Ceramic faced MacGregor Tourneys?

[Fellaheen51]

You are right Steve on the "9" designation. Going one page back in Kaplan, the 9 indicates a club that is 1/2" longer than standard. Also, for the '63 and '64 FC's, an "H" added to the model number indicates a "black rubber" grip (i.e. M2TH).

 

Decoding the minutiae.

 

I have one ferrule on the set that is badly split. Trying to decide what to do with it. Open it up a bit (hopefully won't entirely break) and try and get a drop of superglue in there to hold it together. It spins freely right now. Anal attention to detail I suppose.

[SteveNZ]

Decoding the minutiae.

 

 

It's a full time job.

 

No 'H' on mine, but came with Tourney rubber grips (since replaced) with red and white trim that I am certain were original.

 

And yet there are 'T' models with leather grips:

 

http://www.ebay.com/...HwAAOSwFNZWy-6F

 

which at least matches up with "Kaplan makes reference to "the new Tourney Contact leather grip in Black with Gold bead trim". from your previous post.

 

so my assumption is that the T maybe doesn't denote grip material.

 

One of the great riddles of our age.

 

PS - glad the DS wedge has found a use :-)

[rex235]

It's weird. I had never heard of these clubs prior to seeing them a couple weeks ago in my local Goodwill and starting this thread. Then yesterday, at the other Goodwill in our county about 20 miles away, I found almost the exact same set, only left handed.

 

Prut-

 

Really? The exact same set?

 

Two other questions-

What condition are they in? What did they want for them?

[rex235]

Prut, did you acquire the lefties? They might have value if you decided to flip. LH classic clubs are often hard to find.

 

In the process of resto'ing the M2's. Cleaning up very nicely. I'll throw up some pics when done.

 

Stu, already did the soap and stiff brush. Looking to restore a bit of the "blackness" to the faces. A polishing of sorts to darken them, if that's possible. I'll do some experimentation on another ceramic face club.

 

Colokrom's and FC's, MacGregor sure made some interesting golf clubs back in the day. Now just need to "stumble" into a set of TP 63 Centennials. Classic club ho nirvana.

 

Fella-

 

"LH classic clubs are often hard to find."

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, they are.....

 

We'll hold off on showing the MacGregors.... for now....... :taunt:

.

[Prut]

Bumping this one. Back at the Goodwill yesterday and picked up a FC4000 "Penna-Wedge" TP1. Got a really nice weight to it. Any info on this would be appreciated. I'm wondering about loft, and whether it would fit between my 9 and 11 or does it have more loft than the 11?

 

Alas, I've been away from the forum for a while. I chose not to pick up the lefties last year. "What a stupid I am."

[Ironmaster Oddities]

Bumping this one. Back at the Goodwill yesterday and picked up a FC4000 "Penna-Wedge" TP1. Got a really nice weight to it. Any info on this would be appreciated. I'm wondering about loft, and whether it would fit between my 9 and 11 or does it have more loft than the 11?

 

Alas, I've been away from the forum for a while. I chose not to pick up the lefties last year. "What a stupid I am."

probably 3 degrees more than your 11-iron, which is the pitching wedge. until at least the late 70's the only MacGregor 10-irons were early putter

[xgolfx]

Penna wedge specs

 

Loft 531/2 lie 64degrees. Length 35 inches

 

CHARLEY PENNA

[xgolfx]

Two irons were 381/2 for MacGregor in 1960. MT19 two iron was 39 with leather grip . After shot blast scored area and ceramic applied, spray epoxy on face finish

 

CHARLEY PENNA

[augustgolf]

Bumping this one. Back at the Goodwill yesterday and picked up a FC4000 "Penna-Wedge" TP1. Got a really nice weight to it. Any info on this would be appreciated. I'm wondering about loft, and whether it would fit between my 9 and 11 or does it have more loft than the 11?

 

Alas, I've been away from the forum for a while. I chose not to pick up the lefties last year. "What a stupid I am."

[rex235]

It's weird. I had never heard of these clubs prior to seeing them a couple weeks ago in my local Goodwill and starting this thread. Then yesterday, at the other Goodwill in our county about 20 miles away, I found almost the exact same set, only left handed.

 

Prut-

 

"I found almost the exact same set, only left handed."

 

These were not M1s, as they would have been rarer than ANY set you have.

 

Most likely M2s, and the FC4000 would have been in excellent shape.

