Best items you found at thrift stores (Goodwill)?

5sets

Professional
I have never seen a Graphite 90 without the stabilizer bar before! Maybe it’s a Graphite Pro 90 prototype? Where did you get it?
Ha! I knew I had something, because it doesn’t say Comp in the title and I couldn’t find anything like it on the auction site. Just a huge local thrift I hit every week. Thanks for the reply.
 

BDAZ

Professional
I am stumped. I’ve never seen that before. Legit looks like an early Graphite 90 with no crossbar. Super interesting. Thanks for sharing!
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
Ha! I knew I had something, because it doesn’t say Comp in the title and I couldn’t find anything like it on the auction site. Just a huge local thrift I hit every week. Thanks for the reply.
What state are you in? It would interesting if it was in NJ
 

5sets

Professional
Just returned from hitting with it. The feel and maneuverability is phenomenal even with 30+ old string. Washington, DC.
 

davced1

Hall of Fame
I found a jack kramer staff, and a st vincent pro staff (seperate occurrences). yesterday, i found an empty aeropro drive tennis bag for 10 bucks. so unless they were trying to sell just the bag for 12 bucks, some lucky person out there bought a 12 dollar aeropro drive :/
I actually found two aeropro drives 2008-09 version for less. First one in almost unused condition for about 8 dollars and the second one was even better. It had broken strings and was pretty beat up so I got it for about 3 dollars with the cover. When I got home I found 3 euros, about 4 dollars in the side pocket of the cover so I not only got the aeropro drive for free but actually got some money too.
 

Bambooman

Semi-Pro
I'm often surprised that people buy new rackets of lesser quality for $150-$250 when one can get a higher level racket for less than $10.
There's just something about buying new I quess.
 
Nothing beats having the newest cool trendy racquet like winning with the 68 y/o design and technology of a 67 square inch head racquet of the Wilson T2000.
 

5sets

Professional


Found this for $4. No grip, so I bought a Resi-thin-replacement grip, restrung what seemed like 20 year old synthetic gut with some poly. 4 3/8th too.
Speaking of. Theses are currently being sold on TW. Are they old stock or are they creating using the same mold but different materials like they did with the Bumblebee Radical a few years ago? Has anyone bought one of the new Synergys to compare to the OG? Anyone? Bueller?
 

coachrick

Hall of Fame
Found a Tony Trabert graphite tennis racket similar to the C-6, only with a larger head, called the Middy.
As yet have found no information about it.
More along the construction lines of the Big Bubba??? I think I remember something about that; but it never caught on like the initial intro of the C-6. ca. 1980 or so?
 
More along the construction lines of the Big Bubba??? I think I remember something about that; but it never caught on like the initial intro of the C-6. ca. 1980 or so?
Thanks, but not really like the Big Bubba. Basically, like the C-6, but with larger head, wider near the throats and narrowing into a kind of (upside-down) teardrop shape at the tip. Agree that it is something that never caught on. Could find no pictures or mention of it- while there is a lot about the C-6.
 

Sanglier

Semi-Pro
Could find no pictures or mention of it- while there is a lot about the C-6.
There were a handful of posts touching on this subject on this forum, one of which is on Page 17 of this very thread. At the time I was just beginning to research the history of these frames, and hadn't yet come across a "C-6 Middy" myself to study, only a few examples of "Middy". In the years since, I had talked to the people who made these, and managed to examine a few units of the "C-6 Middy" so that I could compare them to the "Middy". While the latter is indeed uncommon, the former is surprisingly scarce.

In a nutshell:

The "C-6 Middy" was developed and manufactured in 1978-1979 by Fansteel, the original maker of the "C-6". It was made exactly like the "C-6", just bigger, as you have noted.

Fansteel shut down their California sports division in 1979, after Tony Trabert terminated the "C-6" contract (ostensibly triggered by their displeasure with Fansteel's decision to market racquets under their own brand). All Fansteel racquet production equipment and materials were acquired by Grafalloy, which picked up where Fansteel left off in 1980.

