I recently stumbled across a rather interesting putter utility patent that classic car lovers will appreciate. The patent is USPN 5961398 titled “Golf Club Head Apparatus” and looks like the rear of a 1957 Chevy. Check out this putter.... Frankly I am surprised that the inventor obtained a utility patent on this putter since it seems as though the unique attributes are the nonfunctional ornamental design of the putter rather than anything having to do with the utility. Regardless, it is a pretty cool putter!...... << MORE >>

Recently a golf related patent application published with the title “Handheld Device for Determining Golf Ball Trajectory for Putt or Chip Shot and Method Therefore;” namely US Pub. No. 20080102989. I am willing to read anything that has a shot at improving my putting, so I jumped right in to see if I felt this invention could help my game. The basic invention looks like this..... So how does it work? Well, the following paragraphs explain the concept with respect to the drawings below..... So, do you think this golf invention could help your putting? I will .....<< MORE >>

Recently a patent application published with the title “Golf Cart Glove Holder-Dryer” (US Pub. No. 20080083131). OK, interesting title...... you have my attention. The application goes on to describe the invention as..... Not the best description, but the following drawing tells the rest of the story...... Good idea! I would buy a few if I owned my own golf cart. << MORE >>

As you know, Golf-Patents.com has repeatedly used golf club design patents to test your knowledge of golf clubs. Now for the ultimate test..... a chipper. Who in the world can identify the maker of a chipper? Well, probably only people that actually play this brand; but give it a shot. Can you identify the brand of this chipper?<< MORE >>

I love reading patent applications directed to inventions designed to eliminate lost golf balls. Such inventions generally appear very impractical, expensive, or involve technology that would be difficult, or impossible, to incorporate into a golf ball; which is what I expected to find when reading a recently published patent application (namely, US Pub. No. 20080061236 titled “Device for Assisting in Finding an Article”). Upon reading the patent application I was blown away because I found myself saying “this doesn’t seem that impractical, in fact it might be a decent idea and I would consider buying one if it were under $50.” The patent application describes the invention as..... << MORE >>

Looking at US golf club patents that have issued in the past 215 years I came to the realization that...... I am not surprised by this statistic considering the amount of R&D that currently goes into golf club design compared to the days of non-metal woods......<< MORE >>

Looking at US golf ball patents that have issued since the year 1800 I came to the realization that.....<< MORE >>

Interesting golf tee inventions do not come along every day. Fortunately last month a patent application published that revealed an interesting tee design. Admittedly, it is not necessarily a golf tee that I would buy or use, but it is pretty cool nonetheless. The application published as US Pub. No. titled “Self-Righting Golf Ball Tee” and the following drawing says it all.....<< MORE >>

This week an interesting patent issued to a golf company that I did not think was even still in business, namely Pixl Golf (click here for an article on the origins of the company, and click here for a 2003 article on Pixl irons). The patent is USPN 7364513 titled “Golf Club Head with Inserts for Impact Face,” which describes the invention as..... Check out these drawings that nicely illustrate the concept...... Interesting concept, but is it enough to revitalize Pixl Golf?.....<< MORE >>

Typically when a golf club design patent issues to one of the major equipment players I expect to open it and see a club design that they introduced months ago, but not today. The US Patent and Trademark Office issues patents every Tuesday. Therefore, much of my Tuesday morning is spent reviewing the latest golf related patents, which is always entertaining but rarely do any of the patents really surprise me. Well, today I was surprised by a design patent that issued to Acushnet (a company known for great products under the Titleist and Cobra brands, but not known for wild club designs). Just check out these drawings..... Could this be the next new Titleist or Cobra driver? I can’t wait to see if this design makes it to market...... << MORE >>

If you strip all the logos off a golf club head, the typical avid golfer can usually identify the manufacturer of the popular drivers… often the popular irons… and sometimes the popular putters..... but rarely the fairway woods of the large golf companies. Can you identify the producer of this fairway wood?.....<< MORE >>

