Are there fake scotty cameron putters

February 01, at AM I believe it looks real because of the details on the bottom and the face of the putter. The face has a very defined look to it from the pictures and ones online have the same. The details on the bottom of the putter have the same exact features like the ones online.

William Glancy Edmonton. February 01, at PM this is incredibly fake. February 02, at AM My apologies about the writing on the bottom.

I scrolled up and didn't realize there were two putters in the pictures. Especially the ones from a few years ago. The best way to guarantee that you are purchasing authentic merchandise, whatever it may be, is to do so from a reliable, authorized dealer such as Golf HQ. This eliminates any guessing and grey areas. I am going to provide you with some tips and photos to help you identify a fake.

I have presented 2 different models but they are from the Studio Select line and the cosmetic differences are obvious when side-by-side. It can be difficult to the eye as there are some good replicas out there. But the fakes will always lack the technology and high-end materials. The easiest way used to be to locate the serial number, if there was one, and call Titleist and see if that serial was indeed in their database.

But now even those are copied these days and customer service may verify an authentic number over the phone and read off the specs to the very fake putter you have in your hand. A fake will have a similar finish but will not shine as an authentic would. Engravings on a fake are shallow and light.

A fake is not glossy Real. Face milling on the fake club is rough. As you can see below, the fake will have spelling errors or incorrect engravings In this case, "S" is "8" Real. Studio Style Newport 2. The color is different, as well as the joint connection of the neck.

Material should be different between a head and insert, and face milling on a fake is rough. The overall size of the engraving and design will take less space on a fake.

A real club should have the "Titleist" logo engravings on the neck leading to the head. The face milling on a fake is noticeably rough.

The sticker design on the shaft is different. While a real club is 35 inches, a fake is about inches. The bird engraving is located inside the background sun on a fake. Note that there is more curvature of the head for the real club. The overall design and build of the shaft is hard to distinguish. California Monterey 1. A neck of a fake is shorter, and has a noticeable difference in shape and texture. The color of engravings are less visible on a fake. The design and texture of the head cover are not same.

Overall, the font on a fake is thicker. The distance between the dot and edge of the grip are different. The "" engraving is thinner on a fake. The grooves and coloring of the face are different. If the lighter This was my thought exactly. I often need a lighter putter or else I leave distance putts… short. Truth is most golfers can putt just as well or better with a Walmart putter over spending an obscene amount for hyped brand.

I hear of cheap putters putting lights out all the time. Love the test. I have no desire to provide aid and comfort to thieves. That said, if someone is so inclined to search out fakes to purchase, they are doing so for the bling factor on the cheap and have no interest in performance. This test will do nothing to encourage people to rush out and purchase fakes. They stole PR.

In that regard, this test suggests that Scotty should consider hiring the counterfeiters to design their next line of putters. It seems to me those who were offended by this unbiased test were either employees of the manufacture or another golf forum. The latter being jealous of the unique and informative information most consumers appreciate.

MGS does an excellent job of providing real facts and that is exactly why the forum is growing at an exceptional rate! I happen to own a Scotty cameron and have for years one of the best putters in the market today. Same reason anything is copied, fake purses, rolexes, etc…. Obviously they are trying to sell cheap knock offs to take your money. How topical for me, in the past month — I received a fake Scotty Newport 2. A couple of giveaways when you look at it. One, as mentioned, the headcover is clearly cheaply made.

But, since you can buy an authentic cover on eBay — no biggie. Secondly, the Scotty banding is showing when you look down the shaft. Having said all that — I validate what you wrote. I putt magnificently with this putter. So, they sat around until last month when I asked if he had one I could try. Of course, by the time I realized it — the buyer had disappeared.

I bought a Newport 2. I brought it to a family golf pro and also to the local Edwin Watts the Manager is a great guy and he confirmed it was a Knock off.

