Cleveland 588 RTX 2.0 Wedges: In-hand photos

[setter02]

Dear Cleveland, although you won't be around much longer other than your wedges, please take the god awful print on the faces and keep a clean look, it will help you sell more of your product. Also, get rid of the 'laser etched' lines as they wear off in like 3 shots and are a waste of that whole clean look thing were going to try and have to do.

[nmorton]

Saw the demos of these yesterday for the first time yesterday at Golfgalaxy. I've only gamed the original 588 Forged since I began playing as a kid. Was lucky enough to find original 588s (47, 54 and 58) from YouTourCollection a few months ago and am still mad that I didn't buy him out. FYI...if you're looking for Cleveland wedges check out his website. I'll stick with mine for now and not go with the 2.0s. From address they look a little big, especially the toe section, and the face is just too busy for me personally. Not sure how the finish/milling will hold up especially from the sand. The satins are the better of the two cosmetically, but I was hoping Cleveland would go with a nice compact shape. I was in a rush and didn't hit them so I can't comment on feel.

[NateAnderson63]

look really good. also wondering if there will be a raw finish. will these wear out as fast as the old ones? that is why i did not get the rtx last year

[Marshawn Lynch]

awesome looking wedges 54 and 60 2 bounce are calling my name

[CTSpinDoctor]

whats the price?

[Marshawn Lynch]

anyone hit these yet?

[Minarets]

These are the first Cleveland wedges that have me excited

[bailman]

One of the metro Detroit golfsmith stores had 2 in their wedge demo bag last week. They are heavy and feel great. Might give my mack daddy tours some competition. I don't need the extra spin, but they look and feel phenomenal.

[SwingBlues]

Hmmmh, I have the Rotex 1.0 in the 52* - damn that is a great wedge, much better control and dispersion than my ATV at the full shot. Lots of spin on the chips are well. These 2.0 should be interesting....pity they don't do a Toe Sweep grind like my Nike in the 56.

[THG826]

Looks awesome. Don't need wedges but tough to resist!

[Marshawn Lynch]

these probably shred golf balls....

[nova6868]

All that laser etching and face roughness or whatever is gone after a couple rounds.

[tbowles411]

[quote name='nova6868' timestamp='1410269774' post='10088901']
All that laser etching and face roughness or whatever is gone after a couple rounds.
[/quote]
Maybe they actually made it a little more durable. The previous models worked great. They put plenty of bite on the ball, even when the etching was gone.

[Marshawn Lynch]

[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1410278091' post='10089639']
[quote name='nova6868' timestamp='1410269774' post='10088901']
All that laser etching and face roughness or whatever is gone after a couple rounds.
[/quote]
Maybe they actually made it a little more durable. The previous models worked great. They put plenty of bite on the ball, even when the etching was gone.
[/quote]

the etching I assume is probably for looks as well on the rack just to get people to buy them..

The 1.0 were great but I found the SM5 a bit more accurate for my game anyways. Definitely going to give the 2.0 a try.

[tbowles411]

[quote name='ckelly78' timestamp='1410279365' post='10089783']
[quote name='tbowles411' timestamp='1410278091' post='10089639']
[quote name='nova6868' timestamp='1410269774' post='10088901']
All that laser etching and face roughness or whatever is gone after a couple rounds.
[/quote]
Maybe they actually made it a little more durable. The previous models worked great. They put plenty of bite on the ball, even when the etching was gone.
[/quote]

the etching I assume is probably for looks as well on the rack just to get people to buy them..

The 1.0 were great but I found the SM5 a bit more accurate for my game anyways. Definitely going to give the 2.0 a try.
[/quote]
I can't argue that point. SM5's are very accurate, but I also need the ball to stop when I need it to. I want to try them as well.

[Meanmachinemoe]

I posted this in the Equipment forum and no replies. Maybe I'll have better luck here....

3 Dot/HIgh Bounce 2.0 CBs = Vokey K Grind sole width??

My local shop got in the new Clevelands today but didn't get any of the 3 dot high bounce models. From what I've read the difference in the 2 and 3 dot models is the trailing edge on the 2 dot models have been ground down and they have less bounce. Based on that and what I saw with the 2 dots, the 3 dot models should have much wider soles than the original RTX wedges. Maybe even as wide as the Vokey K grinds. Can anyone confirm?

Also, are the CB models available in satin chrome?

[kronik]

Hit these today and I really like them. The black satin is easily the more attractive finish, even if it's just going to wear off. I hate shiny chrome wedges, they look cheap to me, for some reason and I hate the glare here in sunny AZ. The three dot 60 is indeed very similar to the Vokey K grind, but I really like the one dot 60.