As you may recall from a prior post, on June 8, 2007 Callaway filed a golf club patent infringement lawsuit alleging that Acushnet has willfully infringed 5 Callaway patents. Then, as discussed in a subsequent post, on July 12, 2007 Acushnet filed their Answer to the Complaint thereby stating (i) that Acushnet does not infringe the Callaway patents and alleging that the Callaway patents are invalid, and (ii) returned the favor and accusing Callaway of infringing two of Acushnet’s patents. Callaway responded at the end of August (post here) stating that they do not infringe the Acushnet patents and allege that the Acushnet patents (7041003 and 6960142) are invalid! Now, Acushnet has filed their Second Amended Answer (read in entirety HERE) to the Callaway Complaint...... The Second Amended Answer adds Callaway’s Hyper X and Hyper X Tour clubs to the list of allegedly infringing products and adds USPN 7140975 to the other two Acushnet patents that they accuse Callaway of infringing. If you like reading about golf club faces having non-concentric zones of differing flexural stiffness, then you will love the ‘975 patent. This leaves me asking myself..... does Callaway produce any drivers that Acushnet does not allege are infringing one of their patents, and does Acushnet produce any drivers that Callaway does not allege are infringing one of their patents?..... << MORE >>

Would you ever guess that a patent titled “Symbolically Reinforced Golf Club Head” would contain this iron design? Bling, bling....<< MORE >>

Ah, the quest for the perfect golf ball. I keep looking for the one that guarantees to cut my handicap in half. No luck so far. I would never have guessed that the quest may lead me to a golf ball that I microwave to change the phase! Huh? OK, let me explain. Earlier this month Du Pont had a patent application publish titled “Phase Transition Golf Ball and Method of Use”, which caught my eye. Surely it wasn’t the compelling language of the Abstract (seen below) that piqued my interest...... It was the following..... So, do you think we will ever see one of these golf balls on the market? << MORE >>

Check out these figures contained in a golf related design patent that issued earlier this month. Can you guess what it is? (scroll way down in the post for the answer).....<< MORE >>

Last week Roger Cleveland Golf Company, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Guangdong Yuedragon Casting Company, Ltd. ("Yuedragon") and Jack Dabing Wan ("Wan") alleging that they produced, sold, and shipped counterfeit Cleveland wedges to the United States. The following paragraphs from the Complaint do a good job of explaining the events that led up to the lawsuit.....Pretty amazing allegations! How fun would it be to be Cleveland’s “mystery shopper!” Click HERE to read the Complaint, and click HERE to check out the exhibits, which contains some interesting material. Another interesting golf litigation case to watch.....<< MORE >>

Did you know that on October 17, 2007 John Daly was awarded a $2.7 million default judgment against Hippo Holdings? Unfortunately big John has not received a penny. It turns out that the tumultuous relationship between Daly and Hippo Holdings has been going on since 2000. The “catch” with the default judgment is that it was issued against Hippo Holdings, the legal entity that contracted with John. The present lawsuit asks the Court to pierce the corporate veils of Hippo Holdings and Hippo Golf and permit John to execute the judgment against Hippo Holdings on its “alter ego” Hippo Golf. The Complaint that was filed last week does a great job at summarizing the case, so click HERE to get the dirt on the Daly and Hippo relationship. You would have to be heartless to read the Complaint and not feel bad for John......<< MORE >>

The company behind The Club Glove travel bags, which according to their website are the number one travel bags on Tour, have sued Armor Gear alleging infringement of USPN 7219902 titled “Flexible Travel Bag with Integrated Support to Protect Bag from Wear.” The Complaint alleges that Armor Gear’s Big Kahuna, Big Kahuna II, and the Rolling Sherpa IIz bags infringe the ‘902 patent. Click HERE to read the Complaint. The ’902 patent describes the invention as.....<< MORE >>

I was honored to be a guest on the nationally syndicated Small Business Advocate® radio show this morning. Jim Blasingame and I discussed how a business, regardless of size, can set up a formal intellectual property protection system to capitalize on the fact that most of their value is found in intangible assets. I have been a fan of Jim’s show for close to 10 years and highly recommend it. You can listen to the interview here.....<< MORE >>

Blogging has been slow lately. I apologize, but everyone needs a vacation once in a while. I just returned from a great trip to Palm Springs where I was fortunate to play many of the PGA West courses. Needless to say..... it was incredible. The courses were beautiful and my game was awful after a long Ohio winter break, but what surprised me the most was the......<< MORE >>

Interesting golf tee patents are few and far between. Fortunately, a unique golf tee patent did issue last month, although I am not quite convinced that we will see it in local pro shop any time soon. Fun to look at nonetheless! The patent is USPN 7344456 titled “Flexible Golf Tee.” Check out these drawings.....<< MORE >>