Was initially pissed, but I will accept some blame for trusting freely. This is a valid test subject for MGS to pursue, just as the test of clubs from WalMart and similar low end suppliers is. In this case the test seeks to answer performance questions that I have regarding knock-offs. The morale high ground is occupied by those who will tackle questionable subjects with as much objectivity as possible. It is that striving for integrity that first got me reading MGS several years ago and kept me coming back.

So are PXG clubs. With that being said, there is obviously a market so spend. As far as counterfeit clubs. Just a matter or princpile to me. There is a huge difference in fake vs real swinging clubs. Someone has made a fairly decent performing fake.

So what. I work in manufacturing and we get copied all the time. Some of the copies are very good. But it is my company that has invested in the R and D, marketing and Western manufacturing expertise. Other people just freeload off it by stealing the IP. Morally customers know what they should do.

Thanks for always putting the consumer first — after all as amateur golfers it really helps to get the most bang for our buck….

Are these factory overruns or is it just that counterfeiters have become very very good at their game? Well done my golf spy. Definitely worth a donation for carrying out a test like this that does push boundaries. Well, I just know that my putting is better with my Scotty than it was with a no-name. I enjoy MGS and have purchased many items based upon reviews of products. I also like the data driven approach etc.

But in this case I feel MGS missed the mark as the article seemed to take aim at the easiest target in golf for a consumer blog, namely Titleist and the Cameron brand. My thoughts are: 1. The test should have been done without any tester knowledge of brand, and the testers should have been told the truth about what the testing was for — comparing performance of real vs fake product. Judging by the follow-up consumer comments, the article missed testing brainwashing — rather everyone focused on real vs fake, not brand vs brand with cost as a separating factor.

The underlying premise of the test, i. Scotty real vs Scotty fake seems to have it purpose in undermining the Scotty brand. The test also could have been done with the real and fake product in your regular round of putter testing, without telling anyone anything.

This would have been a true blind test of performance. And finally, MGS regular putter testing showed this year that inexpensive putters like the Cleveland Huntington Beach series outperform many more expensive putters.

My observation is that MGS uses tests like these as clickbait that drives readers to the site — sorry its true. Blind tests are carried out for the purpose of eliminating biases such as the one you clearly hold from corrupting the experiment.

And no…. You have some issue with using the Scotty Cameron brand… but have no issue throwing any other brand under the bus. The two you mentioned, Snake Eyes and I assume Maltby are in no ways clones of anything.

You can pull a clone club from many places, but not the two you mentioned. Only if you had multiple putters of some of the others being tested. Two Scotties and one of everything else might have been a flag to the testers. Why pick Scotty? They are a popular target for counterfeiters because they are popular and carry a high value.

The test should have been done as a double blind in that the brand of the putters being compared should not have been known to the testers. In addition the testers could then have been told the truth about what the test was really for, to determine how fake and real putters performed under the conditions of this test.

MGS often uses these sensationalist types of tests to get attention for the blog, rather than getting to any truth that matters. In fact now that I think about it, the fake scotty could have been included in the MGS putter testing series without telling anyone anything, then seeing how it performs. Finally, the comments following this article also demonstrate that the test missed its mark, as people were concerned with real vs fake rather than brand vs brand.

MGS can and has done better — and I get tired of the constant conscious put down of Titleist just because they charge a lot for their brand. But the real fact is that the beginning premise of your testing is often biased, and it shows through easily in this case. You have, and can, do better than this.

The bias does seem to be there, but that is why I propose for other similar brands to be tested in the same manner. No response yet. It almost seems like someone got hurt from Titleist and has taken a vendetta.

Their articles are good reads. Long winded but MGS needs to be around and the perceived bias needs to disappear. Millions at stake. How would you blind test a putter? Use tape to cover the head or tell the testers to just not look at it?

Bad week for Scotty. I had a couple of machinest machine one up out of a block of steel to F around with. I am surprised anyone would doubt these results. A putter is perhaps the most simple club in the bag. Gaming a California Del Mar and getting it from a established shop I know mine is real.

Great to drop a wad of loot and buy a lemon.