richardc-s
Semi-Pro
After using the stick I agree. I had always used tweener frames, all Babolat's with 100 heads and around 300g's. By using the 85 for just 2 hours I could feel myself concentrating more and like you said going back to basics.
Wilson PS85 discussion thread...
- Thread starter VGP
- Start date
After using the stick I agree. I had always used tweener frames, all Babolat's with 100 heads and around 300g's. By using the 85 for just 2 hours I could feel myself concentrating more and like you said going back to basics.
And work on your footwork, with a 6.0 85 you cannot be lazy, or else you'll shank big time
I usually use mine on warm-up and first half-hour of practice, than I move to my 95, and they feel like a toy (it's a close to 350 g's stick, not light at all...)
I can use it on matches too, if I'm facing an weaker guy, and/or a flat hitter, since I have trouble with Nadal like players
On doubles it's a very good racket too, all that weight with head-light balance makes it a volley machine
discover the power of Eastern fh with this racket! played this way for an hour today against a flat hitter and the ps85 is the best tool in such scenario.... flat in, flat out.. E fh also encourages a more forward leaning spine angle that makes the ball even heavier... the poly string offers great spin, so there is not much upward brushing needed from the swing.
Nole Ivanisevic
Rookie
I don't own a PS85(played it often in my junior days),but a KFaktor 88 and two 6.1 95 Classics.It makes a lot of fun to play this style of game and to imitate groundstrokes like Edberg and Becker.In addition to this,I love the design and paintjob of all three(85,88,95)+the myth around the racquets.
But: for competing against strong opponents,I am strongly against these sticks.Too heavy,unforgiving and demanding in the long run.Period.That's my honest opinion.
I can agree with you on the KPS, but not with the 6.1 Classic, this is still very popular racket among tour pros, they use it under Wilson's current paint job's, but underneath is 6.1 Classic
The racket may not fit your style, and if you're not used to all that weight and mass it can be a pain in the a$%, but if control and feeling is what you seek on a racket, there's nothing better for competitive tennis against strong opponents
I played with 6.1's too, with the Classic and the N-Coded version, still have 2 classics, an HPS and a 18x20 N-Code (great doubles stick), my problem with this PS line it's the sluggishness, it's an hard racket to move fast, that's one of the reasons I prefer the 6.0 over the 6.1
richardc-s
Semi-Pro
I used the 85 for another hour today and I think it's now my racket of choice!
Funnily enough I actually find I can hit harder ground strokes with this over my Babolat tweener. I think its because I can take a full cut at the ball without launching it into the fence. I also find myself hitting flatter with the 85, whilst with the Babolat my ground strokes have a lot more topspin. I think subconsciously I must be changing my swing path?
Also just to touch on volleying... I always thought my volleying ability was middle of the road and by no means a strong suit. But now playing with the 85 I find my volleying has improved dramatically! The racket feels so sturdy and the accuracy is very good!
Funnily enough I actually find I can hit harder ground strokes with this over my Babolat tweener. I think its because I can take a full cut at the ball without launching it into the fence. I also find myself hitting flatter with the 85, whilst with the Babolat my ground strokes have a lot more topspin. I think subconsciously I must be changing my swing path?
Also just to touch on volleying... I always thought my volleying ability was middle of the road and by no means a strong suit. But now playing with the 85 I find my volleying has improved dramatically! The racket feels so sturdy and the accuracy is very good!
coolschreiber
Hall of Fame
Mmmmmm the PS85, think I'll be gifting myself this s**y beast this Christmas 
. Never have played with one. Can anyone compare it (the reissue ofcourse) to the IG Prestige mid briefly in all departments like spin, power, comfort etc. I string my IG mids at around 48/44 with Gut/poly.
. Never have played with one. Can anyone compare it (the reissue ofcourse) to the IG Prestige mid briefly in all departments like spin, power, comfort etc. I string my IG mids at around 48/44 with Gut/poly.
vsbabolat
G.O.A.T.
There has been erroneous information floating around about the Pro Staff for the last decade or so saying the Pro Staff was released in 1983. That information is wrong. The Pro Staff came out in 1984.
I found the proof that the Wilson Pro Staff line was released in 1984. In the March 1984 issue of the Stringer's Assistant (USRSA Magazine) they gave an update of all the new releases for 1984.
WILSON has introduced a new series of high-performance frames, the Pro-Staff line - 50% Kevlar/50% braided graphite racquets designed for the intermedi- ate/advanced player. Each frame in the line is individually balanced and weighed, and labelled accordingly for the consumer. The frames come complete with thermal bag and set of Wil- son string; also with a Fairway grip.