In honor of Masters' week, a look at the trademark portfolio of Augusta National is in order. Would you have guessed that AMEN CORNER is a registered trademark? How about the fact that Augusta National has registered the AUGUSTA trademark for use associated with golf stools and chairs? And the famous map with flagstick trademark is registered for use in association with restaurant services.... and RAE'S CREEK.... << MORE >>

Hello from Washington DC! I am currently attending the ABA’s 23rd Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference in Arlington, Virginia. There is nothing like a party of 600+ patent attorneys from around the globe, although it is interfering with my blogging and coverage of The Masters! As you can imagine, these conferences are filled with great unusual statistics; one of which is the number of US patents that are currently "in force." In other words, of the millions of US patents that have issued, how many are currently enforceable? (i.e. in term and have had the requisite maintenance fees paid).....<< MORE >>

This week it seems fitting to look at golf related patents issued to Masters champions. Don’t worry, it will be a quick look because there are only two!......<< MORE >>

As you know, Golf-Patents.com has repeatedly used putter design patents to test your knowledge of putters (click here to satisfy your hunger for putter patent posts). The figures below come from a US putter design patent that issued recently to a major producer of clubs. Can you identify the brand of putter? << MORE >>

.....(case background)..... Roughly at the same time Acushnet also wisely filed a “Contingent Motion to Stay Any Permanent Injunction Pending Appeal,” which you may review HERE. In response Callaway filed an “Opposition” (click HERE to read) to Acushnet’s “Contingent Motion to Stay Any Permanent Injunction Pending Appeal.” Now, Acushnet filed their reply titled “Acushnet’s Reply Brief in Further Support of Its Motion to Stay Any Permanent Injunction,” which may be viewed in the entirety HERE; bringing an end to this auxiliary string of filings and leaving it “ripe” for action by the court. Whew, confusing enough? I have reproduced the entire “Introduction” section of this latest filing below..... OK, so the gloves are off! (as if they have been shadow boxing for the past 2 years) If you haven’t had your fill of analysis regarding Shore D hardness values, and whether hardness should be measured on or off the ball, then I encourage you to read the entire Reply Brief. For those of you without the stomach for technical and legal word play, the “Conclusion” from the Reply Brief is reproduced below.....<< MORE >>

Boy, a ton of putter design patents have issued recently! As you know, Golf-Patents.com has repeatedly used putter design patents to test your knowledge of putters (click here to satisfy your hunger for putter patent posts). Well this should be a relatively easy one.... How good are you at identifying a particular brand of putter when all the logos and trademarks are stripped off the club head? The figures below come from a US putter design patent that issued recently to a major producer of clubs. Can you identify the brand of putter? << MORE >>

As you are meandering down a perfectly manicured fairway with the sun in your face and the wind at your back, all the while trying to avoid stepping on one of those huge goose turds that litter golf courses like a minefield, have you ever thought to yourself… “boy, I bet one, or perhaps two, of those delightful goose poops, would work great as a golf tee”? Well, that is just the stroke of genius that one inventor recently had and the Patent Office agreed with him. The patent, titled “Method of Using Goose Excrement as a Golf Tee,” describes the invention as..... << MORE >>

Many golfers would be surprised to learn that majority of golf grips are patented. Some manufacturers apply for utility patents on their unique grip construction and manufacturing methods, while others merely seek to protect the ornamental look of the grips via design patents. Recently a golf grip design patent issued on a fairly popular grip, can you identify it from the design patent drawings?<< MORE >>

I bet that at least 77% of golfers will not recognize this driver. The following drawings come from a driver design patent that issued recently to one of the big guys. Do you recognize this club?..... << MORE >>

Golf-Patents.com has repeatedly used putter design patents to test your knowledge of putter designs. For today’s test, can identify the maker and model of this putter? << MORE >>

Familiar with the PuttingDisc? (the website is a little rough) I saw the figures below in a patent that issued this week and thought that I had seen it before, but there is hardly a reference to it on the web (so I must have been mistaken). Oh well, further proof that it is not easy to get a golf training aid to market. The patent is USPN 7347789 titled “golf putting practice device” and describes the invention as.... << MORE >>

