Hi.  New to the forum.  I’m a retired engineer, low handicap player, and a club making/repair hobbyist for about 30 years.  I also help with junior golf instruction.

Today I came within minutes of pulling the heads off of my irons to reuse the XCaliber shafts, which I really like, when by an act of God I came across this:


Ironically, the picture at the top of that web page contains my current Dynacraft iron (lower left).  I love that head, but it has a terrible finish (not durable) and is not on the USGA approved list — which will probably be a requirement for me next year.  I thought I might replace the heads with the TS-1, but now there could be a much better fit …

Been waiting for years to see a component forged iron head with the following characteristics:

  1. Little to no offset.  (I do believe that long irons should have ZERO offset.  Think hybrids and metals, which have ONSET.)
  2. Thin top line.
  3. Thin sole, especially in the short irons.
  4. Lofts closer to traditional.
  5. Unitized hosel.  (OEMs tend to use tapered hosels for blades, i.e., heads that would not typically be shafted with graphite.)

I would gladly give up forgiveness (perimeter weighting) if it meant getting the above, but these days, with advances in materials and construction, that should not be necessary.

With the TS-4 I think we may finally have it, but I’m not sure.  Is this head still in the works for 2023?  Is it a traditional forging or a polymer-filled flex-face design?

The lofts I’ve found:  3-20, 4-23, 5-26, 6-29.5, 7-33, 8-37, 9-41, PW-45.5, GW-50.  Those are better, but still a tad strong.  At least they can be bent to spec without appreciably hurting the bounce angle.  (That’s a problem with loft creep). This is certainly better than the TS-1, and enough for me to wait until next year if the TS-4 is a better match.  I suspect the top line will be thinner on the TS-4 as well.  Pictures of the TS-1 make it appear that there is more offset than the specs.

Any specs possible to share?  Offset, bounce, blade length, sole width, weight.  Sole camber?  Appearance at address?

I have been really impressed by the finish on Maltby irons and wedges, and that just seems to be getting better and better.  I will be pushing them within our village as soon as they can displace the Dynacrafts.  I have a TE-forged set, but the short iron sole is just something I’ve never been able to like.  Takes feel away from the ball when the sole seems heavy going through the turf.  In my view, what you feel and then see in ball flight is the feedback mechanism for grooving a swing, and that’s more important than forgiveness.

Thanks in advance.

Britt Lindsey Posted new comment June 22, 2022

Quite the discussion you have going here. A lot that I could discuss, but I am going to stick to the basics of your questions about the TS4. The model is still in the works for 2023. Waiting on the second iteration of the #6 iron to test. Not going to give any details on the construction. It will have the appearance of a true players blade, with less offset than the TS1. I must have posted the lofts somewhere because what you listed is the target. They are not strong compared to the category, but stronger than traditional (TE). No other details on the specs, except to say they will be consistent with what I think they need to be for it to be a highly versatile and playable blade design. Should be a better playing MMB-17, although the MMB-17 was and is a great blade, in my opinion. Tried to improve on it, with a better sole design, and a thinner topline. That’s all I’ll say for now. I think you will like it when we finally get it done.

Britt Lindsey

Thanks for the response Britt.

The TS-4 will no doubt be my club. It’s just a closer match to what I find ideal — a workable iron with better feel that eases ball contact from bad lies. This is a time-honored design that doesn’t get in the way of itself.

Other than the MMB, I don’t think there has been anything available in over a decade in a true blade design for the hobbyist since the Golfsmith Pro Forged, which does not conform to the 2010 groove standard. Dynacraft did not submit their heads to the USGA. KZG and Wishon have had products but they require using one of their club makers. I’m not certified, but do feel that my attention to detail produces a very fine club.

The TS-4 lofts will fit in well with the TSW 50 degree gap wedge, so I guess that is a plus. With those wedges the loft progression should be perfect. I will migrate to the TSW wedges while waiting for the TS-4.

A couple more thoughts on the TS-4:

The hosel looks short. I get the weight optimization, but was hoping for a universal 355/370 hosel. The extra depth helps me balance a set from head to head. I use tungsten powder with epoxy in the hosel for precise swing weighting. Don’t like shaft tip plugs.

The look is beautiful as is. It could be even cleaner by moving the TS-4 stamp to the hosel in place of the Playability Factor. I don’t think the PF concept needs marketing with an extra stamp.

Very excited about this product and am hoping that the general economic situation with China does not get in the way of production plans.

The hosel is shorter than traditional blades, but ours always are. It does have to do with the weight distribution and is one of the reasons our blades have higher playability than most. It will still be universal.
We are replacing the PF number on the hosel with “Forged”. The TS4 will stay where it is, but I appreciate the input.
Britt Lindsey