Depreciation of Golf Clubs

Can't help but notice some threads in the marketplace where some clubs do not seem to be moving

Not that surprising given that golf direct is selling brand new beginner sets from estabkished brands from 350 to 550 dollars .

Just thought this might be a useful thread to share which clubs tend to hold value better and what clubs are pretty much worthless after a while, and an estimate of how long.

I have met mny new golfers who start out by buying a new set of the latest model for more than 1k then realised that they could not gt even half of that back after 9 months when thy wanted to upgrade.

Hope you guys can chip in with your views and experiences.


0

I find wedges drop their value very fast. Aftermarket shafts also drops far as second hands.

Cleveland, Adams and TM are brands that Golf Bargains and GD sells cheaply and so it's not worth it to buy from retail outlets or even from the US.

But it's not just about brands, some folks see clubs as a commodity and may not differentiate a preowned forged club by Endo and a new cast club by TM. Condition of the clubs seem to be more important.

There is a hype factor that ties to clubs. Sorta like fashion statement. A 500 dollar TM driver now will probably cost 199 in 9 months at Golf direct. Still some people will buy it now.

however there are some brands that will depreciate slower, like mizuno irons. A decent set of mx25 still worth up 400 bucks used condition. Of course, we haven't seen a set of Bfg 003 irons here, since it's launch last year.

This is hard to answer. depends on a whole variety of factors, eg which club, what brand, and what condition. But generally, if buy brand new, then one must be prepared to sell at much lower than purchase price. this is due to the fact that manufacturers (esp TM) churn out new models so fast.

Also, i think sellers need to have a slight change of perspective. The fact is that you have used and enjoyed the club, so even if you sell at half the price you bought, that's really ok. Eg. if I buy a club for $200, I use for 6 months / 24 games, then sell at $100. I essentially paid $100 to use it for 24 games ie only $4.16 per game (not including range sessions).
This reasoning of course wouldn't apply if you buy a club on impulse, and then realise it doesn't work for u.

Anyway, back to your question. From my experience, only one thing holds its value fairly well (provided you don't buy brand spanking new)...scotty cameron putters!!! The price of a used scotty doesn't fluctuate very much as long as you maintain it well.

I bought my irons for USD575. That was more than 4 years ago. I'm still using them.
Going by you guys' perceived rate of depreciation, i'd have to pay to get it off my hands..

I guess the question buyers need to ask themselves is :

Am I REALLY going to play better with these? Self fulfilling prophecy if you ask me.

scottycollector wrote:

Also, i think sellers need to have a slight change of perspective. The fact is that you have used and enjoyed the club, so even if you sell at half the price you bought, that's really ok. Eg. if I buy a club for $200, I use for 6 months / 24 games, then sell at $100. I essentially paid $100 to use it for 24 games ie only $4.16 per game (not including range sessions).
This reasoning of course wouldn't apply if you buy a club on impulse, and then realise it doesn't work for u.

Anyway, back to your question. From my experience, only one thing holds its value fairly well (provided you don't buy brand spanking new)...scotty cameron putters!!! The price of a used scotty doesn't fluctuate very much as long as you maintain it well.

I agree with your take ... Sellers at the Marketplace thread have to be more realistic in their asking prices if they really wanna get rid of their equipment ...

I also agree that Scotty putter has high resale value and very sought after (including its accessories like putter cover, caps, limited edition bags, etc.) ...

I feel it also depends on the initial cost of the clubs. For example, if you bought a set of fitted Miuras at price closer to 3k, I think it would be hard to sell 50% of the original price.

kyleyann wrote:

I feel it also depends on the initial cost of the clubs. For example, if you bought a set of fitted Miuras at price closer to 3k, I think it would be hard to sell 50% of the original price.

The fitting market in Sg is still a niche market as far as I can see ... Considering our somewhat small golfing community and moreover, we do not have the critical mass like China, USA, etc.

Putting condition of clubs aside cos thats variable amongst users, I feel that depreciation is largely caused by the manufacturers' rate of rolling out new models and series of clubs, and their price control policies with the retailers. Brands like Titleist have 1 new series across the board for the clubs they produce, and these last for a good 2 years before the next one is released. Price is also very stiff and well maintained throughout its product life cycle, and this in a way translates to a perception amongst their users that it holds its value for a longer time. The 910 series of metal woods and drivers held its value all the way until 3 mths before the launch of 913, where they allowed a price tag of 499'on their drivers to clear. Similarly, when scotty cameron is under Titleist, their new series of retail putters are also released once every two years. But of course, SC has its own identity and group of loyalists and followers, thus helping to strengthen its perceived value. Comparatively, the prices of $500 drivers from other brands like TM, callaway, Cleveland,etc would have fallen to probably the 290-390 range in that same time span.

It's always interesting to see what new toys are produced by brands like TM once every six months. But bear in mind, that same club in brand new condition will be worth 899 or 1199 in three months time instead of 1499 when it was first launched. And these price reductions will indirectly translate a perception to consumers that their clubs are not capable of holding its values if they intend to sell in the future. A point to consider: Golf direct is famous for its low prices. But how often do we see a Titleist or mizuno club appear on their monthly sales advert? It's always the same few brands.