Meanwhile, The Pro Group (owner of the Tony Trabert brand) contracted with Racquetech to produce the "Bubba", "Big Bubba", and "The Captain" as alternatives/supplements to the limited Fansteel dead stock they continued to sell through 1980-1981. This is why those frames exhibited very obviously different genetics to those found on the "C-6" and "C-6 Middy".

In late 1982, The Pro Group contracted with Grafalloy to revive the "C-6" and "C-6 Middy" line, renaming them "Signature" and "Middy". The latter were marketed as improved versions of the former, but were made using the same tooling, following the same production protocol. Based on my personal observations, the specs of these frames (which were quite varied due to the way they were made) largely overlap with one another, though the "Signature" and "Middy" I've come across so far tend to be a smidgen more flexible than the average "C-6" and "C-6 Middy". This arrangement lasted only two years however, as Grafalloy itself was in the process of getting out of the racquet business, effectively bringing an end to the Tony Trabert brand.

The differences between the Fansteel original and Grafalloy reboot are mainly cosmetic. The Fansteel grip has a blunt pseudo-collar (same as seen on the first POG), whereas Grafalloy's is tapered and collarless (like on the later POG). The accent stripe on the Fansteel is broken into short strokes towards the top of the hoop, while Grafalloy's is not.



A marathon smorgasbord thread like this isn't ideal for discussing something so specific and esoteric, because every post here is buried and (therefore) forgotten in no time. On the other hand, your question may not be asked again anywhere for years, so here you go. :)
 
Last edited:
There were a handful of posts touching on this subject on this forum, one of which is on Page 17 of this very thread. At the time I was just beginning to research the history of these frames, and hadn't yet come across a "C-6 Middy" myself to study, only a few examples of "Middy". In the years since, I had talked to the people who made these, and managed to examine a few units of the "C-6 Middy" so that I could compare them to the "Middy". While the latter is indeed uncommon, the former is surprisingly scarce.

In a nutshell:

The "C-6 Middy" was developed and manufactured in 1978-1979 by Fansteel, the original maker of the "C-6". It was made exactly like the "C-6", just bigger, as you have noted.

Fansteel shut down their California sports division in 1979, after Tony Trabert terminated the "C-6" contract (ostensibly triggered by their displeasure with Fansteel's decision to market racquets under their own brand). All Fansteel racquet production equipment and materials were acquired by Grafalloy, which picked up where Fansteel left off in 1980.

Meanwhile, The Pro Group (owner of the Tony Trabert brand) contracted with Racquetech to produce the "Bubba", "Big Bubba", and "The Captain" as alternatives/supplements to the limited Fansteel dead stock they continued to sell through 1980-1981. This is why those frames exhibited very obviously different genetics to those found on the "C-6" and "C-6 Middy".

In late 1982, The Pro Group contracted with Grafalloy to revive the "C-6" and "C-6 Middy" line, renaming them "Signature" and "Middy". The latter were marketed as improved versions of the former, but were made using the same tooling, following the same production protocol. Based on my personal observations, the specs of these frames (which were quite varied due to the way they were made) largely overlap with one another, though the "Signature" and "Middy" I've come across so far tend to be a smidgen more flexible than the average "C-6" and "C-6 Middy". This arrangement lasted only two years however, as Grafalloy itself was in the process of getting out of the racquet business, effectively bringing an end to the Tony Trabert brand.

The differences between the Fansteel original and Grafalloy reboot are mainly cosmetic. The Fansteel grip has a blunt pseudo-collar (same as seen on the first POG), whereas Grafalloy's is tapered and collarless (like on the later POG). The accent stripe on the Fansteel is broken into short strokes towards the top of the hoop, while Grafalloy's is not.



A marathon smorgasbord thread like this isn't ideal for discussing something so specific and esoteric, because every post here is buried and (therefore) forgotten in no time. On the other hand, your question may not be asked again anywhere for years, so here you go. :)
Wow, an amazing amount of information.
Thanks. Yes, what I found was the "Middy".
 
