Dyna-Powered questions

[raggal62]

Anyone try reshafting 68-69 Staff Dynapower aluminum shafts?

These are my favorite clubheads and I'd like to pull these shafts out.

Thanks!

I remember changing out aluminum to steel 40 years ago. Don't recall any problems. However I can't remember if they were Wilson's or some other brand.

[rex235]

Red-

 

To my knowledge, others have done it, but remember Wilson shafts from that period are threaded, which means you don't just pull them.

 

Other Wrxers have documented their stories in removing shafts in Wilson Dynapower irons, so you might want to check there before starting down the path...

[Texsport]

I had aluminum shafted DynaPowered irons and wedges switched to Dynamic S-500 shafts with no issues.

 

I agree that the aluminum shafts were threaded.

 

Texsport

[Swingingk]

So I was just chatting with a fellow classic club wrx'r about removing 71' Dynapower iron shafts (original Buttonback's).  As we all probably know by now the Staff "Fluid Feel" shaft/hosel connection can be more complicated than most other types, and is not easily modified or repaired.  There are a lot of rumors floating around about how difficult it may or may not be to work on this particular model, so I thought perhaps it was time to find out for myself.   I happen to have a thrashed-out set of 71's with their original "Ultralite" shafts in regular flex that I keep around for parts so I pulled out the 6 iron and clamped it in the vise. I put some heat on it, making sure to rotate the shaft clock-wise as the adhesive let go (in case it was threaded like the 59's were), and yoink! - out it came!   No threads, no pressed in taper-lock, nothing weird at all.  The only real difference from the norm is that the shaft has a longer tip than "normal" and seats deeper than usual into the hosel - almost 2" deep actually.  That and of course the red rubber "Fluid Feel" dampening material. When I pulled the shaft some of the rubber stayed in the tip and some stayed in the sole of the head.  This material is definitely just a red colored rubber product and soft like a bicycle tire - exactly the same as the 59's but red instead of black.  I think it was injected hot at the factory after the shaft was glued into the head.  Note:  the original injected rubber is not really salvageable on shaft removal and is not a "plug" you can re-install when re-shafting like so many references seem to suggest.  That being said some of the rubber at the sole of the head usually stays there when you pull the shaft so if you haven't burned it up too badly with the heat you could probably just leave it there and install your new shaft above it.  Then at least it looks original and isn't a gaping hole.  You could also jam or glue some kind of plug in there upon reshafting just to make it look original but unless you inject a rubber or rubber-like material back up the shaft it is no longer going to be "Fluid Feel" like the original Wilson engineers designed it, and may even need some lead tape or tip weights to make swing weights balance out again.  The rubber definitely has significant mass and being missing from the tip of the shaft, would change the swing weight of the iron.  Each to their own and everyone does their own thing of course, but I just thought I'd mention that point.  In my opinion I do not believe that it is even possible to recreate EXACTLY what wilson did at the factory without elaborate equipment.  For this reason I would suggest that if you love the smooth and fluid feel of your Fluid-Feel Staff's then you should probably not mess with them lest ye let the magic out of them.  If you want to get them back as original as possible after a reshaft, I have found that common automotive silicone is a pretty close approximation to Wilson's rubber, and does an acceptable job when applied carefully (see the first part of this thread).

 

One of the tricks to removing shafts from these irons is proper heat application.  Because the shafts are seated so deeply into the hosel, and also because the fluid-feel rubber absorbs some of the heat as you are applying it, you will need to spread the heat evenly from the top of the hosel down to the sole - but more near the sole.  Spend a bit more time heating the bladed area near the sole as there is much more mass there to draw the heat away.  If you dont get it hot enough down there the adhesive will not loosen.

 

It is possible that lack of heat near the sole might be one of the reasons some folks sometimes have a hard time with shaft work on these irons - they overheat the upper hosel area but leave the lower part too cool.  With uneven heating and the shaft set so deep, the glue still holds down low in the hosel and the shaft won't budge.  "Gee Dad, I heated it till it turned blue and smoked like crazy, but it's still stuck!".  Yup - but you put all the heat all up high near the ferrule and still not enough near the sole.  Maybe I'm reaching a bit here but hey, it's my party and I'll cry if I want to.  Haha!  I should also warn that with the deep setting of the shaft, any loft or lie adjustments previously done to the iron, or even if just bent from playing years of hard lies, would likely bend the shaft inside the hosel too.  This would create lots of friction between the shaft and hosel and add to the difficulty in pulling the shaft.

