Champagne Tony 1964 Golden Gate

[Drivingrangehero]

I saw a Tony Lema 3 iron at a thrift store in decent shape for $5 so I had to have it 

 

I know that loft and length creep makes modern irons stronger and longer, but is a 1964 Tony Lema Golden Gate 3iron really the same length as a modern 5 iron, or was this Champagne Tony 3 iron cut to fit somebody’s specs?

 

I figured that the club lengths have only lengthened a 1/2 inch over time, not a full inch… wow!

 

I like to pick up random clubs that I find interesting to hit at the range, whether it be this iron, or a nostalgia iron like my Diawa Hi-Trac Plus Wedge which was the first set of clubs I ever owned, and played on my High School golf team with…… memories 😊 

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

2 hours ago, Drivingrangehero said:

I saw a Tony Lema 3 iron at a thrift store in decent shape for $5 so I had to have it 

 

I know that loft and length creep makes modern irons stronger and longer, but is a 1964 Tony Lema Golden Gate 3iron really the same length as a modern 5 iron, or was this Champagne Tony 3 iron cut to fit somebody’s specs?

 

I figured that the club lengths have only lengthened a 1/2 inch over time, not a full inch… wow!

 

I like to pick up random clubs that I find interesting to hit at the range, whether it be this iron, or a nostalgia iron like my Diawa Hi-Trac Plus Wedge which was the first set of clubs I ever owned, and played on my High School golf team with…… memories 😊 

 

How long is it?

 

And remember that depending on how a company measures its clubs, there can be at least 1/4" difference between, say, a 5-iron across different OEMs.

 

 

[Stephen8802]

An inch sounds about right. I started playing seriously in 1981, so my swing is grooved on early 80s clubs. I add a half inch to 60s clubs and cut off some, 1/4 to 1/2 from modern clubs. It is perfectly plausible that those irons are an inch shorter than something made today.

[Shallowface]

38 inches (and 24 degrees) was standard for a 3 iron at one time, then it went to 38.5 and on from there.  I don't know what the standard for a 3 iron is today since they've mostly stopped making them.  The first iron in a modern standard set is the 4 which must be because it is the 4th club in the set (Driver, fairway wood, hybrid, 4 Iron).  Often times it seems that 4 iron is 18 or 19 degrees.   

 

That one looks like it has more hosel than head!  People thought the Miura Baby Blades were small.  Still, I'd love to take a swing with it.

 

 

[bcstones]

Interesting I...I just left a post in the Northwestern post, I have Fernquest & Johnson Golden Gate 2 iron...w/F&J medium shaft that matches a normal 2 iron length, comparing to another 2 iron. Don't know age of the club, tho.

 

 

 

[Drivingrangehero]

4 minutes ago, bcstones said:

Interesting I...I just left a post in the Northwestern post, I have Fernquest & Johnson Golden Gate 2 iron...w/F&J medium shaft that matches a normal 2 iron length, comparing to another 2 iron. Don't know age of the club, tho.

 

 

 

The age would be the first 2 digits on the ferrule 

 

The one I have starts with 64’

[bcstones]

3 minutes ago, Drivingrangehero said:

The age would be the first 2 digits on the ferrule 

 

The one I have starts with 64’

Best as I can make out - 660481...so made in 1966? That was the Lema died in that plane crash.

[Drivingrangehero]

1 hour ago, Shallowface said:

38 inches (and 24 degrees) was standard for a 3 iron at one time, then it went to 38.5 and on from there.  I don't know what the standard for a 3 iron is today since they've mostly stopped making them.  The first iron in a modern standard set is the 4 which must be because it is the 4th club in the set (Driver, fairway wood, hybrid, 4 Iron).  Often times it seems that 4 iron is 18 or 19 degrees.   

 

That one looks like it has more hosel than head!  People thought the Miura Baby Blades were small.  Still, I'd love to take a swing with it.

 

 

It’s 38 inches, which is my 5 iron length in my Mizuno HMB’s 

 

it looks more lofted than my 5 iron which is 22° and very flat as well, but I haven’t any way to measure the lie angle without making a template

[Drivingrangehero]

2 minutes ago, bcstones said:

Best as I can make out - 660481...so made in 1966? That was the Lema died in that plane crash.

