Blade users thread (NO DEBATING CLUBHEADS! NO Buy Sell Trade!)

[DeNinny]

I haven't bought a ball in probably 6 years. I play the balls I find, and they are all premium. I play proV1s and V1Xs mostly and anything like them. I am not picky about it other than it be a premium 3 piece or more. I like the checkspin of 3 piece balls which is the main reason I play them. I am also not picky because performance of premium balls is all about the same and I can adjust to my ball for the day during warm up on the practice green. I can't stand the Nike RZN line and my favorite of all time is the Nike One Tour D.

[John L.]

I have played the ProV1 since the day I found out about them. I never looked back or cared to try any others. The only exceptions would be in the fall when I lose balls in the middle of the fairways with all the leaves. The Golf Ball Shop here at the beach sells used mint Prov1's very cheap and I used them right up until I quit the game 5 years ago.

 

I know there are plenty of other balls just as good, but I am a creature of habit. My kids must have my same traits because they kept buying me new ProV1's every Christmas and Father's day during the 4 1/2 years I didn't play the game. I have 4 dozen out in the garage, and a couple dozen in my bag.

[3woodvt]

I use to play new ProV1X's unitl I got home one day and my 3 kids ages 4-8 at the time were down at the pond slinging them in as fast as they could (trying to hit a turtle). I lost my cool for a minute but then hugged them for all it's worth later. Its truly my fondest memory of the V1x as we look back and laugh since those great kid days are gone forever. All teenagers now...geez it's tuff. 25.00 a dozen or less for urethane ball now and usually stock up. I'm usually a couple years behind as I often play the older version. XV's, B330, and 1X's all perform very close for me. I prefer a firmer urethane ball than the really softies.

[bobbyclampett!!]

Strictly used ProV1x. Lostgolfballs.com. Buckets of 48. I've experimented quite a bit (Srixon, TM TPx, Bridgestone, Callaway) and I liked them all for different reasons (except Bridgestone, always felt light and hollow or something). But to me the ProV1x is just the ultimate all around ball. I love the way they look, feel, and perform. It's just the epitome of the golf ball to me. God bless Lostgolfballs.com because the only thing I didn't like about them was (I know this will sound crazy) that I liked them so much (and they were so expensive) I was literally nervous to lose new ones off the tee (especially first swing with a new one) that it added pressure to my game. Nothing more traumatic than opening a fresh sleeve, teeing one up, and watching it sail over the fence. With the used ones (which perform just as well) I don't feel that pressure and it's the best of all worlds. Last year when I got really serious about my game, especially distance control, I knew I had to control as many variables as possible, and now I have nothing but used ProV1x in my possession. I'll never switch again. I love my ProV1x.

 

Oh and I love marking them. Have 6 or 8 mini sharpies in my bag and I pick two either at random or what I'm feeling that day and can come up with all different sorts of cool color combinations. My favorite is a light neon green or blue or pink dot with a black dot next to it on both sides. Very cool combo. I love marking it so that you absolutely know it's your ball from 20 feet away when walking up on it, especially when it's in the fairway and way out there or close to the pin. #purejoy

[John L.]

I use to play new ProV1X's unitl I got home one day and my 3 kids ages 4-8 at the time were down at the pond slinging them in as fast as they could (trying to hit a turtle). I lost my cool for a minute but then hugged them for all it's worth later. Its truly my fondest memory of the V1x as we look back and laugh since those great kid days are gone forever. All teenagers now...geez it's tuff. 25.00 a dozen or less for urethane ball now and usually stock up. I'm usually a couple years behind as I often play the older version. XV's, B330, and 1X's all perform very close for me. I prefer a firmer urethane ball than the really softies.

 

LMAO.....about the kids, but I feel for ya!

[Tcann32]

Yeah, I got a little caught up in the hardness line of thought, it's been so intertwined with "cast/forged" that it just comes out automatically.

 

But, with respect to the actual question at hand, again I say it's not the casting or forging of the material involved, it's the material that's involved that will determine the answer to that question. Obviously, a poor casting would cause issues one wouldn't see in a forging, but we're not really talking about that level of product here. Not much call for poorly cast blades, donchaknow. LOL

 

My friend, that bit of confusion on hardness/softness is common all over WRX, as-is alot of other forged vs cast info. The manufacturers need it for club building so that is why they use it (or rather they *should*). But again in the context of temporary ball and clubface flex (deformation). Unequivocally the Young's, bulk, and shear moduli define it! Those links I shared actually contain all the math formulas that prove all this. They cover all three of the fundamental dimensions or ways of deformation: stretching (Young's), compressing (bulk), and twisting (shear). And they even have tables for them for actual materials. There was a generic value for just 'steel' but sadly not for cast and forged carbon steel specifically.