 

For interest or comparison sake I thought I'd add some technical (or more technical as it were) facts about the parts.  As mentioned previously this is a 1971-72 Wilson Staff Dynapower "Button back" iron with its original "Ultralite" shaft in regular flex.  I noted that the inserted shaft measured 0.355" in diameter where the hosel and ferrule met, and was 0.325" at the tip, although the tip appeared to be ground down a bit.  The shaft was seated about 1-7/8" deep in the hosel and the bare head itself weighed in at 264 grams.   I found it interesting that a stock FG-17 6-iron head at the same loft weighs 270 grams.  I surmised that the Buttonback head is lighter to compensate for the added weight of the Fluid-Feel rubber or perhaps the "Ultralite" shaft. That's just a guess really. The shaft weighed 108 grams and is exactly 36" long bare steel.  The Fluid-Feel rubber was extracted whole (just twisted in two) and weighed in at 8 grams.  It's overall length (or injected depth from the sole, however you want to look at it) was 3-3/4".  Pretty darn deep! (Check it out in the picture)

 

 

So there you go.  It would seem that Buttonback's do not have the threaded shafts like earlier model Dynapowers and Dyna-powered's did, but the shafts are kind of weird in tip size and insertion depth.  Heated properly they should come apart with little difficulty.  With a bit of reaming the hosel should easily accept normal taper-tip shafts or even parallel tips if you want to go further.  Hopefully someone else finds this information useful. Good luck and have fun!

 

Ps: I think I might have this set stripped of chrome, treated a dull black, and fitted with a set of fancy shafts. With original looking paint-fill and ferrules I think it'd be a pretty awesome looking and very unique set.

[Fellaheen51]

SK, thanks for posting the detailed case study of '71 shaft removal. Would think that reshafting to 1.5" would be a sufficient depth, thus avoiding the narrowed hosel/tip and a potential bore out.

 

In searching for additional info on Buttonbacks, someone posted an analysis of the Fluid Feel material and that it was essential the same as Form A Gasket. (In your thread here). How to inject nearly 4" of it up the shaft is another matter. And as you mentioned, how does the material affected the feel of the club. Minimally, could be used to cover the bore through hole.

 

Thinking further, perhaps fill the shaft before insertion and finish it off once installed.

[tlhorsh]

I think a blacked out button back would look incredible

[elwhippy]

Button backs. Drool.

[stixman]

Button backs. Drool.

 

PM me if you are interested in a decent set 3-SW cheap + shipping at cost.

[Shallowface]

So I was just chatting with a fellow classic club wrx'r about removing 71' Dynapower iron shafts (original Buttonback's). As we all probably know by now the Staff "Fluid Feel" shaft/hosel connection can be more complicated than most other types, and is not easily modified or repaired. There are a lot of rumors floating around about how difficult it may or may not be to work on this particular model, so I thought perhaps it was time to find out for myself. I happen to have a thrashed-out set of 71's with their original "Ultralite" shafts in regular flex that I keep around for parts so I pulled out the 6 iron and clamped it in the vise. I put some heat on it, making sure to rotate the shaft clock-wise as the adhesive let go (in case it was threaded like the 59's were), and yoink! - out it came! No threads, no pressed in taper-lock, nothing weird at all. The only real difference from the norm is that the shaft has a longer tip than "normal" and seats deeper than usual into the hosel - almost 2" deep actually. That and of course the red rubber "Fluid Feel" dampening material. When I pulled the shaft some of the rubber stayed in the tip and some stayed in the sole of the head. This material is definitely just a red colored rubber product and soft like a bicycle tire - exactly the same as the 59's but red instead of black. I think it was injected hot at the factory after the shaft was glued into the head. Note: the original injected rubber is not really salvageable on shaft removal and is not a "plug" you can re-install when re-shafting like so many references seem to suggest. That being said some of the rubber at the sole of the head usually stays there when you pull the shaft so if you haven't burned it up too badly with the heat you could probably just leave it there and install your new shaft above it. Then at least it looks original and isn't a gaping hole. You could also jam or glue some kind of plug in there upon reshafting just to make it look original but unless you inject a rubber or rubber-like material back up the shaft it is no longer going to be "Fluid Feel" like the original Wilson engineers designed it, and may even need some lead tape or tip weights to make swing weights balance out again. The rubber definitely has significant mass and being missing from the tip of the shaft, would change the swing weight of the iron. Each to their own and everyone does their own thing of course, but I just thought I'd mention that point. In my opinion I do not believe that it is even possible to recreate EXACTLY what wilson did at the factory without elaborate equipment. For this reason I would suggest that if you love the smooth and fluid feel of your Fluid-Feel Staff's then you should probably not mess with them lest ye let the magic out of them. If you want to get them back as original as possible after a reshaft, I have found that common automotive silicone is a pretty close approximation to Wilson's rubber, and does an acceptable job when applied carefully (see the first part of this thread).

