Early Golf Club Evolution

The following article was researched and written by Jeffrey B. Ellis.

Background

This iron first came to light when it sold at a small Scottish auction back in the 1990s. Nobody in the room knew what to make of it, me included. The auction catalog (which is as only as accurate as the cataloger and historically lacking context or detail on the club’s specifics) had a low estimate for the lot and no accompanying image. At the time, I did not understand what I was looking at, so I passed on the iron.

The iron was purchased for a relatively small amount by a dealer who liked it and kept it for several years. In 2001, he sold it for a relatively large amount to a collector I know in the US. Since then, I have been allowed to study this head on many occasions and even have it X-rayed. My initial skepticism about the age and authenticity of this iron is now gone.

To understand where this club fits in the evolution of the oldest irons is to determine its relative age—if it is the oldest. Therefore, a review of that evolution is in order.

During the 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s, the evolution of tools, household items, and everyday implements was relatively slow. Changes were characterized by incremental improvements rather than rapid innovation. Most things evolved slowly while remaining distinctly similar. Golf clubs were no different.

Of course, there have been relatively rapid watershed moments in the evolution of antique golf equipment, such as the change from the feather ball to the gutty ball, long-nose woods to bulgers, and wood shafts to steel shafts. But for the oldest irons made prior to 1800, evolutionary change was primarily stylistic and occurred in a slow, gradual fashion over long periods of time.

Before proceeding further, the reader should note that the images in this report are not to scale, so any visible difference between the size of one head or hosel to that of a neighboring iron in a separate image is not entirely accurate, though oftentimes quite close. Also, many of these iron heads are quite dark, yet these are color images. This is because these irons are made from wrought iron. The deep brown and sometimes blackish surfaces show the natural patina that often forms on wrought iron depending on factors that include the environment in which it has existed. Forged steel will typically have rust that is reddish-brown or orange-brown.

Indicators of Great Age

The first two irons shown below are the two Troon irons currently on display at the R&A Museum in St. Andrews. The two irons directly underneath them were once property of the Earl of Wemyss (one of them still is).

Prior to the early 1990s sale of the clubhead under discussion, the four irons above plus the two below were considered by many to be the oldest known. They stood out in a unique class of their own. These irons have several important identifying characteristics that indicate they are extremely old, but the primary and ever-present feature that sets them all apart as the oldest irons is the significant curve at both ends of their topline. Of these six irons, only the two Troon irons can be dated with reasonable accuracy. Consequently, similar clubs are dated from them. As I document later in this article, abundant evidence indicates that the Troon clubs date prior to the reign of King Charles I that began in 1625 but after his birth in 1600.

During the past 35 years, I have become aware of three more irons that share the same traits as the original six oldest, including a significant curve at both ends of their topline. And that’s it. There are no others.

The spur toe on five of the irons above is not something that would have been included on the first irons ever made. The spur, the pointed protrusion at the base of the toe, was supposedly designed to help golfers play shots using the toe of the club, to strike a ball stuck in a narrow track or between stones.

Of the two Troon irons shown earlier, one had a spur and the other one did not. These two irons were made by the same maker but their functions were different. Furthermore, a golfer only needed one club with a spur in order to strike a ball between rocks, etc. Consequently, a spur, often considered the primary indicator of the oldest clubs, is but a feature that is only found on some of them.

Blade Curve & Hosel Sweep

The key indicator to determine the oldest irons is blade shape. The curve given to both the sole and the topline is the uniform feature found on the irons above, both those that do have and do not have a spur toe. As shown above, when these irons are properly soled their toplines curve up as they approach both the toe and the hosel. The upward curve/sweep where the topline transitions into the hosel is a prime indicator of great age found on the oldest irons as is the upward sweep of the topline as it approaches the toe.

With the passing of time, the upwards sweep of the topline towards the hosel evolved, becoming less and less until it transitioned into a sharp crease where the topline runs straight into the side of the hosel . This crease is found on all the square-toe irons that were made thereafter, none of which have a spur or a topline that curves up at both the toe and hosel.

Hosel width and length are also important indicators, but not by and of themselves. The hosels on the irons above are definitely large in length and width, some more than others. But hosels of similar widths and lengths continued to be formed on the irons that were made after the demise of the spur. Hence, hosel length and thick - ness by and of themselves do not tell us all there is to know about the age of an iron. The length of the hosel was dependent on the bar of iron chosen by the blacksmith and how long he made the blade. This was a somewhat fluid variable that a blacksmith could determine depending on circumstances or desires. Consequently, there is a consistent variety of hosel lengths found throughout the spur-toe and square-toe eras.

