What year is this Wilson Staff iron model?

[mubob1977]

Can anyone who knows the history of Wilson Staff irons please tell me the year of this particular model? 

[Socrates]

That iron was re-issued several times over the years. That looks like it's from the 1990's.  Not an original one and not as good.  The last good one was the 1990 FG-51's.

[mubob1977]

I’m not really interested in collectability or value. I am more focused on playing these irons (and the other sets I have). I was asking about the year more for the purpose of figuring out the lofts of the set so I know when playing them.

[The Aspidistra in the Hall]

I believe it's 1987-88 issue, in between the end of Pepsico and the start of Amer, not a great birth star sign.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 20, 2024 by The Aspidistra in the Hall

[Maine Golfer]

Im assuming the reissues are just as weak lofted as the OGs? I could be wrong 

[Stephen8802]

They are 1989-1990. '87-'88 looked just like that without the crest.

 

I have every set of Staffs from 1955 (the Dyna-Weight Staff model) to the model before these, the '87/'88 Staffs, plus the FG-53 Goosenecks that came out right after these. So, I haven't hit these, but I've played the preceding model that looks identical other than the crest stamped on yours, and those are great clubs. I have to 1 iron to the '89/'90 set, but I can't hit any 1 irons, so that doesn't help me evaluate these. My guess is that they are wonderful clubs that you would be happy to play.

 

Even going back to the '55s, I haven't hit a set of Staffs I don't like. I do like some more than others, but I like playing them all. The set after this is also great, the FG-51s. I'm not really interested in any of the clubs after the FG-51s.

[Stephen8802]

4 hours ago, Socrates said:

That iron was re-issued several times over the years. That looks like it's from the 1990's.  Not an original one and not as good.  The last good one was the 1990 FG-51's.

These are not a re-issue, although it is heavily influenced by the look of the 1967 Staffs. This is the normal Staff release for a two year period.

 

The re-issues were specialty sets that were produced in addition to the regular offer for that year and looked almost identical to the originals other than the Wilson script and the grind characteristics. (Re-issues had a more modern grind). I had a set of the 1960 re-issues and they were beautiful clubs. There is not set before these with the W/S stamped exactly like these.

 

I think you are right that the FG-51s are the last good, classic Staff irons, but these proceed those and I consider them one of the good sets.

[Stephen8802]

12 minutes ago, Maine Golfer said:

Im assuming the reissues are just as weak lofted as the OGs? I could be wrong 

These, and the set before them, aren't in the Kaplan book, so I don't have data. However, the set after these, the FG51s, had a 49* pitching wedge. So they weren't stronger than that.

 

I don't consider 49* to 51* weak, I consider them standard; when clubs started getting jacked-up lofts, that didn't change standard lofts to weak, it just made new lofts strong. It's hard for me to consider something less than a modern 43* PW weak. But that may just be my bitterness towards the golf club industry. For these, more likely 49* than 51*, I think of them as slightly strong.

[mubob1977]

Thank you for the info.

[Shallowface]

3 hours ago, Stephen8802 said:

These are not a re-issue, although it is heavily influenced by the look of the 1967 Staffs. This is the normal Staff release for a two year period.

 

The re-issues were specialty sets that were produced in addition to the regular offer for that year and looked almost identical to the originals other than the Wilson script and the grind characteristics. (Re-issues had a more modern grind). I had a set of the 1960 re-issues and they were beautiful clubs. There is not set before these with the W/S stamped exactly like these.

 

I think you are right that the FG-51s are the last good, classic Staff irons, but these proceed those and I consider them one of the good sets.

The 84/85 Staff was a virtual copy of the 1967 Staff, with a wider sole than the 86-90 versions had.  I always thought the 86-90 was closer to the original Dynapower than anything.

 

There were two re-issues of the 71 Staff, one in 1985 and another around 1990 that was available for several years in the 90s.  The 1985 reissue was much more faithful to the original as it had the wide sole of the original, while the later reissue was more of a cosmetic copy with a narrower sole.  