 

One of the tricks to removing shafts from these irons is proper heat application. Because the shafts are seated so deeply into the hosel, and also because the fluid-feel rubber absorbs some of the heat as you are applying it, you will need to spread the heat evenly from the top of the hosel down to the sole - but more near the sole. Spend a bit more time heating the bladed area near the sole as there is much more mass there to draw the heat away. If you dont get it hot enough down there the adhesive will not loosen.

 

It is possible that lack of heat near the sole might be one of the reasons some folks sometimes have a hard time with shaft work on these irons - they overheat the upper hosel area but leave the lower part too cool. With uneven heating and the shaft set so deep, the glue still holds down low in the hosel and the shaft won't budge. "Gee Dad, I heated it till it turned blue and smoked like crazy, but it's still stuck!". Yup - but you put all the heat all up high near the ferrule and still not enough near the sole. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here but hey, it's my party and I'll cry if I want to. Haha! I should also warn that with the deep setting of the shaft, any loft or lie adjustments previously done to the iron, or even if just bent from playing years of hard lies, would likely bend the shaft inside the hosel too. This would create lots of friction between the shaft and hosel and add to the difficulty in pulling the shaft.

 

For interest or comparison sake I thought I'd add some technical (or more technical as it were) facts about the parts. As mentioned previously this is a 1971-72 Wilson Staff Dynapower "Button back" iron with its original "Ultralite" shaft in regular flex. I noted that the inserted shaft measured 0.355" in diameter where the hosel and ferrule met, and was 0.325" at the tip, although the tip appeared to be ground down a bit. The shaft was seated about 1-7/8" deep in the hosel and the bare head itself weighed in at 264 grams. I found it interesting that a stock FG-17 6-iron head at the same loft weighs 270 grams. I surmised that the Buttonback head is lighter to compensate for the added weight of the Fluid-Feel rubber or perhaps the "Ultralite" shaft. That's just a guess really. The shaft weighed 108 grams and is exactly 36" long bare steel. The Fluid-Feel rubber was extracted whole (just twisted in two) and weighed in at 8 grams. It's overall length (or injected depth from the sole, however you want to look at it) was 3-3/4". Pretty darn deep! (Check it out in the picture)

 

 

So there you go. It would seem that Buttonback's do not have the threaded shafts like earlier model Dynapowers and Dyna-powered's did, but the shafts are kind of weird in tip size and insertion depth. Heated properly they should come apart with little difficulty. With a bit of reaming the hosel should easily accept normal taper-tip shafts or even parallel tips if you want to go further. Hopefully someone else finds this information useful. Good luck and have fun!

 

Ps: I think I might have this set stripped of chrome, treated a dull black, and fitted with a set of fancy shafts. With original looking paint-fill and ferrules I think it'd be a pretty awesome looking and very unique set.

 

As I posted in the 2012 thread that you started back then, Wilson sent me a supply of the red Fluid Feel plugs. I'm sitting here looking at one right now. They are about 1 7/8" long and remind me of the eraser one would find on the end of a pencil. They are a fairly firm material.

