Maltby DBM/MMB/TE Forged Question

[Popeye64]

The TE/DBM have become sort of an Icon as an easy to hit iron with great feel. Clean looks and just a no nonsense iron. For the money it's impossible to beat, nothing comes close in value for what you get in comparable new irons. You will find irons that will play just as well or give the same feel but they cant touch how inexpensive they are.

I am a steep player and take a big divot. With the lower mass of the iron I tend to hit them fairly high. I keep a TE 7 iron in my Demos. I recently brought it and an MMB out to put up against the new TS-1 and TS-2. The TE certainly held their own but even by eye you can see the higher ball flight.

A few years back the DBMs kicked a set of 745s out of my bag. They were only replaced by the MMBs which for me fly quite a bit lower.

As for the P790s I did head to head comparisons with the TS-2 on a launch monitor,,, and launch and balls speeds were identical but the TS-2 spun more and suited my game a whole lot better.

DBMs compared to the TEs are a degree stronger and a slightly firmer feel but all else is identical.

The DBMs are very tempting. I havent gotten a chance to read this entire thread but those who have these any comparison to say 565/765s, P790s, or 0311s? Theyre a little weaker lofted then the aforementioned so assuming they play a tad shorter. Ive read a lot of positive remarks from those whove owned but then I see in sigs these same people have moved on.....gapping issues, distance underwhelming compared to modern irons, etc?

[Fellaheen51]

The TE/DBM have become sort of an Icon as an easy to hit iron with great feel. Clean looks and just a no nonsense iron. For the money it's impossible to beat, nothing comes close in value for what you get in comparable new irons. You will find irons that will play just as well or give the same feel but they cant touch how inexpensive they are.

I am a steep player and take a big divot. With the lower mass of the iron I tend to hit them fairly high. I keep a TE 7 iron in my Demos. I recently brought it and an MMB out to put up against the new TS-1 and TS-2. The TE certainly held their own but even by eye you can see the higher ball flight.

A few years back the DBMs kicked a set of 745s out of my bag. They were only replaced by the MMBs which for me fly quite a bit lower.

As for the P790s I did head to head comparisons with the TS-2 on a launch monitor,,, and launch and balls speeds were identical but the TS-2 spun more and suited my game a whole lot better.

DBMs compared to the TEs are a degree stronger and a slightly firmer feel but all else is identical.

 

The DBM’s are very tempting. I haven’t gotten a chance to read this entire thread but those who have these any comparison to say 565/765’s, P790’s, or 0311’s? They’re a little weaker lofted then the aforementioned so assuming they play a tad shorter. I’ve read a lot of positive remarks from those who’ve owned but then I see in sigs these same people have moved on.....gapping issues, distance underwhelming compared to modern irons, etc?

 

Popeye. I've been reading all your various threads regarding Maltby irons with interest. Especially this one. There is a lot to like about the TE heads spec-wise. Forged, lower bounce, thinner top lines, more traditional lofts, classy looks, etc. Built myself a demo TE 7 iron with XP95 to trial before committing to an entire set (5 - GW). Looking to replace a set of Ping i20's, that I've grown tired of working the bounce. I trend more to having a 'sweeper' swing with irons, taking minimal divots. The TE's are required do to the necessity of having them adjusted 2* (minimally) upright.

 

I've been trying it out periodically all season. And there is a lot to like, including the price point. However, it's a full club shorter in distance than the Pings. Part of this attributable to loft differences (33* v. 35*). But not sure if that is the entire reason. Just last week, had the TE along with the Hogan '99 Apex MB's (shafted Nippon 950's) that I was playing. From 7 iron distance (~140 yards), even the Hogans were longer. Even though the '99 7 iron is 1* weaker in loft. The difference between being on the green and short, on three balls each from the mentioned distance. The distance conundrum is seems to be real, and simply hitting one club extra is not a solution that I'm looking for. Need all the help I can get in that regard.

 

So I'm flummoxed. The XP 95 shaft is not working out in the TE head. The trajectory is really high, my eyes tell the story. But the 950's (a quite similar shaft) in the Apex's are fine. High ball flight but I'm still getting the necessary carry. I'm a more "seasoned" golfer and find the lighter weight shafts beneficial. But not needing to go with graphites just yet. Which is another reason for considering the TE's. Could easily switch them over at a future point in time. I don't mind high trajectory (have always hit something of a high ball), but high and short is a not viable.