Yes. They issued a few more from what I’ve read, post Tony’s death without his name as well. 

[deejaid]

Tony died in July of ‘66.

 

I don’t have a 1966 catalog but do have a 1965 Fernquest & Johnson catalog.  
 

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by deejaid

[Foozle]

1 hour ago, Drivingrangehero said:

It’s 38 inches, which is my 5 iron length in my Mizuno HMB’s 

 

it looks more lofted than my 5 iron which is 22° and very flat as well, but I haven’t any way to measure the lie angle without making a template

Great example of loft creep! My stuck in a time warp mind still expects a 5 iron to be around 28/29* so yours is at least 2 clubs stronger than traditional or, in simple terms, is an old school 3 iron.

I remember reading stats when Calloway released their Apex irons and being surprised to see the 7 iron listed at 27*. At the time I was playing Hogan Apex II irons from 1978 and found that my 4 iron had the same loft (26.5*) and was within 1/8" of the same shaft length as the new 7 Apex iron. At that point I realised that if it quacks like a duck, walks and swims like a duck then it probably is a duck and that I was not being penalised on distance playing my vintage gear when comparing loft for loft and ignoring the number stamped on the sole.

Technological advances or marketing? I let others ponder that and enjoy my golf with classic gear.

[Shallowface]

6 hours ago, Drivingrangehero said:

It’s 38 inches, which is my 5 iron length in my Mizuno HMB’s 

 

it looks more lofted than my 5 iron which is 22° and very flat as well, but I haven’t any way to measure the lie angle without making a template

I believe 58 degrees would be the standard lie for a 3 iron from that era.

[Shallowface]

4 hours ago, Foozle said:

Great example of loft creep! My stuck in a time warp mind still expects a 5 iron to be around 28/29* so yours is at least 2 clubs stronger than traditional or, in simple terms, is an old school 3 iron.

I remember reading stats when Calloway released their Apex irons and being surprised to see the 7 iron listed at 27*. At the time I was playing Hogan Apex II irons from 1978 and found that my 4 iron had the same loft (26.5*) and was within 1/8" of the same shaft length as the new 7 Apex iron. At that point I realised that if it quacks like a duck, walks and swims like a duck then it probably is a duck and that I was not being penalised on distance playing my vintage gear when comparing loft for loft and ignoring the number stamped on the sole.

Technological advances or marketing? I let others ponder that and enjoy my golf with classic gear.

I looked at a used PXG 7 iron in a Play It Again Sports store recently and had to take a second look at the sole because at first glance I would have sworn I was looking at a 4 iron.

 

We have the in-store launch monitor to thank for loft creep.  The customer is going to buy the set with the 7 iron he hits the furthest according to the launch monitor, regardless of the specs, and then go out and hold it under the nose of his regular playing partners and act as if all of a sudden he's better than they are.

 

Maturity and intelligence wise it's "my feet are bigger than your feet" level stuff.  You have to hand it to the manufacturers for having a excellent grasp of the mentality of their customers.    

[Drivingrangehero]

6 hours ago, Foozle said:

Great example of loft creep! My stuck in a time warp mind still expects a 5 iron to be around 28/29* so yours is at least 2 clubs stronger than traditional or, in simple terms, is an old school 3 iron.

I remember reading stats when Calloway released their Apex irons and being surprised to see the 7 iron listed at 27*. At the time I was playing Hogan Apex II irons from 1978 and found that my 4 iron had the same loft (26.5*) and was within 1/8" of the same shaft length as the new 7 Apex iron. At that point I realised that if it quacks like a duck, walks and swims like a duck then it probably is a duck and that I was not being penalised on distance playing my vintage gear when comparing loft for loft and ignoring the number stamped on the sole.

Technological advances or marketing? I let others ponder that and enjoy my golf with classic gear.

My last set before the Mizuno HMB’s were Mizuno MP-67’s which had a 22° 3 iron and a 48° wedge, they were also 1/4 inch shorter (standard length in 2006) than the present day Mizuno offerings. 
 

