I did it again - W/S Tour Blades

[DaveGoodrich]

I just purchased a set of 1967 Wilson Staff X-31's a couple weeks ago, even though I have no need for them (I have enjoyed a couple of rounds with them, and hit them pretty well).

 

So yesterday, I am minding my own business at Roger Dunn, looking through the $199 and under used irons. I see a beautiful set of 690mb's for $199, which I manage to talk myself out of. But right next to them was a nice 4-PW set of Wilson Staff Tour Blades (1978-1980 version) for $40. They have the TT Dynamic Stiff shafts (basically the same as S300's, correct?) and essentially new GP Tour Velvet grips. How am I supposed to resist something like that? I didn't, of course.

 

These are the irons that are supposed to be essentially the same as the FG-17's, right?

 

Here's a pic:

[ScooterMcTavish]

Very nice, yes, and very similar to the FG-17s.

Good score.

Though shaft-wise, I have found both of my sets of Staffs I've owned played a bit stiffer than claimed. Not sure if these are a rebranded DG, or a slightly modified DG - regardless, sure you'll enjoy them.

[birly-shirly]

I've always really liked the look of those - great wedges in that set, although I see you only have the PW. Pretty narrow soles, aren't they?

Dynamic Stiff is basically S300 with a slightly wider weight tolerance, so some shafts could theoretically play a subflex or two softer or firmer.

I don't know about Staffs playing stiffer across the board, but I believe some manufacturers do customise even stock shafts somewhat.

I have several sets of DG shafted irons, all from the 80s. I have R flex sets from both Mizuno and MacGregor - and there's certainly a shorter first step on the Macs, suggesting either they were hardstepped or the Mizunos softstepped (or both). I also have stiff shafted irons from Wilson and MacGregor. The Macs in this case are Velocitized shafts - which I understand to be rebadged TTDG, and the step patterns certainly match. In this case though the Wilsons appear to have been hardstepped once, at least relative to the Macs.

[DaveGoodrich]

I hit a small bucket at lunch today. I was rushed, and hit them poorly. Hopefully that is not an indication of the potential for our long-term relationship. I do know I will need to get the lofts/lies checked. The 6-iron, in particluar, looks like it has more offset than the others. Perhaps it has been bent strong.

Yes, the soles are narrow. But the leading edge doesn't seem as sharp as some older blades.

Anybody know the factory lofts for these? I would guess they were probably a 50 degree PW, with 4 degree gaps through the set. Sound right?

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='DaveGoodrich' timestamp='1428441034' post='11305947']

Anybody know the factory lofts for these? I would guess they were probably a 50 degree PW, with 4 degree gaps through the set. Sound right?
[/quote]

I have figures for 1982 Wilson Staff, courtesy of Ralph Maltby's book and right in line with your guess. 50* PW, and 4* gaps to the 4 iron, then 3* from there.

[oldschoolrocker]

Lovely clubs Dave. I never understood, in my mind, the sharp leading edge thing some people associated with Wilson's.

[oldschoolrocker]

Oh, forgot to mention. The 690.mbs are excellent in their own right as well.

[birly-shirly]

[quote name='oldschoolrocker' timestamp='1428443644' post='11306249']
Lovely clubs Dave. I never understood, in my mind, the sharp leading edge thing some people associated with Wilson's.
[/quote]

Maybe just guilt by association. Those clubs have the smallest heads (heel to toe) I think I've ever seen and probably the narrowest soles. Especially given what most people are now used to looking at in an iron, these things probably just give them the fear that every feature of the club has been engineered for the maximisation of pain and suffering.

[oldschoolrocker]

BS, that could be. The small head was one reason I always steered toward the Wilson's. Perhaps a mind trick, but I liked the way they framed the ball at address.

[DaveGoodrich]

[quote name='oldschoolrocker' timestamp='1428443744' post='11306259'] Oh, forgot to mention. The 690.mbs are excellent in their own right as well. [/quote]

You had to say that! I'm still fighting the urge to go back and pick those up. I didn't realize all the $199 and under irons are 20% off until I got to checkout. I need help.

[oldschoolrocker]

Well Dave, they are the only "modern" iron I will play.

