shapovalovnextgoat
Rookie
Good condtion used examples are going for as much as $150-$200 online. What are your thoughts on the racquet, and its place as a collector's item?
The Aeropro Drive Original turns 15 this year...would you now consider it a classic?
- Thread starter shapovalovnextgoat
- Start date
vsbabolat
G.O.A.T.
It’s significant because it’s Nadal’s racquet for the last 15 years
Steve Huff
G.O.A.T.
Should be made of wood, steel or aluminum or fiberglass, or any combination of those materials.
I tend to agree, since racquets today are made mostly of graphite I consider any graphite racquet a 'modern' racquet. In my view 'classic' racquets are made primarily of materials no longer in use. I know some people state a 'classic' designation is all about age but I don't feel the same.
Don't Let It Bounce
Hall of Fame
I had occasion to hit with one of these for the first time recently, and I think it belongs in a tennis bag even more than on a collector's wall. In fact, that hit was side-by-side with a current Pure Strike, and the oAPD was noticeably more solid-feeling and satisfying at contact than the PS.
I'd call it a classic for sure. Even beyond being the signature frame of an all-time great player, it (along with the Pure Drive) represents a major change to the sort of frame that pro players in general could be expected to use. I can think offhand of four current or former tour pros who switched from non-Babolat frames to (some version of) the APD, and there are probably more.
Then there is the Babolat retail dominance launched by those two frames: they took Babolat from a non-presence in racket retail to market leader for over a decade, with every other manufacturer having to make their own versions. (That's really more the PD, presumably due to patent protection of the APD's throat design, but in this kind of general discussion a little coattail-riding might be acceptable.) Babolat in the 21st century has in that sense been like Prince in the 1980s.
I'd call it a classic for sure. Even beyond being the signature frame of an all-time great player, it (along with the Pure Drive) represents a major change to the sort of frame that pro players in general could be expected to use. I can think offhand of four current or former tour pros who switched from non-Babolat frames to (some version of) the APD, and there are probably more.
Then there is the Babolat retail dominance launched by those two frames: they took Babolat from a non-presence in racket retail to market leader for over a decade, with every other manufacturer having to make their own versions. (That's really more the PD, presumably due to patent protection of the APD's throat design, but in this kind of general discussion a little coattail-riding might be acceptable.) Babolat in the 21st century has in that sense been like Prince in the 1980s.
shapovalovnextgoat
Rookie
All excellent points! Do you think this justifies the racquet's current value in the used market? People quote some of the well-kept ones for almost $200 apiece.
Don't Let It Bounce
Hall of Fame
Ehhh... Whether it belongs on a 'Top 20 Sticks of All Time" list is probably only indirectly related to what used ones sell for. It's also clearly a fine frame, but so are a lot of others that can be had cheaper. I'd guess people pay that much for them because they've learned Nadal uses them, and they suppose Nadal knows something that buyers of retail Pure Aeros don't.
For example, the Wilson Classic 6.1 is another fine frame, and arguably belongs on a GROAT list too, but $50 is probably enough to get a used one — so it can't be those two factors that drive the oAPD market price. (No wonder these guys get the endorsement fees they get ...)
retrowagen
Hall of Fame
In the context of one of my other hobbies, classic automobiles, the litmus test for “classic” status is generally twofold:
First, 25 years from its date of production establishes one criterion. Anything newer really is too new; however, could be a future classic.
Secondly, is the subject noteworthy or interesting? There are millions of automobiles from the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s which are old enough to be considered classics, but not otherwise special enough. They’re merely boring old cars.
I would suggest the same is true in the world of tennis racquets. Thrift stores are full of scads of entry-level frames from decades past, but those wouldn’t qualify as classic, would they? Among the cognoscenti of the racquet collecting world, pro players tend to lend the most provenance. This phenomenon is most likely why models such as the Adidas Lendl GTX Pro tend to trade for greater sums—it is a notoriously user-unfriendly racquet to play with today. These pro-level models were also among the more expensive models when new, hence rare then, and rarer now.
