Wilson Dynapower Irons 1967/68 variants

[stixman]

I have two sets of these and they have subtle but marked differences in blade profile, very pronounced in the wedges. I wrote to Rex and promised to send details..so, Rex, here they are.

The ironsets are numbered 256354 and 381237, the latter number being the shorter of the two blades. The flight patterns are noticeably different as you would expect.

Was this common practice for Wilson to put out different patterns under the same model designation? Anybody seen this before?

 

The photos show 5 iron and pitching wedge with comparative views of the back pad, the profiles and the blade length.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Swingingk]

Nice irons! There does appear to be some differences there. My guess is that one of them are 90's re-issues. I know Wilson made re-issues of several models including the 71-72 Buttonback's, but I can't say for sure what other years were done. Do the two sets have different shafts? The re-issues had TT Dynamic Gold or Wilson Firestick, whereas the originals would have had Staff Pro (I think...).

 

One of my golfing partners has the re-issued Buttonback's and while very, very similar to the originals they are definitely from a different forging die. His have Firestick 3.5's too.

 

[stixman]

Nice irons! There does appear to be some differences there. My guess is that one of them are 90's re-issues. I know Wilson made re-issues of several models including the 71-72 Buttonback's, but I can't say for sure what other years were done. Do the two sets have different shafts? The re-issues had TT Dynamic Gold or Wilson Firestick, whereas the originals would have had Staff Pro (I think...).

 

One of my golfing partners has the re-issued Buttonback's and while very, very similar to the originals they are definitely from a different forging die. His have Firestick 3.5's too.

 

Confirm both sets have the in-period Staff Pro shaft. Also the 'Wilson' script is consistent with the period, ie. no gap between the 'L' and the 'S'.

 

The sets are sufficiently different to say they are different forgings.

 

Question, did Wilson use two different forging houses during that period?

Question, is one of the forgings an over-run from an earlier year?

Question, were different forgings offered in different marketing areas as early as 1967/68?

I dunno, there are Wilson experts on here, I just ask the questions.

[Swingingk]

Nice irons! There does appear to be some differences there. My guess is that one of them are 90's re-issues. I know Wilson made re-issues of several models including the 71-72 Buttonback's, but I can't say for sure what other years were done. Do the two sets have different shafts? The re-issues had TT Dynamic Gold or Wilson Firestick, whereas the originals would have had Staff Pro (I think...).

 

One of my golfing partners has the re-issued Buttonback's and while very, very similar to the originals they are definitely from a different forging die. His have Firestick 3.5's too.

 

Confirm both sets have the in-period Staff Pro shaft. Also the 'Wilson' script is consistent with the period, ie. no gap between the 'L' and the 'S'.

 

The sets are sufficiently different to say they are different forgings.

 

Question, did Wilson use two different forging houses during that period?

Question, is one of the forgings an over-run from an earlier year?

Question, were different forgings offered in different marketing areas as early as 1967/68?

I dunno, there are Wilson experts on here, I just ask the questions.

 

Well, if they both have the Staff Pro shafts I guess that rules out any late model re-issues. Neat! I can only surmise that there must have been different factories or something. Super interesting! Maybe Canadian vs. USA versions? North American vs. European versions? I would guess there were multiple different manufacturing plants around the world but i have no idea why they might build slightly different versions... I love this kind of stuff!

 

 

[stixman]

Well, it's not often the cogniscenti are left baffled and speechless.

 

For what it's worth, someone on another forum I frequent said he had 2 different forgings of the '69 Dynas. He said the only explanation was that they used different forging houses for the same product release.

[NRJyzr]

Could be as simple as a custom grind order. Many companies had fairly active custom shops.

[twidener]

I have two sets of 1964 Staff Dynapowers. Same shaft, same leather grips but different shaped heads. One set has no offset and the other set has some offset. The grind where the top line meets the toe is different on each set. I was told by a guy familiar with iron production back then that the men who did the final grind on a set of heads before the plating would sometimes grind the heads to fit what looked good to their eye. He said these guys were artist. And Wilson did do a lot of custom work at that time.

[stixman]

Could be as simple as a custom grind order. Many companies had fairly active custom shops.

 

Are you saying, having looked at the profiles, particularly the wedges, that this is a Grind Job? You would need to add metal to the club with the earlier serial number.

 

I think the observations from the other Forum are more credible. The gap between the serial numbers quoted is too big to be explained by product volume. It has to be product from different forging houses

[birly-shirly]

Well, if we're going to discuss credibility, then I have none to declare...

 

But I do believe that Wilson had their own forging house - though I can't say with any certainty that that was the case when these clubs were made. Nor can I say with any authority which visible features of an iron design are built in when the head is forged, and which were ground in.