 

Of course these are of 80s vintage and could well be a bit different than what was in the 1971 irons, but nothing I've ever seen anywhere suggested any of these were injected material. Wilson used these as a means to achieve final swingweights, which meant they had them around in different weights. Not so different than lead tip weights available today.

 

As far as to what to replace them with if they are ruined in a reshafting effort, I wonder if wooden dowels would be an option? A little red magic marker on the exposed portion. Should work well to preserve any shock absorbing qualities the original plugs had. MacGregor used such dowels in the hosels at one time, although they weren't exposed on the sole as these would be.

[BladesOShanter]

Well, I took the irons out to the range for a little workout. Unfortunately they are way too short for me - almost 2" short actually so it was pretty much impossible to give them an honest try.

 

I cleaned and oiled the leather grips and much to my surprise I really like them. They definitely feel different than the Lamkin's I'm used to - I think I could get used to these...

 

I love the original look of these clubs and the great condition they are in and I definitely don't want to lose the factory leather grips if I can help it, but they need to be longer for me to play them. I guess I'll just hang em' on the wall for a while. Maybe if I get bored this winter work on them some more.

 

Thank for all the great advice and comments. The expertise on this forum is unsurpassed.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot - I spent some time refinishing the woods this weekend and I'm quite happy with the results. The driver has a cracked hosel but the two fairways are still good. Here's a few pics... Enjoy!

 

 

Grant

Saskatoon, SK

Canada

 

When you cleaned them was it with anything in particular, e.g. saddle soap? Did you use Castor oil? I saw upthread the UK solution but I’m in the lower 48 here. Great job on those woods too.

[BladesOShanter]

Well, it's been what... four or five years since I started this thread? Wow. After I took these very nice irons apart and essentially ruined them, I hung them on my garage wall. They've been staring down at me for years as if to say, "Well? Now what'r you gonna do?". I still don't know what the *%$! I was thinking to pull perfectly good original shafts complete with excellent leather grips and fine shaft bands, but the past is the past.

 

Anyway… with a bag full of parts, some new grips, and a few sets of new ferrules from House of Forged to choose from, I set out to redeem myself and rebuild these beauties back into respectable playing condition. For a plan I settled on 1/2" or so longer than stock length, firmish or stiff flex, and swing weights around D2. I would try to build the set to C8 and add the rest of the weight with black silicone injected into the hole in the sole. I weighed the rough amount of silicone I thought would fill the cavity and shaft to approximately the same place as the original rubber, and it worked out to about 3 sw points. I'm no club builder so this was all just kind of a guess.

 

My first idea was to use TT DG S300 shafts but I changed my mind and installed Project X Flighted's in 5.0 flex hard-stepped once. I drilled/reamed each hosel carefully by hand, fitting each shaft as I went. The correct ferrules turned out to be difficult to locate or build myself so I settled on some longish Hogan style ones from HOF. They all needed reaming to fit but I think they turned out ok. I assembled the pieces and gripped with Lamkin full-cords. I am disappointed with the new Lamkin logo so I installed them logo forward so I don't have to look at it but still get an alignment mark. The "Project X" shaft labels were a little too flashy for a 1959ish look so removed them. After the epoxy set I checked and recorded all the specs and injected silicone rubber into the heads until the swing weights were all around D2-3, except the PW which I made D6. Pretty easy way to set the weights. If you inject too much you can just take a couple of swings and the stuff will slowly ooze back out. Handy! After that I adjusted the whole set to match original lofts and lies. I redid the paint-fill on the soles and while I still have to turn down the ferrules that's about it. Finally my once-beautiful iron set has been rebuilt into something useful again. They're not as nice as they were when I first got them, but at least they're not in a box somewhere. I played a quick 9 holes with them at a local muni and they felt great. I can't say very much about performance so far but I will say this - the sweet spot is small, high up on the face, and not easy to find. I'll post a review of sorts after I try them a few more times.

 

So there you have it: while it is possible to re-shaft early Wilsons for new technology shafts it's not easy to do. Hopefully this thread will serve to help others do the same thing in the future. My apologies for not responding to some of the questions and responses to my first posts but I was a very busy guy back then. I'm still pretty busy, but I will try harder to maintain this thread going forward.

