MacGregor Re-issues

[Foozle]

One area that causes me confusion is the subject of MacGregor re-issues. It seems to pop up in various threads and so I guess I am not alone?

I am generally okay on unmolested clubs with original shafts, grips and patina but alot of clubs of that age have been tinkered with over the years....

I thought I would start a new dedicated thread in the hope of creating a definitive point of reference to help clear the muddied waters.

It would be good, for example, to create a list of the known reissue models - both woods and irons. That way if you stumble across a model not on the list you can have some confidence in its originality?

For those on the list, it would then be good to list identifiers to help distinguish between originals and remakes? Perhaps also debunking some myths?

For example, I have read that reissues only have 4 screws in the sole plate and that model number stampings are on the sole plate and not the toe. This M85W is to my almost certain knowledge a remake which disprooves those theories! But how would I tell it apart from a reshafted, rewhipped and (badly) refinished original? Is it true that the inserts on originals are thinner?

Hopefully you see the point I am trying to make and all you Mac Guru's will be willing to share your considerable collective knowledge to help educate us enthusiastic amateurs!

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Foozle
Add picture

[SteveNZ]

One of the first things I generally notice about the re-makes is that the toe stamping usually looks a little too perfect - same for the engravings on the sole plate. I think there may be something about the number of score lines on the face too - someone is sure to be able to confirm that.

[gurngunja]

Yours a is a re-issue from the 80's. Easiest way to tell is that the re-issues had 3 scoring lines in the middle of the face, whereas the original  6 screw M85 from the 1950's had 4:

 

[Swingingk]

21 minutes ago, gurngunja said:

Yours a is a re-issue from the 80's. Easiest way to tell is that the re-issues had 3 scoring lines in the middle of the face, whereas the original  6 screw M85 from the 1950's had 4:

 

Very nice!

[thepunch_out]

44 minutes ago, gurngunja said:

Yours a is a re-issue from the 80's. Easiest way to tell is that the re-issues had 3 scoring lines in the middle of the face, whereas the original  6 screw M85 from the 1950's had 4:

 

Wow, that club is remarkable. One of the best M85's I have ever seen. 

[gurngunja]

Sadly that one isn't mine, it's an image I found on the web just to illustrate.

 

This one is mine, my favourite persimmon, and still very decent I think:

 

 

 

 

[LeftyMac]

The first photo gurngunja put up was some of Dave Wood's work. 

[Foozle]

6 hours ago, gurngunja said:

Yours a is a re-issue from the 80's. Easiest way to tell is that the re-issues had 3 scoring lines in the middle of the face, whereas the original  6 screw M85 from the 1950's had 4:

 

Thanks. This is exactly the type of identification information I would like to collate for each re-issue model.

Hopefully others can contribute similar information for other models?

[RobotDoctor]

16 hours ago, gurngunja said:

Yours a is a re-issue from the 80's. Easiest way to tell is that the re-issues had 3 scoring lines in the middle of the face, whereas the original  6 screw M85 from the 1950's had 4:

 

 

16 hours ago, Swingingk said:

Very nice!

 

15 hours ago, thepunch_out said:

Wow, that club is remarkable. One of the best M85's I have ever seen. 

 

15 hours ago, gurngunja said:

Sadly that one isn't mine, it's an image I found on the web just to illustrate.

 

This one is mine, my favourite persimmon, and still very decent I think:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am very fortunate to be the owner of the M85W with neck number S4828E.  This one was owned by Fred Clark and restored by Dave Wood about 11 or 12 years ago.  I bought it off Fred about 10 years ago.  This is truly a remarkable driver, and I have the 2 and 3 woods (in original condition with neck numbers) waiting to be restored in the next year or two.  The driver will also go in and have a satin poly coat applied.

Here are a few pictures I snapped of it this morning.  I am also attaching the other M85W driver I have with it (side by side).  The lighter colored M85W was restored by Dave Wood last year and he restored it to Ben Crenshaw's specifications.  This one is an rare solid block meaning no lead,  It is a very heavy M85W weighing in at D6 and that is with adding a 1/2" plug with tungsten to extend it from 43" to 43.5".  It was originally E-0 at 43".

Edited February 26, 2021 by RobotDoctor

[raggal62]

22 hours ago, Foozle said:

One area that causes me confusion is the subject of MacGregor re-issues. It seems to pop up in various threads and so I guess I am not alone?

I am generally okay on unmolested clubs with original shafts, grips and patina but alot of clubs of that age have been tinkered with over the years....

I thought I would start a new dedicated thread in the hope of creating a definitive point of reference to help clear the muddied waters.

It would be good, for example, to create a list of the known reissue models - both woods and irons. That way if you stumble across a model not on the list you can have some confidence in its originality?

For those on the list, it would then be good to list identifiers to help distinguish between originals and remakes? Perhaps also debunking some myths?

For example, I have read that reissues only have 4 screws in the sole plate and that model number stampings are on the sole plate and not the toe. This M85W is to my almost certain knowledge a remake which disprooves those theories! But how would I tell it apart from a reshafted, rewhipped and (badly) refinished original? Is it true that the inserts on originals are thinner?