 

Not asking anyone to pick a shaft for me. Any ideas are most certainly welcome. Just trying to decide whether to pursue this endeavor any further. Whether I want to trial another shaft in them or just abandon ship and move on. That the distance issue is germane, not going to be corrected by further shaft changes. Was hoping the TE's would work for me. I need a set of forgiving CB irons that do not look like SGI shovels when the swing is not cooperating. And I place the Hogans on temporary hiatus.

 

TIA for anyone's comments on the matter.

[Popeye64]

Have you taken the two irons to a launch monitor and see the difference in spin rates you are getting. I suspect the spin on the TE iron is quite higher. I have the 950 GH shafts in the MMB-17 heads and even though the profile suggests it should be a spiny combo they get distances that appear to be greater than the sum of the parts. When put on the monitor I found the spin rates to be much lower than a DBM setup with Xcaliber Tour X 85 shafts. So I put the MMB-17s in play. Now had I done some shaft testing in the DBM i may have found a better launch spin rate combo.

That 99 Apex is an all time favorite of mine and think it's cool you have some light weight shafts in those heads. A combo I would love to tinker with. I had the Apex 4 shafts in mine,,,, but I digress.

I know the over all profile of the TE suits your eye and game. I dont think without some trial and error you will be able to come up with a proper shaft though you may come pretty close if you do your home work. I think a quick solution is to grab a 950 GH and install it into the TE head and then do an apples to apples test on course and see if you can find that distance loss.

Sometimes we take the quick solution like I did and put the MMB-17s in play rather than a little shaft testing with the DBMs.

 

My recent switch to the TS design was almost purely reasoned by the design of the sole of those clubs. If I only played at elite condition courses my digger style of golf would be fine as I would just glide through the turf with the low bounce soles. The rocker/V style sole of the TS truly helps me on the burned up muni fairways I play at most of the time. At the munis,, taking a divot usually stops the club dead in the turf. Quite an issue with the MMB-17 heads. But at the fancy country clubs I laid out beaver pelt divots like a tour pro.

So long story short test with a 950 Gh shaft and see what you get.

[jasonp87]

The TE/DBM have become sort of an Icon as an easy to hit iron with great feel. Clean looks and just a no nonsense iron. For the money it's impossible to beat, nothing comes close in value for what you get in comparable new irons. You will find irons that will play just as well or give the same feel but they cant touch how inexpensive they are.

I am a steep player and take a big divot. With the lower mass of the iron I tend to hit them fairly high. I keep a TE 7 iron in my Demos. I recently brought it and an MMB out to put up against the new TS-1 and TS-2. The TE certainly held their own but even by eye you can see the higher ball flight.

A few years back the DBMs kicked a set of 745s out of my bag. They were only replaced by the MMBs which for me fly quite a bit lower.

As for the P790s I did head to head comparisons with the TS-2 on a launch monitor,,, and launch and balls speeds were identical but the TS-2 spun more and suited my game a whole lot better.

DBMs compared to the TEs are a degree stronger and a slightly firmer feel but all else is identical.

 

The DBM’s are very tempting. I haven’t gotten a chance to read this entire thread but those who have these any comparison to say 565/765’s, P790’s, or 0311’s? They’re a little weaker lofted then the aforementioned so assuming they play a tad shorter. I’ve read a lot of positive remarks from those who’ve owned but then I see in sigs these same people have moved on.....gapping issues, distance underwhelming compared to modern irons, etc?

 

Popeye. I've been reading all your various threads regarding Maltby irons with interest. Especially this one. There is a lot to like about the TE heads spec-wise. Forged, lower bounce, thinner top lines, more traditional lofts, classy looks, etc. Built myself a demo TE 7 iron with XP95 to trial before committing to an entire set (5 - GW). Looking to replace a set of Ping i20's, that I've grown tired of working the bounce. I trend more to having a 'sweeper' swing with irons, taking minimal divots. The TE's are required do to the necessity of having them adjusted 2* (minimally) upright.