 

Thanks to everyone for all the excellent input - I've learned a lot. This has been such an interesting project!

Great job. The time and effort you put into this was epic. The photos showing this old vs new tips and the depth of the rubber fill were killer too.

[BladesOShanter]

Look what I found at Goodwill for $1.50 the other day.

 

Appears to be a '59...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE HOLY GRAIL!!!!

 

Nice find....btw, when do you ever work???

 

always going to Goodwill/Salvation Army/Play It Again....

 

just kidding....really nice find

 

Winter still bad up your way?

 

August-

 

The '58 W/S Dynapower is considered the Holy Grail of Sand Wedges. The parallel sand blasted lines on the face

were not reproduced in any of the succeeding years...even the Remakes. Both the '57 and '59 models are great, but the '58 has both Fluid Feel and arrow on the hosel.

 

The 1958 Walter Hagen Ultra Powered Sand Iron would have the same face as the '58 Wilson Staff Dynapower. If you find one, check the hosel....

 

Rex,

 

Other than aesthetics, are the '58 and '59 the same club?

 

HAB-

 

Somewhere in the past, Robert Mendralla (RIP)was among those asked about the last Wilson Designed By Arnold Palmer '63 putters and those very first '64 8802 models which, other than aesthetics, were the same club.

 

The aesthetics are what make them different clubs.

 

Given the choice between any and all the early '57 to '61 Wilson Staff Dynapower Sand Wedge models, which one would you pick?

 

Which one did Texsport admit to playing for 10 years and rechromings? (Yes, I read what he said, but Texsport also was nice enough to describe what he did.)

 

The '58 model has frosted parallel frames for the scoring lines, both Fluid Feel and arrow stampings on the hosel, Dyna-Powered, Staff Model, and Flag shield.

 

The Golf Club ID and Price Guide shows equal value to the '58 and '59, but Farinos American Golf Classics calls the '58 Dynapower Sand Wedge

"...the most popular Sand Wedge ever designed. Played by hundreds of tour players."

 

There is no doubt you have an absolute gem in that '59 Staff Dynapower. Someone even posted their '93 limited remake of a '59.

 

But it's the '58 Staff Dynapower which leads the class of Wilson Staff Dynapower Sand Wedges.

enlightening

[BladesOShanter]

Here are pics of some recently acquired items...

 

 

 

ORIGINAL 1956 - 1957 Wilson Staff == DYNA-POWERED --> STAFF MODEL sand wedge with SDP168 custom stamp

including Tam O'Shanter golf course leather wrap

 

 

 

 

 

REMAKE 1958 Wilson Staff Dyna-POWERED STAFF MODEL sand wedge

stunning

[BladesOShanter]

3 Tour Wilson Sand Wedges - all DynaPowered style

 

L to R

 

HALE IRWIN

ANDY BEAN

GEORGE BURNS

 

 

 

 

 

Burns and Irwin are red button, Bean has no heel bore button (custom I believe)

 

The Bean is the best DynaPowered SW I've played. It is heavy and has a very stiff shaft - stiffer than DG X-100.

 

Texsport

talk about a treasure trove... you must have some kinda collection there.....

[BladesOShanter]

What I remember most about Floyd , other than his unique swing was the Zebra Putter he used

 

Long shafted upright model to allow practice with a bad back, as I recall.

 

Texsport

I used to try and copy him. I think he had an open stance on some downhill sliders. Maybe to see the line. I made some doozies emulating that guy. He was Mr. Cool.

[stixman]

I have a set of the '58 Dyna Powered, unfortunately less the sand wedge.

Is the repro/ remake an adequate substitute, how does it play, anyone?

[rex235]

I have a set of the '58 Dyna Powered, unfortunately less the sand wedge.

Is the repro/ remake an adequate substitute, how does it play, anyone?

 

Stix-

 

In an early '90s article in one of the golf magazines, Ben Crenshaw stated he .."found the '58 Dynapower Sand Wedge remake to be as good as the original."

 

The article also shows Crenshaw hitting a sand shot, with the "SAND WEDGE" and black plug clearly visible. It is possible Crenshaw used a '58 remake in his 1995 Masters win.