Wilson's Largehead (110 sq. in.) requires 16 M's & 19 X's; M's skip 7H and 9H, also 7T and 9T. No shared holes. 70-75 lbs. rec. tension. (36' string length required.)
The Pro-Staff Mid (85 sq. in) re- quires 16 M's and ls-i's; M's skip 7H & 9H, also 7T & 9T. No shared holes. 65-70 lbs. rec. tension.
Pro Staff Superlargehead (Pro Staff 125) is 125 sq. inches of play- ing surface and rec. tension is 75-80 lbs. 18 M's & 22 X's; M's skip 8H &
10H, also skip 8T & 10T. No shared holes. (This stringing pattern leaves a 'gap' between the 1st & 2nd cross at the head and throat, which Wilson says is intentional.) The Superlarge- head also requires 42' feet of string, and Wilson recommends their Graphite synthetic string which comes in both 36 foot and 42 foot coils. (See info on under string on page 9.)
I found the proof that the Wilson Pro Staff line was released in 1984. In the March 1984 issue of the Stringer's Assistant (USRSA Magazine) they gave an update of all the new releases for 1984.
WILSON has introduced a new series of high-performance frames, the Pro-Staff line - 50% Kevlar/50% braided graphite racquets designed for the intermedi- ate/advanced player. Each frame in the line is individually balanced and weighed, and labelled accordingly for the consumer. The frames come complete with thermal bag and set of Wil- son string; also with a Fairway grip.
Wilson's Largehead (110 sq. in.) requires 16 M's & 19 X's; M's skip 7H and 9H, also 7T and 9T. No shared holes. 70-75 lbs. rec. tension. (36' string length required.)
The Pro-Staff Mid (85 sq. in) re- quires 16 M's and ls-i's; M's skip 7H & 9H, also 7T & 9T. No shared holes. 65-70 lbs. rec. tension.
Pro Staff Superlargehead (Pro Staff 125) is 125 sq. inches of play- ing surface and rec. tension is 75-80 lbs. 18 M's & 22 X's; M's skip 8H &
10H, also skip 8T & 10T. No shared holes. (This stringing pattern leaves a 'gap' between the 1st & 2nd cross at the head and throat, which Wilson says is intentional.) The Superlarge- head also requires 42' feet of string, and Wilson recommends their Graphite synthetic string which comes in both 36 foot and 42 foot coils. (See info on under string on page 9.)
the racket promotes a flatter plowing kind of swing path. brushing the ball is not its strong suit... this may have an advantage in certain 'deader' conditions, such as against the wind, or in the cold, as top spin doesn't work too well in heavy conditions.
hitting 1hbh is an absolute joy with this racket, so easy to swing.
the copolys actually makes this old stick very much legit today... stringing at 30lbs makes the sweetspot much bigger.
hitting 1hbh is an absolute joy with this racket, so easy to swing.
the copolys actually makes this old stick very much legit today... stringing at 30lbs makes the sweetspot much bigger.
just got another SV and strung up at 10lbs, it plays similar to the 30lbs (this one has loosened to about low 20s i guess)... both sticks are playable from the baseline, with the bh side better than the fh side.. bh tops and slices are both very good.... the serve is where I struggle. coming from the powerful, lighter Extreme Pro 2.0, the PS85 produces little if I am not on my top form.... the volley is where it shines. the stability, manuverability of the frame plus the loose string makes the volley feel like catching the ball with a fishnet and placing it wherever you want.
richardc-s
Semi-Pro
Funny that, I find I can hit harder flat serves with the PS85 over my Babolat Pure Aero. Although I can hit more vicious kick serves with my Babolat.
I agree with volleying though, it's solid as a rock.
mhkeuns
Hall of Fame
It is the only stick I feel comfortable volleying. I also love the fact the I can beat good players who are more accustomed to the tweeter frames. That said, I was blown off the court playing singles against a heavy hitter who put me on defense on almost all the shots. It was such a struggle just to keep up...
Being frustrated (*and embarrassed), I pulled out the AI 98 just to change things around. That 13 extra sq. in. and extra free power made such a huge difference... I was able to play the attack game and hit winners.
Hate to admit it, but when playing against a real high level player with heavy strokes, I need to pull out the APD or the AI 98... The PS85 will be my main stick for doubles, but in singles, I have to go for something lighter with extra sq. in.
