What's the deal with Wilson FG-17?

[braincramp52]

I've started playing vintage this year and I've been looking at some left handed older blades. I'm confused about the Wilson FG-17 blades because for every guy that says they are just fantastic another one says they suck. Trust me, I've been around here long enough to know how it is but many times there's a general consensus on iconic iron models. I'd like to get into something with a little bit more of a modern sole design but as vintage as it can be. I need some expert opinions here and I know this is the place I can get it. 

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

1 hour ago, braincramp52 said:

I've started playing vintage this year and I've been looking at some left handed older blades. I'm confused about the Wilson FG-17 blades because for every guy that says they are just fantastic another one says they suck. Trust me, I've been around here long enough to know how it is but many times there's a general consensus on iconic iron models. I'd like to get into something with a little bit more of a modern sole design but as vintage as it can be. I need some expert opinions here and I know this is the place I can get it. 

 

They're great. Possibly my favourite head shape in the short irons.

 

Also, not particularly hard to hit, for a blade.

 

Just make sure you get them adjusted into your preferred specs (lie and loft). 

 

Mine have Dynamic regular flex shafts, and while not my ideal shaft, they play really well. I've got them in my persimmon and blades bag now, waiting for a day to take them to the course.

[Stephen8802]

I bought a set back in 1982 and have a set now. They are great because all the Staffs from the mid 70s to the early 90s are great and modernish. (All the Staffs before that are great but regressively less modern). They suck because Wilson's chrome problems hit their height around them and a lot of clubs had/have chrome loss. The set I bought back then had to be returned and replaced, as did the set belonging to the pro I worked for, and he was on Wilson staff. I dumped mine when the Line Overs came out and never looked back. They are nice clubs, but I'm still a little pissed the chrome fell off my original set, so I don't play the set I have now. The two sets before them, and the four sets after them, are all great clubs and have a more modern feel, so you have plenty to choose from.

[bcstones]

easiest way to find out if they are reat or suck - ask the seller to allow you to play them.

I've a set 1 thru PW (may even have the SW in a wedge bin in storage), they are beautiful looking clubs, no chrome loss on heads or shafts, shafts are TT Dynamic 'R', the number band under the shaft band are all the same, the grips are green/black Wilson Tour. (tho the 1 iron, I regripped w/Lamkin Crossline grips.

 

I've only practiced w/them a while back, felt good to me

[EmperorPenguin]

One of my first set of golf clubs were the FG-17's, and I bought them (1-SW) used at a local Nevada Bob's for about a $100.  As stated earlier, the chrome sucked and came off easily.  Overall I remember them being not much different in terms of feel compared to my custom set, which is a slight modification of the '87-'88 Fluid Feel Staffs.  What I do like about the FG-17's, as I recall, is that they do not have vertical diamonds on the face.  The '87's do, but not my custom set.

 

I think you will just end up selling them soon after you buy them, because there are better Staff forgings.  The '87 Staffs are good, except they have vertical diamonds, but I think the '90 Staffs do not have them.  My best advice: forsake the FG-17's and seek the FG-51's instead.  I think they were released about '91, and they are far better than the FG-17's.  Payne Stewart won the '91 US Open at Hazeltine with the FG-51's, so you should take a serious look into them.  They tend to be much more expensive than the FG-17's, but this is because Wilson made the FG-51's right, and to me they are well worth it.

Edited May 9 by EmperorPenguin

[Foozle]

When I first tried FG17's I couldn't understand what the fuss was about. I really did not get along with them.

However, I have since picked up another set (1,3-Sw) and got along with them famously, so much so they even nudged my Ram Tour Grinds out of the bag for a while!

I don't think you can understate @No_Catchy_Nicknamecomment about lie angle and shafts and affect on playability. One clear example to me was my Hogan Redlines with Apex 4 shafts. I hit a lovely ball flight with those but began to struggle to load the Apex 4's so found an identical set with Apex 3 shafts. The strike was completely different, launching very high and "floaty" which is not what you want on Scottish links courses! Therefore subtle change in spec, big difference in playability.

I hadn't heard of chrome issues with the FG17's- both my sets and indeed all my Wilson irons of that era are fine. But, accepting that does seem to be an issue, I still think FG17's deserve there iconic status.

I moved from Fg17 to Fg55. The Fg55 is a bit too modern for me; quite a large head. Moved back to Fg51 and find these a good compromise. Wasn't aware of the Payne Stewart connection mentioned by @EmperorPenguin but I am enjoying playing them.

I would also mention Fg49's but these are real butter knife Scotch blade type irons so possibly the least playable of the modern classic Wilson blades.

Honourable mention of my all time favourite '76 Staff mini bullet backs. They still hold their own with anything today (with allowance for loft creep!) 

[Shallowface]

On 5/6/2025 at 9:10 AM, No_Catchy_Nickname said:

 

They're great. Possibly my favourite head shape in the short irons.

 

Also, not particularly hard to hit, for a blade.

 

Just make sure you get them adjusted into your preferred specs (lie and loft). 

 

Mine have Dynamic regular flex shafts, and while not my ideal shaft, they play really well. I've got them in my persimmon and blades bag now, waiting for a day to take them to the course.