Like hosels, blades also varied in length and size as shown above. So the size of a blade by and of itself is not a clear-cut indicator used to differentiate the age of one early iron from another.

Again, a curved topline is found on all of the oldest known irons. Curved toplines are not found on the spur-less square-toe irons with hosel creases that followed in their wake, as shall be shown.

Topline Curve Transition

Like all of the previous irons shown, the left-handed spur-toe iron above has a topline that sweeps up into the hosel and curves up to the toe. 1 Only it does not sweep up as much at the toe, and the sweep at the hosel is small and short. While it has a spur on its toe like all the other heavy irons shown earlier, it has a flat sole unlike the other irons. After its introduction the flat sole became an option, as some later square-toe irons were also made with rounded soles.

The iron above left is a heavy iron, but it lacks the spur toe found on all the earlier heavy irons. It has an even smaller sweep up at both the toe and hosel. In fact, the hosel sweep has almost become a crease. Its sole is flat much like the other two irons above. This iron is slightly more refined and not as old as the other irons that precede it in this report.

The topline on the iron above right does not sweep up at the toe nor the hosel. The hosel has much more of a crease than a sweep. But the crease is not sharp.The crease is not finished the way that it is on the irons that follow.

Square Toes, Flat Toplines, and Sharp Hosel Creases

The iron above left has a sharp crease where the top line of the blade intersects the side of the hosel. This iron provides a reasonable match to the drawing of the iron shown to the right. Published in the May 29, 1891, issue of Golf, this drawing shows the iron head found when excavating a building in Leith, Scotland, with a cornerstone bearing the date of 1682. It was found along with a coin dated 1682, and the magazine believed it was important enough to document this find. If this iron head and coin were included when the cornerstone was completed, then the world today has a documented benchmark of what an iron made in the late 1600s looked like. Given that the magazine gave straightforward credibility to the find right after it occurred and went to the trouble to document it—having the iron and coin sketched up and presenting the iron as contemporary with the 1682 coin and 1682 cornerstone—then big, heavy square-toe irons with a sharp blade crease and no spur were being made prior to 1700. The editors and people working at Golf were alive when this iron head was found, so far be it from me to disagree. There is nothing I can present that would prove they made a mistake in their determination. Furthermore, it fits squarely into my perspective when it comes to dating antique golf clubs.

The three square-toe irons shown above also have a sharp blade crease at the hosel. The three square-toe irons shown above have a sharp blade crease at the hosel. Such sharp creases and relatively flat toplines became the standard for square-toe irons throughout the 1700s.

One thing about irons is the heads will never break. Only the shafts are at risk, and a head was easily reshafted. Consequently, during the 1600s and 1700s individual irons could remain in use for decades if not a century or more before falling into disuse.

Not only were irons expensive, there was also no “game improvement technology” to motivate the golfer to change their clubs. The key element was simply to have clubs! Of course old irons evolved, but, again, it was slow. After all, instead of being used for distance shots, irons were used as rescue clubs when the ball was in sand, stones, or high grass—where a wood-headed club either would not work or was at greater risk of damage. During the feather-ball era, it was considered reprehensible to use an iron on short grass.

Round Toes

Square-toe irons sometimes had their top and bottom corners slightly rounded. It was thought rounding the sharp corners would prevent the square toe from scratching or damaging the wood clubs the golfer or caddy might be carrying (golf bags were not in use during the feather-ball era). Eventually, irons with entirely rounded toes entered the game. By the mid 1700s, round-toe irons coexisted with square-toe irons, as shown above, and were nearly identical in every respect except for their toe shape. Primarily the blades were evolving from square toe to round toe.

These four round-toe heavy irons look quite similar but have notable distinctions. They are different in hosel length, hosel thickness, hosel nicking, and blade size. Everything about the hosels on irons 1 and 2 is slightly smaller than the hosels on irons 3 and 4. By the end of the 1700s, the refining of hosel and blade size was underway, both becoming gradually smaller across the entire 19th century. Both heavy and light irons were becoming smaller and smaller, changing into the lofters and cleeks of the 1850s which also continued to downsize as they approached the 1890s. Note that a few old square-toe irons were still in use at the end of the feather-ball era.

