Wilson FG-100 vs. New Staff Model Blades

[giogolf]

Good Afternoon WRX'ers,

Anyone able to compare the Wilson FG-100 to the new Staff Model Blades? I picked up a set of FG-100 on the BST recently, haven't received them yet, but i did see them in person last season and was pleasantly surprised.. Based on my reading the reviews for the new Staff Model blades, little has changed other than optimizing the CG location so that its precisely farther away from the heel through there milling process. Interestingly enough, The description for the FG-100 and the Staff blades are very similar.. Basically, Milled faces, milled back portions and fluid feel hosel to all distribute weight towards the center of the face.

Forging, offset, lofts etc.. are the same.. so outside of the new ones being just beautiful, is there much of a difference?

I am really just buying these for nostalgia purposes.. I played Wilson Blades as a kid for years, and always wanted another set.. and instead of just buying a vintage set, what better than to buy something that is somewhat more advanced.. or at least as advanced a basic blade can be :)

 

Your thoughts?

[kylesilk]

I thought the lofts were different.

[RogerinNewZealand]

To me FG100 is the Classic shape so great purchase.Newer model and wedges look great too.I had FG62s 6 or 7 years ago so love the classic style.Enjoy.

[Joe S]

I had a chance to hit them side by side into a simulator at a certain golf superstore last week. They look identical at address, both shape, grooves and length. The sole grind also seemed about the same to me. From the back view the FG100 looks longer, but I think that is an optical illusion. Both feel great. I didn't notice any significant distance differences. With the long irons on the new Staff you can see see the back of the iron at address, similar to to what you would see on blades with a flange sole. I feel like I had a slightly easier time finding the sweet spot on the new Staff, but I may have just had a few better swings with them.

 

If I were picking between the two I would probably go with the FG100's because they are a throwback to the 1972 design.

[giogolf]

> @"Joe S" said:

> I had a chance to hit them side by side into a simulator at a certain golf superstore last week. They look identical at address, both shape, grooves and length. The sole grind also seemed about the same to me. From the back view the FG100 looks longer, but I think that is an optical illusion. Both feel great. I didn't notice any significant distance differences. With the long irons on the new Staff you can see see the back of the iron at address, similar to to what you would see on blades with a flange sole. I feel like I had a slightly easier time finding the sweet spot on the new Staff, but I may have just had a few better swings with them.

>

> If I were picking between the two I would probably go with the FG100's because they are a throwback to the 1972 design.

 

Thanks for the feedback I can't wait to gaming

[StackMan1]

I hit the new Staff last month. Didn’t hit the FG100 but they had them. At address, I think the FG100 looked better.

[giogolf]

I am curious to find out how these feel.. they are forged from 8620.. where most other forged irons are 1025 or 1020. Vokey wedges are 8620 cast and actually feel okay to me.. not soft like Mizuno, but still soft enough with good feedback.

[giogolf]

So here is my mini review on the FG Tour 100s.

Specs, Standard loft of a 47* PW, Length off of 37" 7 irons which is actually ,minus .25". DGS400 TI Shafts with Zcords. These went head to head with my gamers 919 Tours, exact same specs.

Wilson:

**Feel ** Preferred over the 919 Tours (I know nail me to the cross lol)

 

**Forgiveness**, slightly less than the 919 Tours.. Misses about a half ball off the sweet spot results in loss of 7-8 yards where the 919 Tour only lost 4-5 yards on misses. Important note though.. The FG100s are more forgiving than the MP18s and 718/16 MBs if your miss is towards the toe.. Reason is, the fluid feel hosel removes heel weight and pushes it out towards the toe.. Where the Titleist and Mizuno's are far more traditional with a more centered/ heel sweet spot.

 

**Distance**, Wilson's are a half a club longer than the 919 Tour. I normally hit my Pw 145 under normal wind, and elevation. I was hitting consistently 150-155.. Thought I was hitting weird flyers, but nope, the CG placement for me is perfect and resulting in almost 10 yard gains with more spin. I was easily spinning the ball back 3-5 yards on average with 7-PW. 5 and 6 irons just stopped within a couple feet, 4 iron kicked forward about 4-8 feet depending on green firmness. The 919 Tours typically just stop and drop and I am getting forward kicks with the 4-6 iron. Again, this is me, your results will vary depending on the swing you put on it.

 

**Trajectory**, I can now hit an easier low ball with the 4-6 iron with minimal changes to swing. Typical flight is more arched then the 919T. Hitting low shots with the 919T are much harder for me.

 

**Looks**, (subjective) but I hate the 7 iron through Pw in the 919T, the neck is goosed to my eye and the head shape into the toe is bulbous.. The Wilson s take the cake by a mile for me.. Classic, tiny, skinny heel, almost no offset..

 

**Final word**.. Definitely love these irons, I will game them for the rest of the season unless I find a ridiculous deal on the Staff Model Blades then these FG100 will be save on display (original reason I bought them, was for nostalgic purpose.. I played Wilson blades growing up learning the game and since then no matter what my handicap I played classic looking blades.) I play golf for enjoyment of the game, and I want to enjoy what I am looking down at.. If I lose 3 strokes a round because of forgiveness reasons its fine by me :)