Being frustrated (*and embarrassed), I pulled out the AI 98 just to change things around. That 13 extra sq. in. and extra free power made such a huge difference... I was able to play the attack game and hit winners.
Hate to admit it, but when playing against a real high level player with heavy strokes, I need to pull out the APD or the AI 98... The PS85 will be my main stick for doubles, but in singles, I have to go for something lighter with extra sq. in.
in the northeast we have 4 seasons... in the summer it's better to play baseline bashing with a modern 100in frame.... balls fly higher, heavy spin kicks up more.
once the temperature gets below 55F, the baseline game starts to lose the edge more and more... and if you play in 40+ F, the spin ball doesn't kick much anyway, a flat ball from the baseline becomes more effective... plus the dead conditions favor more the forecourt. in such conditions, I'd say the PS85 is a legit winter stick, plus the fall/spring shoulders.
once the temperature gets below 55F, the baseline game starts to lose the edge more and more... and if you play in 40+ F, the spin ball doesn't kick much anyway, a flat ball from the baseline becomes more effective... plus the dead conditions favor more the forecourt. in such conditions, I'd say the PS85 is a legit winter stick, plus the fall/spring shoulders.
just got a Taiwan version and hit a few... it's no compare to the SVs... it's hollow, not that solid feeling from the SVs. as a result the power is too low even when I have powercord17 on at 30lbs.. and if I put more lead tapes on the head the swing slows down.
so... SV, there is no equal.
so... SV, there is no equal.
My opinion is that the graphite mellows with age and results in greater feel for the racquet in general.
So natural a piece like the SV would older than the taiwans and would probably feel more "buttery" soft on a sweet spot him.
My personal opinion is that there is not a significant difference in power between the 2. More lead on head, higher swingweight, better power.
I had experimented quite extensively on the early Taiwan, late Taiwan, the more popular late SV for a couple of years till age caught up with me.
Still have some SVs and Taiwans in various conditions in you guys have any interest. There is one piece 7.5 to 8/10 late version SV, I am willing to let go at a very reasonable price.
Contact me at gary tan 68 @ hot mail.com if there is any interest.
So natural a piece like the SV would older than the taiwans and would probably feel more "buttery" soft on a sweet spot him.
My personal opinion is that there is not a significant difference in power between the 2. More lead on head, higher swingweight, better power.
I had experimented quite extensively on the early Taiwan, late Taiwan, the more popular late SV for a couple of years till age caught up with me.
Still have some SVs and Taiwans in various conditions in you guys have any interest. There is one piece 7.5 to 8/10 late version SV, I am willing to let go at a very reasonable price.
Contact me at gary tan 68 @ hot mail.com if there is any interest.
in stock form the taiwan is hollow, literally... it measures a full 10 grams lighter than the SV stocks. I had to put much more lead tape on the taiwan to make it match the SVs... but the matched weight still cant fix the hollowness of the frame. the tw feels 'dead', while the SVs feel solid and lively.
winchestervatennis
Hall of Fame
I picked up a prostaff today and interested in knowing what production ive got.
Its got no bumpers. Red primer where there are scuffs (but its easily 9.0/10 condition). Say "midsize" on the outside of both sides of the throat. Inside of one throat has nothing the other has two stickers - one with weight and balance other with grip size and tension. Tension says 65-70. Three separate grommet pieces for the mains in the throat. Fairway leather grip. White buttcap with red w (no 'r'). Code below the w inscribed (not protruding) looks like "GOO."
Any input from the experts out there is appreciated.
Its got no bumpers. Red primer where there are scuffs (but its easily 9.0/10 condition). Say "midsize" on the outside of both sides of the throat. Inside of one throat has nothing the other has two stickers - one with weight and balance other with grip size and tension. Tension says 65-70. Three separate grommet pieces for the mains in the throat. Fairway leather grip. White buttcap with red w (no 'r'). Code below the w inscribed (not protruding) looks like "GOO."
Any input from the experts out there is appreciated.
v-verb
Hall of Fame
Congrats on your St Vincent Pro Staff. One of the finest racquets ever!
winchestervatennis
Hall of Fame
I was cautiously optimistic. Just a question. Am i reading the code right or is it most likely a 'Q' that i cant see the tail?
Believe it or not i rescued this badboy from a thrift shop today. It was hanging out with some beginner spaldings and racquetball sticks.
v-verb
Hall of Fame
It's almost certainly a Q. That happens a lot with the StV's. I believe it but kick myself because I live in an area that doens't appreciate tennis so I never see stuff that nice in the thrift shops darnit.