 

And to your point about defects and metal quality, absolutely they affect the actual values of the moduli. So absolutely they affect the flex! Defects literally change the molecular and micro level structure of the material, and so they will unequivocally change how that material stretches, compresses, and twists. Conceptually you can treat a defect like an alloy added to the base metal. It will change the properties of that metal in its own way. And in the case of cast vs forged, I actually am hesitant to take a position on it until I see some actual values for those moduli. My gut feel tells me defects don't matter that much untill they get so bad like halfway rust in the metal, but for cast vs forged, I would guess their flex difference is more as compared to defects and quality differences, but still not that different that things like flex and thus ball spin changes. I think feel is more impacted than performance when it comes to cast vs forged.

 

I don't have anything to say in the "moduli" department, but metal defects is spot on in the way it's been described. The one thing that I have to add, that I haven't seen mentioned, is that carbon is actually considered an impurity in steel, but the more carbon deposits within the steel, the softer it will feel. Mizuno arranges these deposits as best they can. "grain flow" is an attempt to arrange the carbon deposits in a specific way so that a club will feel soft, but the carbon isn't in random spots, while not in others, to try and create a uniformed feel and flex of the steel. On the other hand, you have Miura's, which are not "buttery" soft, because they attempt to forge the carbon out of the steel as much as possible, leaving you with a more pure clubhead, void of as many impurities as possible, but it leaves them feeling a bit more solid.

 

So, with those measures in mind, I don't see casting having much of a place in the running in comparison.

 

Your guys' scientific talk is way above my head. I just know some things about steel in general lol.

[Nard_S]

“At the end of the day, I want to get across to people that Miura Golf clubs are going to continue to be made at the same factory in Himeji, Japan,” McGarity told GolfWRX. “Mr. Miura and his family will have control over everything that goes on with production and development of Miura clubs.”

 

Sounds like Miura only sold off the world wide distribution part of the business, that the plant, Miura Gikken stays with the family....................quite encouraging.

[3_Jack_Par]

The Rules of Golf, jointly governed by the R&A and the USGA, state in Appendix III that the diameter of a "conforming" golf ball cannot be any smaller than 1.680 inches (42.67 mm), and the weight of the ball may not exceed 1.620 ounces (45.93 g).

This made me think about the good old Top Flite Magna -- the whole pitch was that the bigger ball would spin less and by extension help slicers to not hit quite as extreme of a banana ball. I think one of the other benefits was supposed to be that the bigger ball had more of a chance to catch a piece of the hole on putts. I remember playing those rocks for a while as a kid.

 

These days, I'll play basically any brand's equivalent of the Pro V1x. I keep an eye out for deals, and won't spend more than $30/dozen, so I rarely play an actual Pro V1x, unless I get them as gifts. It seems like the most common model that goes on good sales over the past several years are the TaylorMade balls, and I've played them pretty regularly going back to the days of the TP Red and TP Black. I recently reloaded with several dozen Tour Preferred X, and shops are selling the Srixon Z Star XV for $30 right now, so I have a couple boxes of those. I honestly don't see any real difference between the TPx, V1x, B330, Z Star XV.

The only two brands I've avoided are Callaway and Nike. I used to play the One Tour D quite a bit, but since they switched to that RZN cover, they've felt like crap. I got a sleeve of last year's Platinum ball, and that version finally felt like a decent ball, though the Platinum is more like the regular Pro V1, and isn't a good fit for me. l tried and tried to like Callaway balls (I thought the hex dimple look was kinda cool and unique), but they always felt really clicky. When I got to participate in the Gear Trials last year, we used the Chrome Soft, and that actually felt really good, but I never really made an effort to find any of them -- the new Chrome Soft X might be worth a look, but I already probably have enough ammo for the year, and I honestly haven't ever seen any real performance advantage among the different brands, so unless I find one in the woods, I doubt I'll really try it.

I do like it in tournaments I'm almost always the only one playing the TMAG ball, so it's easy to avoid any issues with playing the wrong ball. I have some scar tissue about that going back over 20 years from when I hit the wrong ball in Regionals, and missed making it to the state finals by a shot.

[NRJyzr]

l tried and tried to like Callaway balls (I thought the hex dimple look was kinda cool and unique), but they always felt really clicky.

