My Dad's collection: Graphites, composites, odds and ends

docrpm

New User
Here's the final thread for racquets from my Dad's collection (the first two were for woodies and metal racquets): graphites, composites and odds and ends. Thanks to everyone who has contributed in the other two discussions. So much great information held by the "hive mind" in these forums (h/t to @Henry Hub ).

For the first of the rest of Dad's racquets, I decided to post the one that he played with into his 70s. I daresay it was his favorite racquet of those that he used over the years. I'm pretty sure it was a very popular model: the Wilson Pro Staff. I'm not entirely sure of the precise model or variant. The only vague identifier I was able to find was a barely legible "KX0" on the butt cap. I seem to remember seeing someone in these forums writing about these signifiers, so I know someone can shed more light on this racquet's origins and history.


cc: @Grafil Injection @Sanglier
 

docrpm

New User
Next up, the aldila "CANNON"...I hadn't heard of this brand, but @Sanglier was able to fill in some of the details. In particular, this racquet was one of the first compression-molded graphites ever made. Unfortunately, this specimen isn't quite as pristine as some of the others in the collection, but given its history, still a nice addition.

 

docrpm

New User
A racquet that has always stuck in my memory is the PDP "Fiberstaff." For some reason, it was memorable to me, the combination of white and orange on the frame, the 70s logo, the slightly unusual cross-section. I guess this was one of the first all-fiberglass racquets (here's a nice old thread). I remember my Dad liking this one quite a bit (cc @joe sch ).

 

docrpm

New User
The Tony Trabert C6 is certainly a good-looking racquet (to my eye), and it's another one from Dad's collection that appears to be new (i.e., unstrung, shiny, cover included). It's even got an old price tag hanging on for dear life.


NOTE: The "PG" on the butt cap seems to stand for "Pro Group, Inc." judging by one of the fleabay listings I found.
 

docrpm

New User
Next up is a brand I'm more used to seeing on skis: Volkl. This model is the "SERVO" made of "epoxi+glasfaser," which I'm going to assume is a fiberglass-epoxy composite. Not nearly as pristine as the C6; this one has seen lots of use!


Ok...that's enough for one day. I'll be back with the rest tomorrow.
 

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
Here's the final thread for racquets from my Dad's collection (the first two were for woodies and metal racquets): graphites, composites and odds and ends. Thanks to everyone who has contributed in the other two discussions. So much great information held by the "hive mind" in these forums (h/t to @Henry Hub ).

For the first of the rest of Dad's racquets, I decided to post the one that he played with into his 70s. I daresay it was his favorite racquet of those that he used over the years. I'm pretty sure it was a very popular model: the Wilson Pro Staff. I'm not entirely sure of the precise model or variant. The only vague identifier I was able to find was a barely legible "KX0" on the butt cap. I seem to remember seeing someone in these forums writing about these signifiers, so I know someone can shed more light on this racquet's origins and history.


cc: @Grafil Injection @Sanglier

The 55-65lbs tension sticker, 'Midsize' wording, lack of bumper and KXO butt-cap stamp indicate this is most likely a St. Vincent model, and hence at the upper end of the Pro Staff 6.0 85 price range. The O is actually most likely to be a Q, but the stroke is often hard to see.
 

Sanglier

Professional
Your dad’s “KXQ” PS85 was made in 1987 at Wilson’s St Vincent factory. PS85 was given a bumper in 1986, so this example was originally bumpered. He must have replaced the grommet strip with the earlier version at some point.

Your Aldila “Cannon” is the 1975-1978 model. The frame may look skinny and frail compared to other compression-molded graphite racquets, but it’s actually very strong, because the hoop section is completely solid. Only the shaft section is hollow.

PDP, like Prince and Pro Group, did not make their own racquets, but instead contracted out the jobs to third parties. The “Fiberstaff” was made by Starwin Industries, which had submitted this design for patent protection before Volkl’s Zebra, but was beaten by Volkl in product launch, resulting in both sides laying claim to having produced the first 100% synthetic racquet in the world.