 

I've been trying it out periodically all season. And there is a lot to like, including the price point. However, it's a full club shorter in distance than the Pings. Part of this attributable to loft differences (33* v. 35*). But not sure if that is the entire reason. Just last week, had the TE along with the Hogan '99 Apex MB's (shafted Nippon 950's) that I was playing. From 7 iron distance (~140 yards), even the Hogans were longer. Even though the '99 7 iron is 1* weaker in loft. The difference between being on the green and short, on three balls each from the mentioned distance. The distance conundrum is seems to be real, and simply hitting one club extra is not a solution that I'm looking for. Need all the help I can get in that regard.

 

So I'm flummoxed. The XP 95 shaft is not working out in the TE head. The trajectory is really high, my eyes tell the story. But the 950's (a quite similar shaft) in the Apex's are fine. High ball flight but I'm still getting the necessary carry. I'm a more "seasoned" golfer and find the lighter weight shafts beneficial. But not needing to go with graphites just yet. Which is another reason for considering the TE's. Could easily switch them over at a future point in time. I don't mind high trajectory (have always hit something of a high ball), but high and short is a not viable.

 

Not asking anyone to pick a shaft for me. Any ideas are most certainly welcome. Just trying to decide whether to pursue this endeavor any further. Whether I want to trial another shaft in them or just abandon ship and move on. That the distance issue is germane, not going to be corrected by further shaft changes. Was hoping the TE's would work for me. I need a set of forgiving CB irons that do not look like SGI shovels when the swing is not cooperating. And I place the Hogans on temporary hiatus.

 

TIA for anyone's comments on the matter.

 

Maybe consider the MMBs

[Fellaheen51]

Thanks for responding Popeye. I do not have access to a launch monitor unless I pony up $150 for the privilege. Not happening. Strictly range/course observations mixed with trial and error testing. A number of steel shafts are ruled out categorically (stiff and heavy). You are correct how a certain synergy of head and shaft are sometimes greater than the sum of the parts. I have been contemplating installing a 950 GH into the TE, just to see if differing results could be realized.

 

They certainly work well in the 99's. No where is it written that one must play heavy and stiff in MB's. It's an excellent combination for me. Irons that given my skill set, should have no business playing. Yet, I play them rather well. Realizing distances equal to the i20's despite being several degrees weaker in loft. Especially from the 7 iron up. Not that I'm chasing distance in the absolute, in a jacked loft sort of way. Just that at my age (67), not willing to surrender distance by virtue of inappropriate shaft/head selection. Something that may be correctable with a different combination. My golfing skill set is not at level where I would choose to play MB's full time. Require the security of knowing that there are GI CB irons in inventory that can be placed into service when the swing goes awry.

 

Setting the distance issue aside, really liked what I realized from the TE demo club. Great feel, the turf interaction that I was seeking, and hit them reasonably straight. Despite not having the lie adjusted. So we'll see what happens moving forward. I've read the TS-2 thread, not sure if that is a direction I want to persue. Would like to make the TE's work for me.

 

NTM. Once was a time when I played an entire bag of Snake Eyes component heads. Considering it something of a "badge of honor" relative to all the OEM implements at the time. The TE's would be like returning to my roots for a variety of reasons.

 

Edit add: MMB's are not a consideration. Already have several sets of MB irons, mostly of the classical variety. Enjoying playing different implements from time to time. Need to have just one set of reliable and playable GI CB's on hand for the aforementioned reason. Why I would like the TE's to work out. The safety net set of irons.

[JDMRN81]

Fellaneen51, have you considered the PTM's? A little stronger lofted but still a nice look and size.

[propman]

Fellaneen51

 

To lower your flight, have you considered the TT Dynamic Gold 105 shaft? Weight comes in at 101 grams and flight is low/mid.

 

I own a set of TEs, tend to be a sweeper (majority of my misses are of thin variety) and not a high ball hitter (usually).

 

I use the Dynamic Gold XPs in 4 thru 8 and the Dynamic Golds in the 9 thru gap. The xps help me get more loft and the dgs help me lower flight on scoring on scoring irons,

 

I never closely looked to see if the TEs hit shorter than my other set (Mizuno jpx ez forged). If they do, can't be by much. While my scores don't differ using either of these sets. I'm addicted to the feel of the TEs,

 

 

YMMV

[jasonp87]

Thanks for responding Popeye. I do not have access to a launch monitor unless I pony up $150 for the privilege. Not happening. Strictly range/course observations mixed with trial and error testing. A number of steel shafts are ruled out categorically (stiff and heavy). You are correct how a certain synergy of head and shaft are sometimes greater than the sum of the parts. I have been contemplating installing a 950 GH into the TE, just to see if differing results could be realized.