 

I've had much the same issues with Callaway. The Chrome+ was pretty good, though, but after the HX Red, everything got way too firm for my taste. Chrome Soft fixed that, but there were other aspects I didn't care for, so I moved on.

 

The Hex balls are the absolute best in the wind, though, which is what makes me keep trying them here and there. :)

[wmblake2000]

Anyone have experience with Callaway Tour Prototype Quad Dots irons? (What a name, if that's the name!) I am offered a set in trade for an unused set but don't know much about them.

[DeNinny]

Yeah, I got a little caught up in the hardness line of thought, it's been so intertwined with "cast/forged" that it just comes out automatically.

 

But, with respect to the actual question at hand, again I say it's not the casting or forging of the material involved, it's the material that's involved that will determine the answer to that question. Obviously, a poor casting would cause issues one wouldn't see in a forging, but we're not really talking about that level of product here. Not much call for poorly cast blades, donchaknow. LOL

 

My friend, that bit of confusion on hardness/softness is common all over WRX, as-is alot of other forged vs cast info. The manufacturers need it for club building so that is why they use it (or rather they *should*). But again in the context of temporary ball and clubface flex (deformation). Unequivocally the Young's, bulk, and shear moduli define it! Those links I shared actually contain all the math formulas that prove all this. They cover all three of the fundamental dimensions or ways of deformation: stretching (Young's), compressing (bulk), and twisting (shear). And they even have tables for them for actual materials. There was a generic value for just 'steel' but sadly not for cast and forged carbon steel specifically.

 

And to your point about defects and metal quality, absolutely they affect the actual values of the moduli. So absolutely they affect the flex! Defects literally change the molecular and micro level structure of the material, and so they will unequivocally change how that material stretches, compresses, and twists. Conceptually you can treat a defect like an alloy added to the base metal. It will change the properties of that metal in its own way. And in the case of cast vs forged, I actually am hesitant to take a position on it until I see some actual values for those moduli. My gut feel tells me defects don't matter that much untill they get so bad like halfway rust in the metal, but for cast vs forged, I would guess their flex difference is more as compared to defects and quality differences, but still not that different that things like flex and thus ball spin changes. I think feel is more impacted than performance when it comes to cast vs forged.

 

I don't have anything to say in the "moduli" department, but metal defects is spot on in the way it's been described. The one thing that I have to add, that I haven't seen mentioned, is that carbon is actually considered an impurity in steel, but the more carbon deposits within the steel, the softer it will feel. Mizuno arranges these deposits as best they can. "grain flow" is an attempt to arrange the carbon deposits in a specific way so that a club will feel soft, but the carbon isn't in random spots, while not in others, to try and create a uniformed feel and flex of the steel. On the other hand, you have Miura's, which are not "buttery" soft, because they attempt to forge the carbon out of the steel as much as possible, leaving you with a more pure clubhead, void of as many impurities as possible, but it leaves them feeling a bit more solid.

 

So, with those measures in mind, I don't see casting having much of a place in the running in comparison.

 

Your guys' scientific talk is way above my head. I just know some things about steel in general lol.

 

So I wanted to just make sure the fundamental science is out there because folks on WRX simply convolute the knowledge into a travesty of it. The tie of hardness to flex in the cast vs forged debate is just one example of how convoluted the science can get on WRX.

 

And absolutely everything you stated is aligned with the true materials science. If you want consistent performance in a material you simply must concentrate and distribute ALL the constituents comprising the materials in an evenly distributed manner. So the defects, the carbon, the iron, nickel, chromium, whatever, all these constituents need to "mix" evenly throughout the metal. The ideal is to be able to cut the metal in half and both halves still have the same even mix of constituents. And then you could cut each half in half again and the properties and mixture would still all look the same. If you could keep cutting the halves in half repeatedly down to the molecular level, the properties and the concentration mixtures of all the constituents of all the little pieces would never change. The smallest half that you cut would still have the same structure and mixture of constituents as the original big block. This is the ideal because each base constituent has its own materials science properties and so when mixed with other materials each one will not flex the same. So in order to average this out and make it consistent throughout the metal, the added constituents need to be as evenly distributed as possible.

 

And the thing with solid materials, you really cannot "mix" other solid materials within it like liquids or gases mixing. At some level there is a little "chunk" of the original pure constituent material. All you can do is try to make all those little solid "chunks" as small and as evenly distributed as possible.

 

To help visual this and understand it at the molecular and micro levels, here are some of the base crystalline structures of iron (or at least a few of them):

 

 

 

The balls indicate an actual iron (Fe) atom and you can see that they are oriented and distributed in perfection in any of the structures. This is that ideal for consistent performance that I mentioned. Each atom is spaced evenly from its neighboring atom.