Congrats though! and 9/10? You can re-sell that for a pretty penny! But try it first.
Congrats though! and 9/10? You can re-sell that for a pretty penny! But try it first.
swizzy
Hall of Fame
prices on anything but the vincents are so low now.. shocking really.. the ps 90 and the 85's prices are in the basement.. all small classic frames have dropped sharply it seems in the last 2 years. head graphite edge for $5-10.. max 200g for under $40.. pro staffs for $50 and below i bought a mint condition kneissl for $7 8 prince racquets [2 borons] $65.. that was a freaky deal.. but it speaks to the depth that classic frames have fallen to.
swizzy
Hall of Fame
picked up a very nice late model st. vincent with bag today for $10... the nice guy who sold it to me even met me halfway on the road. only goes to my point that deals are abundant lately on classic frames.. i think feds move to larger racquet has been the nail in the coffin of players racquets.
Tennis Player
New User
Did Wilson ever make a lighter version of the PS 85? Was it called by another name?
Tennis Player
New User
Has anyone ever had shoulder pain with this racket? I bought the TW reissue and have played with it three times in the last week. I strung it with Forten Sweet Sixteen at 55. I usually play with a Boris Becker London strung with Wilson Revolve at 60.
ElMagoElGato
Semi-Pro
I have recently. I developed shoulder pain when I had Isospeed Energetic 17 at 60 lbs. I felt the string bed unstable and my instinct tried to adjust differently every time at the moment of contact. Some of those moves led to unnecessary stress on my arm. The pain has gone since I switched back to my regular setting with SPPP 1.18 at 60 lbs.
Hello,
Long time reader, first time posting here... I recently picked up Prostaff 85 and I'm having trouble figuring out what it is exactly (Chicago, St. Vincent, etc.) and was hoping you all might be able to help. Here is what i see.
1. White buttcap with red "W" (no trademark)
2. 3 character code under the "W" ends with Q
3. It's bumperless
4. Throat grommet is 3 separate pieces and rounded/raised
5. I can see some red primer peeking through the drill holes at the PWS locations
6. No markings on the throat but 2 stickers (1 with grip size and tension range, the other with weight and balance).
7. Says Midsize on both sides of the throat
8. Tension range is 55-65lbs.
I was thinking this was an early St. Vincent but I read that early St. Vincent's have recommended tension range of 65-70 lbs... I haven't seen anyone mention a bumperless PS85 with a tension range sticker of 55-65 lbs (It seemed like all bumperless PS85's have the range of 65-70 lbs).
Thanks so much for the help!
Joe
Long time reader, first time posting here... I recently picked up Prostaff 85 and I'm having trouble figuring out what it is exactly (Chicago, St. Vincent, etc.) and was hoping you all might be able to help. Here is what i see.
1. White buttcap with red "W" (no trademark)
2. 3 character code under the "W" ends with Q
3. It's bumperless
4. Throat grommet is 3 separate pieces and rounded/raised
5. I can see some red primer peeking through the drill holes at the PWS locations
6. No markings on the throat but 2 stickers (1 with grip size and tension range, the other with weight and balance).
7. Says Midsize on both sides of the throat
8. Tension range is 55-65lbs.
I was thinking this was an early St. Vincent but I read that early St. Vincent's have recommended tension range of 65-70 lbs... I haven't seen anyone mention a bumperless PS85 with a tension range sticker of 55-65 lbs (It seemed like all bumperless PS85's have the range of 65-70 lbs).
Thanks so much for the help!
Joe
Last edited:
daddabompa
Hall of Fame
I think it's just the second run of St Vincent, yet considered as doing part of the mid production, in which the sticker says 55-65 as range tension ( some codes of this mid production are JTQ, KUQ, KWQ...)
Thanks so much for the input! There are so many variations of the St. Vincent PS85... I guess it all adds to the mystique of this frame!
The problem I have is that the frame is in such good condition I'm reluctant to actually play with it... especially since it has no bumper
daddabompa
Hall of Fame
I understand you well, they are like a soft of "jewel" [emoji1]Thanks so much for the input! There are so many variations of the St. Vincent PS85... I guess it all adds to the mystique of this frame!
The problem I have is that the frame is in such good condition I'm reluctant to actually play with it... especially since it has no bumper
Better to use a tape protection on head [emoji106]
Pete The Finn
New User
New user here, sorry for the super long (and possibly controversial) post.