 

They certainly work well in the 99's. No where is it written that one must play heavy and stiff in MB's. It's an excellent combination for me. Irons that given my skill set, should have no business playing. Yet, I play them rather well. Realizing distances equal to the i20's despite being several degrees weaker in loft. Especially from the 7 iron up. Not that I'm chasing distance in the absolute, in a jacked loft sort of way. Just that at my age (67), not willing to surrender distance by virtue of inappropriate shaft/head selection. Something that may be correctable with a different combination. My golfing skill set is not at level where I would choose to play MB's full time. Require the security of knowing that there are GI CB irons in inventory that can be placed into service when the swing goes awry.

 

Setting the distance issue aside, really liked what I realized from the TE demo club. Great feel, the turf interaction that I was seeking, and hit them reasonably straight. Despite not having the lie adjusted. So we'll see what happens moving forward. I've read the TS-2 thread, not sure if that is a direction I want to persue. Would like to make the TE's work for me.

 

NTM. Once was a time when I played an entire bag of Snake Eyes component heads. Considering it something of a "badge of honor" relative to all the OEM implements at the time. The TE's would be like returning to my roots for a variety of reasons.

 

Edit add: MMB's are not a consideration. Already have several sets of MB irons, mostly of the classical variety. Enjoying playing different implements from time to time. Need to have just one set of reliable and playable GI CB's on hand for the aforementioned reason. Why I would like the TE's to work out. The safety net set of irons.

 

The mmbs look like a blade but are very much a players cb style performance much like the TEs. I loved the tes but they flew way too high for me. The mmbs are much easier to control and fly lower. They are just as forgiving i find. The biggest difference is thw avcog isnt as low.

 

The te are great for people who struggle to Get ample height. But if u hit a decent ball theyll surely be too high no matter what shaft.

[Cwebb]

Thanks for responding Popeye. I do not have access to a launch monitor unless I pony up $150 for the privilege. Not happening. Strictly range/course observations mixed with trial and error testing. A number of steel shafts are ruled out categorically (stiff and heavy). You are correct how a certain synergy of head and shaft are sometimes greater than the sum of the parts. I have been contemplating installing a 950 GH into the TE, just to see if differing results could be realized.

 

They certainly work well in the 99's. No where is it written that one must play heavy and stiff in MB's. It's an excellent combination for me. Irons that given my skill set, should have no business playing. Yet, I play them rather well. Realizing distances equal to the i20's despite being several degrees weaker in loft. Especially from the 7 iron up. Not that I'm chasing distance in the absolute, in a jacked loft sort of way. Just that at my age (67), not willing to surrender distance by virtue of inappropriate shaft/head selection. Something that may be correctable with a different combination. My golfing skill set is not at level where I would choose to play MB's full time. Require the security of knowing that there are GI CB irons in inventory that can be placed into service when the swing goes awry.

 

Setting the distance issue aside, really liked what I realized from the TE demo club. Great feel, the turf interaction that I was seeking, and hit them reasonably straight. Despite not having the lie adjusted. So we'll see what happens moving forward. I've read the TS-2 thread, not sure if that is a direction I want to persue. Would like to make the TE's work for me.

 

NTM. Once was a time when I played an entire bag of Snake Eyes component heads. Considering it something of a "badge of honor" relative to all the OEM implements at the time. The TE's would be like returning to my roots for a variety of reasons.

 

Edit add: MMB's are not a consideration. Already have several sets of MB irons, mostly of the classical variety. Enjoying playing different implements from time to time. Need to have just one set of reliable and playable GI CB's on hand for the aforementioned reason. Why I would like the TE's to work out. The safety net set of irons.

 

You could try adjusting the lofts lower on the TE's

[bwil8880]

Fellaneen51

 

To lower your flight, have you considered the TT Dynamic Gold 105 shaft? Weight comes in at 101 grams and flight is low/mid.

 

I own a set of TEs, tend to be a sweeper (majority of my misses are of thin variety) and not a high ball hitter (usually).