 

Perhaps Freddie might be able to confirm.

 

Sadly, the '58 Wilson Staff Dynapower Sand Wedge remakes were like the originals- RH Only.

 

Have posted photos of a LH Wilson Staff '59/60 Dynapower SW remake, with the "SDP 1841" stamp. .

[stixman]

Thanks, just what I wanted.

[Swingingk]

Well, I took the irons out to the range for a little workout. Unfortunately they are way too short for me - almost 2" short actually so it was pretty much impossible to give them an honest try.

 

I cleaned and oiled the leather grips and much to my surprise I really like them. They definitely feel different than the Lamkin's I'm used to - I think I could get used to these...

 

I love the original look of these clubs and the great condition they are in and I definitely don't want to lose the factory leather grips if I can help it, but they need to be longer for me to play them. I guess I'll just hang em' on the wall for a while. Maybe if I get bored this winter work on them some more.

 

Thank for all the great advice and comments. The expertise on this forum is unsurpassed.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot - I spent some time refinishing the woods this weekend and I'm quite happy with the results. The driver has a cracked hosel but the two fairways are still good. Here's a few pics... Enjoy!

 

 

Grant

Saskatoon, SK

Canada

 

When you cleaned them was it with anything in particular, e.g. saddle soap? Did you use Castor oil? I saw upthread the UK solution but I’m in the lower 48 here. Great job on those woods too.

 

Blades: I can't remember what I did on these specific grips now, but my usual treatment for leather grips is Neatsfoot Oil. Some do not recommend it as it is said that it can deteriorate the leather over time, but I have not found this to be true. Not yet anyway. If the grips are very very dirty I have been known to lightly work the soil out with a soft rag and mineral spirits like grip solvent. It does a good job of removing the really nasty stuff but you need to be careful as it can remove color too. Many guys recommend saddle soap but I have not tried it myself yet.

[hnryclay]

Lexol, you can find it at any auto parts store. It will restore the leather and put a glaze on it.

[Swingingk]

Lexol, you can find it at any auto parts store. It will restore the leather and put a glaze on it.

 

^^^ this too ^^^

 

My son has a 944 with leather seats and Lexol is his treatment of choice. I'll have to try it on my next leather grip restore.

 

One bonus the Neatsfoot Oil gives is super-duper grip in wet conditions. Grips become ultra tacky in humid or wet weather. I would guess the other treatments do the same thing but like I said, I haven't personally tried them yet.

[BladesOShanter]

Well, I took the irons out to the range for a little workout. Unfortunately they are way too short for me - almost 2" short actually so it was pretty much impossible to give them an honest try.

 

I cleaned and oiled the leather grips and much to my surprise I really like them. They definitely feel different than the Lamkin's I'm used to - I think I could get used to these...

 

I love the original look of these clubs and the great condition they are in and I definitely don't want to lose the factory leather grips if I can help it, but they need to be longer for me to play them. I guess I'll just hang em' on the wall for a while. Maybe if I get bored this winter work on them some more.

 

Thank for all the great advice and comments. The expertise on this forum is unsurpassed.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot - I spent some time refinishing the woods this weekend and I'm quite happy with the results. The driver has a cracked hosel but the two fairways are still good. Here's a few pics... Enjoy!

 

 

Grant

Saskatoon, SK

Canada

 

When you cleaned them was it with anything in particular, e.g. saddle soap? Did you use Castor oil? I saw upthread the UK solution but I’m in the lower 48 here. Great job on those woods too.

 

Blades: I can't remember what I did on these specific grips now, but my usual treatment for leather grips is Neatsfoot Oil. Some do not recommend it as it is said that it can deteriorate the leather over time, but I have not found this to be true. Not yet anyway. If the grips are very very dirty I have been known to lightly work the soil out with a soft rag and mineral spirits like grip solvent. It does a good job of removing the really nasty stuff but you need to be careful as it can remove color too. Many guys recommend saddle soap but I have not tried it myself yet.

Swingingk- you mustn't call me "Blades"! That is a nickname far more deserving of others here. Really. I am just a dummy who has less ability than most, but loves the game as much as we all do, and perhaps the name more apt might be: "Unremarkable" or "Idiot"! Trust me: I am nobody!