Found a Mizuno Reactor Light, mid plus- unstrung. It has some sort of staggered string system that looks confusing- maybe why it was never strung. At same place I found an old Dunlop Max 200G graphite injection- made in England.
Both will now go into the big cardboard box which is my "racket collection".
 

djNEiGht

Hall of Fame
Found a Mizuno Reactor Light, mid plus- unstrung. It has some sort of staggered string system that looks confusing- maybe why it was never strung. At same place I found an old Dunlop Max 200G graphite injection- made in England.
Both will now go into the big cardboard box which is my "racket collection".
Are the staggered patterns on the Mizuno on the crosses?
 
There is about a 4 inch staggered pattern across the top and about 6 inches on both sides, but a normal single row along the throat side. My guess is to create a sort of cupping effect for "better" pocketing of the ball.
 

Sanglier

Semi-Pro
My guess is to create a sort of cupping effect for "better" pocketing of the ball.
You should be able to find a US patent number on this frame (5037097). This type of string bed was developed by Rodney Svoma of Phoenix and a couple of his colleagues in the mid-late '80s. They listed multiple rationales for the invention, but an earlier related patent authored by Svoma alone emphasized that his design was chiefly aimed at correcting the direction imparted on the ball when the latter is struck near the edge of the string bed:

On off center shots, the increased torque of the impact on the racquet head causes the string bed to rotate (twist) along the grip axis, and consequently point to somewhere other than where the player had intended when the ball begins its return trip. The progressively convex effect near the edge achieved by this unconventional string bed pre-compensates for this rotation, potentially helping to salvage some of those all-but-certain mishits. In other words, it is an advantage that is theoretically noticeable by extremely unskilled players (only). Personally, I was never able to tell any difference when I tried frames that had this feature (which was licensed by a handful of makers). Either I was not bad enough to fully appreciate the technological boost, or I was so bad as to be beyond all mechanical help.

I read here some time ago that stringers hated this type of racquets due to the extreme angles and friction of the peripheral weaves. I suspect that's one of the key reasons they never really caught on.
 
You should be able to find a US patent number on this frame (5037097). This type of string bed was developed by Rodney Svoma of Phoenix and a couple of his colleagues in the mid-late '80s. They listed multiple rationales for the invention, but an earlier related patent authored by Svoma alone emphasized that his design was chiefly aimed at correcting the direction imparted on the ball when the latter is struck near the edge of the string bed:

On off center shots, the increased torque of the impact on the racquet head causes the string bed to rotate (twist) along the grip axis, and consequently point to somewhere other than where the player had intended when the ball begins its return trip. The progressively convex effect near the edge achieved by this unconventional string bed pre-compensates for this rotation, potentially helping to salvage some of those all-but-certain mishits. In other words, it is an advantage that is theoretically noticeable by extremely unskilled players (only). Personally, I was never able to tell any difference when I tried frames that had this feature (which was licensed by a handful of makers). Either I was not bad enough to fully appreciate the technological boost, or I was so bad as to be beyond all mechanical help.

I read here some time ago that stringers hated this type of racquets due to the extreme angles and friction of the peripheral weaves. I suspect that's one of the key reasons they never really caught on.
Lots of good information. I string all my own rackets, but I might just keep this one "as is".
 

coachrick

Hall of Fame
You should be able to find a US patent number on this frame (5037097). This type of string bed was developed by Rodney Svoma of Phoenix and a couple of his colleagues in the mid-late '80s. They listed multiple rationales for the invention, but an earlier related patent authored by Svoma alone emphasized that his design was chiefly aimed at correcting the direction imparted on the ball when the latter is struck near the edge of the string bed:

On off center shots, the increased torque of the impact on the racquet head causes the string bed to rotate (twist) along the grip axis, and consequently point to somewhere other than where the player had intended when the ball begins its return trip. The progressively convex effect near the edge achieved by this unconventional string bed pre-compensates for this rotation, potentially helping to salvage some of those all-but-certain mishits. In other words, it is an advantage that is theoretically noticeable by extremely unskilled players (only). Personally, I was never able to tell any difference when I tried frames that had this feature (which was licensed by a handful of makers). Either I was not bad enough to fully appreciate the technological boost, or I was so bad as to be beyond all mechanical help.