I got my hands on an old Chicago PS 85 (buttcap code GUI) maybe six months ago, tried it out just for fun and fell in love with it. (I was a high school kid in the 1980's when the racquet came out and couldn't afford it or get my parents to buy one for me back then. I had a cheaper graphite/fiberglass midsize Wilson racquet instead, which I never liked very much as I found it too flexible. But now, I prefer the PS 85 even to my previous all time favorite, HPS 6.1 18x20).
Since then, I have been sort of obsessing over these racquets, and acquired a backup: early bumberless, buttcap code GYQ. "Chicago" or "St. Vincent"? What follows is some theory (a lot of it admittedly guesswork) based on internet research, about the early Chicago and St. Vincent production. (I know, one shoudn't pay too much attention to butt cap codes, etc., but anyway, here goes.)
The most extensive source on the origins of the Pro Staff is the TW article which, while including some valuable information based on interviews of some key Wilson engineers involved in the development and production of the model, unfortunately seems to be inaccurate in places.
The TW article claims that the Pro Staff was introduced in 1983, but it has been argued above that the introduction was actually in 1984 (citing industry publications etc.). I think it is safe to say, at least, that there was no real marketing effort from Wilson for the Pro Staff before 1984. That is, of course, not the same thing as when the production started.
Conventional wisdom is that the model was first produced in the River Grover, Ill. (Chicago), factory and then pretty soon production was moved to St. Vincent, with the specs of the racquet (at least superficially) staying the same. On the other hand, some have claimed that the very first racquets were actually produced in Belgium, even predating the Chicago production. Others have refuted this claim citing a Wilson engineer involved in the production, according to whom the brief Belgian production was for European sales only and was simultaneous with St. Vincent production.
Evidence of butt cap codes, while not conclusive by any means, seems to shed some light on all this. It has been presumed that the first letter of the code probably indicates the year of manufacture and the second letter probably the month of production. Furthermore, it is widely accepted that the third letter indicates the factory, with ‘I’ indicating River Grove (Chicago) and ‘Q’ indicating St. Vincent. If the first two letters are year and month, it can be further assumed that Wilson used alphabetical order (i.e., for year G is earlier H, and for month M is earlier than N, etc., even though for some reason they seem to have skipped some letters altogether).
If one accepts these assumptions, it looks like ‘G’ may have been the very first year of production for the Pro Staff, as I have not run into anyone (here on the boards, on internet auction sites etc.) claiming to have a racquet with an earlier code. This is also consistent with the fact that all Pro Staffs with a code ending in ‘I’ (indicating the Chicago factory) seem to have a code starting with ‘G’, with the earliest maybe being ‘GMI’ (and then there are ‘GNI’, ‘GOI’ and so forth).
But then again, there also seem to exist ‘Q’ racquets with just as early looking codes: ‘GMQ’, ‘GNQ’, ‘GOQ’ etc. Of course, a butt cap can be replaced with one from another Wilson racquet of the era, the year-month presumption may be all wrong and so on, but personally I think all this can be reconciled by assuming that the last letter only indicates the factory where the racquet was finished ready for sale (not where the frame was actually “produced”), and that very early on, perhaps from the very start of the production of the model, some batches of the raw frames produced in Chicago were shipped over to St. Vincent for finishing.
This is consistent with how Wilson seems to have operated with some of their Chicago-produced frames – according to the TW article the St. Vincent factory was initially bought by Wilson for this very purpose. This is also consistent with some knowledgeable people on this board maintaining that there are “Chicago” Pro Staffs ending with ‘Q’. (Of course, what you call such a racquet depends on definitions, but I would tend to agree that a frame produced in Chicago and only assembled and finished in St. Vincent with all the same appointments as the ones produced in Chicago from start to finish is more a “Chicago” than a “St. Vincent”. Also, there seems to be some indication that Wilson themselves were attaching “Made in U.S.A.” cards to early racquets with a code ending in ‘Q’.)