Hopefully you see the point I am trying to make and all you Mac Guru's will be willing to share your considerable collective knowledge to help educate us enthusiastic amateurs!

 

Kudos on starting this thread. It should serve as a good reference.

[RobotDoctor]

I once had a 693 reproduction driver I had originally thought was original 1950s.  There are a few tells that I have come to learn of.  First is the stamping script.  Both the letters and numbers have tells.  The font on the lettering is larger than the original 1950s "OIL HARDENING" script.  Also, the number font is off, noticeably the 3.  The location of the bore is also slightly off on the reproduction (more off the lower face screw).  It seems to me the location of the "1" stamping is a bit behind the screws while the original 1950s seem to be aligned centered under the two face screws.  Discussing this model with Dave Wood he said that even the shape of the 693 reproduction was not quite right compared to the original 1950s.  If you notice the toe of the reproduction seems to apex a bit more to a point and maybe slightly more left than the original 1950s.  I have included a pre-restoration picture of my 1950s 693 for reference.

 

There were also 693 reproductions made with Tourney Custom stamped on the crown.  This was due to MacGregor not having the rights to the name Tommy Armour when those were made.

 

The pictures with white sole stamp lettering is a 693 reproduction.  The 693 with golf sole stamp letting is an original 1950-1952 693.

[RobotDoctor]

Here is a M85W reproduction I had.  The tells on this one, again, is the sole stamping of the reproduction.  Slightly larger than the original.  The REC.NO. was tighter on the original 1950s M85W.  The back screws are not as close to the trailing edge of the sole plate as the original.  Also, the G in MacGregor was slightly more rounded than the original.  There seems to be a straighter back edge of the G on the 1950s MacGregors.  Again, the shape seems harsher on the reproductions as noted in the transition of the toe of the repro into the face as compared to a smooth transition of the original. 

 

This reproduction had the same number of scoring lines, 6 in a 1x4x1 pattern like the originals.  The lines seem to be spaced a bit higher on the repro than the originals.

[Stephen8802]

How did the repo M85 play?

[RobotDoctor]

10 minutes ago, Stephen8802 said:

How did the repo M85 play?

 
I am not sure I ever hit it.  It was a nice block but something about it didn’t suit my eye.  
 

There was a period of time in the 80s that counterfeits were being produced passed as original.  Authentic reproduction woods are terrific woods so anyone owning one should be proud of that.  

[Brewski_golfs]

Excellent thread and I could use an expert opinion.  I found these last year on Craigslist, and they are rough.  The shafts are likely too rusted to play, but I want to restore the heads and at least clean up and re-grip the shafts once I get some persimmon refinishing experience and feel comfortable enough to work on these clubs.  Unfortunately the driver was long gone, but I couldn't pass on these 2.  I had been assuming since I found them that they are original 50's, but would love to get an opinion here.

[RobotDoctor]

2 hours ago, Brewski_golfs said:

Excellent thread and I could use an expert opinion.  I found these last year on Craigslist, and they are rough.  The shafts are likely too rusted to play, but I want to restore the heads and at least clean up and re-grip the shafts once I get some persimmon refinishing experience and feel comfortable enough to work on these clubs.  Unfortunately the driver was long gone, but I couldn't pass on these 2.  I had been assuming since I found them that they are original 50's, but would love to get an opinion here.

Definitely looks like 50s vintage. 

[Foozle]

9 hours ago, RobotDoctor said:

Here is a M85W reproduction I had.  The tells on this one, again, is the sole stamping of the reproduction.  Slightly larger than the original.  The REC.NO. was tighter on the original 1950s M85W.  The back screws are not as close to the trailing edge of the sole plate as the original.  Also, the G in MacGregor was slightly more rounded than the original.  There seems to be a straighter back edge of the G on the 1950s MacGregors.  Again, the shape seems harsher on the reproductions as noted in the transition of the toe of the repro into the face as compared to a smooth transition of the original. 

 

This reproduction had the same number of scoring lines, 6 in a 1x4x1 pattern like the originals.  The lines seem to be spaced a bit higher on the repro than the originals.

RobotDoctor, huge thanks for these detailed responses and sharing your knowledge. I feel a lot better about having asked the question when you see the subtlety of some of the distinguishing features of each model! 

I did think it might be a numpty (Scottish for not having the sharpest grooves in the set) question with very obvious differences between original and remakes but comforting to know that even experts occasionally ponder the differences.

It seems there are some clear cut distinguishing features so 1-3-1 scoring lines on an M85 confirm remake but conversely 1-4-1 does not guarantee originality and closer examination is then required.

I will try and assemble all this information and find some way of making it accessible to all.

So far we have info on M85 and 693's. I think Velocitized were also reissued? Any others? 945's?

I am curious if the insert depth offers any clues? My own observation is that original fibre inserts are thinner than the plastic inserts used in '80's remakes? Does that theory hold water?

Interested too in irons although they may be more straight forward as my RecM85 Colokroms have "Tour Forged" stamped on the hosel which is a bit of a give away. SS1's also lack the Tommy Armour name as you rightly point out MacGregor lost those rights in 1967/68.