 

That said: which clubs have you enjoyed playing more: your '58s or your '71s? I see your 58s in your avatar. . I have what I now realize are 60-61s (thought they were 59s), and buttonbacks but not sure what year, need to look at ironfinder, and am partial to the older one.. What say you sir? 58 or 71?

[BladesOShanter]

Lexol, you can find it at any auto parts store. It will restore the leather and put a glaze on it.

 

^^^ this too ^^^

 

My son has a 944 with leather seats and Lexol is his treatment of choice. I'll have to try it on my next leather grip restore.

 

One bonus the Neatsfoot Oil gives is super-duper grip in wet conditions. Grips become ultra tacky in humid or wet weather. I would guess the other treatments do the same thing but like I said, I haven't personally tried them yet.

Okay SwingingK thanks. Very helpful. Much-appreciated.

[stixman]

Lexol, you can find it at any auto parts store. It will restore the leather and put a glaze on it.

 

^^^ this too ^^^

 

My son has a 944 with leather seats and Lexol is his treatment of choice. I'll have to try it on my next leather grip restore.

 

One bonus the Neatsfoot Oil gives is super-duper grip in wet conditions. Grips become ultra tacky in humid or wet weather. I would guess the other treatments do the same thing but like I said, I haven't personally tried them yet.

Okay Stix thanks. Very helpful. Much-appreciated.

 

Hello this is the 'real' Stix. Swingingk is the contributor you are replying to.

I could have had a laugh and made up something about fake id.s but you never know when the sense of humour chip is either missing or dysfunctional.

So, FWIW Swingingk and I are out of the same tree. If I were to change my avatar from an Original Hickory Gibson Dominie Sander (the real thing, not a fake!) to a Dynapower iron I would use a photo of my regular players, the 1962 Turfriders, S shaft which I enjoy more than the Buttonbacks and keep the ball down better than the 1966/7s.

[BladesOShanter]

Lexol, you can find it at any auto parts store. It will restore the leather and put a glaze on it.

 

^^^ this too ^^^

 

My son has a 944 with leather seats and Lexol is his treatment of choice. I'll have to try it on my next leather grip restore.

 

One bonus the Neatsfoot Oil gives is super-duper grip in wet conditions. Grips become ultra tacky in humid or wet weather. I would guess the other treatments do the same thing but like I said, I haven't personally tried them yet.

Okay Stix thanks. Very helpful. Much-appreciated.

 

Hello this is the 'real' Stix. Swingingk is the contributor you are replying to.

I could have had a laugh and made up something about fake id.s but you never know when the sense of humour chip is either missing or dysfunctional.

So, FWIW Swingingk and I are out of the same tree. If I were to change my avatar from an Original Hickory Gibson Dominie Sander (the real thing, not a fake!) to a Dynapower iron I would use a photo of my regular players, the 1962 Turfriders, S shaft which I enjoy more than the Buttonbacks and keep the ball down better than the 1966/7s.

Roger that, Stix. Thank you. Whatanidiot is a name I should adopt after I deep,six bladesoshanter (brining shame upon a good Irish name!). Apropos.....

 

I was reading yesterday about peening knife handles, some gun part hinges. They countersink the pin hole slightly, then flattten the stock (rod metal what for this club I dunno). I think that is how we could get a pin back into the hosel, but the drilling of the shaft is where I got stuck when I did mine once. Not enough firepower in my toolbox.

 

Learning about the grip treatments is big thanks. Grips used to be just soap and water (soap a luxury item) and a little elbow grease. I might've tried a Brillo pad, new one, but dried em out not have tack. They seemed too shot so would just replace them. Waste. Idiot!

 

I didn't know the turfriders made it into the 60s! I thought they were pre 56' sort of around the Babe Zaharias - Blue Ridge (?) time frame. I'm sure someone here knows this better. Seemed like they hit a sweet spot right about Artie's prime. I was looking at that Jim from Iron Works page, another, thinking about getting the grooves/chrome redone. Thought about Texasport commenting about his having the DGS500s and the refinishing dropping the swingweight, removing mass. I actually feel like those older late 50s-early60s heads had a lot of mass to them and any loss seems a negative.