 

And to tie this back to those "moduli" and how materials mathematically flex, you can visualize each atom behaving *as if* it is attached its neighboring atoms with a spring. You could even look at those yellow lines between the balls as those springs. And so to literally bend and flex this metal you can simply look at it like you have to compress and stretch a bunch of little springs. And instead of getting into the complicated math in the "moduli" formulas, you can simply view it like good old Hooke's Law (https://en.wikipedia...Hooke's_law) which says that if you compress or stretch a spring over a certain distance, you need twice the force to double that distance. Fundamentally materials deformation and the math behind those moduli work the same. Those moduli values are nothing but advance versions of Hooke's "spring constants" in his math! I know it seems complicated but honestly it boils down to simple proportional math.

 

BTW, this is why the thickness of the metal behind the ball at impact is important and why it affects the ball spin! LMAO and why I always go on and on about the ball needing a consistent surface to compress against! It is NO DEBATE that a blade is the superior surface for ball spin and this is the supporting theory and math that proves it. Unequivocally! The blade's thick muscle is the key.

 

So anyway, back to alloys and defects...With a mixture of solids (an alloy with defects...i.e. carbon steel) it is impossible to get a mixture that is perfect like those pure structures. Let's say we add carbon to the iron so that we can make carbon steel. The problem is that the carbon won't actually break into individual carbon atoms and evenly mix in between these iron atoms in their perfect structure, so the carbon and iron still exist in solid "chunks" at some level in the metal. Instead the carbon and iron mix with each other like this:

 

 

 

This is how the micro level structure of carbon steel changes as it undergoes Miura's forging process. The black I'm pretty sure represents the carbon and all else is that iron. Just like you stated, the carbon needs to be evenly distributed and this is clear that with every strike from the Miura forge, the carbon does get better distributed. At all points in that final pic, you see the same structure.

 

And as to Miura trying to "forge the carbon out of the clubhead", NO!!! Both Miura and Mizuno are simply trying to evenly distribute the carbon in their own ways! The carbon is there for a reason (to give the metal specific materials science properties like hardness and those moduli) and so under no circumstances is Miura trying to stamp it out. Both Miura and Mizuno are simply trying to create their version of the best feel of carbon steel by their own forging process. But rest assured, both need that carbon in the iron as their design engineers intended.

 

So yes you can look at carbon as a defect in the sense that if isn't "mixed" well within the iron, meaning it exists in randomly sized big "chunks" within the iron, then yes this will lead to "defective" performance. This is why those samurai sword blacksmiths beat and folded their carbon steel incessantly over thousands of hammer strikes, they were literally beating the carbon into as small and as evenly distributed "chunks" as possible. Mizuno and Miura are doing it their own ways. But truly, the carbon is there for reasons stated and it's % mixture and how well it is mixed is VERY important.

 

And so now back to cast vs forged. I would fully agree that as long as the base steel used for a cast and forged club is EXACTLY the same, meaning the carbon content, all the alloy content, and the QUALITY is exactly the same, then yes I highly doubt the flex changes to a degree that performance is impacted by it. But this is a conditional statement. All other things must be equal for it to be true. So when you read folks talking about cast vs forged and their difference or similarities, you need to understand whether or not they are assuming the base steel is the same or not. Otherwise they are not doing an apples to apples comparison.

 

For example when NRJ claims the softest clubs he ever hit were cast carbon steel, the reason was not just because they were cast. The reason was because that cast carbon steel was a specific type of carbon steel AND likely the casting process may have been a little different. Same thing goes with forgings. You have to look at the base materials, their quality, and the forging process itself and its quality in determining the reasons for why a club made from it feels like it does compared to others.

 

So anyway, I just wanted to tie everything you stated back to the science. You may not think you know it, but your experience is fully aligned with it! And again please don't think Miura is removing the carbon!

[NRJyzr]

For example when NRJ claims the softest clubs he ever hit were cast carbon steel, the reason was not just because they were cast. The reason was because that cast carbon steel was a specific type of carbon steel AND likely the casting process may have been a little different. Same thing goes with forgings. You have to look at the base materials, their quality, and the forging process itself and its quality in determining the reasons for why a club made from it feels like it does compared to others.

 

I just wanted to chime in with a small clarification... such as memory allows (uh oh!), I think I've referred to the 1999/2000 Maxfli Australian Blades as the softest I've hit. And, they are cast, but said to be cast nickel, not carbon steel.

