I bought this Nanospeed, it looks real but I'm not sure. The seller is from ebay, but he has a very good rating. Could someone help comfirm if the racquet is real or not? By the way, should the nanospeed have grommets on the inside? Second, should the nanospeed be able to bend easily because i can bend the shaft, without too much effort? racket model: Yonex Nanospeed 9900 shaft serial: 7575174 cone code : 050110SP The serial and cone code are laser etched not imprinted and the Logos are very clear, not blurry. The blurriness is from the camera.
Look at the bag, lol, and look at the racket The printed stuff on the racket for 3UG4 is just weird lmaoo
050110SP means that the racket was made on January 5th, 2001...and I'm sure you realize that NS9900 was not created until recently.
Also another way to tell exactly if the racket is fake is to look at the hologram sticker. if you can't see the racket paint through it then it is fake. in your case it is fake
From what I've heard and seen they've just gone to "0" for that spot. I can't think of a single racket that has been in production for more than 10 years (ignoring the Ti-10 gen 1/2/3) so can't imagine there being any mistakes about the production year.
Review seller Sorry for you. Can you highlight which seller that you purchased the racket from and why did you mentioned the seller have a good reputation? Thanks.
Easily fake 1. Shouldn't be easy to flex. 2. 3ug4 printing isn't aligned nor is it crisply printed 3. Bag shouldn't be wrinkly like that. Even keeping an authentic bag folded for a month doesn't make creases like that. 4. The serial is too shiny and the shaft serial looks sketch. Need pictures of the grip itself but i don't think it will move my decision.
Agree with everyone above that it's a genuine fake! 1. PBSI logo is all misaligned... real one is perfect. 2. Font of the 3UG4 is the fake font 3. Cone serial # "gap spacing" is all uniform between the numbers... real ones are more "messy" 4. Serial code itself says it was made in 2001 which can't be possible since it's a new design 5. Racquet bag is made from the fake softer material that leaves impressions... real bags are more firm and won't flex like that. NEGATIVE FEEDBACK THE SELLER!!!
Hey, don't worry. It looks original to me. Stiff means you sure can bend it slightly. Hope you paid around USd 180-200 for it.
well, it is "original" but not "genuine" lol.. you need to learn more about how to identify fake racket definitely a fake the shaft serial is wrong for the cone code the cone code says this racket is either 2001 or 2011 production, whereas this thread is being posted in 2010 (there is no way a 2011 racket) and NS9900 does not exist in 2001 the bag looks really cheap maybe from cheap plastic material the pbsi logo does not have "SP" on it
Don't worry, this is a genuine - original one. I have a NS9900 bought from Sunrise Sports and is cent percent like what is in the photograph. Don't bother on a few clowns around this forum, who have eyes but can't see, and trying to mislead you. 050110SP - means the date of production : 5th January 2010 for Singapore. The SP symbol is there below PBSI around the picture of the shuttle.
Moreover the serial no is etched, so you can be very sure it is genuine. The tag X-Fullerene is in the right place and the 2 knot stringing is the original one for NS 9900
Clearly, you are the one with eyes but cannot see. You stated that the date of production is on the 5th of Jan 2010 yet the pictures were taken in 2009. 050110SP means either 5th Jan 2001 or 5th Jan 2011. In both cases, the racket is definitely a fake based on reasons stated by others with eyes that can see.
The member Xuyesi wrote the post on 03.07.2010, whereas the date on the photograph shows 03.06.2009. The member has to let us know when the racquet was bought. We should presume he wouldn't make queries on the racquet's genuineness after 1 year of purchase. I presume the camera time/data has not been probably updated and probably so the date of 03.06.2009 imprinted on the photograph.
Yes I agree, my camera at the moment also shows the year 2008 instead of 2012, so it could definitely be the case.