A friend of mine had Taylormade M4 irons, his 7 iron was 7.5° stronger than my MP-67’s and 1/4 inch longer playing length. 
 

I remember my grandfathers clubs were Sam Snead Signature irons from the 50s maybe ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  (They were beat with the chrome flaking off) , and I hit them a fair bit shorter than my Wilson Staff Progressive’s from 1993 and my PW was 49°, I’m betting his were 2-3° weaker than mine. 
 

Last weekend I played at my home club with my father in-law whom was visiting. I was driving the ball fairly well, so for fun, I tee’d up a Golden Bear ball after I hit my first drive on a dogleg left hole that fits my eye with a Bridgestone BX ball, the Golden Bear flew about 25y shorter. 

 

It’s no wonder that when watching golf classics you may see a great ball striker like Trevino hitting a 4iron from 176y back in the 70s. The 4 irons were like some modern 7irons, plus hitting a ball that is much shorter. 
 

Im thinking of mixing an eclectic bunch of clubs that have some interesting shapes, or nostalgic sentiments to bang around for fun. The Tony Lema club struck my eye due to the super square toe. 😂 
 

 

[grm24]

6 hours ago, Shallowface said:

We have the in-store launch monitor to thank for loft creep. 

No we don't. Loft creep on clubs (mostly irons) started long before launch monitors ever existed. In the late 80's (possibly earlier) PW of 48/49* started appearing regularly in iron sets down from iron sets with 50/52* PW just a few years earlier.

 

Cobra in the early 1990's blew loft creep of iron sets wide on with an iron set that had a 43* PW (King Cobra I Oversize). Who knew that distance sold? /sarcasm alert.

 

And the loft of that Cobra set wasn't because of lower and deeper COG's and longer irons lengths that keeps getting passed off as the reason for the strong lofted irons of today. Especially when many of the strong lofted iron sets now have higher vertical COG than sets that were traditionally lofted. 

 

** Didn't mean to get off subject on the Tony Lema club but the above statement on loft creep is just flat out wrong. Non iron related I guess a 17* 3 wood, 23* 5 wood or 27.5* 7 wood from the early 1980's is also because of launch monitors LOL!. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by grm24
spelling

[Shallowface]

3 hours ago, grm24 said:

No we don't. Loft creep on clubs (mostly irons) started long before launch monitors ever existed. In the late 80's (possibly earlier) PW of 48/49* started appearing regularly in iron sets down from iron sets with 50/52* PW just a few years earlier.

 

Cobra in the early 1990's blew loft creep of iron sets wide on with an iron set that had a 43* PW (King Cobra I Oversize). Who knew that distance sold? /sarcasm alert.

 

And the loft of that Cobra set wasn't because of lower and deeper COG's and longer irons lengths that keeps getting passed off as the reason for the strong lofted irons of today. Especially when many of the strong lofted iron sets now have higher vertical COG than sets that were traditionally lofted. 

 

** Didn't mean to get off subject on the Tony Lema club but the above statement on loft creep is just flat out wrong. Non iron related I guess a 17* 3 wood, 23* 5 wood or 27.5* 7 wood from the early 1980's is also because of launch monitors LOL!. 

It's true it started with the King Cobra.  They used the demo days of the time to sell that product.

 

But even the manufacturers of today who have continued to engage in the practice will tell you that launch monitors in stores have played a major role in forcing them to do it.

 

But, you still get credit for a half sack.  Enjoy that endorphin rush, and post of video of your dance if you have time.

 

LOL

 

 

[bcstones]

as for "loft creep".....I blame Arnie's Army - who just loved his "smack the ball w/every fiber in your body" attack. Cuz then the golf business saw how to cash in.....by making "distance" the most important aspect of golf. And the ever wanna-be pro's bought it all (pun intended). @Jiggered had it correct in one of his videos on YouTube...

[hammergolf]

Holy Square Toe!!!

[NRJyzr]

On 8/18/2023 at 10:35 PM, Drivingrangehero said:

I tee’d up a Golden Bear ball after I hit my first drive on a dogleg left hole that fits my eye with a Bridgestone BX ball, the Golden Bear flew about 25y shorter. 