After the first year ‘G’, codes on all early Pro Staffs seem to end with ‘Q’ (‘HMQ’, ‘HNQ’ etc.), indicating that from there on (or maybe even a bit earlier) they were all at least finished in St. Vincent. It seems likely that some of these racquets were still Chicago-produced frames shipped over to St. Vincent for finishing. According to a Chicago Tribune article (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ilson-sporting-goods-david-lumley-snack-foods), the River Grove racquet factory was closed in late December 1984 and its production was moved to St. Vincent. If ‘G’ indicates 1984, at least some year ‘H’ (1985) racquets could still be Chicago frames. (Even more so, if ‘G’ indicates 1983 and ‘H’ is 1984. However, as the codes with ‘G’ as the first letter seem to have many different second letters ranging from ‘GMI’/’GMQ’ all the way to at least ‘GXI’ for Chicago and to ‘GYQ’ for St. Vincent, it seems that ‘G’ was a full calendar year of production, or almost. Therefore, ‘G’ is more likely to be 1984 than 1983.)
As to the rare Belgian frames, I think the Wilson engineer remembers it correctly, as these seem to all have codes starting with ‘H’ (‘HNB’, ‘HPB’ etc.), indicating the second year of production (be that 1984 or 1985). Furthermore, the pictures I have seen of Belgian-produced Pro Staffs seem to support the claim that they were meant for European distribution only, as they lack the stickers stating weight and balance in U.S. measurements. Also, those frames also usually seem to be from European sellers. All in all, judging by the evidence, the claim that the Belgian production predated even the Chicago production seems to be erroneous.
Final point: When did the change from bumperless construction to bumper guard actually occur? The TW article claims 1984, but bumperless racquets seem to exist with codes starting not only ‘G’ and ‘H’ but also with ‘J’ (‘J’ seems to have followed ‘H’ as the letter indicating year of production, skipping over ‘I’). This would indicate that the change to bumper was later than it says in the TW article, maybe sometime in 1985 or even 1986.
Thoughts? (If someone had the tenacity to read all the way through, and did not fall asleep...)
I got my hands on an old Chicago PS 85 (buttcap code GUI) maybe six months ago, tried it out just for fun and fell in love with it. (I was a high school kid in the 1980's when the racquet came out and couldn't afford it or get my parents to buy one for me back then. I had a cheaper graphite/fiberglass midsize Wilson racquet instead, which I never liked very much as I found it too flexible. But now, I prefer the PS 85 even to my previous all time favorite, HPS 6.1 18x20).
Since then, I have been sort of obsessing over these racquets, and acquired a backup: early bumberless, buttcap code GYQ. "Chicago" or "St. Vincent"? What follows is some theory (a lot of it admittedly guesswork) based on internet research, about the early Chicago and St. Vincent production. (I know, one shoudn't pay too much attention to butt cap codes, etc., but anyway, here goes.)
The most extensive source on the origins of the Pro Staff is the TW article which, while including some valuable information based on interviews of some key Wilson engineers involved in the development and production of the model, unfortunately seems to be inaccurate in places.
The TW article claims that the Pro Staff was introduced in 1983, but it has been argued above that the introduction was actually in 1984 (citing industry publications etc.). I think it is safe to say, at least, that there was no real marketing effort from Wilson for the Pro Staff before 1984. That is, of course, not the same thing as when the production started.
Conventional wisdom is that the model was first produced in the River Grover, Ill. (Chicago), factory and then pretty soon production was moved to St. Vincent, with the specs of the racquet (at least superficially) staying the same. On the other hand, some have claimed that the very first racquets were actually produced in Belgium, even predating the Chicago production. Others have refuted this claim citing a Wilson engineer involved in the production, according to whom the brief Belgian production was for European sales only and was simultaneous with St. Vincent production.
Evidence of butt cap codes, while not conclusive by any means, seems to shed some light on all this. It has been presumed that the first letter of the code probably indicates the year of manufacture and the second letter probably the month of production. Furthermore, it is widely accepted that the third letter indicates the factory, with ‘I’ indicating River Grove (Chicago) and ‘Q’ indicating St. Vincent. If the first two letters are year and month, it can be further assumed that Wilson used alphabetical order (i.e., for year G is earlier H, and for month M is earlier than N, etc., even though for some reason they seem to have skipped some letters altogether).
If one accepts these assumptions, it looks like ‘G’ may have been the very first year of production for the Pro Staff, as I have not run into anyone (here on the boards, on internet auction sites etc.) claiming to have a racquet with an earlier code. This is also consistent with the fact that all Pro Staffs with a code ending in ‘I’ (indicating the Chicago factory) seem to have a code starting with ‘G’, with the earliest maybe being ‘GMI’ (and then there are ‘GNI’, ‘GOI’ and so forth).