These factors seem to work well as a schema for understanding and defining “classic” through the early 1990’s tennis racquet market, but then a sea change occurred in the market, which has complicated the question greatly: the shutdown of European, American, and Japanese factories in lieu of eastern Asian OEMs, the rise of marketing versus engineering (and with it, yearly model updates featuring questionable technological enhancements), and the pro room “paintjob” models used by top-ranked heroes. Nowadays, it’s an open secret that the Head Speed model, made in China, endorsed by Novak Djokovic and sold to you at top price has nothing to do with the actual racquet he is hitting balls with, though they look quite similar. The same is true of Nadal’s Babolats. The retail model carries the cachet of pro provenance, but is a fake, cheaply produced in a Far East factory alongside racquets from other brands. In my mind, it’s the same consideration as if one would think a production Toyota Camry is a future classic, because the “Camry” (actually, a facsimile with absolutely no parts in common) is raced in NASCAR. That should be worth something, right?
It’s been interesting to see the slow acceptance of the original Kuebler Resonanz/Wilson Profile models as “classic” models. Definitely noteworthy as game-changers, but also harbingers of negative things to the game: too much power; elbow problems; a minor boost in play with no actual effort or learning. I have always mentally indexed the Aeropro Drive in a category with the Profile, and, apart from the first version of the Profile, I don’t notice collectiors clamoring to collect subsequent versions. Why anyone would want to collect the retail version of the Nadal frames - other than out of a dedication to Nadal - is a mystery to me. The retail version is a mass-produced consumer good without true pro provenance.
First, 25 years from its date of production establishes one criterion. Anything newer really is too new; however, could be a future classic.
Secondly, is the subject noteworthy or interesting? There are millions of automobiles from the 1950’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s which are old enough to be considered classics, but not otherwise special enough. They’re merely boring old cars.
I would suggest the same is true in the world of tennis racquets. Thrift stores are full of scads of entry-level frames from decades past, but those wouldn’t qualify as classic, would they? Among the cognoscenti of the racquet collecting world, pro players tend to lend the most provenance. This phenomenon is most likely why models such as the Adidas Lendl GTX Pro tend to trade for greater sums—it is a notoriously user-unfriendly racquet to play with today. These pro-level models were also among the more expensive models when new, hence rare then, and rarer now.
These factors seem to work well as a schema for understanding and defining “classic” through the early 1990’s tennis racquet market, but then a sea change occurred in the market, which has complicated the question greatly: the shutdown of European, American, and Japanese factories in lieu of eastern Asian OEMs, the rise of marketing versus engineering (and with it, yearly model updates featuring questionable technological enhancements), and the pro room “paintjob” models used by top-ranked heroes. Nowadays, it’s an open secret that the Head Speed model, made in China, endorsed by Novak Djokovic and sold to you at top price has nothing to do with the actual racquet he is hitting balls with, though they look quite similar. The same is true of Nadal’s Babolats. The retail model carries the cachet of pro provenance, but is a fake, cheaply produced in a Far East factory alongside racquets from other brands. In my mind, it’s the same consideration as if one would think a production Toyota Camry is a future classic, because the “Camry” (actually, a facsimile with absolutely no parts in common) is raced in NASCAR. That should be worth something, right?
It’s been interesting to see the slow acceptance of the original Kuebler Resonanz/Wilson Profile models as “classic” models. Definitely noteworthy as game-changers, but also harbingers of negative things to the game: too much power; elbow problems; a minor boost in play with no actual effort or learning. I have always mentally indexed the Aeropro Drive in a category with the Profile, and, apart from the first version of the Profile, I don’t notice collectiors clamoring to collect subsequent versions. Why anyone would want to collect the retail version of the Nadal frames - other than out of a dedication to Nadal - is a mystery to me. The retail version is a mass-produced consumer good without true pro provenance.
Last edited:
r2473
G.O.A.T.
I play with the Pure Control version. Have for the past 15 years
It’s called the AeroPro control
vsbabolat
G.O.A.T.
That one is pretty rare
shapovalovnextgoat
Rookie
My friend has this, and I play with it occasionally. Truly a gem of a racquet. Rock solid on contact.