As a golfer whose game fluctuates from marginal, at best, to horrible (as my playing partners will attest from my first round of 2008 that I played on Thursday), I view most training aides with a skeptical eye. After all, I have tried a lot of things and the only thing that seems to help my game is a lot of time on the range and a lot of rounds. Therefore, I could not believe it when this week a golf training device patent issued and I found myself saying… “not a bad idea; good for use in the backyard, especially if your neighbors won’t put up with the sound of your driver blasting balls into a practice net.” The patent is USPN 7347790 titled “golf swing training device.” The patent describes the invention as...... I describe the invention as...... << MORE >>

Golf-Patents.com has repeatedly used putter design patents to test your putter knowledge. Today a unique golf putter design patent issued…. check out the drawing below. Can you identify the make and model?....... Click here for the answer; and click here to check out USPN D565142 titled “Golf Club Head for a Putter.”<< MORE >>

Boy golfers are passionate about their golf gear! I have been blown away by the number of inquiries I receive regarding the patent litigation surrounding handheld golf GPS range finders. A lot of golfers must be concerned about the future of Natalie’s SkyCaddie endorsement deal. As you may recall from these prior posts (initial, update 1, update 2, update 3, update 4, and update 5), on May 11th GPS Industries and Optimal IP Holdings filed a patent infringement lawsuit against several defendants (3:07CV0831-K, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division). GPS Industries then singled out SkyHawke (maker of SkyCaddie) and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. In response, SkyHawke filed a pretty compelling response to the preliminary injunction motion. The court then denied the preliminary injunction motion. As I mentioned in my prior post, the case has now entered the slow-motion stage of the litigation, which involves the exchange of a ton of information between the parties that is not filed with the court (and therefore never seen by the readers of Golf-Patents.com). Fortunately we have been given a rare glimpse into the behind the scenes information exchange because the Plaintiffs recently had to request the approval of the court to supplement their initial “preliminary infringement contentions” against L1 Technologies (maker of the iGolf line of products). The supplemental preliminary infringement contentions related to L1 Technologies contains some fascinating information related to how the Plaintiffs believe the L1 products to be infringing the patent-in-suit.......<< MORE >>

Before delving into the latest filing and disclosing my prediction, a quick summary of the past few months in the Callaway v. Titleist (Acushnet) saga is in order. Back in December a jury found that 8 of the 9 claims in the 4 patents-in-suit were valid, and therefore infringed by Acushnet (click HERE to read the post on the verdict). Then, in mid-January Callaway filed a Motion for Permanent Injunction (click HERE to read the related post) seeking to bring a halt to the production and sale of ProV1’s. Next, Acushnet responded to Callaway’s motion at the end of February (click HERE to read the related post). NOW, Callaway has filed their “reply” in support of the motion for permanent injunction leaving the motion “fully briefed” and ready for action by the court. Pretty exciting! Readers can view the complete redacted version of Callaway’s “Reply in Support of Callaway Golf Company’s Motion for Permanent Injunction” HERE. The “reply” should be fascinating reading for most golfers. I have to admit that prior to reading this “reply” my gut feeling was that there was a......<< MORE >>

The posts have slowed down in the past week, or so… life, work, and travel have caused the slowdown. Trust me, there are plenty of interesting intellectual property golf topics to report on and the posts should pick up soon. Enough of the excuses, right? OK, recently I noticed that a couple of previously unavailable Tee Time Radio program interviews have become available. You may listen to the December 29th show HERE and the September 22nd show HERE. Enjoy, it is a great show....... << MORE >>

It is hard to believe that is has been over a year since I authored a post titled “Bust Your Competitors’ Patents” regarding the patent reexamination process. Since that post many of you have probably learned a little more about the process simply by following my coverage of the Callaway v. Titleist ProV1 golf ball patent dispute. Well, recently a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination was approved by the USPTO regarding a push golf cart design patent, so I thought it would be a good opportunity to share this golf patent reexamination example with the Golf-Patents readers. Back in November a Request for Ex Parte Reexamination was filed regarding USPN D502303 titled “Golf Cart.” The golf cart in question is shown below....... << MORE >>

As you may recall, back in late December Nike filed a lawsuit taking on the clones (Illinois Northern District Court; 07-c-7108). Specifically, Nike’s December 18th complaint named King Sports, Inc. dba Turbo Power Golf, Hung Ying Chang, Krookedstix, Inc., and Gigagolf, Inc. as defendants. Click HERE to review the prior post. It didn’t take long for GigaGolf and KrookedStix to fold and agree to a Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction with Nike. Click HERE to read the GigaGolf document; and click HERE to read the KroodedStix document. GigaGolf and KroodedStix agreed that they do in fact infringe the Nike design patents and agreed to stop manufacturing and selling the infringing clubs. Interestingly, KroodedStix sold a grand total of “no more than 49 clubs that infringe” the patents-in-suit! King Sports apparently has decided to fight it out and has filed an Answer to the Complaint. Click HERE to read the Answer. To no surprise, King Sports denies infringement and alleges that the patents are invalid. I am not sure I would want to be in the position of King Sports in this lawsuit, but you be the judge...... << MORE >>

