what made the Maxply Fort different from the straight Maxply?

[penguin]

I have tried searching but I can't find any info on this. There are already plenty of explanations of the difference between the Fort and the Maxply Mcenroe (MM has added fibreglass, Fort is only wood- nb neither have any graphite), but none that I could find explain what changes were made from the original "Maxply" to the "Maxply Fort" version.

Does anybody know?

many thanks


Edited: for even more clarity- please let's not talk about the MM!

 

[vsbabolat]

The Maxply Fort was the straight Maxply

 

[retrowagen]

You could build strongholds or small castles out of the one version; the other, not so much.


Hahahaha

 

[PBODY99]

I used both, the regular Fort gave me more flex in the head. The MM had a feel closer to the JK Pro Staff, a frame I never cared for.

 

[penguin]

I used both, the regular Fort gave me more flex in the head. The MM had a feel closer to the JK Pro Staff, a frame I never cared for.

So you used the Maxply that wasn't the fort or the McEnroe? I'm not sure from your post

 

[penguin]

The Maxply Fort was the straight Maxply

Do you happen to know why they changed the name? Did it really signify nothing other than a new name?

 

[vsbabolat]

Do you happen to know why they changed the name? Did it really signify nothing other than a new name?

It was always Maxply Fort
Are looking for the difference between the the Maxply Fort and Maxply McEnroe?

 

[penguin]

It was always Maxply Fort
Are looking for the difference between the the Maxply Fort and Maxply McEnroe?

No.

There are older ones that are not Fort.

As to the MM, no- no I am not.

 

[vsbabolat]

No.

There are older ones that are not Fort.

As to the MM, no- no I am not.

Show me a photo without Fort written somewhere on the racquet

 

[topspn]

Yes, correct the Maxply was first made in 1931 and maxply fort sorta came in 1953. No clue if there was any difference or just some evolution. This frame was made for about 50 years

 

[Autodidactic player]

It was always Maxply Fort ...

That's what I understand as well. Certainly not definitive but the earliest models were certainly Dunlop Maxply Forts. According to the history of Dunlop sports: "Dunlop’s Fort Maxply tennis rackets were used by more than half of the competitors at Wimbledon in 1952". In addition, this advertisement lists all the Maxplay rackets used by Rod Laver through John McEnroe as Dunlop Maxply Forts.

 

[vsbabolat]

Yes, correct the Maxply was first made in 1931 and maxply fort sorta came in 1953. No clue if there was any difference or just some evolution. This frame was made for about 50 years

Maxply Fort came out before 1953. The Maxply Fort came out in 1931

 

[PBODY99]

So you used the Maxply that wasn't the fort or the McEnroe? I'm not sure from your post

@penguin
No,my 1st Maxply Fort was in 1968. That is the frame in the OP.
In my circle it was just called a Maxply.
I used a McMax; as we called John frame for 3 weeks, before giving it away.

 

[penguin]

Show me a photo without Fort written somewhere on the racquet

http://jimstennis.com/contextRoot/html/racketsCollection2/rackets.html

Both versions can be seen on this page.

 

[penguin]

Yes, correct the Maxply was first made in 1931 and maxply fort sorta came in 1953. No clue if there was any difference or just some evolution. This frame was made for about 50 years

Any idea how it could be found out? Thanks for the info.

 

[penguin]

@penguin
No,my 1st Maxply Fort was in 1968. That is the frame in the OP.
In my circle it was just called a Maxply.
I used a McMax; as we called John frame for 3 weeks, before giving it away.

OK, well in that case that's not really what I'm asking about

 

[onehandbh]

http://jimstennis.com/contextRoot/html/racketsCollection2/rackets.html

Both versions can be seen on this page.

That is an awesome collection and page!

I have a Maxply Fort but I don't remember exactly which version it is. Probably someting from the 70s or 80s. I'll take a photo when I go to my storage next.

 

[vsbabolat]

http://jimstennis.com/contextRoot/html/racketsCollection2/rackets.html

Both versions can be seen on this page.

Those photos are not clear. I have a version that just has Maxply on one side and the other side is Maxply Fort. Unless you can see actual detailed photos of everything on the racquet.

This racquet must be just a “Maxply” Because this side just has Maxply written

Even though on the other side has Fort

Edit: just found an advertisement form 1934. There was 3 models. Standard model, Tournament model, and Dunlop Fort model. The Maxply Fort being the top of the line model. So there you go. There was a Maxply Fort from the beginning.

 

[vsbabolat]

Any idea how it could be found out? Thanks for the info.

Dunlop on their site has claimed the Maxply Fort came out in 1931. Also they claimed in 1952 that the Maxply Fort was the most popular racquet at Wimbledon.

 

[penguin]

That's interesting does the advert give any details of the differences between those models?

