Take this example:
Even though it came with a classic white butt cap, it's made in China. The butt cap code itself is irrelevant.
^^^^^^Does anyone know for sure whether the above photo is a made in China or Taiwan?
I thought this font of "Prostaff" were made in Taiwan!
The early Taiwanese frames look very much like the late St. Vincent frames.
The difference is the lack of red primer and the paint has a "glossier" look to it. Plus the grip size decal is the small circular one like the ones still used. Also, there's a holographic Wilson sticker with the serial number. Then there's the butt cap where there should be a sticker that says TAIWAN below the Wilson logo and the butt cap code is located above the logo.
Here's a bit (albeit not that detailed) of a couple of my early Taiwanese frames (on the left):
The later ones have a darker tone to the pinstripes and there's a recommendation to use Wilson Syn Gut inside the throat......
Hi everyone,
I would like a bit of help.
Is this racket a St Vincent?
0 new items by Benjamin Rio
photos.app.goo.gl
Would you say that's a St Vincent?
0 new items by Benjamin Rio
photos.app.goo.gl
I'm not really sure, but the prime paint on the left side seems to be silver and not red, so I would point to a China or a Taiwan PS Mid
I'm not really sure, but the prime paint on the left side seems to be silver and not red, so I would point to a China or a Taiwan PS Mid
Same racquet from the same guy, Benjamin Rio.
Hard to tell without seeing the other signs
But still no red prime, that's a red flag
I thought mine was from Taiwan as the lable says but now you have me thinking whether I have an SV hybrid, China or...Ok
But without seeing the other clues, it's hard to make an informed opinion.
I believe there was batch of st. vincents that were finished in Taiwan, back when they were transitioning factories. Those racquets were St. Vincents build pro staffs, but painted in Taiwan. I'm not sure about the Taiwanese prime colour since I never had any of those.
I don't know if this is a fake PS or some hybrid resulting from this transitioning process, and I'm not an expert by all means, so this is all I can say
I thought mine was from Taiwan as the lable says but now you have me thinking whether I have an SV hybrid, China or...
~I have a midplus 95. The sticker says: Braided Construction Exclusively Manufactured by CHIAO TA
~butt cap code is QJX stamped above the "W"
~primer appears to be light gray or white at the scuff marks
ANY THOUGHTS?
How can you tell a fake st vincent?There's loads of fake st vincent on the internet....
Dear Mr Sanglier, I came across this PS Midsize with butt code ‘JAQ’. First letter ‘J’ indicates that it is made in 1986, and third letter ‘Q’ indicates it is made in St Vincent. But the middle letter ‘A’ would not make sense if it is supposed to indicate the month of manufacture and if it is to follow the order of alphabets ‘M’ to ‘Z’, correct? Kindly advise your opinion on this, thanks!Are you sure it's a "Q" and not a "G" or a "C"? Can you post a picture?
Regardless, that "J" in the middle identifies your frame as having been made in 1996, six whole years after Wilson terminated their St Vincent operation. From day one, all PS95 were made entirely by Chiao-Ta, a Taiwanese contractor that also ran (and still runs) a factory on the mainland. All but one of the Chiao-Ta products I've come across so far are identified by the letter code "G". The lone exception is a 100% unambiguous "C", which I suspect was the result of worker error. This frame, also a "J" dated PS95, happens to belong to my brother, who got it new in 1996 from an established store, so there is no doubt as to its authenticity. If yours has a genuine "Q" in place of the "G", then Chiao-Ta was deviating significantly from Wilson's established code system that year, or they had put some legally blind guy in charge of stamping butt caps.
Dear Mr Sanglier, I came across this PS Midsize with butt code ‘JAQ’. First letter ‘J’ indicates that it is made in 1986, and third letter ‘Q’ indicates it is made in St Vincent. But the middle letter ‘A’ would not make sense if it is supposed to indicate the month of manufacture and if it is to follow the order of alphabets ‘M’ to ‘Z’, correct? Kindly advise your opinion on this, thanks!
Dear Mr Sanglier, I came across this PS Midsize with butt code ‘JAQ’. First letter ‘J’ indicates that it is made in 1986, and third letter ‘Q’ indicates it is made in St Vincent. But the middle letter ‘A’ would not make sense if it is supposed to indicate the month of manufacture and if it is to follow the order of alphabets ‘M’ to ‘Z’, correct? Kindly advise your opinion on this, thanks!
Thanks for your kind reply, I found this racquet from a Japanese seller online and I had bought it just yesterday! I expect to receive it in the next two weeks, and I shall then check all the measurements to see if it fit to the specs. I have always loved the PS Midsize and only in the past one year I had learned much more about it, and collected several of it too! And mostly I had concluded that your findings to be most plausible, and most invaluable, thanks for that once again. I shall share my findings once I have them!Did you find this racquet in Asia? Four years ago, another poster reported finding a "JAQ" in South Korea, so yours could be from the same batch. Very curiously, his racquet had a sticker that said "Made in USA"; which made no sense at all, both in terms of the year code "J" (two years after US production ended) and location code "Q" (everyone knows what it means).