The Pro Group marketed the Tony Trabert brand with the latter’s full endorsement, but had virtually no input on the design and manufacture of their offerings, which were sourced from as many as four vendors before they quit the market. The “C-6” was their first product, developed and produced by Fansteel, it came out at roughly the same time as the “Cannon”, and could also lay claim to being one of the first compression-molded graphites. The “PG” butt sticker is uncommon, as most examples have a stylized “T” logo. There is an electropenciled serial number behind that sticker, which can be used to further narrow down the frame’s production period.
 

docrpm

New User
Great stuff @Grafil Injection and @Sanglier … It’s good to know the PS85 is the more collectible variant, especially given the full-racquet cover that I have. I’m hoping I can find a collector who appreciates it!

Interesting about Starwin Industries and Volkl vying to be the first to create an all-synthetic racquet. it’s also interesting just how many of these brsnds were just marketing fronts that hid the actual designers / manufacturers of the racquets. Though I suppose that’s true of many things.
 

docrpm

New User
Your dad’s “KXQ” PS85 was made in 1987 at Wilson’s St Vincent factory. PS85 was given a bumper in 1986, so this example was originally bumpered. He must have replaced the grommet strip with the earlier version at some point.

Your Aldila “Cannon” is the 1975-1978 model. The frame may look skinny and frail compared to other compression-molded graphite racquets, but it’s actually very strong, because the hoop section is completely solid. Only the shaft section is hollow.

PDP, like Prince and Pro Group, did not make their own racquets, but instead contracted out the jobs to third parties. The “Fiberstaff” was made by Starwin Industries, which had submitted this design for patent protection before Volkl’s Zebra, but was beaten by Volkl in product launch, resulting in both sides laying claim to having produced the first 100% synthetic racquet in the world.

The Pro Group marketed the Tony Trabert brand with the latter’s full endorsement, but had virtually no input on the design and manufacture of their offerings, which were sourced from as many as four vendors before they quit the market. The “C-6” was their first product, developed and produced by Fansteel, it came out at roughly the same time as the “Cannon”, and could also lay claim to being one of the first compression-molded graphites. The “PG” butt sticker is uncommon, as most examples have a stylized “T” logo. There is an electropenciled serial number behind that sticker, which can be used to further narrow down the frame’s production period.
For the C6, would it be worthwhile to pull off that sticker to get at the actual serial number? Or is the sticker something that adds to the collectible nature of the racquet?
 

Sanglier

Professional
For the C6, would it be worthwhile to pull off that sticker to get at the actual serial number? Or is the sticker something that adds to the collectible nature of the racquet?
Definitely don’t ruin it! The decal is a laminate, and can be lifted using a fine needle or safety pin to reveal the number without damaging it, as long as you do it slowly and gently to avoid creasing it, and press it back on tightly when you are done.
 

docrpm

New User
Definitely don’t ruin it! The decal is a laminate, and can be lifted using a fine needle or safety pin to reveal the number without damaging it, as long as you do it slowly and gently to avoid creasing it, and press it back on tightly when you are done.
Non-destructive methods only, with all of these racquets.
 

docrpm

New User
The Fox "ATP WB-210" was apparently "designed exclusively for the [ATP] by Warren Bosworth." By my count, this one wins the award for largest number of racquet-head sides (10, if you include the two right above the throat). I found one other thread here where this racquet got mention (back in 2008). I'm not familiar with either Fox or Warren Bosworth, though I'm certain @Sanglier could shed some light here.

 

docrpm

New User
The MacGregor "Bergelin Long String" is an absolutely fascinating artifact. Not only does it have an usual head shape, but there's a curious cross-bar reinforcement at the base of the head with strings running through it. The strings then exit out holes in the sides and run down the edges of the throat. On top of that, the strings don't run vertically and horizontally; they're rotated by 45 degrees! There's even numbering running along the head, presumably to aid in stringing this gem. Very cool!

 

docrpm

New User
Yamaha seems to have taken inspiration from the PDP Fiberstaff when it comes to their "Composite YCR216." The racquet has the same beautiful orange and white, though this time the orange is dominant in the design. Compared to the previous non-traditional head shapes, this one is a pretty straightforward design.

 

docrpm

New User
Not too many identifiable markings on this racquet from Dura-Fiber. The racquet itself has an unusual texture created by a sort of cross-hatch; it's difficult to describe, but it makes for an unusual feel. In some limited sleuthing, once again @Sanglier seems to be the source of truth here, with this racquet being a lesser-known all-fiberglass specimen from the early 1980s.

