Yeah, the Fedstick could be a show stopper. LOL, I've got the lead. 5 grams at noon will be the starting place for the PS 95 pair.
BTW, Spin2Win, I never responded to your last post in that other thread. I'm just too busy now. I'll put a little bit here, though, as the 'holics might find this stuff interesting as well. Regarding your observation that depolarized sticks hit flatter and more "powerful," you should probably read the poster Travlerajm's writings on this. He coined the term "depolarized" in regards to racquet weight distribution. Most of what you read on this forum about "polarized" and "depolarized" racquets originated from his posts. He's an engineer, a very smart guy, and a consummate customizer and informal experimenter.
I think this post (#8) gives a very good hypothesis for why polarized frames seem to generate lots of spin and depolarized ones do not:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=4144458&highlight=polarized+normal#post4144458
The post doesn't get into one other factor, though, although Trav has written about this in other posts: When weight is added to the tip or tail, the vibration frequency (dynamic flex) is reduced. This is because mass in those locations moves the two vibration nodes, one located around the center of the strings, the other at the top of the handle, toward the poles. This effectively lengthens the racquet because the center section of the frame between these nodes is now longer. A longer beam is more flexible than a short beam. Thus, moving the nodes toward the poles - further apart - makes the racquet more flexible in dynamic situations. A more flexible racquet, for the reasons Trav outlines in the above post, will tend to generate more spin.
For this reason, Trav advocates mass at 3&9 counterbalanced at the top of the handle if one is looking for a racquet that hits solid and flatter. For more spin, he has suggested mass at the tip and tail.
My objection to mixing the word "power" into this is that "power" to me means speed. It does not mean more or less spin, a higher or lower rebound angle or greater or lesser depth. The reason I'm adamant about this is that people confuse these other things for speed, and mistakenly assume that variations in depth, net clearance and spin mean they are getting more or less pace of shot. Depending on the situation, shot being hit, and player, sure, you may get more or less pace and more or less spin. But step to the service line and crack a flat first serve and the racquet doesn't really matter - any racquet you choose is going to hit a serve within 1-3 miles per hour of each other. I feel that players should be more precise and avoid the use of the word "power." Racquets do not generate power. They have no power source and cannot generate power. They are like springs on sticks. Some racquets are more efficient springs than others, but the differences between them is very small, and this is demonstrated by the TWU Power Potential (ACOR) data. In my opinion, players should instead use the words and phrases speed or velocity or pace, rebound angle, net clearance, depth, spin to speed ratio, etc. when comparing different racquets and string setups. This would be far more meaningful. At present, discussions about raquet power have very little meaning and are really pretty absurd.