 

Wilson quality could be really spotty from the late 70s through the mid 80s.  It definitely got a lot better starting in 1986.  The quality issues may have been why, even though Wilson had a huge presence on the Tour during that time, it was rare to see the current model in anyone's bag.  The 76 model was very prominent.  Hale Irwin used a set of 69 Staffs throughout the 70s.  When Johnny Miller jumped from MacGregor to Wilson in 1976, he didn't get his irons from the company but instead got one of Arnold Palmer's old sets from the early 60s.

 

For me, all of that made for a much more interesting time equipment wise than today's clubs loaded with Urethane Microspheres or other such nonsense.     

[Shallowface]

 

From 1989

Edited December 21, 2024 by Shallowface

[Shallowface]

[Forged Hack]

On 12/20/2024 at 5:11 PM, Stephen8802 said:

They are 1989-1990. '87-'88 looked just like that without the crest.

 

I have every set of Staffs from 1955 (the Dyna-Weight Staff model) to the model before these, the '87/'88 Staffs, plus the FG-53 Goosenecks that came out right after these. So, I haven't hit these, but I've played the preceding model that looks identical other than the crest stamped on yours, and those are great clubs. I have to 1 iron to the '89/'90 set, but I can't hit any 1 irons, so that doesn't help me evaluate these. My guess is that they are wonderful clubs that you would be happy to play.

 

Even going back to the '55s, I haven't hit a set of Staffs I don't like. I do like some more than others, but I like playing them all. The set after this is also great, the FG-51s. I'm not really interested in any of the clubs after the FG-51s.

Correct. They are 1989/90’s (pictured)

the 1987/88’s do not have the crest.

Edited December 22, 2024 by Forged Hack

[The Aspidistra in the Hall]

Thanks Shallowface. I bought a set of the 87-88 Staffs over the Christmas break and they arrived today. Busy regripping after checking the lengths. Look to be R300  DG shafts.

[ezgoer]

On 12/20/2024 at 8:10 PM, Shallowface said:

The 84/85 Staff was a virtual copy of the 1967 Staff, with a wider sole than the 86-90 versions had.  I always thought the 86-90 was closer to the original Dynapower than anything.

Sure as sXXt you are correct!!! I just grabbed some 1967’s and took these pictures. Here’s the evens. 

 

 

I haven’t tried these yet. Have actually sold 2 sets of 84-86 line overs. Nothing bad to say about them but they were just golf clubs to me. I had no immediate connection when i tried them so instead of increasing the hoard I passed them on. I connected with the 76, 78 & 80 Staff’s much more. Not saying I’m right just saying. 

Edited December 30, 2024 by ezgoer

[Hickory4ever]

 

I acquired these yesterday in very good condition.

[ezgoer]

2 hours ago, Hickory4ever said:

 

I acquired these yesterday in very good condition.

👍Looks like excellent chrome, nice acquisition👍

[NRJyzr]

These 87-90 Fluid Feel sets have always intrigued me.  I've owned a set of Line Overs, and they're fine, but I think I'd like the "meaty" aspect of the 87-90 sets a bit better.  Or the 78 Staffs, which I've owned for quite a while and have never played, just hit at the range.

 

Ultimately, I'm at the point of "why have all these sets if I'm not going to play them" combined with my considerable interest in Ram Tour Grinds, which has me occasionally surfing Wilson Staffs on ebay and doing nothing about it.  LOL

 

[ezgoer]

58 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

These 87-90 Fluid Feel sets have always intrigued me.  I've owned a set of Line Overs, and they're fine, but I think I'd like the "meaty" aspect of the 87-90 sets a bit better.  Or the 78 Staffs, which I've owned for quite a while and have never played, just hit at the range.

 

Ultimately, I'm at the point of "why have all these sets if I'm not going to play them" combined with my considerable interest in Ram Tour Grinds, which has me occasionally surfing Wilson Staffs on ebay and doing nothing about it.  LOL

 

Do me a favor and channel some of that restraint energy my way! I’m getting better but shiny things are still too alluring. I’m getting picky anyways. 

[NRJyzr]

1 hour ago, ezgoer said:

Do me a favor and channel some of that restraint energy my way! I’m getting better but shiny things are still too alluring. I’m getting picky anyways. 

 

I will do my best amigo   😁

 

That said, I've still got it pretty bad, too, I've just been able to fight it.  Right now, I'm sitting here looking at drivers I don't need.  😕