Ceramic faced MacGregor Tourneys?

[cold_war_era_golfer]

3 hours ago, mocokid said:

The ceramic face is more cosmetic than anything else. 

They sure look cool!

[golfunderpar18]

My set......

[cold_war_era_golfer]

I don’t have the Kaplan book and ironfinder.com isn’t giving me all I need.  So I’m hoping someone can help?

 

why do some of the FC4000s have red diamonds whereas the others have yellow?  I’ve also noticed some differences in the shaft labels for the exact same shafts.  
 

I believe the MTourney dates to 1961.   Not sure about the PT2 though.

 

[BIG STU]

On 2/21/2021 at 7:20 AM, mocokid said:

The ceramic face is more cosmetic than anything else. 

Well sort of-- If you like the way the face frames the ball then it is. If you are a feel player like I am then it is all about the feel. This is just me but I like the feel of a CF better than a Colokrom face. 

[Brewski_golfs]

PT2 IS 1960.  No idea on the diamond colors, the Kaplan book is in black an white.  Best guess on the shafts is that they may have been re-shafted at some point?

[GolfNutRiblick]

2-9, 11.

[cold_war_era_golfer]

13 hours ago, GolfNutRiblick said:

2-9, 11.

The 1963/1964s are my favorite model aesthetically.  I have one set that's been regripped and one that has the original rubber grips.  Neither is in that good of shape!  I'd love a set with the leather grips.

[cold_war_era_golfer]

Here are some of the ones I'm reading for the spring. 1965, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1962, 1963

 

[Jiggered]

@coldwareragolfer That's an impressive collection!

[cold_war_era_golfer]

15 minutes ago, Jiggered said:

@coldwareragolfer That's an impressive collection!

Thanks! They are all in various states of condition 

[SteveNZ]

On 2/22/2021 at 1:20 AM, mocokid said:

The ceramic face is more cosmetic than anything else. 

Not when they were manufactured. I recall Charley Penna saying in another thread that the finish produced a surface that was slightly coarse to the extent that it was a surprise that the USGA let them get away with it. No doubt though one of the  key intended benefits was to better frame the ball.  

[mocokid]

14 hours ago, SteveNZ said:

Not when they were manufactured. I recall Charley Penna saying in another thread that the finish produced a surface that was slightly coarse to the extent that it was a surprise that the USGA let them get away with it. No doubt though one of the  key intended benefits was to better frame the ball.  

Send a set to Bryson.

[pacman16]

I have a set of the CF4000 MT2 and the Pro-Pel 2 shafts look so much thinner than Pro-Pel 1s I have in a different set.  Is this how they were?  

[ALIF]

On 3/19/2021 at 5:41 AM, cold_war_era_golfer said:

Here are some of the ones I'm reading for the spring. 1965, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1962, 1963

 

Dude!!!!

[Maine Golfer]

I wanna try a ceramic PW some day