As for brands like Miura, Epon, etc, I think it's all about quality and exclusivity. Hence, it's not surprising that a set of used wedges might sell for more than a set of brand new wedges from another oem.

But even among TM clubs, I have noticed that some of their TP models seem to hold value fairly well.

Also, it appears that "players" clubs, especially muscle back blades, seem to hold value better than GI clubs across all brands. Has anyone else noticed this or is it just sampling error on my part?

I just find it strange that clubs which the majority of amateur golfers would struggle to use seem to have a higher resale value than their GI or SGI counterparts.

Not that I am complaining, having cheap, friendly and forgiving iron sets is a great way to grow the game.

Derek wrote:

But even among TM clubs, I have noticed that some of their TP models seem to hold value fairly well.

Also, it appears that "players" clubs, especially muscle back blades, seem to hold value better than GI clubs across all brands. Has anyone else noticed this or is it just sampling error on my part?

I just find it strange that clubs which the majority of amateur golfers would struggle to use seem to have a higher resale value than their GI or SGI counterparts.

Not that I am complaining, having cheap, friendly and forgiving iron sets is a great way to grow the game.

I might be wrong and stand to be corrected. But my take is that the value it holds is related to how frequent the brand churns out a new series or model of the clubs. It's kinda easier for the companies to churn out GI clubs claiming new technologies and designs that would improve distance /control/feel etc, as compared to claiming new technologies on players irons/blades where the design of the muscle back is pretty much standard and usually only has minor improvements or changes from its predecessor. Hence, where the mass market goes for GI clubs, this "new vs old" mentality usually has an effect on perception on what's worth more cos of more tech and research put into it.

Simply put, most would pay lesser for something that's older or been ard for a while, and the quick release of an improved version would further aggravate the depreciation. That is why blades or players irons seldom depreciate as quickly, cos we seldom see new mb clubs coming from one company every 3 mths.

Derek wrote:

But even among TM clubs, I have noticed that some of their TP models seem to hold value fairly well.

Also, it appears that "players" clubs, especially muscle back blades, seem to hold value better than GI clubs across all brands. Has anyone else noticed this or is it just sampling error on my part?

I just find it strange that clubs which the majority of amateur golfers would struggle to use seem to have a higher resale value than their GI or SGI counterparts.

Not that I am complaining, having cheap, friendly and forgiving iron sets is a great way to grow the game.

just tell your backside not to be so itchy...... dun be such a slut

every thing settle liao....

the age and condition of the club are also important factors. old model with good condition will also have lesser value. same as new model but with many scratches all over, less value also.

BabyCroc wrote:

Derek wrote:

But even among TM clubs, I have noticed that some of their TP models seem to hold value fairly well.

Also, it appears that "players" clubs, especially muscle back blades, seem to hold value better than GI clubs across all brands. Has anyone else noticed this or is it just sampling error on my part?

I just find it strange that clubs which the majority of amateur golfers would struggle to use seem to have a higher resale value than their GI or SGI counterparts.

Not that I am complaining, having cheap, friendly and forgiving iron sets is a great way to grow the game.

I might be wrong and stand to be corrected. But my take is that the value it holds is related to how frequent the brand churns out a new series or model of the clubs. It's kinda easier for the companies to churn out GI clubs claiming new technologies and designs that would improve distance /control/feel etc, as compared to claiming new technologies on players irons/blades where the design of the muscle back is pretty much standard and usually only has minor improvements or changes from its predecessor. Hence, where the mass market goes for GI clubs, this "new vs old" mentality usually has an effect on perception on what's worth more cos of more tech and research put into it.

Simply put, most would pay lesser for something that's older or been ard for a while, and the quick release of an improved version would further aggravate the depreciation. That is why blades or players irons seldom depreciate as quickly, cos we seldom see new mb clubs coming from one company every 3 mths.

Yeap...I noticed tat too.
Same tot as per bro babycroc abv describes!

slinger wrote:

Derek wrote:

But even among TM clubs, I have noticed that some of their TP models seem to hold value fairly well.

Also, it appears that "players" clubs, especially muscle back blades, seem to hold value better than GI clubs across all brands. Has anyone else noticed this or is it just sampling error on my part?

I just find it strange that clubs which the majority of amateur golfers would struggle to use seem to have a higher resale value than their GI or SGI counterparts.

Not that I am complaining, having cheap, friendly and forgiving iron sets is a great way to grow the game.

just tell your backside not to be so itchy...... dun be such a slut

every thing settle liao....

Whahaha....
Cant disagree less.

audi wrote:

the age and condition of the club are also important factors. old model with good condition will also have lesser value. same as new model but with many scratches all over, less value also.

Use a block of 999 gold to mill a putter or forge a set of irons and your value will be tied to international market value.

I think condition affects value a great deal. Putting aside brands, if your clubs are in crappy condition, it won't make a huge difference if they were launched a month ago.

I'm sometimes irked by golfers who don't use headcovers. It's painful to watch as the clubs ding each other, especially forged irons.

Many moons ago, I played a round with MC, Gman and S8. They gave me evil stares and a long lecture when I neglected to put my putter cover back on. Since then, I've realized the importance of taking good care of one's clubs. This is especially true for a golf slut like myself since I do sell my gear pretty often which means that condition is key.