 

They *could* be cast 304 stainless, or similar, but when they were released, "cast nickel" was the label applied to them.

 

/end interruption :)

[3_Jack_Par]

For example when NRJ claims the softest clubs he ever hit were cast carbon steel, the reason was not just because they were cast. The reason was because that cast carbon steel was a specific type of carbon steel AND likely the casting process may have been a little different. Same thing goes with forgings. You have to look at the base materials, their quality, and the forging process itself and its quality in determining the reasons for why a club made from it feels like it does compared to others.

 

I just wanted to chime in with a small clarification... such as memory allows (uh oh!), I think I've referred to the 1999/2000 Maxfli Australian Blades as the softest I've hit. And, they are cast, but said to be cast nickel, not carbon steel.

 

They *could* be cast 304 stainless, or similar, but when they were released, "cast nickel" was the label applied to them.

 

/end interruption :)

Can't you see this is a thread about metallurgy?!

[DeNinny]

For example when NRJ claims the softest clubs he ever hit were cast carbon steel, the reason was not just because they were cast. The reason was because that cast carbon steel was a specific type of carbon steel AND likely the casting process may have been a little different. Same thing goes with forgings. You have to look at the base materials, their quality, and the forging process itself and its quality in determining the reasons for why a club made from it feels like it does compared to others.

 

I just wanted to chime in with a small clarification... such as memory allows (uh oh!), I think I've referred to the 1999/2000 Maxfli Australian Blades as the softest I've hit. And, they are cast, but said to be cast nickel, not carbon steel.

 

They *could* be cast 304 stainless, or similar, but when they were released, "cast nickel" was the label applied to them.

 

/end interruption :)

 

LOL it's been a long time since that discussion. And IIRC it took a few of our nitpicky (but oh so enjoyable) exchanges to come to the conclusion that the nickel may have been the true key to that feel rather than the fact that it was cast.

 

At the end of the day we are still just talking grades of steel which is iron with carbon mixed in. All varieties (including cast nickel) out there are just slight tweaks to this base mix with possibly other additives like nickel. And to think it all started by some iron worker that somehow decided to add carbon ashes from fire to melted iron.

[Nard_S]

For example when NRJ claims the softest clubs he ever hit were cast carbon steel, the reason was not just because they were cast. The reason was because that cast carbon steel was a specific type of carbon steel AND likely the casting process may have been a little different. Same thing goes with forgings. You have to look at the base materials, their quality, and the forging process itself and its quality in determining the reasons for why a club made from it feels like it does compared to others.

 

I just wanted to chime in with a small clarification... such as memory allows (uh oh!), I think I've referred to the 1999/2000 Maxfli Australian Blades as the softest I've hit. And, they are cast, but said to be cast nickel, not carbon steel.

 

They *could* be cast 304 stainless, or similar, but when they were released, "cast nickel" was the label applied to them.

 

/end interruption :)

For example when NRJ claims the softest clubs he ever hit were cast carbon steel, the reason was not just because they were cast. The reason was because that cast carbon steel was a specific type of carbon steel AND likely the casting process may have been a little different. Same thing goes with forgings. You have to look at the base materials, their quality, and the forging process itself and its quality in determining the reasons for why a club made from it feels like it does compared to others.

 

I just wanted to chime in with a small clarification... such as memory allows (uh oh!), I think I've referred to the 1999/2000 Maxfli Australian Blades as the softest I've hit. And, they are cast, but said to be cast nickel, not carbon steel.

 

They *could* be cast 304 stainless, or similar, but when they were released, "cast nickel" was the label applied to them.

 

/end interruption :)

 

Cast nickel would be noticeably. softer than any other variety of steel casting. Way too expensive for companies to be offering that these days though. Nickel alloys are exponentially more expensive (10X) and in large part drive the price of Stainless Steels even though it is a small component of the smelt. I have machined high nickel rod and it is gooey soft and pliable but extremely resilient. I am surprised a company like Ping does not offer a high end club cast from Nickel. It would be a winner

[DeNinny]

Nard_S, let's not forget that softer cast nickel will wear out faster. Hardness is a measure of permanent deformation. Harder materials last longer. Softer ones less so. So a cast nickel club owner also better have a few sets and a long term strategy if he wants to keep playing cast nickel clubs.

[Nard_S]

Nard_S, let's not forget that softer cast nickel will wear out faster. Hardness is a measure of permanent deformation. Harder materials last longer. Softer ones less so. So a cast nickel club owner also better have a few sets and a long term strategy if he wants to keep playing cast nickel clubs.