Even though exceptional codes do exist, they are quite rare, and usually only a single letter out of the three doesn't fit the prevailing pattern.
I stopped surveying codes systematically some years back, but continued to add casual finds to my spreadsheet as I encountered them, mainly as a means to test the reliability of my interpretation (as I have mentioned many times before in other threads touching on this topic, my interpretation was derived purely from observations, not based on actual production documentation). Out of over 400 examples I recorded over the years, there were only 4 instances of lot codes not falling between "M" and "Z", including that South Korean "JAQ". Yours would be the fifth. The other three are: a 1983 Grafalloy-made "Javelin Mid" with an "L" code, a 1984 Chicago-made "PS Largehead" with a "Q" code, and a 1987 SanHoSun-made "Graphite" with a "Q" code.
A single inconsistent letter could be attributed to human error (e.g., a worker with poor eyesight might have picked a "Q" stamp instead of the intended "O" stamp), but when all three letters are "off", as would be the case with a "Made in USA" JAQ, human error is no longer a plausible explanation for the deviation. Unfortunately, I have no access to additional information that could help you solve this mystery, but would recommend that you measure the weight, balance, and flex of this frame to make sure that they are within the authentic range at the very least. If the specs check out, then you have a very rare beast that might have an interesting story behind it waiting to be researched.
On a separate note, there is one finding which I didn't find it discussed in these forums: that there is a thick throat version which seems to be from the SV version 4 only. I had managed to get one from a Japanese seller recently. I stumbled upon it in some Japanese forums that discussed that this thick throat version is also rare and well sought after by some Japanese collectors.
I have a SV with a very wide yokeOn a separate note, there is one finding which I didn't find it discussed in these forums: that there is a thick throat version which seems to be from the SV version 4 only. I had managed to get one from a Japanese seller recently. I stumbled upon it in some Japanese forums that discussed that this thick throat version is also rare and well sought after by some Japanese collectors. Measuring from the main section and from where the throat splits, the normal thickness is about 30mm; but for the thick throat version, it is about 33mm. A 3mm difference which is not readily obvious but to the serious collectors, significantly enough to make it special. And I think only the 'A*Q' and 'B*Q' series would have this thick throat feature. Interestingly the one that I had got has no butt code (maybe too worn out), but the other features on the racquet point it being a SV Version 4.
Also to note: the thick throat version doesn't mean that its beam will be thicker at 18mm as some SV versions are known to have; mine is 17.4mm, fyi.
Standard throat thickness 30mm:
Thick throat version at 33mm:
Beam thickness: 17.4mm
No butt code or worn-out code:
Thanks again for your reply; it is always very insightful.And I thought my own OCD was bad!
I think you are correct, I don't recall this particular difference being discussed here before. Given that dozens of molds were used simultaneously during the production of these popular racquets, and new molds would replace worn or damaged ones over time, it is not at all surprising that minor dimensional differences could be observed even among racquets from the same lot. If we were to measure every millimeter of the beam with a micrometer, and record every span of frame curvature with a spherometer, there is no telling how many "versions" we would be able to identify in a model that was made in the hundreds of thousands over its lifetime. At some point, all collectors must draw a line between what is meaningful and what is trivial. The threshold is entirely arbitrary, shaped by group consensus, personal collecting interest, and the tolerance level of long-suffering spouses.
My personal interest is FRP racquet evolution. I only keep track of the bigger differences relevant to the evolutionary history of racquet models, i.e., weight, balance, flex, swing weight, when they were made, and who made them. The amount of effort I put into documenting differences in cosmetic minutiae is proportional to the difficulty I encounter in pinning down the other data. In the case of Wilson products, the availability of the butt cap code (when original to the frame) greatly reduces the need for me to focus on such minutiae.
Your "JAQ" appears to be a completely standard St Vincent frame. Given that these codes were intended to document the time and place of racquet production only, not the market destination, it is very unlikely that "JAQ" was an Asia-specific code by design. A more likely scenario is one in which a worker stamping the code made a mistake (perhaps the "A" was meant to be an "M", or a "P"), and the batch of racquets containing the affected units happened to be shipped to Asia (Japan and/or Korea), where two of these have now been identified on this board. Given how seldom these errors seemed to have happened, someone with too much time on his hand could probably make a fun hobby out of collecting just the mistakes (like some coin and stamp collectors do); though faking these erroneous codes might be a little too easy to make this an attractive option for most.
Going back to your second racquet with the thicker neck, I don't really have any opinion to share, other than to point out that the code-less butt cap could be a replacement; it is in too good a condition for the code to have been worn off.
Thanks for posting these!
Hi there, so am I right to say that your frame’s butt code is A*Q or B*Q? : )I have a SV with a very wide yoke
Looks like BSQHi there, so am I right to say that your frame’s butt code is A*Q or B*Q? : )
Nice! thanks for sharing too!Looks like BSQ
Mine are from 1990Nice! thanks for sharing too!
And I thought my own OCD was bad!