It took about a week, but the redacted version of Acushnet’s response to Callaway’s request for a permanent injunction is in! Apparently links to this blog have been pretty popular, as I have learned from Acushnet’s Brief in Opposition that “[a] Callaway sales representative has also circulated a link to Callaway’s brief, posted on a website, to Acushnet retailers.” Come on; throw me a bone, would it have killed you to say a “popular” website, or an “entertaining” website. Oh well, at least one of the exhibits (a Declaration of David Maher, the VP of US Titleist Sales) does mention the maliciously used website… see below..... Guys, come on… if you are going to use my links to talk trash about your competition, couldn’t you arrange for a sleeve of balls to show up in my mail, perhaps a set of last season’s clubs, maybe an FT-i driver? Kidding of course… (…right handed, stiff flex…)... Anyway, back to the important stuff. Acushnet’s Brief in Opposition is good. It seems to persuasively address all the issues required to oppose a permanent injunction. But, let’s face it… the only ones that are going to read the full Brief are probably attorneys that visit this site. Therefore, let me skip right to the informative and entertaining stuff, which I have conveniently formatted in a David Letterman style “Top 10” list, but with a unique “Top 6” twist. Number 6... Number 5... Number 4... Number 3... Number 2... Number 1: The best quote from the Brief probably has no legal value, but it contains some great mudslinging and I am sure that Acushnet loved to get some of Mickelson’s quotes out to the public. The following quote from the Brief refers to notes from one of Acushnet’s test sessions with Phil Mickelson in June of 2000.... Now, the teaser..... According to Acushnet, Mickelson's quotes include reference to a "sh*tty ball" that "spins like crap." Can you guess which ball he is referring to?<< MORE >>

Those that have been following the Callaway versus Acushnet golf ball litigation battle probably know that at this time there are really two key subjects that remain open. First, there are the issues associated with Callaway’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction (click here and here for the highlights). Secondly, there are the issues associated with Acushnet’s requests for “post-trial” relief (click here for the highlights). This post deals with the second topic; namely Acushnet’s requests for “post-trial” relief. Back on January 7th Acushnet filed a document entitled “Acushnet Company’s Motion for Post-Trial Relief.” (Click HERE to read the actual document) In this motion Acushnet renewed its motion for “judgment as a matter of law” as to the invalidity of Callaway’s patents-in-suit, and moved, in the alternative, for a new trial (and/or to alter or amend the Court’s judgment as to such claims). In fact, “Acushnet Company’s Motion for Post-Trial Relief” asserts that no reasonable jury could have come to the verdict that this particular jury came to, and it enumerates several alleged errors of the Court. Yesterday Callaway filed their response to the Acushnet motion. The official title of the response is “Callaway Golf Company’s Opposition to Acushnet’s Rule 50(b) and 59 Post-Trial Motions to Reverse or Vacate the Jury’s Verdicts.” You can click HERE to read the entire response as filed. The document is 62 pages, but is manageable once you skim past the 10+ pages of Table of Contents. If you have been following the case then it is definitely worth your time to read. As with previous court filings, I am not going to summarize Callaway’s Opposition because a lot of it focuses on issues that only attorneys are interested in, but I will point out a few interesting things that I learned while reading it.......<< MORE >>

Back in the fall I authored a post about a patented putting method. Judging from the number of page views and links to the post, I suspect a lot of golfers were surprised to learn that a putting method could be patented; although, let’s face it, the patented putting methods are a little on the unique side of things (to put it nicely). Needless to say, none of the top 10 players in the world took me up on my challenge from the last post:........ Surprised? Me neither. Anyway, I thought that it was time to revisit the topic and take a look at another patented putting method… so here is USPN 7121954 titled “Putting Method and Putter.” Check out these figures from the patent:........ So how do you describe it in words… easy, just check out this claim from the patent:........ So, next time you are watching The Golf Channel see if you can spot any patent infringers (judging from the figures above… I doubt it).<< MORE >>

