I have used both for a time and feel that the 200 series is far superior. The pb10 plays very oddly, while both racquets are great for flatter hitting the pb10 hits a fast ball but it has very little weight to it compared to the 200 and various other comparable racquets. The same thing is noticeable when adding spin with the 200 i was able to produce heavy balls while with the pb10 the spin was there but it failed to produce the penetration and weight which seemed to be a by-product of the shot produced by the 200.
The serve is where one might prefer the pb10 to the 200, for me, despite having a very modern stroke on groundies my motion on the serve is more of the large classic swing variety and for that the 200 was much better. I will say if it suits your swing the pb10 is probably a better serving stick, since it produces pace effortlessly.
Essentially the main thing i didn't like about the pb10 was the lack of weight behind shots, plow through compared to sticks of similar weight/headsize and the catapult effect where at random times it would just launch the ball, which if you like to paint the lines is not very fun. Also directional control is better with the 200, depth control is about the same maybe a slight edge to the 200.
Tennismaverick the volkl expert said that the stick required some weight to sort out these issues, and while I agree that would sort them out i feel given it's weight, head size and that the dunlop at a slightly lower static weight manages to provide all these things without any need for tweaking it's a poor excuse. Oh i also forgot that the pb10 seemed to be one of the most string sensitive racquets i've ever tried, something I'm not a fan of.
I currently use the biomimetic 200 which is probably the best racquet i have ever used and addressed the only real issue i had with the previous 200 being the ambiguity of feel in the string bed.
