Wilson X31 question...forgery or not?

[defender2803]

Picked up a second set of X31 Wilson's in a bag with about 15 other clubs at a thrift shop. They looked really clean and I was thinking they were ground down on the faces pretty good...like a refurbished set. Didn't even think about the number stamp until I lined them up with my other set. Looks like a reproduction or fake set to me since the number stamp is from an older style of Wilson. Anyone know if they used the old "8" on newer clubs? Look fake to me and the bands on the hosel are wrong. My set is top while what looks like repro/fake is bottom.

[John L.]

The X31 had many reruns. A simple Google (images) will show various changes through the years.

 

A very decent club with a strong following back then.

[Nessism]

I'd venture to say that back in the day that those clubs were new there were NO fake clubs anywhere to be seen.

[oldschoolrocker]

I've seen that number stamping on other Wilson's as well. I don't believe there was a market for fake clubs in that time period.

[defender2803]

I'd venture to say that back in the day that those clubs were new there were NO fake clubs anywhere to be seen.

 

I don't think it is those days but these days. I have seen a few sets that were reproduced floating around the net. Problem is I have seen one set with ancient shafts with original grips and glistening brighter polished heads with almost no grooves left and numbers ground down to almost level with the sole...and wrong colors everywhere.

 

Thinking this is one of those.

[Nessism]

I'd venture to say that back in the day that those clubs were new there were NO fake clubs anywhere to be seen.

 

I don't think it is those days but these days. I have seen a few sets that were reproduced floating around the net. Problem is I have seen one set with ancient shafts with original grips and glistening brighter polished heads with almost no grooves left and numbers ground down to almost level with the sole...and wrong colors everywhere.

 

Thinking this is one of those.

 

Are you joking? Fake X31's? Those clubs are from the early 1970's or somewhere thereabouts. .

[defender2803]

I'd venture to say that back in the day that those clubs were new there were NO fake clubs anywhere to be seen.

 

I don't think it is those days but these days. I have seen a few sets that were reproduced floating around the net. Problem is I have seen one set with ancient shafts with original grips and glistening brighter polished heads with almost no grooves left and numbers ground down to almost level with the sole...and wrong colors everywhere.

 

Thinking this is one of those.

 

Are you joking? Fake X31's? Those clubs are from the early 1970's or somewhere thereabouts. .

 

Actually...1982-84.

 

The 8 with the top chopped off is old Wilson style of stamp from the 60's. Don't know of anything that used it after '69. The 70's had a more cursive style and the 80's were block and what you see here with a full 8 written out.

 

So here is the one I think is fake or a repro from the face. Grooves are really tiny and look ground down. Towards the toe they go away...and they are really low on the face.

 

And the one that matches everything I have seen. Real grooves.

 

 

Here is a ground down club for reference on bad repro/refurb job...returned for full credit. The colors were way wrong...looks like a nail polish job. I have seen a lot of these lately...

 

Club on the left is real...right are horribly bad refurbs.

 

[BrianL99]

Counterfeit X-31's?

 

Ludicrous.

[defender2803]

Counterfeit X-31's?

 

Ludicrous.

 

Or just really bad refurbs...

[Nessism]

Production variation. There was a lot of hand labor that went into a set of irons in those days.

[Shallowface]

Picked up a second set of X31 Wilson's in a bag with about 15 other clubs at a thrift shop. They looked really clean and I was thinking they were ground down on the faces pretty good...like a refurbished set. Didn't even think about the number stamp until I lined them up with my other set. Looks like a reproduction or fake set to me since the number stamp is from an older style of Wilson. Anyone know if they used the old "8" on newer clubs? Look fake to me and the bands on the hosel are wrong. My set is top while what looks like repro/fake is bottom.

 

I have to wonder if the club with the old style 8 may have been a set of 82-84 X-31s that were made by Wilson somewhere other than the USA. I know that in the late 70s a local shop got a large run of Wilson Staff irons that were made in Wilson's Scotland factory. They had the same bullet cut as the 76-77 USA version, but the toes were a little more square. Pretty neat as I recall.

 

It's hard to say for sure as angles can be deceiving, but it looks like the 8 iron on the bottom has a wider flange than the one above it. Also, even though the stamps on the back say they same thing, they look slightly different to my eye.

 

Counterfeits? No way. But a set from a different part of the world? Quite possible in my opinion.

 

The 4 iron in the other picture that's missing part of its 4 looks like a bad rechrome job. When it came to rechroming irons, The Golfworks catalog used to say something along the lines of "there is a decision to be made as to when to stop grinding. While there are still nicks or while there is still stamping. We always try to preserve the stamping." Whoever did these felt differently.

 

I've never been a big fan of rechroming. All too often the refinished irons look like a lady who has had a bad face lift, and then the chrome on the hosels winds up cracking like the makeup used to cover that up. I've seen some great results refinishing stainless irons, but I don't even consider doing anything to chrome irons anymore.

[Nessism]

I doubt the 4 has been rechromed. Stamping the numbers is a separate operation where a press comes down and makes the number imprint. If the head slips a little in the holding fixture then leg of the 4 isn't quite as deep, or someone on the grinding wheel hits the toe of the iron a little harder than needed and removed material after the number was pressed in. I bought a brand new set of Palmer Peerless blades in 1985 and a few of the grooves had shallow spots where the press wasn't as deep as in other areas. Clubs in those days had a lot of hand labor involvement in them and that leads to production variation. Work in a production operation where you have lots of hand labor involved and you will quickly understand the world isn't perfect.

[Shallowface]

I doubt the 4 has been rechromed. Stamping the numbers is a separate operation where a press comes down and makes the number imprint. If the head slips a little in the holding fixture then leg of the 4 isn't quite as deep, or someone on the grinding wheel hits the toe of the iron a little harder than needed and removed material after the number was pressed in. I bought a brand new set of Palmer Peerless blades in 1985 and a few of the grooves had shallow spots where the press wasn't as deep as in other areas. Clubs in those days had a lot of hand labor involvement in them and that leads to production variation. Work in a production operation where you have lots of hand labor involved and you will quickly understand the world isn't perfect.

 

He did describe it as being "ground down."

 

But of course you are correct about the variances in hand made products. The Wilson clubs of the early 80s were of very inconsistent quality (they improved after 1985 with the ownership change), and from personal experience the Hogan clubs of that era that are so revered by so many had issues as well. The sets we see today from that era probably didn't have those issues as only the strongest products survive. And, it seemed one didn't see those inconsistencies so much prior to the late 1970s. Prior to that the bad stuff was likely scrapped, but with the "malaise" that went through all of American industry during that time the golf equipment business did not go unaffected.

 

You mention the Peerless clubs. There may have been a forged version of those, but most of those were cast (of course cast clubs are subject to variances in quality as well). I had personal correspondence with the President of Pro Group and that was part of the discussion. The reason I wrote him in the first place was to complain about the chrome plating on their Standard irons. On many sets you could actually see blotches where the underplating was visible. I recently ran across a First Flight set from that era called "The Club" in one of the thrifts. It had those issues as well. "The Club" was a forged blade sold at Pro Golf Discount stores as a slightly less expensive option to "The Standard."

[Nessism]

The suggestion is that the 4 leg is missing because the heads were refurbed or as you stated, "rechromed". I'm doubtful about that though.

 

Yes, the Peerless irons were cast. Or at least that is my understanding. Regardless though, the heads were hand ground after casting to prepare them for chrome plating. And I don't know for a fact that the grooves were pressed or cast into the head. On further reflection I suspect they may have been cast in. At any rate, inconsistencies from the manufacturer in terms of imprint depth is a FACT on many clubs from that era.