 

It’s no wonder that when watching golf classics you may see a great ball striker like Trevino hitting a 4iron from 176y back in the 70s. The 4 irons were like some modern 7irons, plus hitting a ball that is much shorter. 

 

A golf ball that old will have lost *significant* distance, due purely to age.  I would suggest essentially all of that 25 yard difference you saw would be due only to that.

 

[Drivingrangehero]

3 hours ago, NRJyzr said:

 

A golf ball that old will have lost *significant* distance, due purely to age.  I would suggest essentially all of that 25 yard difference you saw would be due only to that.

 

I wasn’t aware of that balls lose their pop over time without being hit, I figured it was due to impact and scuffing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
 

I have a shag bag of about 70 golf balls from the oldest I’m assuming being the Golden Bear, or some that just say Korea on them, to some Titleist professionals, or Titleist DT90/SoLo’s as well 

 

I usually hit little chip shots with the Titleist Professionals and let my daughters (6&3y) color the Titleist DT 90’s or SoLo’s that they like to practice putting with 

[Jiggered]

Modern solid balls are much better at retaining "pop" but wound balls will certainly degrade, the time it takes will depend on how they're stored but all wound balls will have degraded compared to when they were new.

 

This is why it would be brilliant if a new ball with the characteristics of a balata were to be produced so that we could relive the experiences of the greats gone by.

[golferdude54]

I love the square toe on these irons, we need to bring that design back today.
 

Tony Lema wasn’t the only great ball striker to prefer square toes, Moe Norman’s favorite irons were also square-toed along with a dead straight leading edge instead of curved.

[TreeOfPutters]

@Drivingrangehero What’s the full serial number on your ferrule? Mine have all got 64061718 on em. Trying to figure out how many of these they even made? Figured we could compare numbers to get a better idea.
 

Can’t find anything on old fernquest and Johnson records, even with chat gpt, ha! 

[Drivingrangehero]

8 hours ago, TreeOfPutters said:

@Drivingrangehero What’s the full serial number on your ferrule? Mine have all got 64061718 on em. Trying to figure out how many of these they even made? Figured we could compare numbers to get a better idea.
 

Can’t find anything on old fernquest and Johnson records, even with chat gpt, ha! 

Sorry, I gave the club away to an older gentleman that asked about it on the range, he said he played them or something like them that he thinks he bought eons ago at a K-Mart 

[TreeOfPutters]

2 hours ago, Drivingrangehero said:

Sorry, I gave the club away to an older gentleman that asked about it on the range, he said he played them or something like them that he thinks he bought eons ago at a K-Mart 

Awe bummer! No worries, thanks for replying so fast. Was kind of you to give it away. 

I may have the last complete set known to man…2-PW

Edited June 19 by TreeOfPutters
Learned to quote

[MrFlipper]

5 hours ago, TreeOfPutters said:

Awe bummer! No worries, thanks for replying so fast. Was kind of you to give it away. 

I may have the last complete set known to man…2-PW

My Lema’s are 6603234. Great clubs, just a little too short and heavy to be regular players for me. Big fan of the square toe look, played TW tour grinds for years.
 

Quite a few of the old timers here who don’t post much anymore were fans of these clubs.

[Shallowface]

On 8/22/2023 at 7:06 AM, Jiggered said:

Modern solid balls are much better at retaining "pop" but wound balls will certainly degrade, the time it takes will depend on how they're stored but all wound balls will have degraded compared to when they were new.

 

This is why it would be brilliant if a new ball with the characteristics of a balata were to be produced so that we could relive the experiences of the greats gone by.

Callaway could easily do a remake of the original Spalding Tour Edition, which was said to spin even more than wound balata, but the market for it would be very small.

 

However, a niche ball producer could do it.  They could acquire some of the old Tour Edition balls to see what make them tick and design something similar. 

 

I believe the major difference between it and the urethane solid core balls of today is cover thickness, and therefore smaller core size.  It spun more because of the thicker cover, at least in part. 