 

I do believe that forging dies wear out. And in the era before computer controlled milling, it was probably a non-trivial task to reproduce a forging die precisely. So, even if the differences in club heads are down to the forgings and not the grinding, it doesn't seem obvious to me that that this means different forging houses were involved. It could just mean different production runs for which the tooling has had to be replaced.

 

It's easy to assume that prototypes and models were all precisely specced and documented and could be replicated. But Mizuno were asked to build a replica 7 iron of the model that Sandy Lyle hit out of the bunker to win the Masters, and they had to confess that they simply didn't hold records in any detail of what he'd had in his bag originally.

[stixman]

Well, if we're going to discuss credibility, then I have none to declare...

 

But I do believe that Wilson had their own forging house - though I can't say with any certainty that that was the case when these clubs were made. Nor can I say with any authority which visible features of an iron design are built in when the head is forged, and which were ground in.

 

I do believe that forging dies wear out. And in the era before computer controlled milling, it was probably a non-trivial task to reproduce a forging die precisely. So, even if the differences in club heads are down to the forgings and not the grinding, it doesn't seem obvious to me that that this means different forging houses were involved. It could just mean different production runs for which the tooling has had to be replaced.

 

It's easy to assume that prototypes and models were all precisely specced and documented and could be replicated. But Mizuno were asked to build a replica 7 iron of the model that Sandy Lyle hit out of the bunker to win the Masters, and they had to confess that they simply didn't hold records in any detail of what he'd had in his bag originally.

 

Serial numbers ?? Your explanation sounds more plausible than the rest...but doesn't address the ever so wide gap in the serial numbers. Could the first batch have been made in Scotland, you have more than common knowledge of the Irvine plant?

[birly-shirly]

There's only really a wide gap in the serial numbers if they were being applied sequentially. It's possible, but I actually rather doubt that Wilson was giving each set of clubs in the 60s a unique, and incremental, ID. It's as likely that standard, as opposed to special order, sets were given a serial number that could be interpreted to give manufacturing information, but not in any sort of sequential order.

For example, let's suppose that Wilson had a few dozen guys doing the final QC inspection, and that they applied the serial number, and that amongst other things, the serial number allowed Wilson to trace each set back to their QC processes. So, let's say QC guy no. 25 did your first set, and guy no. 38 your second...

[stixman]

There's only really a wide gap in the serial numbers if they were being applied sequentially. It's possible, but I actually rather doubt that Wilson was giving each set of clubs in the 60s a unique, and incremental, ID. It's as likely that standard, as opposed to special order, sets were given a serial number that could be interpreted to give manufacturing information, but not in any sort of sequential order.

For example, let's suppose that Wilson had a few dozen guys doing the final QC inspection, and that they applied the serial number, and that amongst other things, the serial number allowed Wilson to trace each set back to their QC processes. So, let's say QC guy no. 25 did your first set, and guy no. 38 your second...

 

That's interesting, I didn't know/ wasn't aware of that possibility, thanks.

[deepred]

These are my favorite irons of all time and I have owned four sets at different times and I have noticed differences but haven’t put them side to side like this. Interesting to say the least.

I have a set with the aluminum shafts and the heads must be heavy as hell. They are D5 with a half cord grip. One of these days I’m going to send them to Golfworks to be bored out so I can put steel in them. Right after I .....

 

[sandpounder]

On 12/2/2018 at 11:16 PM, stixman said:

I have two sets of these and they have subtle but marked differences in blade profile, very pronounced in the wedges. I wrote to Rex and promised to send details..so, Rex, here they are.

The ironsets are numbered 256354 and 381237, the latter number being the shorter of the two blades. The flight patterns are noticeably different as you would expect.

Was this common practice for Wilson to put out different patterns under the same model designation? Anybody seen this before?

 

The photos show 5 iron and pitching wedge with comparative views of the back pad, the profiles and the blade length.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just got a full set of 1967 Wilson Staff Dynapower irons 2-9 from my Dad.  Original leather remind grips & Wilson Staff Pro shafts.  Can't wait to hit them.  I did hit them 40 years ago but not since.  Will report back with pics.

[cold_war_era_golfer]

I've seen about a dozen sets of 1962-1963 Dynapower Turfriders.  I've probably seen similar amounts of the other years as well, however it is only the Turfriders that I have seen this with and it was two separate sets of irons.  The classic Wilson irons the 8,9,pw are more rounded oval looking.  However, these 2 sets had 8,9,pw still shaped like the 7i more squared off.  

 

I let both sets go and never even took them out on the range.  I probably should have as to maybe there's something special about that shape, but I have to see that rounded oval look when I hold a 9 iron or Wilson PW.