• Iron 1 has a blade that matches up well with the blade on irons 3 and 4, its hosel is distinctly shorter and thinner and possesses the least prominent nicking at the top of the hosel. It dates circa 1820.
• Iron 2 is a “ringmaker” iron, with an engraved ring around the top of the hosel. The ringmaker (his actual name is unknown) was a prolific blacksmith given the fact that a number of his irons remain. This club also dates from the early 1800s.
• Iron 3 has an even longer and thicker hosel with stronger nicking than is found on the two irons to the left. It dates to the late 1700s.
• Iron 4 dates to the mid 1700s. It has the longest and thickest hosel, the most prominent nicking, and the largest head of the group.

Every one of these round-toe irons is an absolutely phenomenal club. Clubs this old are extremely scarce, and these in particular are larger than life when viewed in person and given a waggle. It can be hard to believe that golfers centuries ago actually swung such monsters.

The Oldest Iron Revisited

Like all the irons shown earlier, what might well be the oldest iron has a curved blade, both topline and sole. This iron has a shallow blade, not as tall in the face as the heavy irons shown earlier and very much in character (except for its 1-inch thick pipe of a hosel and heavy weight) for what would later become known as a “light iron”.¹ However, unlike every known antique iron clubhead made for centuries prior to Bussey’s steel socket iron patented in 1890, the head on this iron is made from two pieces. In the image above, the connection between the two pieces—the blade and the hosel—is visible where the heel of the blade is overlapped by the iron from the base of the hosel.

Two-Piece Head

The two closeup images above show the hammer-welded connection between the two pieces of iron—the blade and the hosel—used to construct the head. Evidence of the hammer-weld is visible on the front of the blade above left and especially on the back of the blade above right. Those are not cracks, that is metal from the hosel as it overlaps the heel end of the blade. The blacksmith simply did not finish off and blend the weld as nicely on the back of the blade as he did on the face.

Again, no other two-piece iron head is known. Moving from a two-piece head to a one-piece head could likely be an evolutionary change, not a difference between makers.

In making this determination, I considered the possibility that the blacksmith was out of larger iron bars when he made this head. That he improvised and made the head from two smaller pieces is certainly within the realm of reason. However, the likelihood of this being the case is small, given that no other known blacksmith-made iron heads are constructed from two pieces.

In the 1500s wrought iron was quite valuable—the stuff to make tools and weapons—so combining two smaller pieces would have made sense in terms of managing one’s resources. However, making a head from two pieces allows for the possibility that the blade might fly off and literally injure or kill somebody. As history appears to indicate, once one-piece heads were the standard, nobody wanted to risk using a two-piece head.

Below are two more views that show the backside of the hosel where it connects to the blade.

Wrought Iron Radiograph

The hammer weld that wraps the base of the hosel around the heel end of the blade, as viewed on both the face and back of the blade in the images above, can also be seen in this radiograph. Also visible is the fibrous grain or slag of the wrought iron, which appears as very fine lines running across the blade. Unlike forged steel, wrought iron has a fibrous grain created by the refining and forging process. This grain is made up of impurities/slag in the iron. Wrought iron fell into disuse as a structural material beginning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Steel offered superior properties and, by then, was easier to produce in large quantities.

Hosel Layers

These views of the top of the hosel show that there are two layers along much of this hosel. Specifically, an outer layer wraps around the inner layer for approximately half of the hosel’s circumference. This outer layer starts at the blue arrow on the left and ends with the blue arrow on the right.

When this hosel was made, it began as a length of iron that was flattened (with one side longer than the other in order to attach to the blade) and then formed around a mandrel. To close the hosel, the blacksmith would overlap the “beginning” and “ending” sides of the flattened iron and continue to work the overlapping material until it became increasingly thinner and finally worked into the metal underneath, thereby changing the upper portion of the flat bar into a round socket to accept the shaft. The lower, longer side of the initially flattened bar extended below the socket to enclose and hold the sides and end of the blade.

As seen in the images above, the blacksmith did not fully pound the overlap at the top of this hosel into the underlying material. This left the thin overlapping outer portion of the wrap exposed at the top of the hosel.

The nicking was made using a file, and because the outer wrap was so thin and not fully melded or fused into the inner wrap, some of the nicking on the outer wrap has been lost.