[DaveGoodrich]

[quote name='oldschoolrocker' timestamp='1428444691' post='11306347']
Well Dave, they are the only "modern" iron I will play.
[/quote]

They sure would fit right in with my mid 2000's Titleist stuff (983e, 904f, 585h) to make up a "modern classic" bag. Again, I need help.

That 983e is still (occasionally) the longest driver I have ever hit.

[oldschoolrocker]

Yes, a bang up driver for sure. I still have the 975d that I use as my modern driver.

[BIG STU]

[quote name='birly-shirly' timestamp='1428438256' post='11305641']
I've always really liked the look of those - great wedges in that set, although I see you only have the PW. Pretty narrow soles, aren't they?

Dynamic Stiff is basically S300 with a slightly wider weight tolerance, so some shafts could theoretically play a subflex or two softer or firmer.

I don't know about Staffs playing stiffer across the board, but I believe some manufacturers do customise even stock shafts somewhat.

I have several sets of DG shafted irons, all from the 80s. I have R flex sets from both Mizuno and MacGregor - and there's certainly a shorter first step on the Macs, suggesting either they were hardstepped or the Mizunos softstepped (or both). I also have stiff shafted irons from Wilson and MacGregor. The Macs in this case are Velocitized shafts - which I understand to be rebadged TTDG, and the step patterns certainly match. In this case though the Wilsons appear to have been hardstepped once, at least relative to the Macs.
[/quote]Dead on it as usual Birly I have a set of those Staffs that I bought new in 78 or 79 actually I won several pro shop gift certificates in several tournaments and got those. they are supposed to be a S300 flex but they were always a tad stiff and the head was light for the shafts for me. I was going to sell them to a guy a couple of years ago and the guy asked me about them said they hit stiff to him. We put them on the frequency machine and they checked in the range numbers like a strong S400. He ended up not buying them he found another set that had been reshafted to R-300. I still have those clubs

[dbuck47]

Dave,

I have a set of those 2-PW that I got new in '79. Mine have Dynamic regular.

The FG-17's (I bought and FG-17 1 iron in '81) are very similar; the grind on the back near the sole that runs toe-heel is slightly smaller, which I guess would make the sole fractionally wider and the head weight fractionally more.

I played these almost exclusively last season and will start the season off with them hopefully this week or next.

[scruffynick]

Stunning clubs, my uncle still uses fg17s......off 3 and well in his 60s. He's never used anything else and boy they are beautiful clubs. Good find pal

[NRJyzr]

[quote name='DaveGoodrich' timestamp='1428430661' post='11304495']
I just purchased a set of 1967 Wilson Staff X-31's a couple weeks ago, even though I have no need for them (I have enjoyed a couple of rounds with them, and hit them pretty well).

So yesterday, I am minding my own business at Roger Dunn, looking through the $199 and under used irons. I see a beautiful set of 690mb's for $199, which I manage to talk myself out of. But right next to them was a nice 4-PW set of Wilson Staff Tour Blades (1978-1980 version) for $40. They have the TT Dynamic Stiff shafts (basically the same as S300's, correct?) and essentially new GP Tour Velvet grips. How am I supposed to resist something like that? I didn't, of course.

These are the irons that are supposed to be essentially the same as the FG-17's, right?


[/quote]
[quote name='ScooterMcTavish' timestamp='1428432352' post='11304809']
Very nice, yes, and very similar to the FG-17s.

Good score.

Though shaft-wise, I have found both of my sets of Staffs I've owned played a bit stiffer than claimed. Not sure if these are a rebranded DG, or a slightly modified DG - regardless, sure you'll enjoy them.
[/quote]



I'll mention here a conclusion to which I've come, and explain below how I came to said conclusion:

the Dynamic R/S/X shaft found in classic blades is slightly stiffer than the same flex modern DGR/DGS/DGX found in current clubs.

The modern Dynamic Gold shaft is indeed said to be, more or less, the same shaft as the Dynamic shafts found in all sorts of Ye Olde Blaydes. However, there are some points of interest worth noting....