 

docrpm

New User
Finally, we reach the end of the road with my Dad's collection. I'm going to finish with two very similar Wilson "Jack Kramer Staff" racquets, each in great condition. The only difference I can see is that one has an additional "110" signifier.



Let the discussion continue! I look forward to hearing anything you'd like to add about the history of these racquets or your playing experiences with them. Thanks again to everyone for contributing and indulging my desire to share my Dad's collection.
 

joe sch

Legend
Great stuff @Grafil Injection and @Sanglier … It’s good to know the PS85 is the more collectible variant, especially given the full-racquet cover that I have. I’m hoping I can find a collector who appreciates it!

Interesting about Starwin Industries and Volkl vying to be the first to create an all-synthetic racquet. it’s also interesting just how many of these brsnds were just marketing fronts that hid the actual designers / manufacturers of the racquets. Though I suppose that’s true of many things.
For sure the St Vincent ps85 is the desired version since this is pistol Pete's Sampras weapon of choice. They were selling for nice prices for a period. Its nice to see your posts for soo many of the popular transitional rackets when the game of tennis changed from wood to graphite. The Wilson ps85 was a leader in this category and Jimmy Connors was one of the first players to endorse this model as Wilson wanted him to ditch those metal T2K's.
 

joe sch

Legend
Finally, we reach the end of the road with my Dad's collection. I'm going to finish with two very similar Wilson "Jack Kramer Staff" racquets, each in great condition. The only difference I can see is that one has an additional "110" signifier.



Let the discussion continue! I look forward to hearing anything you'd like to add about the history of these racquets or your playing experiences with them. Thanks again to everyone for contributing and indulging my desire to share my Dad's collection.
The JK staff is another great transition period graphite from Wilson. There was a midsize version much like the ps85 but it played with more flex as it had fiberglass in the mix. I really like these rackets and have a nice stash of them still.
 

joe sch

Legend
The Wilson "ULTRA" is a nice graphite racquet in the same vein as the Pro Staff and the Jack Kramer's I'll post next. This one is in pretty good condition, too.

The original ultra "PWS" was Wilson's first graphite racket with a smaller head much like the woods of the time. The plastic throat often got loose or cracked so many players were happy for the Ultra 2 with the bigger head and solid throat that provided lots more power.
 

joe sch

Legend
Not too many identifiable markings on this racquet from Dura-Fiber. The racquet itself has an unusual texture created by a sort of cross-hatch; it's difficult to describe, but it makes for an unusual feel. In some limited sleuthing, once again @Sanglier seems to be the source of truth here, with this racquet being a lesser-known all-fiberglass specimen from the early 1980s.

The DF rackets were extremely flexible and fun to hit with. The different models and cosmetics made for a nice show for collectors. Here are a few examples.

duraFibers1.jpg
 

Sanglier

Professional
The Yamaha "YCR216" is a foam-cored aluminum sandwich design, adapted from contemporary ski architecture, just like the Head "Arthur Ashe".

At the time, the term "composite", as used in the context of tennis racquet classification, simply meant that two or more dissimilar materials were combined to create the frame in question. Early fiberglass- and carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic frames were given their own categories for a few years, in part due to their novelty, but also because they were qualitatively different from the metal+plastic, metal+wood, and wood+plastic composites. It wasn't until the market became irreversibly dominated by "graphite" frames that "composite" acquired its near-exclusive association with fiber-reinforced-plastics.

The FRP racquet era is only half-a-century old, younger than many of the forum participants here, so information on racquets of this type is still readily accessible relative to that of the truly ancient stuff. As you've undoubtedly noticed by now, a great majority of the archived discussions on this sub-forum revolve around this category of frames.

Since you tagged me on the "WB-210" and the "XT", I would just add that both of these racquets took far longer to reach the market than one might have expected.