Above left is a closeup of the back of the iron hosel. The breaks in the outer layer of the iron expose the metal of the hosel’s inner layer, which is much thicker than the outer layer. According to Paul Thorn of Anacortes, Washington, the master blacksmith who viewed all these images, it is at this area on the hosel that the outer wrap, which is not perfectly fused to the inner wrap, is exceptionally thin and has corroded away in places.

Above right is a radiograph of the hosel on its side, with its leading side facing the viewer. What looks like an oblong white hole are the holes on the lead and following side of the hosel, where the hosel is pinned/nailed to the shaft. According to Thorn, what appears in the X-ray as a crack in the top of the hosel is the end of the wrap that encloses the hosel, not a crack. The outer, overlapping layer was not installed to repair a crack. The circum - ference of the hosel shows no evidence of any raised areas or sections which would occur if a piece of metal was added after the hosel was formed.

Since this hosel was formed essentially as a tube, providing an overlapping layer around half of it would have been a natural way to construct it, especially given the fact that the bottom of the hosel needed to have extra ma - terial to fit over the front and back of the blade in order to attach it. Hosels on one-piece heads would not need such a long overlap.

No other known irons show evidence of a second layer. Moving from layered hosels to non-layered hosels would be an evolutionary change, not a difference between makers.

Black Woods

On the left is portion of a rake head displayed in the British Museum. It has a wrought iron prong that extends through the remains of the original wooden rake head shown across the top of the image. Both the remaining wood of the rake head and the shaft in the iron head were broken centuries ago. They are now black in color, the result of being exposed to weather across multiple centuries before they were found.

The British Museum refers to this broken portion of a rake head discovered in Northamptonshire as follows: “Part of the oak beam and three iron prongs from what was probably a six or seven prong hay rake. Rakes became an essential part of farm equipment when the Roman introduction of the scythe greatly increased the quantity of hay that could be harvested.” The Roman occupation of England began in AD 43 and lasted until approximately 410 AD.

The black wood in both examples above is the natural result of being left out in the weather over many years. Due to such factors as moisture absorption, fungal growth, UV exposure, oxidation, and dirt accumulation, various physical, chemical, and biological processes occurred as the wood interacted with its environment. These processes altered the wood’s composition and appearance, leading to the development of dark pigments and a characteristic blackened patina as well as decay. As witnessed by their condition, both of these artifacts had been lost to the outdoors for an extremely long time.

Fortunately, wrought iron holds up exceedingly well to weather. It develops a stable, protective layer of rust—a dark/black patina—that protects the underlying metal from further corrosion. Forged steel, on the other hand, rusts more rapidly and extensively than wrought iron. The rust is often less stable and more prone to flaking off, which can expose fresh metal to further corrosion.

Peened Face

During the 1500s and 1600s, blacksmiths would sometimes use peening hammers to increase the hardness and strength of wrought iron, to make it more durable for tools, weapons, and other functional items. Peening also allowed the blacksmith to control the shape and curvature of metal pieces and form designs.

The blacksmith who made this wrought iron head did not leave the face unfinished. He completed the face by pounding it with a peening hammer. I have never seen another iron with such deep peening. Peening marks, neatly rounded on their bottom and of relatively uniform size with raised edges, are nowhere else on this head, even on the back of the blade, where there is a bit more oxidation.

The oldest known irons typically have smooth faces, but a few have evidence of what could be light peening or corrosion. None, however, have a face with a good portion that appears deeply peened on relatively clean metal like the oldest iron. Sometimes their faces are slightly uneven from hammer marks left from when they were forged. Hammer or forging marks, however, are different from peening marks, where the face is given an extra step and hammered with a peening hammer. Moving from peened faces to smooth-finished faces would have been an evolutionary change, not simply a difference in makers.

Rough-Finished Blade End & Topline

Above left is the toe of the oldest iron. The very end of the toe is somewhat unfinished, neither smooth nor even, unlike all the other irons shown earlier in this report. This unevenness could be due to the blacksmith being in a rush or not mindful of details. Alternatively, such imperfections might have been considered acceptable when irons were first made.

Above right is the end of a Troon wood, where the rounded back of the head and the flat splay toe intersect. Similar to the oldest iron, the rounded end of the head is neither smooth nor even. It also shows file marks and multiple beveled areas instead of a nicely smoothed surface. The ends of the other Troon woods exhibit similar rough-finished surfaces. These unrefined elements on ancient clubs are evidence of their great age, not poor workmanship. What was once acceptable would change with time. The level of acceptable workmanship by early clubmakers was different from that of later clubmakers.