Getting the lie checked, yes, but I would not strengthen the loft on these beyond what is standard.  They have no bounce and that would only increase their tendency to dig.

 

Back in the day I saw a magazine interview with a Wilson rep.  He said that “Wilson shafts are stronger than industry standard.”  How and how much he did not say, but that could explain why a regular would work well for someone who normally requires a stiff.  

[Shallowface]

On 5/6/2025 at 9:10 AM, Stephen8802 said:

I bought a set back in 1982 and have a set now. They are great because all the Staffs from the mid 70s to the early 90s are great and modernish. (All the Staffs before that are great but regressively less modern). They suck because Wilson's chrome problems hit their height around them and a lot of clubs had/have chrome loss. The set I bought back then had to be returned and replaced, as did the set belonging to the pro I worked for, and he was on Wilson staff. I dumped mine when the Line Overs came out and never looked back. They are nice clubs, but I'm still a little pissed the chrome fell off my original set, so I don't play the set I have now. The two sets before them, and the four sets after them, are all great clubs and have a more modern feel, so you have plenty to choose from.

At one of the courses I used to play in the 80s a number of guys had bought FG-17s and were dealing with chrome loss.  Word got out that on a particular Saturday the area Wilson rep would be visiting the pro for a sales call.

 

It was quite a scene when the rep was confronted by an angry crowd of dissatisfied customers.  I’m sure he wasn’t expecting that.

 

Wilson changed hands around 1986 and everything after that was much better.  The Line-Overs of 1984-85 had many of the same issues as the FG-17s.  However, any set of those that has survived to this day in good condition is likely among the most well made from that era and is just fine.  The design, a remake of the 67-68 Dynapower, is my personal favorite.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

1 hour ago, Shallowface said:

Getting the lie checked, yes, but I would not strengthen the loft on these beyond what is standard.  They have no bounce and that would only increase their tendency to dig.

 

Back in the day I saw a magazine interview with a Wilson rep.  He said that “Wilson shafts are stronger than industry standard.”  How and how much he did not say, but that could explain why a regular would work well for someone who normally requires a stiff.  

 

Good point about the lofts, though for me I usually end up weakening the lofts a touch as previous owners often appear to have strengthened them.

 

The worse case I had was with a set of custom Mizunos. When I took them from the box, I was horrified by the offset, especially the short irons.

Then I measured the lofts and realised that the previous owner had strengthened the lofts by 3~4° from what they should have been (they were custom MS-11s, so I assumed the lofts would have been the same).

 

 

[NRJyzr]

33 minutes ago, No_Catchy_Nickname said:

 

Good point about the lofts, though for me I usually end up weakening the lofts a touch as previous owners often appear to have strengthened them.

 

The worse case I had was with a set of custom Mizunos. When I took them from the box, I was horrified by the offset, especially the short irons.

Then I measured the lofts and realised that the previous owner had strengthened the lofts by 3~4° from what they should have been (they were custom MS-11s, so I assumed the lofts would have been the same).

 

 

 

Yes, the burning need of many golfers to pretend they're hitting the ball farther than they actually are....

 

[Shallowface]

The stuff of nightmares

[bcstones]

40 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

Yes, the burning need of many golfers to pretend they're hitting the ball farther than they actually are....

 

the result of the golf business brainwashing that "distance is king"....as far as I'm concernd,, loft creep is "weakening" the golf GAME

[hammergolf]

9 hours ago, Shallowface said:

The stuff of nightmares

Holy strong lofts!

[Socrates]

Having owned a set of FG-17's and FG-51's, I would have to say the FG-51's were much better.  But, other than to look at, I would never go back to them.  I hit a few shots with them every once in a while and then put them away.  Been hitting 'shovels' since I bought the Lynx Parallax (Fred Couples model) in '94. 

[RolandofGilead]

On 5/6/2025 at 5:24 AM, braincramp52 said:

I've started playing vintage this year and I've been looking at some left handed older blades. I'm confused about the Wilson FG-17 blades because for every guy that says they are just fantastic another one says they suck. Trust me, I've been around here long enough to know how it is but many times there's a general consensus on iconic iron models. I'd like to get into something with a little bit more of a modern sole design but as vintage as it can be. I need some expert opinions here and I know this is the place I can get it. 

I’ll echo the praise for the FG-51 (1991 release). I’ve played the ‘69 bulletbacks, ‘76 Staffs, ‘87 Fluid Feels, and FG-51s. All look very similar at address but the FG-51 was the first with any softening of the leading edge, and it’s a very good grind. This really makes a difference in the short irons where the older models would dig like crazy, the FG-51 is much more modern and friendly.

 

All Wilson blades from these periods had pretty boxy shaped short irons, and the FG-51 have kinda funky looking 6 and 7 irons as well. But the long irons in these sets are just about perfect to my eye.

 

Another set to look out for is the Ben Hogan Apex “redline” released in 1988. I prefer these to the FG-51. Golden Ram blades from the 80s also had a sole that wasn’t quite razor blade sharp but their heads were a bit larger.