 

You're not the only one who's sorry you didn't pick them up.

[SteveNZ]

Hi Charley - As above Fellaheen and I have been trying to figure out the difference between the 1963 M2 and the 1964 M2T. Apart from ferrules they appear identical in every respect and the T doesn't seem to relate to grip material in this case.

 

Any insight?

[cold_war_era_golfer]

On 8/26/2016 at 10:05 AM, Fellaheen51 said:

Prut, did you acquire the lefties? They might have value if you decided to flip. LH classic clubs are often hard to find.

 

In the process of resto'ing the M2's. Cleaning up very nicely. I'll throw up some pics when done.

 

Stu, already did the soap and stiff brush. Looking to restore a bit of the "blackness" to the faces. A polishing of sorts to darken them, if that's possible. I'll do some experimentation on another ceramic face club.

 

Colokrom's and FC's, MacGregor sure made some interesting golf clubs back in the day. Now just need to "stumble" into a set of TP 63 Centennials. Classic club ho nirvana.

Did you ever figure out a way to restore blackness to the faces?

[The Aspidistra in the Hall]

If it bothers you, you could investigate Cerakote refinishing. You would still need to separate heads from shafts. Some people diy with cerakote, spray it on and bake in a domestic oven, I'm told.

[cold_war_era_golfer]

2 hours ago, The Aspidistra in the Hall said:

If it bothers you, you could investigate Cerakote refinishing. You would still need to separate heads from shafts. Some people diy with cerakote, spray it on and bake in a domestic oven, I'm told.

Does it effect the playability being worn?  That would be the only reason for it to actually bother me.

[Foozle]

6 hours ago, coldwareragolfer said:

Does it effect the playability being worn?  That would be the only reason for it to actually bother me.

If badly worn, they will play like any other iron but you will lose the flame ceramic experience. In good condition the ceramic coating has a slightly rough texture making them very "grippy" and explains why the wedges remain in demand.

Jumping to one of my pet topics, MacGregor reissues, I am aware that some of the reissued FC4000 irons lacked the ceramic coating which to my mind doesn't make them reproductions? I also wondered if it is because there was something in the original FC4000 production method or materials that modern health and safety frowns upon?

[The Aspidistra in the Hall]

Couple of things come to mind re repro FC4000s. I recall Charley Penna saying that they were surprised that the USGA allowed the FC coating because of it's grippiness and rough surface. When it came to reissue time maybe the Authority said 'nay, not this time around, sunshine, don't push your luck'. or it could have been a cost issue.

Either way, they are nice clubs but not the real deal.

[BIG STU]

2 hours ago, Foozle said:

If badly worn, they will play like any other iron but you will lose the flame ceramic experience. In good condition the ceramic coating has a slightly rough texture making them very "grippy" and explains why the wedges remain in demand.

Jumping to one of my pet topics, MacGregor reissues, I am aware that some of the reissued FC4000 irons lacked the ceramic coating which to my mind doesn't make them reproductions? I also wondered if it is because there was something in the original FC4000 production method or materials that modern health and safety frowns upon?

If my fuzzy mind recalls correctly Charley Penna told me one night that the process and materials used are now prohibited by the EPA and OSHA. 

[BIG STU]

43 minutes ago, The Aspidistra in the Hall said:

Couple of things come to mind re repro FC4000s. I recall Charley Penna saying that they were surprised that the USGA allowed the FC coating because of it's grippiness and rough surface. When it came to reissue time maybe the Authority said 'nay, not this time around, sunshine, don't push your luck'. or it could have been a cost issue.

Either way, they are nice clubs but not the real deal.

Honestly In all my travels I have never seen a set of repop FC-4000s. I did have one set I traded for that were 59s and had been refinished and had lost the ceramic face in the process. They did not hit right to me so I ended up trading them off

[Foozle]

2 hours ago, BIG STU said:

Honestly In all my travels I have never seen a set of repop FC-4000s. I did have one set I traded for that were 59s and had been refinished and had lost the ceramic face in the process. They did not hit right to me so I ended up trading them off

Rambler1277 recently posted in "Thrift Store Jackpot" thread about a set of FC4000's that I believe may be reproductions. They were lacking the ceramic faces. He included some pictures.

Interested about the H&S concerns and also Aspidistra's theory on conformity - I hadn't considered that aspect.