[randywildman]

I like those !

[ekimox]

We just got these in today at our store. I've been a Cleveland wedge guy since the good old days of the 588 RTG's and I currently play the 588 RTX's which I love. I hate to say this but just based on looks alone I'm not a fan. The finish is just way too shiny/bright and I agree that they could be a little more compact. That being said, in doing a side by side with the SM5 M grind, the medium bounce 54* and SM5 M grind look nearly identical. Nearly identical sole, shape, and toe but the SM5's appear just a little more compact and I think it has to do with the satin/matte finish. All in all I'm sure these are going to be great wedges but I will be sticking with my RTX's until the grooves are gone. Why Cleveland doesn't offer these in a raw finish baffles me.

Oh and unless you have magnifying glasses for eyes you cannot see any of the etched lettering on the faces from address. They wear off very quickly anyway.

[marlowe70]

Presented nicely...

http://clevelandgolf.com/588rtx2.0/

[Konklifer]

[quote name='marlowe70' timestamp='1410427063' post='10099855']
Presented nicely...

[url="http://clevelandgolf.com/588rtx2.0/"]http://clevelandgolf.com/588rtx2.0/[/url]
[/quote]

Excellent web site. The 54/10 and 58/6 are on my radar.

[Konklifer]

[quote name='ekimox' timestamp='1410414858' post='10099661']
We just got these in today at our store. I've been a Cleveland wedge guy since the good old days of the 588 RTG's and I currently play the 588 RTX's which I love. I hate to say this but just based on looks alone I'm not a fan. The finish is just way too shiny/bright [u][b][i]and I agree that they could be a little more compact.[/i][/b][/u] That being said, in doing a side by side with the SM5 M grind, the medium bounce 54* and SM5 M grind look nearly identical. Nearly identical sole, shape, and toe but the SM5's appear just a little more compact and I think it has to do with the satin/matte finish. All in all I'm sure these are going to be great wedges but I will be sticking with my RTX's until the grooves are gone. Why Cleveland doesn't offer these in a raw finish baffles me.

Oh and unless you have magnifying glasses for eyes you cannot see any of the etched lettering on the faces from address. They wear off very quickly anyway.
[/quote]

How do they compare in size to the original RTX?

[Lord Helmet]

Is this a forged or cast wedge?

[Konklifer]

[quote name='Lord Helmet' timestamp='1410448673' post='10101117']
Is this a forged or cast wedge?
[/quote]

Cast 8620

[tbowles411]

[quote name='Lord Helmet' timestamp='1410448673' post='10101117']
Is this a forged or cast wedge?
[/quote]
These are cast.

[Lord Helmet]

^^^ Thanks peeps. I prefer a forged feel.

[tbowles411]

[quote name='Lord Helmet' timestamp='1410450301' post='10101307']
^^^ Thanks peeps. I prefer a forged feel.
[/quote]
They're not awful, but definitely not forged.

[ekimox]

[quote name='Konklifer' timestamp='1410448113' post='10101047']
[quote name='ekimox' timestamp='1410414858' post='10099661']
We just got these in today at our store. I've been a Cleveland wedge guy since the good old days of the 588 RTG's and I currently play the 588 RTX's which I love. I hate to say this but just based on looks alone I'm not a fan. The finish is just way too shiny/bright [u][b][i]and I agree that they could be a little more compact.[/i][/b][/u] That being said, in doing a side by side with the SM5 M grind, the medium bounce 54* and SM5 M grind look nearly identical. Nearly identical sole, shape, and toe but the SM5's appear just a little more compact and I think it has to do with the satin/matte finish. All in all I'm sure these are going to be great wedges but I will be sticking with my RTX's until the grooves are gone. Why Cleveland doesn't offer these in a raw finish baffles me.

Oh and unless you have magnifying glasses for eyes you cannot see any of the etched lettering on the faces from address. They wear off very quickly anyway.
[/quote]

How do they compare in size to the original RTX?
[/quote]

Slightly larger with a much more pronounced toe. The face looked huge to me. It's not that I couldn't get used to it but I just really like the shape of the RTX's.

[kronik]

Just ordered a one dot 60*. Hopefully it comes soon!

[kronik]

Mine came in the mail, today. Took it out for a quick spin on the local practice greens and I'm completely in love with this club. Ridiculous spin from every lie I threw at it and the one dot grind has phenominal versatility for all the shots I take with a 60. Bunker shots are about to get a whole lot more fun.