But then again, there also seem to exist ‘Q’ racquets with just as early looking codes: ‘GMQ’, ‘GNQ’, ‘GOQ’ etc. Of course, a butt cap can be replaced with one from another Wilson racquet of the era, the year-month presumption may be all wrong and so on, but personally I think all this can be reconciled by assuming that the last letter only indicates the factory where the racquet was finished ready for sale (not where the frame was actually “produced”), and that very early on, perhaps from the very start of the production of the model, some batches of the raw frames produced in Chicago were shipped over to St. Vincent for finishing.
This is consistent with how Wilson seems to have operated with some of their Chicago-produced frames – according to the TW article the St. Vincent factory was initially bought by Wilson for this very purpose. This is also consistent with some knowledgeable people on this board maintaining that there are “Chicago” Pro Staffs ending with ‘Q’. (Of course, what you call such a racquet depends on definitions, but I would tend to agree that a frame produced in Chicago and only assembled and finished in St. Vincent with all the same appointments as the ones produced in Chicago from start to finish is more a “Chicago” than a “St. Vincent”. Also, there seems to be some indication that Wilson themselves were attaching “Made in U.S.A.” cards to early racquets with a code ending in ‘Q’.)
After the first year ‘G’, codes on all early Pro Staffs seem to end with ‘Q’ (‘HMQ’, ‘HNQ’ etc.), indicating that from there on (or maybe even a bit earlier) they were all at least finished in St. Vincent. It seems likely that some of these racquets were still Chicago-produced frames shipped over to St. Vincent for finishing. According to a Chicago Tribune article (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ilson-sporting-goods-david-lumley-snack-foods), the River Grove racquet factory was closed in late December 1984 and its production was moved to St. Vincent. If ‘G’ indicates 1984, at least some year ‘H’ (1985) racquets could still be Chicago frames. (Even more so, if ‘G’ indicates 1983 and ‘H’ is 1984. However, as the codes with ‘G’ as the first letter seem to have many different second letters ranging from ‘GMI’/’GMQ’ all the way to at least ‘GXI’ for Chicago and to ‘GYQ’ for St. Vincent, it seems that ‘G’ was a full calendar year of production, or almost. Therefore, ‘G’ is more likely to be 1984 than 1983.)
As to the rare Belgian frames, I think the Wilson engineer remembers it correctly, as these seem to all have codes starting with ‘H’ (‘HNB’, ‘HPB’ etc.), indicating the second year of production (be that 1984 or 1985). Furthermore, the pictures I have seen of Belgian-produced Pro Staffs seem to support the claim that they were meant for European distribution only, as they lack the stickers stating weight and balance in U.S. measurements. Also, those frames also usually seem to be from European sellers. All in all, judging by the evidence, the claim that the Belgian production predated even the Chicago production seems to be erroneous.
Final point: When did the change from bumperless construction to bumper guard actually occur? The TW article claims 1984, but bumperless racquets seem to exist with codes starting not only ‘G’ and ‘H’ but also with ‘J’ (‘J’ seems to have followed ‘H’ as the letter indicating year of production, skipping over ‘I’). This would indicate that the change to bumper was later than it says in the TW article, maybe sometime in 1985 or even 1986.
Thoughts? (If someone had the tenacity to read all the way through, and did not fall asleep...)
Last edited:
Sanglier
Professional
A fellow detail-oriented obsessive compulsive. Cool!
Your observations largely match my own, so there is little for me to add. It seems fairly logical that "I" would stand for Illinois, "B" for Belgium, "S" for San Ho Sun (Wilson's Taiwanese contractor), and "Q" for ... quaint little Caribbean island. It's also not difficult to accept that the first letter represented some sort of date, though the skipping of many letters in the sequence makes accurate dating somewhat difficult, unless and until someone can come up with an actual chart from the factory that could confirm it one way or the other. I have not paid any attention to the second letter, but would note that there are already 13 letters between "M" and "Y", so unless they skipped a letter here as well, it seems rather unlikely that these would correspond exactly to the production months.
As for the the year the bumper was added, I too, have noticed a mixture of bumpered and bumperless PS frames among those stamped with a "J". For instance, my "JWQ" is bumperless, but my "JNQ" and "JPQ" are bumpered. Since "W" comes way after "N" and "P", this is another reason I have my doubts about the letters being sequentially applied based on month.
Also, I have an "HMS" stamped Wilson Ceramic that was made with a bumper, suggesting that the bumpers may have first appeared on new models produced in Taiwan, before the modification was retrofitted to the existing designs (I assume it was more than just adding a bumper to the grommet strip, since weight and balance needed to be adjusted as well).