The current DG shaft is sold in lengths from 37" to 41". The previous incarnation of the DG shaft was sold in lengths from 35" to 39". The difference is 2" added to the butt section, to aid in building longer clubs for increasingly taller golfers. Some have suggested the older shafts were very marginally stiffer. Personally, unsure on this point.

The DG shaft is merely a weight sorted Dynamic. The alleged subflexes are nothing more than a couple grams greater or lesser weight over the length of the shaft. The theory runs that this weight difference over the length of the shaft provides a slightly softer or stiffer flex, compared to the "300" shaft for that flex. Dynacraft/Hireko's testing of such shafts suggests there IS a difference of a couple cpms between the subflexes.

Now, where it's interesting.... the above mentioned Dynacraft testing also has older readings for the Dynamic shaft that predates and eventually coincides with the DG shaft. It's interesting that the Dynamic shaft reads as slightly stiffer than the DG shafts of the same flex, about 4 or 5 cpm on average. In the Dynamic world, this would be about a quarter flex (about 20 cpm between flexes). The Dynamic X is a beast, reading close to the 7.5 Precision. Add the stiffer tip and overall bottom section and you have one hell of a shaft. And, it would be obvious why most pros didn't use Dynamic X in Ye Olden Dayes.

From personal experience, I've always felt the original Dynamic S shafts in my Muirfield irons played stiffer than the DGS300 I've played in other irons. Not quite as stiff as DGX100, but certainly stiffer than DGS300.

I know I could have summed all that up neatly and tossed aside the time spent typing all that drivel, but I thought at least a couple of you *might* be interested in how I've come to my conclusion.

[oldschoolrocker]

I just love it when you talk that way NRJyzr. Thanks for the info. I for one am curious about the older versus newer shafts, and what one gains, or loses by reshafting vintage clubs with today's shafts.

[Forged4ever]

Great Score and a great iron Dave!!

I played those for a season, then went back to my '71 Buttonbacks(I played Staff from 1967-1887) and then the 17's from 1981-86.

Very well Played!!!

Enjoy them and have a great season!!

Fairways & Greens My Friend,
Richard

[BIG STU]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1428588472' post='11318517']
[quote name='DaveGoodrich' timestamp='1428430661' post='11304495']
I just purchased a set of 1967 Wilson Staff X-31's a couple weeks ago, even though I have no need for them (I have enjoyed a couple of rounds with them, and hit them pretty well).

So yesterday, I am minding my own business at Roger Dunn, looking through the $199 and under used irons. I see a beautiful set of 690mb's for $199, which I manage to talk myself out of. But right next to them was a nice 4-PW set of Wilson Staff Tour Blades (1978-1980 version) for $40. They have the TT Dynamic Stiff shafts (basically the same as S300's, correct?) and essentially new GP Tour Velvet grips. How am I supposed to resist something like that? I didn't, of course.

These are the irons that are supposed to be essentially the same as the FG-17's, right?


[/quote]
[quote name='ScooterMcTavish' timestamp='1428432352' post='11304809']
Very nice, yes, and very similar to the FG-17s.

Good score.

Though shaft-wise, I have found both of my sets of Staffs I've owned played a bit stiffer than claimed. Not sure if these are a rebranded DG, or a slightly modified DG - regardless, sure you'll enjoy them.
[/quote]



I'll mention here a conclusion to which I've come, and explain below how I came to said conclusion:

the Dynamic R/S/X shaft found in classic blades is slightly stiffer than the same flex modern DGR/DGS/DGX found in current clubs.

The modern Dynamic Gold shaft is indeed said to be, more or less, the same shaft as the Dynamic shafts found in all sorts of Ye Olde Blaydes. However, there are some points of interest worth noting....

The current DG shaft is sold in lengths from 37" to 41". The previous incarnation of the DG shaft was sold in lengths from 35" to 39". The difference is 2" added to the butt section, to aid in building longer clubs for increasingly taller golfers. Some have suggested the older shafts were very marginally stiffer. Personally, unsure on this point.