It should be noted that the ends of the blades on the Troon irons shown earlier are finished with neat, smooth surfaces. Additionally, both of those irons have swept necks, and one features a spur toe. All these characteristics are evolutionary refinements and, as would be expected, are not found on the oldest iron.

Also, the topline of the oldest iron, as shown below, is not as refined as it is on the other irons in this report including the Troon irons. Either the blacksmith who made this iron wasn’t very good, or he made this head before such refinements had taken hold. Inasmuch as everything about this iron is unrefined when compared to the other irons in this report, why should the topline and blade end be any different? Unfined as this iron head is, it’s construction from two pieces of metal goes above and beyond any other known ancient iron. The blacksmith who made this iron knew his craft.

Counter Perspectives

Anytime a new antique club shows up on the market, especially one that appears really old like this club, the possibility of it being a fake or counterfeit must be considered in depth and at length. When the collector who acquired this club in 2001 showed it to me, I told him I was not sure when it was made. If I were to ever authenticate it or reject it, I would need to study it. Passing judgment on any antique golf club is something I take seriously.

For over two decades I have examined this club every time I was given the opportunity. For well over ten years I considered alternate origins. I would try to find evidence that it was modern. After all, there are rusted counterfeit square toe irons out there as I have documented on many prior occasions including a 63-page concluding chapter on replicas and fakes in The Clubmakers Art Volume 2.

Finally, it became clear to me that the only logical explanation for its existence is this iron is genuine—and it predates what was widely accepted as the oldest known irons.

I can now report that there is not one real shred of evidence that indicates this clubhead is a fake. Instead, everything about it is beyond the realm of the counterfeiter . It is made from wrought iron—as its color, patina, and X-ray show. It is not made from mild carbon steel, the material of choice for constructing modern fakes and replicas given that wrought iron has not been commercially available for over a century. Furthermore, the construction of this head is far more complex and beyond the realm of what would be made in modern times if someone wanted to produce a counterfeit or replica square toe iron. On this iron, the evidence of great age in its every aspect is impeccably authentic.

Therefore, there are just a few ways that the unique features of this club can be explained. Either an inexperienced blacksmith centuries ago was just making an iron club head but didn’t really know what he was doing or was experimenting outside the standard construction methods of his day, or the blacksmith knew exactly what he was doing and made this head to match other irons made during his era.

Because I have never seen another early square-toe iron made by a blacksmith who was just winging it, blindly or otherwise, I believe this head is fully and acceptably formed for the era in which it was made, just like all the other square toe and spur toe irons presented above.

Oldest Iron Conclusion

To review, the square-toe iron head under discussion has many features that match the features found on the previously oldest known iron heads, including a blade with both a curved topline and curved sole. Given that it is also made from two pieces, has a layered hosel that wraps halfway again around itself, and its face is covered with peening marks—three features not found on any irons made during the feather ball era—this club shows structural differences in how irons were made before any of the previously recognized oldest irons were constructed.

The sweep of the blade up into the hosel that is found on all nine of the other oldest irons is not found on this club. Unlike all of those nine irons, the head of this iron is made from two pieces. But it is precisely because it is made from two pieces that it does not have a topline that sweeps up into the neck.

There is nothing to stop blacksmiths from making the first iron clubheads from two smaller pieces of iron, as this one is. Then, as time went on, somebody considered the idea of making an iron head from a single bar of iron. To accomplish that change, a blacksmith transitioned the curve of the blade into the hosel, thereby making the blade sweep up into the hosel. And it caught on.

There is no question that the graceful sweep up into the hosel in the nine oldest irons is a refined element when compared to the two-piece connection between the hosel and blade on this iron. Such a structural change from a two-piece iron head to a one-piece head would be a watershed event in golf club evolution. It also explains where the sweep in the neck found on all nine of the other oldest irons evolved from.

Adding to the evidence that this iron head is the oldest known is the fact that the walls of the hosel are clearly thicker than they are on the other nine oldest irons. Because of that, the shaft is not nearly as thick, nor was it originally, as the shafts in the other nine. It is not surprising that it broke.

Overall, while well made, this iron is less refined than all other ancient irons.

