Quick tack question

[Cove 39]

I was wondering Are 952's considered top of the line (in there day) or like mid ? I thought (I may be wrong) that 1152's where the top but I cant remember for sure. Also, can you bake 952's ?

[Chadd 916]

Depends on the year

[Cove 39]

does this picture help;

Also, what year are these 852's from ? And where they top dogs in there day ?

[Tyler B 0]

i belive the 952's have always been one step below top of the line. not entirely sure. they are bakeable as far as i know.

edit: the 952's you posted are bakeable for sure. also if you were to get them be really careful with the tendon guard when baking them they are fragile.

[Chadd 916]

Those are post 2000 and neither was top of the line at the time. I thought the tacks sucked around that time. I loved my 98-ish 852s, the same year 952s were heavier than hell.

[Cove 39]

The 98 952s where heavy ?

[Chadd 916]

B)-->

QUOTE(Tyler B @ Oct 30 2007, 12:06 AM) ←

i belive the 952's have always been one step below top of the line. not entirely sure. they are bakeable as far as i know.

edit: the 952's you posted are bakeable for sure.

1052 and 1152 were above those 952s.

The 98 952s where heavy ?

yes, I couldn't give mine away.

[Cove 39]

Thanks for the help

[Tyler B 0]

B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyler B @ Oct 30 2007, 12:06 AM) ←</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->

i belive the 952's have always been one step below top of the line. not entirely sure. they are bakeable as far as i know.

edit: the 952's you posted are bakeable for sure.

1052 and 1152 were above those 952s.

The 98 952s where heavy ?

yes, I couldn't give mine away.

ok i wasnt sure cause i knew the 1152's were top of the line i didnt know if the 1052's were their replacement for the next model or in the same model line at the time.

[LoXish 0]

Pro Tacks usurp all Tacks in for the past couple of years, right?

[Cove 39]

Would they still be a good grab ?

[Tyler B 0]

id say they are. if you get a reasonable price on them why not. i have a pair and theya re still going strong despite me buying a newer modle.

[JR Boucicaut 3805]

The 98 952s where heavy ?

yes, I couldn't give mine away.

1st-gen 952 with DST outsoles were BRICKS.

[B-Nads 0]

What about these SMU 972 Tacks - are they worth bothering with? They appear to have a carbon outsole and they wear E-Pro's. Comparing them at the shop they were noticably heavier than 7k's, but didn't seem too bad. I ask because I can get a pair of them locally for $225 or throw in an extra $100 and snag a pair of Pro Tacks.

[LoXish 0]

I skate on 2006 Pro Tacks and I love them, most comfortable boot I've skated in and I've had a hard time with skates fitting my feet correctly. I use them roller and actually bought them used moderatly from a user here on MSH. Had them converted from Redstar E-Frames to Sprungs and still am very high on them.

[Monty22 835]

I had a pair of the '98 952's- I agree, they were boat anchors. Very solid skates though. I also concur that the later models got progressively worse quality wise as the years went on. The Pro Tacks were, and still are when you can find them, a solid bet. Up until my current Vectors and a brief test drive of Mission Flyweights, I have always worn Tacks. The last few pairs were pro stock due to the quality issues, but I still miss the Tacks name. I'm hopeful it will be brought back in a season or two.

[Tyler B 0]

What about these SMU 972 Tacks - are they worth bothering with? They appear to have a carbon outsole and they wear E-Pro's. Comparing them at the shop they were noticably heavier than 7k's, but didn't seem too bad. I ask because I can get a pair of them locally for $225 or throw in an extra $100 and snag a pair of Pro Tacks.

they do not have a carbon outsole.. it just looks carbon if you get what i mean.

[MLSman 22]

The last Pro Tacks were not bad at all...just really wide in the heel.

Rumor still has it that CCM (THC/RBK) is still in the lab and will within the next 2 years produce a new Tacks line.

[Spreedizzle 1]

The last Pro Tacks were not bad at all...just really wide in the heel.

Rumor still has it that CCM (THC/RBK) is still in the lab and will within the next 2 years produce a new Tacks line.

Although I am happy that the RBK's are a close fit to my Tacks (692's, and 2 pairs of 1092's)...if CCM were to put out the Tacks line again, with similar fit and durability of the old Tacks, I would drop my 7K's in a heartbeat and pick up a pair. Easily my favorite skates that I have ever used.

[B-Nads 0]

It's kinda strange, but even though the Vectors are supposed to be tighter in the ankle than the Tacks and k's, I tried on the 972's, Pro Tacks, Vector 10.0's, and 9k's yesterday. The skate that I had the poorest ankle lock in were the V10's. The best fit was with the Pro Tacks and the 9k. The Pro Tacks were a 9E, the 9k were 9D. The 9D still had a slight bit of movement in the heel when not pumped, but when pucmped up they were like slippers. I didn't realize it, but I also have a pretty deep foot - the Vectors were busting apart at the mid foot - the Tacks and 9k' were fine. I ended up going with the 7K in 9D - after comparing the two the 972's felt a fair bit heavier - for a differnce of $50 I figured I might as well go with the RBK.

BTW - a rep at CCM/RBK HQ in Montreal told me the 5k, 7k, and 9k fit the same. I tried on the 5k Talon yesterday morning in a 9E and it was noticably tighter than the 9k in 9D.

[thejackal 46]

even with the 9k's pump?

[B-Nads 0]

Tighter length-wise, I mean - they seem a little shorter in the foot.

[Andoy 5]

does this picture help;

Also, what year are these 852's from ? And where they top dogs in there day ?

I hope you are not tying your skates like first picture!

[Cove 39]

HEY !! WHAT YEAR ARE THESE FROM:

952 Super Tacks

[mew1838 0]

2004