 

Such a ball would make the idea of a retro tournament, an idea which is floated here occasionally, possible.  But I suspect there would be very few participants.  No current pro wants anyone to believe his ability is due to anything other than his extensive workout routine and superior diet.  

[NRJyzr]

18 minutes ago, Shallowface said:

Callaway could easily do a remake of the original Spalding Tour Edition, which was said to spin even more than wound balata, but the market for it would be very small.

 

However, a niche ball producer could do it.  They could acquire some of the old Tour Edition balls to see what make them tick and design something similar. 

 

I believe the major difference between it and the urethane solid core balls of today is cover thickness, and therefore smaller core size.  It spun more because of the thicker cover, at least in part. 

 

Such a ball would make the idea of a retro tournament, an idea which is floated here occasionally, possible.  But I suspect there would be very few participants.  No current pro wants anyone to believe his ability is due to anything other than his extensive workout routine and superior diet.  

 

A couple models ago (silver box, perhaps) of the Kirkland Signature 3 piece ball might be the closest to the legendary spin of the Tour Edition, such as I've heard.  Or, possibly the first edition of Mizuno balls, which may have spun more than the Kirklands.  Not sure either of these is all that close, just the closest of the recent past.

 

Some folks cut those in half, but I don't remember the details of what was found on core size, cover thickness, etc.

 

What's also interesting, to me anyway, is the reaction of higher speed players to the KSig balls.  They all largely steered away, the balls proved to be shorter, due in part to the higher spin, but some also produced marginally slower ball speed.

 

When the silver box of the 3pc Kirkland was released, I bought a box.  They were indeed shorter than the other balls I was playing at the time.  The most interesting aspect to them, I found I gained a bit of driving distance with persimmons. 

 

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, Shallowface said:

I believe the major difference between it and the urethane solid core balls of today is cover thickness, and therefore smaller core size.  It spun more because of the thicker cover, at least in part. 

 

Returning to this portion of your post...

 

I did a google search to find the KSig ball cutting results.  It turns out the cover of Kirkland was indeed thicker.  How about that.  🙂

 

Looking at the assorted ball test data on the Site Which Shall Not Be Named, it suggests compression may also play a part.  The lower compression golf balls tend to spin less than the higher compression balls.  The hole in this theory is that we don't know the cover softness, which is a large variable.

 

Speaking of that...  in the early Callaway golf ball days, they released the HX Blue and HX Red.  At that time, someone shared durometer data of assorted golf ball covers.  The higher spinning HX Blue had a considerably softer cover than the HX Red.  Unfortunately, I haven't seen current similar data on modern golfballs.  Would be interesting...

 

[Shallowface]

This box is from, I believe, the second generation of Tour Edition balls.  The first ones were in a dark blue box.

 

I don't know what the spin rate is today for a nine iron with a modern premium ball.  Of course the nine iron in this test would have been 44-46 degrees, so today we'd have to use a wedge of similar loft in order to compare the two.

 

Interesting that despite the higher spin with the nine iron the Tour Edition was a bit longer with the driver.  It was likely lower spinning with the driver than the balata balls shown.  Low spin with the driver, high spin with the irons.  Just like they try to do today.

 

It's been covered elsewhere, but it is a real shame that the Spalding name disappeared from the golf business, considering they invented the ball technology used everywhere today.  I know there are still golf balls produced that say Spalding on them, but that is an entirely different entity.   

 

The modern premium ball is a multi-layer solid core ball with an Ionomer cover, which is finished with an extremely thin urethane skin.  The Tour Edition was a two piece ball, just a urethane (marketed as Zinthane) cover and a core.  I would guess that even the highest compression modern balls have a softer core than the Tour Edition, but may well be a bit firmer cover wise considering the cover to be the ionomer layer plus the thin urethane.  The Tour Edition core was likely the same thing used in the Top Flite of the time and that ball was often compared to a rock.

 

I remember reading about the first Callaway ball that was produced after the Spalding acquisition, which came after the "Rule 35" products.  One review called it a "Top-Flite XL with a urethane cover."  It was a very firm ball.