 

I use the Dynamic Gold XPs in 4 thru 8 and the Dynamic Golds in the 9 thru gap. The xps help me get more loft and the dgs help me lower flight on scoring on scoring irons,

 

I never closely looked to see if the TEs hit shorter than my other set (Mizuno jpx ez forged). If they do, can't be by much. While my scores don't differ using either of these sets. I'm addicted to the feel of the TEs,

 

 

YMMV

 

 

Prop,

Are your TE’s a shorter blade length than your EZ forged?

[Cwebb]

The te are great for people who struggle to Get ample height. But if u hit a decent ball theyll surely be too high no matter what shaft.

 

Can't be that general. It has to do with angle of attack, low point and where they touch the turf, and where each player's vertical impact tends to be. If someone happens to strike their irons a little lower on the face, then a lower sweet-spot can be a great fit. There are good ball strikers who are shallower through impact.

 

For example, if someone simply wanted an iron that "promoted" shallower divots, without leading to an increase in thin contact, the TE/DBM could be a great one to try that with......because you don't have to go down and through as much, in order to hit them pure.

 

Keep in mind that the classic and popular Mizuno MP-14 blade has about the same AVCOG as the TE/DBM

[propman]

Fellaneen51

 

To lower your flight, have you considered the TT Dynamic Gold 105 shaft? Weight comes in at 101 grams and flight is low/mid.

 

I own a set of TEs, tend to be a sweeper (majority of my misses are of thin variety) and not a high ball hitter (usually).

 

I use the Dynamic Gold XPs in 4 thru 8 and the Dynamic Golds in the 9 thru gap. The xps help me get more loft and the dgs help me lower flight on scoring on scoring irons,

 

I never closely looked to see if the TEs hit shorter than my other set (Mizuno jpx ez forged). If they do, can't be by much. While my scores don't differ using either of these sets. I'm addicted to the feel of the TEs,

 

 

YMMV

 

 

Prop,

Are your TE’s a shorter blade length than your EZ forged?

 

Yes, TEs have a shorter blade length and also a thinner topline and sole.

[BogeyParBogey]

TEs are back in the bag getting a good run this time. I had taken them out for 718 AP1, but I find my results with the AP1s inconsistent.

 

I'm using the Score LT shafts trimmed to firm. They fly high, but my contact may be flippy.

 

Dave

[Bad9]

Anyone have any idea of the BBGM of the DBM vs the Ping G iron?

[JMH1220]

I don’t mean to hijack this thread but I didn’t want to start a new one. I have hit a couple different Maltby irons and thought they were very good.

 

My question is how are the driver heads? I’ve never hit one and don’t know anyone that has. Will there be a new one out for 2019? I sure like the price.

[KaiserSoze]

I don’t mean to hijack this thread but I didn’t want to start a new one. I have hit a couple different Maltby irons and thought they were very good.

 

My question is how are the driver heads? I’ve never hit one and don’t know anyone that has. Will there be a new one out for 2019? I sure like the price.

 

A new driver is in the works. They say release date is later 2018. Golfworks has made some good driver heads, most notably the Maltby CT250.

[Popeye64]

I don’t mean to hijack this thread but I didn’t want to start a new one. I have hit a couple different Maltby irons and thought they were very good.

 

My question is how are the driver heads? I’ve never hit one and don’t know anyone that has. Will there be a new one out for 2019? I sure like the price.

They are talking about a new state of the art construction method that is supposed to be the real deal. Quite a few years ago the driver heads were outstanding. Sound and performance as good as any head. I had not been over whelmed with recent releases but this new one is supposed to be special. I hope they get back what they used to have. My Brother still plays a CT250 and to this day it was the longest driver I have ever built. He talked me out of it. I must have built 50 of those drivers and this one was a freak.. I'm pretty sure it's on the wrong side of legal but it still absolutely bombs it.

[Cwebb]

Anyone have any idea of the BBGM of the DBM vs the Ping G iron?

 

The DBM's have one of the shorter BBGM's, as do most of the Maltby irons, because they really use a short hosel length as one of their design strengths, to get the sweet-spot centered and low enough.

 

Pings generally have longer BBGM's...not sure exactly what the G iron's is, but it's most likely at least a 1/2" longer than the DBM