 

Okay I'm not a metallurgist but Nickel a strange beast of an alloy. It is soft and pliable but it is also austentiistic {sic} which means over time with age it gets harder. Also as soft as it is it destroys tooling that is applied to it. It has a really robust grain and machining it requires it be done at slow speeds but you need to make heavy cuts to drive the heat to the chip and not the material or tool.

 

Any club labeled cast nickel would really be a variant of Stainless steel with just a higher than normal component of Nickel. Ping did the ISI that way and as mentioned the Maxflis were too. In the same era Ram Tour Grinds were offered up in cast nickel.

 

Why no one makes a premium players' GI with high nickel and devoid of garish inserts and dampers is beyond me. It would smoke.

[NRJyzr]

Speaking of the Nickel Rams, I have a set of those. They do not feel nearly as good as the old Aussie Blades of which we've spoken above. Would take my other various Ram Tour Grinds ahead of them, to be honest.

 

Still nice to have a set, though. :)

[DeNinny]

Nard_S, let's not forget that softer cast nickel will wear out faster. Hardness is a measure of permanent deformation. Harder materials last longer. Softer ones less so. So a cast nickel club owner also better have a few sets and a long term strategy if he wants to keep playing cast nickel clubs.

 

Okay I'm not a metallurgist but Nickel a strange beast of an alloy. It is soft and pliable but it is also austentiistic {sic} which means over time with age it gets harder. Also as soft as it is it destroys tooling that is applied to it. It has a really robust grain and machining it requires it be done at slow speeds but you need to make heavy cuts to drive the heat to the chip and not the material or tool.

 

Any club labeled cast nickel would really be a variant of Stainless steel with just a higher than normal component of Nickel. Ping did the ISI that way and as mentioned the Maxflis were too. In the same era Ram Tour Grinds were offered up in cast nickel.

 

Why no one makes a premium players' GI with high nickel and devoid of garish inserts and dampers is beyond me. It would smoke.

 

Yeah alloys and metallurgy create some interesting materials properties that in some ways seem contradictory. I know nickel helps add tensile strength to steel but how and why it changes malleability, resiliency, hardness, Young's modulus, corrosion resistance, coefficient of friction, etc. is all too complicated to put to memory. Regardless, yeah you can get a material tough to tool but soft feeling as all get out. Gotta love science and engineering for that.

 

What I stated about wear may not be due to hardness alone and it may also be tied to corrosion resistance too. Also I don't know for sure how hard nickel is compared to the base steel, so don't quote me that it is truly softer (as per the hardness definition, not someone's feel definition).

 

All that garish GI badging and insert junk is to give the ignorant golfer the appearance of all that "significant" engineering! (Not to mention it damps feel and is simply a cheaper material than steel.) The manufacturers of "forgiving" clubs are all about making a head look like it has all that "significant" engineering making it work so good. It's "feng shui" club design for the ignorant golfer. The garish junk gives the club design "meaning". That's why the iBlade, a travesty of a real blade, mind you, isn't simply a blade. Ping wants to keep the ignorant golfer thinking that they "engineered" (LMAO) an improvement over a real blade. For Ping to turn their designs around now and go back to simple ones would be an acknowledgement that the garish crap wasn't necessary to begin with. Things can change, but I'm afraid Ping is just going to keep trying to make up more "significant engineered" garish junk to laden their designs with for the foreseeable future. It is a formula that has worked for them since they invented the "eye". That "eye" was the beginning of their feng shui designs and over the years the amount of garish junk has been ever increasing (LOL a newer example istheir "CTP custom tuning port").

 

All the major manufacturers are doing this and now this is why PXG exists. Everybody wants their clubs to look they are designed with "significant" engineering.

 

We play a carney game and "forgiveness" is the biggest booth.

[Bigmean]

Holy crap, I feel like I am minoring in "metallurgy" (shout out to 3jack).

 

Regarding miura and sons, let's see. As I mentioned, almost all buyouts of small niche companies are with stipulation current ownership stays on for an extended period, 1-3 years etc. hell, my buddy works for an insurance firm whose owners sold out, $20m, and they have to stay on for 3 years and final payout is only if portfolio meets an agreed upon valuation at end of that term. Will miura and sons be there in 5 years would be interesting.

 

I can't believe this is news If they just sold distribution rights. The fact the direction of company is being mentioned means it is not at miura discretion. Just my .02.

 

I have no metal science to add. At best I am only good for answers to cnc questions.....