This week Karsten (makers of PING putters) had an interesting patent application publish as US Pub. No. 2008005121 titled “Acoustically Tunable Golf Club Head.” The application describes the invention as...... Check out these figures from the application...... I hope this putter makes it to market!<< MORE >>

On Friday February 22nd Saso Golf filed a patent infringement complaint in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Nike has infringed two Saso golf club patents; namely USPN 5645495 and USPN 6620055, both simply titled “Golf Club.” Click HERE to read the Complaint. It should be interesting to see how this one plays out!<< MORE >>

Those following the contentious Titleist ProV1 golf ball patent infringement lawsuit may have known that yesterday was Acushnet’s deadline to file their “Answering Brief” in response to Callaway’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction (click here to review). Boy, I was looking forward to some good reading material; unfortunately, 9 of the 10 filings made with the court yesterday have been filed under “seal” with the label “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE COUNSELS' EYES ONLY.” In other words, not only can the public not see the documents, Acushnet does not want Callaway’s in-house lawyers to have access to the documents! In the big picture, this is not unusual; just disappointing because the filings probably contain from fascinating information. I am not familiar with Judge Robinson’s local rules regarding the filing of “redacted” versions of “sealed” documents, but it appears that most of the documents filed under “seal” in this case have been supplemented with a “redacted” version of the “sealed” document within 7-10 days. I will let you know if “redacted” documents are filed. Callaway now has until March 6th to file their Reply Brief (which hopefully will not be filed under seal). << MORE >>

Time to brush-up on your knowledge of ferrofluids, magnetorheological fluids, inverse magnetorheological fluids, and magnetorheological elastomers. Today a patent application published with the title “adaptive golf ball,” and describes the invention as a “smart golf ball.” OK, that got my attention. It just so happens I have been looking for a ball that can predict when I am going to hit it off the toe and then adjust accordingly. Well, come to find out… the ball disclosed in US Pub. No. 20080045358 isn’t quite as smart as I was hoping for. Oh well, how fun would golf really be if you were always in the middle of the fairway? The patent application describes the invention as...... What is so “smart” about this ball? Well, the following paragraphs from the application do a good job of explaining the concept....... Sound too good to be true?<< MORE >>

A design patent issued yesterday under the title “Rocket Golf Tee,” so I just had to check it out and share it with you. Check out these figures from USPN D562420!.........(drawings)........ Interesting, but will it help your shots go any farther or straighter? << MORE >>

Ready to test your iron knowledge? No worries, this test should be easy for the avid golfer (or anyone with good analytical skills… i.e. there is a hint in the drawing). The figure below comes from a US golf club iron head design patent that issued this week to a major producer of clubs. Can you identify the brand of irons?..........<< MORE >>

Every golfer has at some point suffered from a case of the shanks. I know that I do at least twice a season. Judging from number of off-set wedge related patents I would say that golfers spend a lot of time thinking about how it must be a problem with the clubs; surely not the swing! I previously posted an overview of a lot of clubs directed at curing the shanks (click HERE to read). Recently a patent application published directed to another seemingly shank-resistant club. Check out these figures from US Pub. No. 20080026867 titled “Golf Club.”....... << MORE >>

I like to collect odd golf clubs. Not necessarily ones that perform particularly well; just unique clubs, most commonly odd looking clubs (shape and material). I am looking for the following clubs… right handed… condition is not critical, but they have to be able to be hit. If you have any of the clubs on my list, please shoot me an email with a photo of the club and the price. Thanks. (perhaps some day I can auction off my collection, but my auction will most likely be in the form of a garage sale rather than one at a fancy auction house) Pre-1950: a) any metal woods, any condition, but under $150; Early 1960’s: a) PING 1 Iron; Late 1960’s: a) Centurion Driver (the triangular or rectangular versions); Early 1990’s: a) GolfWorks Super Jumbo Straight Shooter Driver (I have found memories of seeing one of these and thinking “no one will ever buy a club with a head that big”), b) Spalding Thunder Heat Driver, c) Wilson Killer Whale Driver with Graphite Face, d) Yonex ADX 300 Driver, e) Bullet Golf Ball Company Hollow Point Driver (horseshoe shaped); Late 1990’s: a) Accuform Golf’s “Whistler” Driver (apparently one of the earlier “geometric” drivers). Thanks. << MORE >>