The DG shaft is merely a weight sorted Dynamic. The alleged subflexes are nothing more than a couple grams greater or lesser weight over the length of the shaft. The theory runs that this weight difference over the length of the shaft provides a slightly softer or stiffer flex, compared to the "300" shaft for that flex. Dynacraft/Hireko's testing of such shafts suggests there IS a difference of a couple cpms between the subflexes.

Now, where it's interesting.... the above mentioned Dynacraft testing also has older readings for the Dynamic shaft that predates and eventually coincides with the DG shaft. It's interesting that the Dynamic shaft reads as slightly stiffer than the DG shafts of the same flex, about 4 or 5 cpm on average. In the Dynamic world, this would be about a quarter flex (about 20 cpm between flexes). The Dynamic X is a beast, reading close to the 7.5 Precision. Add the stiffer tip and overall bottom section and you have one hell of a shaft. And, it would be obvious why most pros didn't use Dynamic X in Ye Olden Dayes.

From personal experience, I've always felt the original Dynamic S shafts in my Muirfield irons played stiffer than the DGS300 I've played in other irons. Not quite as stiff as DGX100, but certainly stiffer than DGS300.

I know I could have summed all that up neatly and tossed aside the time spent typing all that drivel, but I thought at least a couple of you *might* be interested in how I've come to my conclusion.
[/quote]I believe you are dead on it with your statement. I also think there is definitely a difference in metallurgy today than years gone by and I think with age and sitting around not being used for maybe decades older shafts may have contracted and stiffened up. I also feel that over the years we have learned so much about golf clubs. IMHO shafts have changed equipment a lot because that is one area the almighty USGA has not attempted to regulate YET.

[BIG STU]

[quote name='oldschoolrocker' timestamp='1428618961' post='11322785']
I just love it when you talk that way NRJyzr. Thanks for the info. I for one am curious about the older versus newer shafts, and what one gains, or loses by reshafting vintage clubs with today's shafts.
[/quote]Randy that is one of my experiments in the making. I have been seriously considering for some time about reshafting either my VIPs or Colorkrome 80s remakes with FST 90 shafts like what is in my forged CB Infiniti modern irons. I did re do a set of CF 4000s a few years ago with a set of pull out Rifle 7.0 s. It really "woke" those clubs up. I could hit that shaft then (10 years ago) but not now. I ended up selling those clubs to a friend of mine playing the Minis in Florida at the time. He is still hitting them even though he is now a club pro and has a Nike deal

[oldschoolrocker]

I am not sure what I would gain by reshafting the older irons, not really looking for more length, I kinda like the setup with not having to throw in a gap wedge. i need to research more about the older OEM shafts with respect to "honest flex versus advertised" flex.

[NRJyzr]

The biggest thing is having a shaft that fits you. If the stock shaft in the older set fits you fine, there is nothing to gain. If it's too light, too heavy, too soft, too stiff, then you have everything to gain to reshaft.

Personally speaking... over the years, I've had to look at sets as nothing more than a somewhat less convenient set of component heads (less convenient because I have to pull them first), as I've had to reshaft a great deal of what I've bought over the years. I swing less hard these days (mostly better tempo), so Dynamic S and DGS are fine; if I'm in the market, it's a bit easier for me than it would have been 12 years ago.

[BIG STU]

[quote name='oldschoolrocker' timestamp='1428760929' post='11333601']
I am not sure what I would gain by reshafting the older irons, not really looking for more length, I kinda like the setup with not having to throw in a gap wedge. i need to research more about the older OEM shafts with respect to "honest flex versus advertised" flex.
[/quote]Heck I don't use a gap wedge with the moderns my modern Infiniti PW is 45* and then I go to 56* I have been playing long enough that I know how to loft up or hit half shots with the PW

[BIG STU]

[quote name='NRJyzr' timestamp='1428765798' post='11333937']
The biggest thing is having a shaft that fits you. If the stock shaft in the older set fits you fine, there is nothing to gain. If it's too light, too heavy, too soft, too stiff, then you have everything to gain to reshaft.