[Oldplayer]

Anyone have experience with Callaway Tour Prototype Quad Dots irons? (What a name, if that's the name!) I am offered a set in trade for an unused set but don't know much about them.

Great irons! One of the modern classics. I think I am right saying the quad dots just means they are higher bounce.

 

Nard_S, let's not forget that softer cast nickel will wear out faster. Hardness is a measure of permanent deformation. Harder materials last longer. Softer ones less so. So a cast nickel club owner also better have a few sets and a long term strategy if he wants to keep playing cast nickel clubs.

 

Okay I'm not a metallurgist but Nickel a strange beast of an alloy. It is soft and pliable but it is also austentiistic {sic} which means over time with age it gets harder. Also as soft as it is it destroys tooling that is applied to it. It has a really robust grain and machining it requires it be done at slow speeds but you need to make heavy cuts to drive the heat to the chip and not the material or tool.

 

Any club labeled cast nickel would really be a variant of Stainless steel with just a higher than normal component of Nickel. Ping did the ISI that way and as mentioned the Maxflis were too. In the same era Ram Tour Grinds were offered up in cast nickel.

 

Why no one makes a premium players' GI with high nickel and devoid of garish inserts and dampers is beyond me. It would smoke.

I think I heard/read that the manufacturing process of making nickel heads has some of the environmental and health risks similar to making be-cu heads and that is why they are not made anymore.

[Tcann32]

DeNinny: I've seen that photo on froged steel / metals in some courses I have taken before, and it's always exactly what I am picturing when I talk about these things.

[DeNinny]

DeNinny: I've seen that photo on froged steel / metals in some courses I have taken before, and it's always exactly what I am picturing when I talk about these things.

 

And if we had such a comparison photo of an actual Miura and Mizuno forging, say from a 1×1×1 mm^3 sample cut right out of the face of their blades, we could truly and literally see the reason that they feel different. Same thing goes for cast vs forged vs cast nickel vs etc feels.

 

Deformation gets down to the molecular level and so you need resolution of how each "chunk" of solid material looks down to the level of seeing the actual shape and size of each one. Down at that level is where a vibration shockwave will travel through from the shock of impact, and the nature of the vibration itself changes at every material change that it passes through. So when you see the physical shape of the individual solid chunks and how one manufacturer arranges them as compared to another, you truly are "seeing" the feel difference. All other things equal, of course.

 

Edit: By analogy, you can take that final pic and envision the iron as water and the carbon as individual pebbles in the water. The water is initially still and then the shockwave of vibration is a wave or ripple in the water from the shock of impact. The way the water ripples travel through the water will be highly influenced by the shape and size of the pebbles.

[Nard_S]

What I stated about wear may not be due to hardness alone and it may also be tied to corrosion resistance too. Also I don't know for sure how hard nickel is compared to the base steel, so don't quote me that it is truly softer (as per the hardness definition, not someone's feel definition).-DeNinny

 

What is special about nickel is that it does not corrode at all., it is why stainless steel is stainless. Also nickel is indeed softer on Rockwell hardness but it's tensile strength is extraordinary. Trying to machine it is at least 3X-4X harder. to do. It is an incredibly important commodity used in any applications where high strength and corrosion resistance is needed. For instance last time I worked with a tough nickel alloy, the product was going into an oil rig drill head.

 

I think I heard/read that the manufacturing process of making nickel heads has some of the environmental and health risks similar to making be-cu heads and that is why they are not made anymore-Oldplayer

.

You are probably correct on that though BeCu carries a lot more baggage in the turned metals industry than nickel alloys ever have for health efffects.

 

I think truth lies across several things. As Oldplayer says and mined or recycled nickel is very expensive and it is a ginormous pain to work with. Process control has to be a lot tighter which can add up to "why bother" for golf clubs.

[DeNinny]

Nard_S I use and work with SS (electropolished 316L mainly) for ultrapure water treatment. It stays so clean once you rinse it up. It too can corrode but it takes a lot of time and harsh conditions.

[Nard_S]

Holy crap, I feel like I am minoring in "metallurgy" (shout out to 3jack).

 

Regarding miura and sons, let's see. As I mentioned, almost all buyouts of small niche companies are with stipulation current ownership stays on for an extended period, 1-3 years etc. hell, my buddy works for an insurance firm whose owners sold out, $20m, and they have to stay on for 3 years and final payout is only if portfolio meets an agreed upon valuation at end of that term. Will miura and sons be there in 5 years would be interesting.

 

I can't believe this is news If they just sold distribution rights. The fact the direction of company is being mentioned means it is not at miura discretion. Just my .02.