Another theory might be that the repro's did have black faces but, due to the issues above, it was an alternative less durable finish than the originals and has simply worn off?

My observation on the repro Colokrom's is that the copper finish is less durable than the originals as most sets I see are badly worn whereas those from the '50's have simply developed darkened patina with the copper layer still largely intact?

[cold_war_era_golfer]

2 hours ago, Foozle said:

Rambler1277 recently posted in "Thrift Store Jackpot" thread about a set of FC4000's that I believe may be reproductions. They were lacking the ceramic faces. He included some pictures.

Interested about the H&S concerns and also Aspidistra's theory on conformity - I hadn't considered that aspect.

Another theory might be that the repro's did have black faces but, due to the issues above, it was an alternative less durable finish than the originals and has simply worn off?

My observation on the repro Colokrom's is that the copper finish is less durable than the originals as most sets I see are badly worn whereas those from the '50's have simply developed darkened patina with the copper layer still largely intact?

Total newbie here to the Macgregor side of things.  I too haven't seen a set of reissue FC4000s but I do see the reissue Colokroms on eBay pretty frequent.  Even to my mostly Wilson untrained MacGregor eye they don't look right.  I have played the real Colokroms that one of my partners owns and they are something to behold visually when in person.  

 

I guess the thing I'm discovering with the FC4000s faces even the ones more played or worn are in better shape than an equivalent vintage used Wilson.  So they certainly protected the groves?  Would you agree with that? Or am I just seeing things?

 

As far as reissues go, if they are anything like the Wilson side of this they usually will command a higher price on the eBay market but they won't feel like the originals totally.  I had a set of reissue bullet backs and a set of the older ones and I'd argue even tho the old ones were beat up, they were made more sturdy as far as the chrome looked. 

[The Aspidistra in the Hall]

Ah, vintage chrome. Now you're talking.

Even the Propel shafts were copper coated before chroming. Made a heavier shaft for sure, but such quality! Same, as you say, for early classics, my Wilsons and Macs are all so solid. My Spalding Tour Editions are nice irons but the chrome is very thin and no priming coat unlike my earlier Spaldings which were underlaid with cadmium. I had some PGA Tommy Armours and the build quality was terrible.

 

[Foozle]

33 minutes ago, coldwareragolfer said:

Total newbie here to the Macgregor side of things.  I too haven't seen a set of reissue FC4000s but I do see the reissue Colokroms on eBay pretty frequent.  Even to my mostly Wilson untrained MacGregor eye they don't look right.  I have played the real Colokroms that one of my partners owns and they are something to behold visually when in person.  

 

I guess the thing I'm discovering with the FC4000s faces even the ones more played or worn are in better shape than an equivalent vintage used Wilson.  So they certainly protected the groves?  Would you agree with that? Or am I just seeing things?

 

As far as reissues go, if they are anything like the Wilson side of this they usually will command a higher price on the eBay market but they won't feel like the originals totally.  I had a set of reissue bullet backs and a set of the older ones and I'd argue even tho the old ones were beat up, they were made more sturdy as far as the chrome looked. 

To the best of my knowledge the FC4000 heads are the same as the standard issue with the ceramic coating applied to the faces at the end of the manufacturing process. If that is the case then I guess the coating wears off to reveal "new" grooves so you would be correct in assuming the coating protects the grooves.

My experience of 50's/60's MacGregors would be that the chrome finish is thinner than, for example, comparable Wilson irons. Several of my sets show very small blisters in the chrome which I have not seen in other sets. They remain things of beauty regardless!😁

Value wise, I would pay more for a set of originals than even the best condition reissues reflecting relative scarcity (certainly here in the UK) and the fact that playing wise, there is just something about holding an original that makes the experience better!

[cold_war_era_golfer]

32 minutes ago, Foozle said:

To the best of my knowledge the FC4000 heads are the same as the standard issue with the ceramic coating applied to the faces at the end of the manufacturing process. If that is the case then I guess the coating wears off to reveal "new" grooves so you would be correct in assuming the coating protects the grooves.

My experience of 50's/60's MacGregors would be that the chrome finish is thinner than, for example, comparable Wilson irons. Several of my sets show very small blisters in the chrome which I have not seen in other sets. They remain things of beauty regardless!😁

Value wise, I would pay more for a set of originals than even the best condition reissues reflecting relative scarcity (certainly here in the UK) and the fact that playing wise, there is just something about holding an original that makes the experience better!