The simplest explanation for all the differences between this iron and the nine oldest known irons documented earlier is that this iron is older than those irons. That is what the evidence indicates. That is what the club itself tells the world. That is what the club is telling us. This is why I firmly believe that this club could easily be the oldest iron in the world.

Long-Nose Woods

Dating antique clubs can present unique challenges. Since clubs were handcrafted by different blacksmiths and clubmakers and not mass produced until the late 19th century, it’s helpful to consider important historical context clues as well as have a firm understanding of clubmaking evolution to get an accurate idea of a club’s age. I’d like to illustrate this process by sharing the methods I use for dating the Troon clubs, previously thought by many to be the oldest antique clubs in the world, as well as the evolution of other woods throughout the 1600s, 1700s, and into the 1800s.

Troon Clubs - Early 1600s

The six woods and two irons shown above comprise what are often referred to as the Troon clubs. They are the oldest known set of clubs and were lost to the world for over a century and a half before being discovered in 1898 and then gifted by Adam Wood to the Royal Troon Golf Club. These clubs remained on display there for nearly a century. They now reside at the R&A World Golf Museum in St. Andrews, Scotland.

The clubs were discovered in a boarded-up cupboard/closet during the remodeling of a home—the Maister house—in Hull, England. They were most likely boarded up during or shortly after 1741, as a newspaper of this date was found with the clubs. After the clubs were found, The Times ran a detailed article, reprinted in the August 26, 1898, issue of Golf, that stated these eight clubs were “by far the oldest extant implements for the practice of Golf, as well as being without doubt the most ancient relics connected with the game. The clubs themselves bear the impress of great age....” The article continues that “Mr. Balfour, the Leader of the House of Commons, has seen the clubs, and gives it as his opinion that they may belong to the period of the Stuart Kings.” The article also refers to their abnormally large size, noting that the clubs are bigger with at least “twice as much wood as in the average club of the present day.”

These eight clubs—consisting of three play clubs, three spoons, and two irons—were obviously very important when they were made. They are marked a total of forty-four times with a stamp that includes the King’s crown above a thistle (the symbol of Scotland), the letters I and C, and a star. The crowned thistle bordered by a single initial on each side matches the layout of multiple King James VI coins produced during his lifetime. The only difference is the “C” on the clubs is an “R” on the coins and the coins do not use a star.

Close examination of coins from the King James VI era provides additional historical context for the Troon Clubs. In an article published in the June 20, 2010, issue of Through the Green (p. 41-43), Ian Crowe provided an image of a James VI coin, shown above, that closely matches the layout and style of the marks on the Troon clubs. Crowe concludes that these clubs belonged to King James VI of Scotland (James I of England), and that William Mayne, appointed Royal Clubmaker to James VI in 1603, made them for him in the early 1600s.2 Above is the King James VI coin next to a Troon club with one of its stamps as darkened for publication in 1898. (Note that the faint original, undoctored marks are more symmetrical than the single mark at the top.)

The “I” and “R” on the coin represent “Iacobus” and “Rex,” Latin for James and King. According to Crowe, the “C” on the club identifies Charles who was born in 1600 and assumed the throne as King Charles I in 1625. Crowe documents that the star in the center of the club shows succession in royalty, but it can represent other things such as divine guidance, honor, achievement, leadership, and prominence.

The evidence is strong that King James and his son Charles are directly connected to these clubs. Additionally, in 1637 King Charles I visited Hull, where these clubs were found.

King James VI Coins & Clubs

Because Crowe relied heavily on the dating of Stuart Era coins in dating the Troon clubs, I felt the King James VI coins deserved a closer look. The crown over the thistle or “crowned thistle” is symbolic of the Scottish monarchy, especially the Stuart Kings. This crowned thistle is found on a variety of James VI coins minted during his reign (1567- 1625).

As shown below, King James VI also included the I and R on other coins that had a crowned thistle.

The above coins are not an exhaustive study.  They are the results of a few hours of digging around on the Internet.   But there is more to be noted from these coins. 

Like his father, James VI, King Charles I minted coins including some that included a crown above a thistle as these four 20 pence coins made between 1625 and 1649 demonstrate. While I found King Charles I coins marked with a “C” and “R” none were on a coin with a crowned thistle.

The only other ancient Scottish coin I encountered with a crowned thistle bordered on each side by a single character was a 1 Bawbee made in 1538 during the reign of James V, the Father of James VI.