Warren Bosworth claimed during an interview that he had designed the "WB-210" in 1974, and the companion "WB-215" even earlier - in 1971! Given that he was not a trained engineer, had no manufacturing experience or resources, and was just learning to string and customize racquets at the time (and quickly became so good at it that he quit his day job to turn it into a very successful full-time business), we can only surmise that those original designs went no further than sketches on a piece of paper. Bosworth's relationship with Fox started rather late but was extensive. It was similar in nature to the one he had with Snauwaert - he got to rely on their engineering and manufacturing expertise to turn his drawings into actual products; in return, they got to use his name and fame to sell more racquets. Win-win! Both the "WB-210" and "WB-215" came out in 1985. The angular shape of the former (which offers no known advantage over traditional ovals, at least none that anyone could explain/justify using physics and/or empirical evidence) lives on to this day in the form of a made-to-order racquet offered by Bosworthtennis.

In contrast, the design for the "XT" was already fully worked out by the late 1960s. Circumstantial evidence suggests it was intended to be an OEM for Head. If the project had gone thru, Head would have had an indisputable claim to the title of the first all-synthetic racquet in the world, as the "XT" would have beaten the efforts from Völkl, PDP, Montana, etc. by up to three years, in both IP and development! However, many in the industry saw plastic racquets as a passing fad at the time, and Head was fully committed to building and marketing their in-house aluminum sandwich design, based on the ski architecture that made their founder famous. As a result, the "XT" was not born until 1975, lagging well behind its competitors, and, compounding its misfortune, it was instantly eclipsed by the first wave of "real" graphite frames launched that same year, including one by DuraFiber themselves. Meanwhile, Head did not have a plastic racquet of their own until late '76 - the 100% fiberglass "XRC", which they claimed was superior to graphites in their advertisement, echoing the foresight that may have led them to pass up on the "XT" many years earlier.

On a completely unrelated note: Is anyone else having trouble accessing talk tennis through their home wifi? I have not been able to connect to the forum using wifi since last night, but it works perfectly fine with my phone. Apparently it's a DNS problem having to do with where these discussion boards are hosted, as other parts of the TW website are not affected. I used live-chat to try to get some help from TW, but their help agents don't have any problem connecting to these boards themselves, so they have no idea what is going on. Surely I'm not the only one having this issue at the moment?
 
Last edited:

Znak

Hall of Fame
The MacGregor "Bergelin Long String" is an absolutely fascinating artifact. Not only does it have an usual head shape, but there's a curious cross-bar reinforcement at the base of the head with strings running through it. The strings then exit out holes in the sides and run down the edges of the throat. On top of that, the strings don't run vertically and horizontally; they're rotated by 45 degrees! There's even numbering running along the head, presumably to aid in stringing this gem. Very cool!

I can't imagine having to restring this racquet that looks like a nightmare haha! Did you get to hit with any of these racquets?
 

docrpm

New User
I can't imagine having to restring this racquet that looks like a nightmare haha! Did you get to hit with any of these racquets?
Of all Dad's racquets, I think the only one I very likely hit with was the Wilson 85PS PWS. Possibly the Jack Kramer's. Never any of the old woodies, and none of the transitional composites, since he kept all of those off the court. It's so long ago, though – maybe 30 years?

Regarding the Bergelin, it just seems really excessive. I bet many pro shops would balk at re-stringing it, or just charge twice the price. And I suspect the benefits of this stringing pattern are dubious at best, pure marketing at worst.
 

Sanglier

Professional
Regarding the Bergelin, it just seems really excessive. I bet many pro shops would balk at re-stringing it, or just charge twice the price. And I suspect the benefits of this stringing pattern are dubious at best, pure marketing at worst.

The Bergelin was indeed killed by the lack of enthusiasm and support from retailers and stringers.

There was something of a paradox in the way it was marketed.

The design was touted as being extremely easy to string - There was no need for a machine or clamps; the racquet was strung without any tensioning (the tension was user-applied and adjusted once the job is complete, via the butt cap, using the supplied wrench); the entire job could be finished within 30 minutes if you knew what you were doing, using nothing more than a pair of pliers. The stringer can stop and restart the job at any point, for as long as he/she wishes, without affecting the eventual outcome. The design was so uniquely DIY-ready that it would seem absurd to pay someone else to string it for you.

Yet, in order to stay in the good graces of the retailers and stringers, they did not make the indispensable stringing instructions available to the end-users, effectively negating one of the biggest selling points of the design. As two pieces of strings were needed for the job, each at 27' in length, this would mean the use of two standard packs of strings each and every time (because it's an all-or-none string job with no possibility of ad hoc tie-offs) while wasting 1/3 of strings in each pack, unless the stringer had access to a reel, or bought specially-made string packs from MacGregor. The resulting increase in stringing cost made no one happy, adding to market indifference and resistance.