I've picked up a few MacGregor 50/60s set this week and I need to make a new acquisition post....(but that's another thread).

 

I have noticed for sure the chrome appears to be thinner on the heads when compared to their year/era Wilson counter parts.  

 

As this topic as gotten into the wear and tear discussion as well.  I'm finding as a "collector" (which I don't like to use that term).  I find myself happy to find near mint sets of irons, but on the other hand just as happy to find a well played set that I don't worry about putting in my Jones bag, walking to the course, and playing around where I'm constantly putting the bag down and picking it up, then walking back home.  There's something really cool about a nice "players" grade set, that sort of happy medium between mint and abused to the point of no return.

[BIG STU]

4 hours ago, coldwareragolfer said:

Total newbie here to the Macgregor side of things.  I too haven't seen a set of reissue FC4000s but I do see the reissue Colokroms on eBay pretty frequent.  Even to my mostly Wilson untrained MacGregor eye they don't look right.  I have played the real Colokroms that one of my partners owns and they are something to behold visually when in person.  

 

I guess the thing I'm discovering with the FC4000s faces even the ones more played or worn are in better shape than an equivalent vintage used Wilson.  So they certainly protected the groves?  Would you agree with that? Or am I just seeing things?

 

As far as reissues go, if they are anything like the Wilson side of this they usually will command a higher price on the eBay market but they won't feel like the originals totally.  I had a set of reissue bullet backs and a set of the older ones and I'd argue even tho the old ones were beat up, they were made more sturdy as far as the chrome looked. 

I agree with you on the reissue Colokroms. I had several sets that wore down pretty quickly--- Now I do have a set of 57 Diamondbacks that the faces do not show any wear. Yep the FC-4000s are pretty durable. The only one I saw wore down was the one that goes to my set which is now MIA. My old man held on to it for 30 years never took it out of his bag no matter what staff he was on or what brand of clubs he played. He wore that wedge out and gave it to a friend of his who wanted it for a momento. Now when I found out what happened to it the friend had passed and he was a club ho too. According to his son some 5 years later " all those junk golf clubs went to scrap metal" because we cleaned out the house to sell. Oh well MIA forever

[BIG STU]

3 hours ago, coldwareragolfer said:

I've picked up a few MacGregor 50/60s set this week and I need to make a new acquisition post....(but that's another thread).

 

I have noticed for sure the chrome appears to be thinner on the heads when compared to their year/era Wilson counter parts.  

 

As this topic as gotten into the wear and tear discussion as well.  I'm finding as a "collector" (which I don't like to use that term).  I find myself happy to find near mint sets of irons, but on the other hand just as happy to find a well played set that I don't worry about putting in my Jones bag, walking to the course, and playing around where I'm constantly putting the bag down and picking it up, then walking back home.  There's something really cool about a nice "players" grade set, that sort of happy medium between mint and abused to the point of no return.

Well worn or abused in a Jones bag can't get any better. LOL one problem I am having now those newer TMs are looking too good to be in my old worn out non stand Jones bag

[cold_war_era_golfer]

Here’s the 9 and for from a recent set I got of I think 1959 Tommy Armors.

 

The ceramic is worn in some spots but the groves had they been a 59 Dynapower would have possibly seen more wear?

 

 

[BIG STU]

6 minutes ago, coldwareragolfer said:

Here’s the 9 and for from a recent set I got of I think 1959 Tommy Armors.

 

The ceramic is worn in some spots but the groves had they been a 59 Dynapower would have possibly seen more wear?

 

 

Those were played quite a bit to get like that especially the short iron

[cold_war_era_golfer]

6 minutes ago, BIG STU said:

Those were played quite a bit to get like that especially the short iron

Stu as someone who’s played FC4000s more than I have.  Are they too far worn in your opinion?

[BIG STU]

11 hours ago, coldwareragolfer said:

Stu as someone who’s played FC4000s more than I have.  Are they too far worn in your opinion?

Not really--- I would play them in a heartbeat--- They will still put the juice to the ball especially a ball like a Srixon Soft Feel or a Cally Super Soft

[mocokid]

2 hours ago, BIG STU said:

Not really--- I would play them in a heartbeat--- They will still put the juice to the ball especially a ball like a Srixon Soft Feel or a Cally Super Soft

The ceramic face is more cosmetic than anything else.