in some tension loss here and there. However, as a self-amusement project, it worked out pretty much as I had envisioned it to.

I used a pack of vintage Atasco OS-280 for this, at 50 lbs, which is the minimum recommended by the manufacturer. The functional test results? A resounding "Meh".

I don't know if it's my frankenstein pattern or the old strings, but the feel on some of the conventionally strung frames that came to me with 65 lbs (kevlar) mains is infinitely better than my experiment in every conceivable way. It really does seem to me that these MatchMates were designed to perform best at higher tension ranges, even though they are structurally weaker in some spots than they perhaps need to be to reliably sustain this level of stress, thus putting their owner in a bit of a quandry when trying to choose between preservation and performance.

Thankfully, there is always that third option - hoarding.

[Hannah19]

Looks funky though...
I like experimenting with strings too but nothing came out looking as good as yours..!!