I think you are correct, I don't recall this particular difference being discussed here before. Given that dozens of molds were used simultaneously during the production of these popular racquets, and new molds would replace worn or damaged ones over time, it is not at all surprising that minor dimensional differences could be observed even among racquets from the same lot. If we were to measure every millimeter of the beam with a micrometer, and record every span of frame curvature with a spherometer, there is no telling how many "versions" we would be able to identify in a model that was made in the hundreds of thousands over its lifetime. At some point, all collectors must draw a line between what is meaningful and what is trivial. The threshold is entirely arbitrary, shaped by group consensus, personal collecting interest, and the tolerance level of long-suffering spouses.
My personal interest is FRP racquet evolution. I only keep track of the bigger differences relevant to the evolutionary history of racquet models, i.e., weight, balance, flex, swing weight, when they were made, and who made them. The amount of effort I put into documenting differences in cosmetic minutiae is proportional to the difficulty I encounter in pinning down the other data. In the case of Wilson products, the availability of the butt cap code (when original to the frame) greatly reduces the need for me to focus on such minutiae.
Your "JAQ" appears to be a completely standard St Vincent frame. Given that these codes were intended to document the time and place of racquet production only, not the market destination, it is very unlikely that "JAQ" was an Asia-specific code by design. A more likely scenario is one in which a worker stamping the code made a mistake (perhaps the "A" was meant to be an "M", or a "P"), and the batch of racquets containing the affected units happened to be shipped to Asia (Japan and/or Korea), where two of these have now been identified on this board. Given how seldom these errors seemed to have happened, someone with too much time on his hand could probably make a fun hobby out of collecting just the mistakes (like some coin and stamp collectors do); though faking these erroneous codes might be a little too easy to make this an attractive option for most.
Going back to your second racquet with the thicker neck, I don't really have any opinion to share, other than to point out that the code-less butt cap could be a replacement; it is in too good a condition for the code to have been worn off.
Thanks for posting these!
Dear Mr Sanglier, it’s been a while, and I’m still collecting PS Midsize whenever I could find some remarkable ones. So far I have never come across one with grip size 4 1/8 (L1), be it a Chicago, Belgium or SV. Do you know whether they made such grip size during that period? Thanks.And I thought my own OCD was bad!
I think you are correct, I don't recall this particular difference being discussed here before. Given that dozens of molds were used simultaneously during the production of these popular racquets, and new molds would replace worn or damaged ones over time, it is not at all surprising that minor dimensional differences could be observed even among racquets from the same lot. If we were to measure every millimeter of the beam with a micrometer, and record every span of frame curvature with a spherometer, there is no telling how many "versions" we would be able to identify in a model that was made in the hundreds of thousands over its lifetime. At some point, all collectors must draw a line between what is meaningful and what is trivial. The threshold is entirely arbitrary, shaped by group consensus, personal collecting interest, and the tolerance level of long-suffering spouses.
My personal interest is FRP racquet evolution. I only keep track of the bigger differences relevant to the evolutionary history of racquet models, i.e., weight, balance, flex, swing weight, when they were made, and who made them. The amount of effort I put into documenting differences in cosmetic minutiae is proportional to the difficulty I encounter in pinning down the other data. In the case of Wilson products, the availability of the butt cap code (when original to the frame) greatly reduces the need for me to focus on such minutiae.
Your "JAQ" appears to be a completely standard St Vincent frame. Given that these codes were intended to document the time and place of racquet production only, not the market destination, it is very unlikely that "JAQ" was an Asia-specific code by design. A more likely scenario is one in which a worker stamping the code made a mistake (perhaps the "A" was meant to be an "M", or a "P"), and the batch of racquets containing the affected units happened to be shipped to Asia (Japan and/or Korea), where two of these have now been identified on this board. Given how seldom these errors seemed to have happened, someone with too much time on his hand could probably make a fun hobby out of collecting just the mistakes (like some coin and stamp collectors do); though faking these erroneous codes might be a little too easy to make this an attractive option for most.
Going back to your second racquet with the thicker neck, I don't really have any opinion to share, other than to point out that the code-less butt cap could be a replacement; it is in too good a condition for the code to have been worn off.
Thanks for posting these!
So far I have never come across one with grip size 4 1/8 (L1), be it a Chicago, Belgium or SV. Do you know whether they made such grip size during that period? Thanks.
Hi thanks for your very detailed and analytical reply on the grip size during that period.Neither have I!
I have no inside knowledge on Wilson's production figures. Everything I have shared came from either period publications or personal observation.
L1 is a very skinny grip size for an adult racquet. As I remember it, the convention at the time was that you should play with the largest grip you can comfortably hold (you need to be able to fit your index finger inside the gap formed between your finger tips and the swell formed by your flexor pollicis when gripping the racquet). Playing with an undersized grip was thought to contribute to tennis elbow. L1 grips are really only seen on racquets specifically marketed towards young players, women (such as the Aldila "Gemini", Donnay "Ladyglass", etc.), or regions of the world where people have smaller hands (e.g., East Asia). Since the standard PS85 belongs to none of those categories, it would be reasonable to presume that examples that have a factory L1 grip are exceedingly uncommon, if any of them were made at all.
Please post it here if you manage to find one!