I read here some time ago that stringers hated this type of racquets due to the extreme angles and friction of the peripheral weaves. I suspect that's one of the key reasons they never really caught on.

Yep. If you're going to inconvenience the stringer, there had better be some real significance(benefit) to the player. Guess who sells many of the rackets!!!
I strung my fair share of Mizuno and Prince frames with the staggered pattern...not many customers committed to the "innovative technology" by buying more than one.
Of the "technologies" that bothered the stringer, I'd say the Kennex Micro system had the greatest potential benefit to the player.
 
@Bagumbawalla could you share pictures please?
In all the years I have visited this site, I have never set myself up for doing that.
We are away on vacation, but In a couple weeks I will will have more time to delve into it.
Once I get set up, I will post the pictures and let you know.

But, for now, imagine a sewing machine doing a single stitch- a single row, in and out- like normal stringing.
Then imagine doing a zig-zag stitch, back and forth, side to side- that is basically the hole/stringing
pattern on the Mizuno.
 

djNEiGht

Hall of Fame
In all the years I have visited this site, I have never set myself up for doing that.
We are away on vacation, but In a couple weeks I will will have more time to delve into it.
Once I get set up, I will post the pictures and let you know.

But, for now, imagine a sewing machine doing a single stitch- a single row, in and out- like normal stringing.
Then imagine doing a zig-zag stitch, back and forth, side to side- that is basically the hole/stringing
pattern on the Mizuno.
I'll dig out my Mizuno Turbo Pro that the holes are staggered
 

Antónis

Professional
In all the years I have visited this site, I have never set myself up for doing that.
We are away on vacation, but In a couple weeks I will will have more time to delve into it.
Once I get set up, I will post the pictures and let you know.

But, for now, imagine a sewing machine doing a single stitch- a single row, in and out- like normal stringing.
Then imagine doing a zig-zag stitch, back and forth, side to side- that is basically the hole/stringing
pattern on the Mizuno.
You just have to get an account from any picture host website, I will not post links or any of that, but there's a lot available, just search for them
Than update those pics to your account, and share them here
 

5sets

Professional

I picked these all up this morning for $4.99 each. I almost don’t count it as finding treasure because it had to have come from one of us racquetheads in one donation last night. Three Snauwaert ATP tour 85 inches, one 93 inch, and one 102 inch, Head Prestige Tour Mid 300 Austria, Prince Pro Graphite, and two Dunlop Braided Revelations 90 XL which seem to have been cut down to 27”.
 

5sets

Professional
Those Snauwaert 85s are fabulous racquets! Congratulations on your good fortune.
Nice frames for sure. Kind of remind me of the current Head Gravity with the thin line on solid color. Looks like a lot of tour players played the 93, I imagine the 85 is very demanding. Supposed to be a Belgian’s Pro Staff. The gray one is 18 x 20. Might be painted over but it’s not like the others.
 

vsbabolat

G.O.A.T.
Nice frames for sure. Kind of remind me of the current Head Gravity with the thin line on solid color. Looks like a lot of tour players played the 93, I imagine the 85 is very demanding. Supposed to be a Belgian’s Pro Staff. The gray one is 18 x 20. Might be painted over but it’s not like the others.
That was the last Snauwaert’s by the original company
 

coachrick

Hall of Fame
Tried it out despite the sagging dried out strings. What a great racquet. Will update the strings and use much more frequently. All the hype about it is real.
Individual grommets or a full string strip? Matte or shiny finish? Any chance it had a stringer's sticker showing date strung?
 
Top