Nice introductory post! Hope you come back often and share with us what you have discovered. Maybe you can turn your attention to the later Taiwanese codes that begin with "S", and see if you cand any logical pattern in the assignment of the second and third letters there as well.
Your observations largely match my own, so there is little for me to add. It seems fairly logical that "I" would stand for Illinois, "B" for Belgium, "S" for San Ho Sun (Wilson's Taiwanese contractor), and "Q" for ... quaint little Caribbean island. It's also not difficult to accept that the first letter represented some sort of date, though the skipping of many letters in the sequence makes accurate dating somewhat difficult, unless and until someone can come up with an actual chart from the factory that could confirm it one way or the other. I have not paid any attention to the second letter, but would note that there are already 13 letters between "M" and "Y", so unless they skipped a letter here as well, it seems rather unlikely that these would correspond exactly to the production months.
As for the the year the bumper was added, I too, have noticed a mixture of bumpered and bumperless PS frames among those stamped with a "J". For instance, my "JWQ" is bumperless, but my "JNQ" and "JPQ" are bumpered. Since "W" comes way after "N" and "P", this is another reason I have my doubts about the letters being sequentially applied based on month.
Also, I have an "HMS" stamped Wilson Ceramic that was made with a bumper, suggesting that the bumpers may have first appeared on new models produced in Taiwan, before the modification was retrofitted to the existing designs (I assume it was more than just adding a bumper to the grommet strip, since weight and balance needed to be adjusted as well).
Nice introductory post! Hope you come back often and share with us what you have discovered. Maybe you can turn your attention to the later Taiwanese codes that begin with "S", and see if you cand any logical pattern in the assignment of the second and third letters there as well.
daddabompa
Hall of Fame
Really great job [emoji122][emoji122][emoji122]
mltaylor
Rookie
What if you have a Pro Staff with no stickers or markings in the throat and no buttcap code?
It doesn't look like there was ever a code that was visible. It's a bumperless without the red primer. I have a St.V (bumperless) where you can see the primer from scratches around the head.
Thanks
It doesn't look like there was ever a code that was visible. It's a bumperless without the red primer. I have a St.V (bumperless) where you can see the primer from scratches around the head.
Thanks
Tennis Player
New User
I really like this racket. I am playing better doubles, especially at net, and my serve placement has improved as well. I am also hitting my groundstrokes with more precision. I start to feel the weight only after several hard days of playing. Why don't more rec players use it?
frinton
Professional
Hi all. I decided to use the PS85 as my main stick this year. Need to get some strung up and ready to go.
I managed to buy a PS85 and I think I got lucky and actually have a St. Vincent. I can see red primer and the code is AYQ located below the W. Just wondering: if the first letter is the year... What is A? When was production in St. V stopped?
"Why should I be unpleasant when I can just as well be nice?"
I managed to buy a PS85 and I think I got lucky and actually have a St. Vincent. I can see red primer and the code is AYQ located below the W. Just wondering: if the first letter is the year... What is A? When was production in St. V stopped?
"Why should I be unpleasant when I can just as well be nice?"
Last edited:
F
FuzzyYellowBalls41
Guest
Just kinda a random comment but I was out practicing my serve last night with my freshly strung re-issued PS85 with Babolat Natural Gut in the mains 57lbs and ALU power in the crosses at 54. 1st flat serves have some major pace to them. I'm guessing I was hitting them close to 100 give or take a few mph. Interestingly though, I started practicing alot of 2nd serve kicks and I reared back and tossed it a little behind my head more and used more of my legs than I usually do and kid you not hit probably the biggest kick of my life with this tiny stick. Barely cleared the net it had so much spin and really exploded off the court. It probably kicked at least 7ft high maybe a few inches more than that. Wish I could have gotten it on video. Just goes to show that an 85 sq in frame can hit a great kick serve. More than I could with my previous sticks. Even my 98 sq in babolat couldn't do that. I was pretty impressed. Carry on.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
FYI, Sampras used to hit some of the most awesome kick serves on tour with his PS 85.
The small head and thin beam really allows you to accelerate through your motion and to manipulate the angle of the head to produce great kick serves.
asifallasleep
Hall of Fame
I hit with my St Vincent PS85 today and it has more power and plow than my PT630. Both fun frames tho. You can get so much topspin with the PS85 and the ball just drives through the court.
v-verb
Hall of Fame
I just got some Gamma Dura Guard tape - try get some. It will help