 

Like those club makers knew to beefen them up. I see a lot of weight nowadays on the sole. The Dynapowered had the mass in the middle, where it would do most in proper strikes. The toe maybe for gear effect too? A lot of us scramblers needed the hook! Those trees are everywhere....

 

Wilson evolved with the times? Seemed like they thinned out the Staff head mass or moved that weighting in the back to innovate. Must have to do with swing changes becoming more sweeping with better turf grasses, pickers, etc. as we moved to the modern era with agronomy and turf grass science, as opposed to sheep burrowing out holes ha ha.

 

These modern blades I am hitting ar fine golf clubs, but it's a little uncanny the old,Staffs were/are pretty game improvement clubs! Easier to hit than these I'm playing with presently. The grooves in my new clubs are more worn than the old Staffs! Not sure if the grind science is better, head must be larger, hmm.

 

Seems the TT DG shaft is everyone's go to. My hands don't seem to do well with the steel, h nice my setup. I was thinking aluminun from another 60s set I have into the 60-61s. I was in my 20s and played a Strata-Bloc 4W w aluminum and loved it. In the bag with the DGS and was fairly whipped but didn't waffle or balloon for some reason.

[stixman]

Maybe you are thinking of the Turfrider woods, ...not the same animal. The Turfrider irons were groundbreaking design with multiple inputs from Wilson Staff players of the time.

 

ps I'm working on tacking up grips at present based on Majic's pine tar thesis. My hands at least are stinking of pine tar and as tacky as flypaper. I'll let you know how I get along when I transfer some from my hands to leather.

[rex235]

Shanter-

 

The '63 Wilson Staff irons with the Turfrider sole were Mickey Wright's weapons of choice- They are on display at the USGA Museum at Golf House in NJ, along with many other exhibits.

[BladesOShanter]

Shanter-

 

The '63 Wilson Staff irons with the Turfrider sole were Mickey Wright's weapons of choice- They are on display at the USGA Museum at Golf House in NJ, along with many other exhibits.

Wow. I just read her dialogue with Guy Yokum. What a marvelous woman. Thank you. Just goes to show how little we know when we think we know....

 

“THERE'S GOT TO BE GOLF IN HEAVEN. I hope I get there and that it's just me and my 2-iron. Or maybe a couple of angels will be looking on. Everything will look like Sea Island Golf Club did in the old days, sedate and beautiful. I'll be facing that shot to a well-trapped green again, trying to duplicate that shot from 1957. If it's really heaven, I'll pull it off.”

 

She hits a Wilson Fat Shaft PW off a mat out to a fairway from her back porch. She says it carries 100-110,,and she’s 83-4. Thinks the new equipment makes the game a little less cerebral and she’s got a point. (I played those Fat Shafts for a while. They did go far.)

 

What a woman. Thanks. Great read at that magazine’s site. We Got Mickey Wright.... I’d link it but am uncertain about the rules here....

[BladesOShanter]

Maybe you are thinking of the Turfrider woods, ...not the same animal. The Turfrider irons were groundbreaking design with multiple inputs from Wilson Staff players of the time.

 

ps I'm working on tacking up grips at present based on Majic's pine tar thesis. My hands at least are stinking of pine tar and as tacky as flypaper. I'll let you know how I get along when I transfer some from my hands to leather.

Obviously I just don’t know what I babbling about, Stix, as my years and models are muddled up so thanks. Your pine tar has me thinking of G. Brett.... Has the USGA ruled on that stuff yet?

[stixman]

Maybe you are thinking of the Turfrider woods, ...not the same animal. The Turfrider irons were groundbreaking design with multiple inputs from Wilson Staff players of the time.

 

ps I'm working on tacking up grips at present based on Majic's pine tar thesis. My hands at least are stinking of pine tar and as tacky as flypaper. I'll let you know how I get along when I transfer some from my hands to leather.

Obviously I just don’t know what I babbling about, Stix, as my years and models are muddled up so thanks. Your pine tar has me thinking of G. Brett.... Has the USGA ruled on that stuff yet?

You got me there, Chief. I know not of what you refer. G.Brett...who he??