At 13 Oz strung, somewhere between 6-8 pt HL, with a flex of 68-70 RA, this racquet was hefty and competent. Many were produced in 1985-1986 by Bonny, including a less common model with a lightly curved bridge, and millions of dollars were spent marketing them, all to no avail. The entire effort was a bust by 1988.

Is a good idea that doesn't sell still a good idea?
 

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
The Bergelin was indeed killed by the lack of enthusiasm and support from retailers and stringers.

There was something of a paradox in the way it was marketed.

The design was touted as being extremely easy to string - There was no need for a machine or clamps; the racquet was strung without any tensioning (the tension was user-applied and adjusted once the job is complete, via the butt cap, using the supplied wrench); the entire job could be finished within 30 minutes if you knew what you were doing, using nothing more than a pair of pliers. The stringer can stop and restart the job at any point, for as long as he/she wishes, without affecting the eventual outcome. The design was so uniquely DIY-ready that it would seem absurd to pay someone else to string it for you.

Yet, in order to stay in the good graces of the retailers and stringers, they did not make the indispensable stringing instructions available to the end-users, effectively negating one of the biggest selling points of the design. As two pieces of strings were needed for the job, each at 27' in length, this would mean the use of two standard packs of strings each and every time (because it's an all-or-none string job with no possibility of ad hoc tie-offs) while wasting 1/3 of strings in each pack, unless the stringer had access to a reel, or bought specially-made string packs from MacGregor. The resulting increase in stringing cost made no one happy, adding to market indifference and resistance.

At 13 Oz strung, somewhere between 6-8 pt HL, with a flex of 68-70 RA, this racquet was hefty and competent. Many were produced in 1985-1986 by Bonny, including a less common model with a lightly curved bridge, and millions of dollars were spent marketing them, all to no avail. The entire effort was a bust by 1988.

Is a good idea that doesn't sell still a good idea?

Not sure, but a bad idea that doesn't sell is really bad! The Bergelin's 'simple' stringing unfortunately needs a 16 page instruction manual.
 

joe sch

Legend
The Yamaha "YCR216" is a foam-cored aluminum sandwich design, adapted from contemporary ski architecture, just like the Head "Arthur Ashe".

At the time, the term "composite", as used in the context of tennis racquet classification, simply meant that two or more dissimilar materials were combined to create the frame in question. Early fiberglass- and carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic frames were given their own categories for a few years, in part due to their novelty, but also because they were qualitatively different from the metal+plastic, metal+wood, and wood+plastic composites. It wasn't until the market became irreversibly dominated by "graphite" frames that "composite" acquired its near-exclusive association with fiber-reinforced-plastics.

The FRP racquet era is only half-a-century old, younger than many of the forum participants here, so information on racquets of this type is still readily accessible relative to that of the truly ancient stuff. As you've undoubtedly noticed by now, a great majority of the archived discussions on this sub-forum revolve around this category of frames.

Since you tagged me on the "WB-210" and the "XT", I would just add that both of these racquets took far longer to reach the market than one might have expected.

Warren Bosworth claimed during an interview that he had designed the "WB-210" in 1974, and the companion "WB-215" even earlier - in 1971! Given that he was not a trained engineer, had no manufacturing experience or resources, and was just learning to string and customize racquets at the time (and quickly became so good at it that he quit his day job to turn it into a very successful full-time business), we can only surmise that those original designs went no further than sketches on a piece of paper. Bosworth's relationship with Fox started rather late but was extensive. It was similar in nature to the one he had with Snauwaert - he got to rely on their engineering and manufacturing expertise to turn his drawings into actual products; in return, they got to use his name and fame to sell more racquets. Win-win! Both the "WB-210" and "WB-215" came out in 1985. The angular shape of the former (which offers no known advantage over traditional ovals, at least none that anyone could explain/justify using physics and/or empirical evidence) lives on to this day in the form of a made-to-order racquet offered by Bosworthtennis.