Over the years, I've had to look at sets as nothing more than a somewhat less convenient set of component heads (less convenient because I have to pull them first), as I've had to reshaft a great deal of what I've bought over the years. I swing less hard these days (mostly better tempo), so Dynamic S and DGS are fine; if I'm in the market, it's a bit easier for me than it would have been 12 years ago.
[/quote]I agree with your first paragraph 110%. What is up with me is that most of my classics were actually my front line gamers up until 2 years ago and they have stiff shaft flexes from my hey days gone by. I can still jump on them and hit them but do not want to for 18 holes. Even though I have lighter stiff shafts in my moderns FST 90s I can still hit stiffs just need to be a little softer tipped for me now with a slower SS the soft tip helps it kick a little at the bottom end for me

[Wknd_Warrior]

oh man, those are my dream irons, I would have snatched that up in a second.

[JShaw]

I have a few sets of "Tour Blades" and "FG-17s". I have found the TBs to be marginally more forgiving. There is a difference in the grind on the sole and muscle of those clubs and the vary from set to set. I'd believe that a tb and fg17 could be virtually identical depending on who ground them. Typically though on the sets that I have the tbs are slightly more forgiving than the fg17s.

I also find that in my older sets the Dynamic S is stiffer than the modern S300. I usually play X100 in my irons and S300 are nearly unplayabable but Dynamic S are playable. Not as stiff as X100 though.

[ScooterMcTavish]

[quote name='BIG STU' timestamp='1428452631' post='11307283']
Dead on it as usual Birly I have a set of those Staffs that I bought new in 78 or 79 actually I won several pro shop gift certificates in several tournaments and got those. they are supposed to be a S300 flex but they were always a tad stiff and the head was light for the shafts for me. I was going to sell them to a guy a couple of years ago and the guy asked me about them said they hit stiff to him. We put them on the frequency machine and they checked in the range numbers like a strong S400. He ended up not buying them he found another set that had been reshafted to R-300. I still have those clubs
[/quote]

Stu, you may be on to something here.

Having a lighter head on an average heavy steel shaft (i.e. DGR300 or DGS300) could cause one to feel as if the club is playing stiffer than it is. If I can't feel the clubhead load, then the shaft feels too stiff to me, even if it isn't (thinking back to my Apex IIs here). As we've discussed in numerous places around this forum, feel is so important to golfers of our vintage that we can hit a club great (like I hit my Eye2s), yet they sit in the garage because we prefer the "feel" of another set.

[BIG STU]

[quote name='ScooterMcTavish' timestamp='1429040702' post='11358403']
[quote name='BIG STU' timestamp='1428452631' post='11307283']
Dead on it as usual Birly I have a set of those Staffs that I bought new in 78 or 79 actually I won several pro shop gift certificates in several tournaments and got those. they are supposed to be a S300 flex but they were always a tad stiff and the head was light for the shafts for me. I was going to sell them to a guy a couple of years ago and the guy asked me about them said they hit stiff to him. We put them on the frequency machine and they checked in the range numbers like a strong S400. He ended up not buying them he found another set that had been reshafted to R-300. I still have those clubs
[/quote]

Stu, you may be on to something here.

Having a lighter head on an average heavy steel shaft (i.e. DGR300 or DGS300) could cause one to feel as if the club is playing stiffer than it is. If I can't feel the clubhead load, then the shaft feels too stiff to me, even if it isn't (thinking back to my Apex IIs here). As we've discussed in numerous places around this forum, feel is so important to golfers of our vintage that we can hit a club great (like I hit my Eye2s), yet they sit in the garage because we prefer the "feel" of another set.
[/quote]Yep you hit it dead on I always used lead tape so I could feel the clubhead even on Macgregors except for the CF-4000s. Now when my friend built my clubs he tricked me by getting the heaviest clubheads hand picked from the factory and then with the light stiff shafts. I can feel the head work and no lead tape. In fact my old reliable Cleveland 588 wedges are set up the same way but with Sensicore shafts. The only clubs in my modern bag now with lead tape are my putter (old Zing) both V-Steel fairways and my newly built KZG 2 iron. I learned from my friend the meaning and execution of a balanced club

[Wknd_Warrior]

it's my understanding that modern stiff is pretty close to vintage regular. That's why there is xstiff these days

I think those shafts would be too much for me too, I've been happy with old school reg on my irons.