In any case I think this is useful info to have for those people buying woodies to play with- that the "Maxply" is an inferior model to the "Maxply fort" and not equivalent.

I know the link I gave doesn't have the clearest photos but I thought it was enough to show a non-fort Maxply existed given the labelling is by a collector who would care about such things and both are shown...

Many thanks for the info

Those photos are not clear. I have a version that just has Maxply on one side and the other side is Maxply Fort. Unless you can see actual detailed photos of everything on the racquet.

This racquet must be just a “Maxply” Because this side just has Maxply written

Even though on the other side has Fort

Edit: just found an advertisement form 1934. There was 3 models. Standard model, Tournament model, and Dunlop Fort model. The Maxply Fort being the top of the line model. So there you go. There was a Maxply Fort from the beginning.

 

[topspn]

I have a Maxply Fort from the 70s and another Maxply I believe the last model made before they went to graphite completely. Its a 1981 Maxply Fort Tournament in mint condition.

 

[vsbabolat]

I have a Maxply Fort from the 70s and another Maxply I believe the last model made before they went to graphite completely. Its a 1981 Maxply Fort Tournament in mint condition.

Dunlop made the Maxply Fort until 1983

 

[topspn]

Dunlop made the Maxply Fort until 1983

It was already being modified 1981, 1982 with graphite. Mine has graphite in the throat

 

[penguin]

It was already being modified 1981, 1982 with graphite. Mine has graphite in the throat

The fort tournament is a different racquet

 

[vsbabolat]

The fort tournament is a different racquet

Thank you for explaining that to @topspn
He had no idea that they made more than one Maxply at the same time.

 

[vsbabolat]

It was already being modified 1981, 1982 with graphite. Mine has graphite in the throat

Actually by 1982 the Maxply Tournament was replaced by the Maxply McEnroe in the USA. Again Dunlop manufactured the Maxply Fort until 1983. Thank you!

 

[topspn]

The fort tournament is a different racquet

Yes, of course it is, my point is, they had started introducing graphite already and transitioned very quickly to graphite as the main material.

 

[topspn]

Thank you for explaining that to @topspn
He had no idea that they made more than one Maxply at the same time.

I need explaining of many things in life. I was just trying to point out the introduction of graphite and it was used in the Maxply Fort as well in its dying days.

 

[vsbabolat]

I need explaining of many things in life. I was just trying to point out the introduction of graphite and it was used in the Maxply Fort as well in its dying days.

No, the Maxply Tournament Graphite was discontinued before the Maxply Fort. I have the 1982 Dunlop catalog. The only single shaft wood racquets are the Maxply Fort and the Maxply McEnroe in 1982 and 1983

 

[penguin]

Thank you for explaining that to @topspn
He had no idea that they made more than one Maxply at the same time.

Mainly trying to keep the thread on topic. There is plenty of info about the graphite added versions already on other threads.

 

[Grafil Injection]

Whilst I do sympathise with the excessive-bumping lobby, since there are already >30 Maxply threads, I thought I'd better just append this one as the title was exactly what I was going to opine upon. Having located a nice condition Maxply [non-Fort] (LM, 378g, 33.75cm balance), I checked out the details in comparison to my Forts, and can confirm what the adverts said back in the 1960s regarding their differences.

Similarities
- 'Layup' is the same 7/8-ply: maple, hickory, fibre, beech, ash, beech, maple
- Wedge is the same 3-piece, with central section joining the handle, but the Forts looks like a darker wood, so they could be walnut.
- The edges are rolled, which makes it feel nice in the non-dominant hand.

Differences
- The shoulder reinforcement appears to be the same 3mm of beech, but the central section and the insides and outsides are not painted. Whether the paint used on the Fort hides some extra wood reinforcement there, I can't say, but the Forts do feel a bit more hefty around the centre to me.
- The handle joint is one-piece, and it looks like beech. The Fort has a two piece, which is ash and walnut. This could be considered mainly a decorative decision, but I suspect the Fort's handle is stronger too.
- The Fort came with the best quality gut and leather grips installed, whereas, the non-Fort made do with a slightly lower spec. By the time of mine (mid-late 70s), that meant 'Superlastek' syngut, which is a great string that I'd take anytime.

It could just be that the specs of mine are ideal, and the strings taught, but I can highly recommend the non-Fort just as much as the other Maxply models. It seems a bit more crisp and lively than my Forts, whilst at the same time remains solid with a generous sweet-spot. My Forts (and Tournament that has the two piece handle as well) have the sensation of hitting with a really dense piece of wood, which is absent in the non-Fort. But the non-Fort still seems to have a least the same stiffness around the hoop and the neck, and a very pleasant feel on contact. I think I prefer the extra bit of 'exposed wood' design too.

Looking at the late 1960s adverts, you can see about a 15% difference in price.