Please keep the information coming, it is much appreciated.

[raggal62]

8 hours ago, Brewski_golfs said:

Excellent thread and I could use an expert opinion.  I found these last year on Craigslist, and they are rough.  The shafts are likely too rusted to play, but I want to restore the heads and at least clean up and re-grip the shafts once I get some persimmon refinishing experience and feel comfortable enough to work on these clubs.  Unfortunately the driver was long gone, but I couldn't pass on these 2.  I had been assuming since I found them that they are original 50's, but would love to get an opinion here.

Original and look to be good candidates for restoration.

[raggal62]

I don't recall seeing any remakes with poured lead backweights. But not all originals had them either.

[raggal62]

1 hour ago, Foozle said:

RobotDoctor, huge thanks for these detailed responses and sharing your knowledge. I feel a lot better about having asked the question when you see the subtlety of some of the distinguishing features of each model! 

I did think it might be a numpty (Scottish for not having the sharpest grooves in the set) question with very obvious differences between original and remakes but comforting to know that even experts occasionally ponder the differences.

It seems there are some clear cut distinguishing features so 1-3-1 scoring lines on an M85 confirm remake but conversely 1-4-1 does not guarantee originality and closer examination is then required.

I will try and assemble all this information and find some way of making it accessible to all.

So far we have info on M85 and 693's. I think Velocitized were also reissued? Any others? 945's?

I am curious if the insert depth offers any clues? My own observation is that original fibre inserts are thinner than the plastic inserts used in '80's remakes? Does that theory hold water?

Interested too in irons although they may be more straight forward as my RecM85 Colokroms have "Tour Forged" stamped on the hosel which is a bit of a give away. SS1's also lack the Tommy Armour name as you rightly point out MacGregor lost those rights in 1967/68.

Please keep the information coming, it is much appreciated.

Perhaps you are correct with the insert depth theory. For me I can generally spot the difference between fiber and cycolac.

[LeftyMac]

Brewski_golfs,

 

They are original and will come up well.  Before and after a 3 wood I did last year

 

 

[gurngunja]

23 hours ago, RobotDoctor said:

There were also 693 reproductions made with Tourney Custom stamped on the crown.  This was due to MacGregor not having the rights to the name Tommy Armour when those were made.

 

 

 

I have an unhit re-issue 693 Mac Tourney Custom. The toe is definitely more pointed then the 50's version, the stamping is different and not as precise, there is a lead backweight, Tourney Custom on the crown, and numbered neck stamping. I suspect this model was intended more for ornamental use, I just can't bring myself to hitting it. It looks very classy on the shelf.

 

 

[Brewski_golfs]

Beautiful Club gurngunja!

 

Thanks for the feedback everyone and good to know they are 50's.  With spring on the way I will finally be able to properly work on some of these persimmons, but the 693T's will only be after  get comfortable with my persimmon refinishing skills, don't want to risk making a major mistake with those.

[RobotDoctor]

1 hour ago, gurngunja said:

 

I have an unhit re-issue 693 Mac Tourney Custom. The toe is definitely more pointed then the 50's version, the stamping is different and not as precise, there is a lead backweight, Tourney Custom on the crown, and numbered neck stamping. I suspect this model was intended more for ornamental use, I just can't bring myself to hitting it. It looks very classy on the shelf.

 

 

No way!  Definitely NOT ornamental.  I owned one of these once and these are terrific reproductions.  May not be exact but really solid!  Go hit that driver as it is meant to hit balls!   Just get a softer compression ball.  

[stevehj]

There is another way to identify a reproduction vs an original.  If you look at the grain on the faces shown in RobotDoctor's post, you will see a lighter color, and less grain on the reproduction.  The color is almost homogenous and it very difficult to see the grain.  Whereas, on the original, the color is darker and you can see grain running across the face.  I suspect these differences are due to the age of the persimmon that was used to produce the different vintages of the clubs.  I believe by the time the reproductions were produced the old growth persimmon supply was exhausted, so they had to use newer growth persimmon.  Also, and this is a guess, I suspect that the oil hardening process was different on the reproductions or the newer wood did not absorb the oil as effectively as the originals.  Just an observation.....

[Brewski_golfs]

Recently acquired this one and I think it’s a vintage 1952 M85.   The insert needs to be replaced and unfortunately it’s been reshafted with graphite, but the head looks to be in solid shape.  Wanted to get a second opinion from the experts here.  

[LeftyMac]

Yep - looks original to me.  The first lot of EoM's had it engraved on the toe before it went onto the soleplate.  Obviously the insert and shaft have been swapped out and it looks like the face may have had a bit of work done when the insert was replaced.

[Stephen8802]

I agree with LeftyMac. Everything about that looks like a 1952 5 screw M85 that had work done to it. Now go find a fiber insert and bring it back to life.

[RobotDoctor]

The block is an authentic production 1952 M85W driver.  It would look like this if the original insert was not changed out.  The following pictures are from Dave Wood's website and a set he restored several years ago.

 

 

 

 

[LeftyMac]

RoboDoc,

 

That was the photo I was going to pull out, figured you might have it 😀