 

I have no metal science to add. At best I am only good for answers to cnc questions.....

 

Me neither but I do think only the distribution rights were sold off. Miura family owned Miura the factory, owns or partially owns Miura-Gikken the entity that sold clubs in the Japanese market and Miura Golf the entity that sold clubs outside of Japan. Tru-Spec bough tonly the last company and probably with the caveat that they will only carry several models and that at least one has to be a SGI type club. Really not an unreasonable request to close an exclusive distribution deal. The big losers here seems to be anyone who was an authorized seller prior to this deal. They can no longer offer up Miura without going through Tru-Spec first.

 

Miura still designs and builds it's clubs in it's own factory, still sells in Japan as Miura-Gikken only now if we want to buy baby blades we now have to go to a True-Spec authorized outlet.

 

That's ot too bad

[Kingcat990]

I have never seen these MacGregors before. What a great looking iron for the time period.

 

 

[Nard_S]

Nard_S I use and work with SS (electropolished 316L mainly) for ultrapure water treatment. It stays so clean once you rinse it up. It too can corrode but it takes a lot of time and harsh conditions.

 

I've worked with it, its a tougher St St, seems to have more or less of something than standard 303.I think it is a low lead/ no lead variant but I could be wrong. Most alloys have a tiny bit of lead(1%) mixed in to facilitate machining. It's why I am half nuts probably :)

[Bigmean]

Holy crap, I feel like I am minoring in "metallurgy" (shout out to 3jack).

 

Regarding miura and sons, let's see. As I mentioned, almost all buyouts of small niche companies are with stipulation current ownership stays on for an extended period, 1-3 years etc. hell, my buddy works for an insurance firm whose owners sold out, $20m, and they have to stay on for 3 years and final payout is only if portfolio meets an agreed upon valuation at end of that term. Will miura and sons be there in 5 years would be interesting.

 

I can't believe this is news If they just sold distribution rights. The fact the direction of company is being mentioned means it is not at miura discretion. Just my .02.

 

I have no metal science to add. At best I am only good for answers to cnc questions.....

 

Me neither but I do think only the distribution rights were sold off. Miura family owned Miura the factory, owns or partially owns Miura-Gikken the entity that sold clubs in the Japanese market and Miura Golf the entity that sold clubs outside of Japan. Tru-Spec bough tonly the last company and probably with the caveat that they will only carry several models and that at least one has to be a SGI type club. Really not an unreasonable request to close an exclusive distribution deal. The big losers here seems to be anyone who was an authorized seller prior to this deal. They can no longer offer up Miura without going through Tru-Spec first.

 

Miura still designs and builds it's clubs in it's own factory, still sells in Japan as Miura-Gikken only now if we want to buy baby blades we now have to go to a True-Spec authorized outlet.

 

That's ot too bad

 

If that is truly the case, then it is a best case scenario for miura fans. It would mean that Giken is what it is and is available to anyone that will be willing to get it out of Japan, and instead of the world line being rebranded giken models for most part, Tru spec may push them to do granted more sgi stuff, but more stuff that isn't already in a jdm head. So less models could be more miura umbrella variety?

 

If they still have giken, then they will still make cool stuff like the type F/D blades and the 5005 I think it is. Sheeot, the type Fs were probably my next miura set anyway. I would prefer to just enjoy my small blades for next 5 years and not think about irons. I have an itch for wedges though. I have had the buchis for like 18 months and I am still Not sure my opinion on them. Part of it is my wedge play is spotty at best. They are like boring/medium across the board, nothing stands out, not look, not feel, I get along with the grinds but don't feel they are magical....I don't know, at same time something about them being so predictably boring has kept them in the bag bexuase that is a good thing in wedges.

[mallrat]

So i picked up the KZG's today (and will post pics as soon as my computer stops putzing around) and found out some interesting info about the Miura purchase and KZG. My builder said it wasn't a surprise as he had know for a couple months. He said what it is designed to do is give better distribution to the GI clubs and get the name out there more for the generally golfing public. He said that the Miura's will still be building the high end clubs personally but allows them to focus more on those sets while having more $ to put into the process of their GI line without them truly investing the time. I guess kind of a best of both worlds.

 

Now the next one is something that might surprise people in that KZG pulled the forgings from Shoyei, or however you say it, last year. The last round of the ZO Blades were their last clubs produced there. They are no 3 piece forged in China (whatever that means). He said their next round of clubs look like garbage and they are going from about $125 a head to around $75 a head.