VS, what exactly is it about these heritage frames that makes them superior to today's offerings. I know why they are superior - more solid feel, naturally low vibrations, etc. - but what about the layup and construction gives them these qualities?
And what are they doing wrong with current models? (Graphene is a new aberration, but no one seemed satisfied with the last couple Prestige and Radical generations either.)
Some suggest the quality of carbon fiber used in tennis racquets has fallen off dramatically, particularly as the Iraq war was escalating in the early 90's: much of the higher-quality material was required for the far more lucrative military and aerospace industries.
This also occurred roughly after, or near the same time that currency fluctuations made construction in Europe and the UK (meaning, in-house at facilities at Kneissl, Rossignol, Völkl, Head, Snauwaert, Donnay, Adidas, Dunlop, Slazenger, and others) unsustainable, and production shifted to Asian contractors, who looked for cheaper sources of materials to minimize unit costs and maximize per-unit profits for them, while making the frames no more expensive for the brand itself.
Also, since racquet design really hasn't had any actual advances since the widebody revolution of the late 1980's, marketing staff (instead of engineers) have been in control of the industry, and they have been telling us that lighter racquets are better and more fun to play with. Biomechanically, this may not be so. However, lighter racquets require less carbon fiber (hence should be cheaper to make), yet as they contain less material, transmit more shock and vibration...