In contrast, the design for the "XT" was already fully worked out by the late 1960s. Circumstantial evidence suggests it was intended to be an OEM for Head. If the project had gone thru, Head would have had an indisputable claim to the title of the first all-synthetic racquet in the world, as the "XT" would have beaten the efforts from Völkl, PDP, Montana, etc. by up to three years, in both IP and development! However, many in the industry saw plastic racquets as a passing fad at the time, and Head was fully committed to building and marketing their in-house aluminum sandwich design, based on the ski architecture that made their founder famous. As a result, the "XT" was not born until 1975, lagging well behind its competitors, and, compounding its misfortune, it was instantly eclipsed by the first wave of "real" graphite frames launched that same year, including one by DuraFiber themselves. Meanwhile, Head did not have a plastic racquet of their own until late '76 - the 100% fiberglass "XRC", which they claimed was superior to graphites in their advertisement, echoing the foresight that may have led them to pass up on the "XT" many years earlier.

On a completely unrelated note: Is anyone else having trouble accessing talk tennis through their home wifi? I have not been able to connect to the forum using wifi since last night, but it works perfectly fine with my phone. Apparently it's a DNS problem having to do with where these discussion boards are hosted, as other parts of the TW website are not affected. I used live-chat to try to get some help from TW, but their help agents don't have any problem connecting to these boards themselves, so they have no idea what is going on. Surely I'm not the only one having this issue at the moment?
I really enjoyed hitting with the Head XRC rackets, here is a picture to show off the classic design
headxrc1.jpg
 

joe sch

Legend
The Bergelin was indeed killed by the lack of enthusiasm and support from retailers and stringers.

There was something of a paradox in the way it was marketed.

The design was touted as being extremely easy to string - There was no need for a machine or clamps; the racquet was strung without any tensioning (the tension was user-applied and adjusted once the job is complete, via the butt cap, using the supplied wrench); the entire job could be finished within 30 minutes if you knew what you were doing, using nothing more than a pair of pliers. The stringer can stop and restart the job at any point, for as long as he/she wishes, without affecting the eventual outcome. The design was so uniquely DIY-ready that it would seem absurd to pay someone else to string it for you.

Yet, in order to stay in the good graces of the retailers and stringers, they did not make the indispensable stringing instructions available to the end-users, effectively negating one of the biggest selling points of the design. As two pieces of strings were needed for the job, each at 27' in length, this would mean the use of two standard packs of strings each and every time (because it's an all-or-none string job with no possibility of ad hoc tie-offs) while wasting 1/3 of strings in each pack, unless the stringer had access to a reel, or bought specially-made string packs from MacGregor. The resulting increase in stringing cost made no one happy, adding to market indifference and resistance.

At 13 Oz strung, somewhere between 6-8 pt HL, with a flex of 68-70 RA, this racquet was hefty and competent. Many were produced in 1985-1986 by Bonny, including a less common model with a lightly curved bridge, and millions of dollars were spent marketing them, all to no avail. The entire effort was a bust by 1988.

Is a good idea that doesn't sell still a good idea?
Yes good idea but not the best marketing. RE: the entire job could be finished within 30 minutes if you knew what you were doing
If you dont have experience weaving strings then this 30 is not realistic and may need to be undone / repeated as its easy to miss a weave.
 

Grafil Injection

Hall of Fame
Yes good idea but not the best marketing. RE: the entire job could be finished within 30 minutes if you knew what you were doing
If you dont have experience weaving strings then this 30 is not realistic and may need to be undone / repeated as its easy to miss a weave.

I strongly suspect retailers begged for them to arrive pre-strung.
 

austintennis2005

Professional
The Tony Trabert C6 is certainly a good-looking racquet (to my eye), and it's another one from Dad's collection that appears to be new (i.e., unstrung, shiny, cover included). It's even got an old price tag hanging on for dear life.


NOTE: The "PG" on the butt cap seems to stand for "Pro Group, Inc." judging by one of the fleabay listings I found.
And how much was the price tag?
I remember seeing those in a tennis shop in 1975 and they looked amazing and the price was way more than anything I had seen before.
 

docrpm

New User
It shows $149.95, which is the equivalent to >$1000 today.
If only I could sell it for that much...The only I've got is new/old, as far as I can tell. I don't think this thing has ever seen the fuzz of a tennis ball!

Ah well...I just want to find it a good home.
 
Top