Through my study of Scottish and English coinage,1 I confirm that Crowe was correct when he wrote, “James VI was the most consistent in using the thistle and the crown together and also, in his case, in using the letters I (Iacobus) on the left and R (Rex) on the right.”

My search confirmed that the coin Crowe used to date the Troon clubs is a valid key. There is no question the marks on the Troon clubs connect the clubs to Scottish royalty. Based solely on the similarities between the marks on the clubs and coin, the clubs could easily connect to the man behind the same marks on the coins—King James VI.

The “C” on the clubs could be to acknowledge the birth of Charles, heir to the throne of James VI. As I see it, however, the most logical reason for the “C” is because King James had the clubs made for his son Prince Charles at some point prior to 1625, when the prince became King Charles I at age 25. Many a father has provided their son with one or more sets of clubs. (Mine did when I was 12, 15, and 18.) After all, it was James VI who appointed a royal clubmaker who, indeed, is documented as having made clubs for his king.

Discovery of the Clubs in Hull, England

History also connects to the above analysis with precision. As mentioned earlier, the clubs were discovered in 1898 in Hull, England. They were found in a boarded up cupboard during the renovation of the Maister house, which had been rebuilt after it suffered grave damage in a fire in 1743. As Phillip Boulton documents in his December 2010 Through the Green “Maister House” article, King Charles I was in Hull, England in 1637, 12 years after he was made king. No other king is known to have visited Hull, England. When Charles I visited, he was at a reception a mere 300 yards from the Maister house. William Maister was a prominent citizen of Hull—a chamberlain in 1637, sheriff in 1645, and mayor in 1655—and most likely was at the reception. It would have been natural for Maister to provide his home for a few of the King’s dignitaries or soldiers to spend the night.

Had the clubs been gifted to the Maister family by Charles I, they would have been highly valued symbols of a past relationship with royalty and something to never throw away.² It is therefore understandable that a family living in England during the height of the Jacobite rebellion, which culminated with three battles in 1745 and 1746, would hide the clubs of a Stuart King. With Scottish loyalists fighting England to restore the House of Stuart to the Scottish throne, displaying or even owning a former Stuart King’s monogrammed clubs could cast the residents of the house as Jacobite sympathizers if somebody wanted to report it.

Second Possibility

The marks found on the Troon clubs could also be those of a clubmaker to King Charles II. As Neil S. Miller reports in his book Early Golf (p107-108), in a document dated August 6, 1663, James Carstairs is listed as “Goffe Clubmaker” to King Charles II. Charles II is listed as having a clubmaker every year during the last 15 years of his reign (1660-1694) and likely had one the entire time. Many years his clubmaker is not named, but for the last two years David Gastiers was his man, although “Gastiers” may be a misspelling of “Carstairs.”

Therefore, the IC on the Troon clubs could be the initials of “Iacobus Carstairs” clubmaker to King Charles II, and the Stuart thistle acknowledging his position as clubmaker to the king. If so, this would date the clubs to no later than 1671 given that Charles II visited Hull, England, in 1671.

If these are the marks of the maker, however, one is left to wonder why the marks are so involved, with a star inside an oval that also contains the Stuart thistle and two initials. And why so many marks? Marking each club six times and each iron shaft 4 times indicates that the clubs were made for somebody special, and if Carstairs made them for a king, then why would the stamp not include the initials “C” and “R” to identify the king? Furthermore, the fact that these clubs were found stored in a boarded up closet, showing little to no use, indicates that, to their owner, they were more than simply clubs made by a prominent clubmaker.

But the answer to all of this is found in re-examining the oval shape—what historians have long called the rhombus or lozenge shape—that contains the Stuart thistle, heraldic star, and initials. By definition, a rhombus is a quadrilateral with four equal sides. Its opposite sides are parallel, and opposite angles are equal. Ian stated that the rhombus as marked on the Troon clubs was “a token of noble birth.” In my research into Scottish heraldry during the 1600s, I found that when a rhombus displays the arms of a noble family, it indirectly signifies the bearer’s noble lineage. So given the Stuart thistle inside the lozenge, it could acknowledge nobility. However, the rhombus was primarily used in heraldry to display the arms of unmarried women and widows

Heraldry and Iconography Provide the Answer

A re-examination of the marks on the head made me question if the rhombus shape was an accurate description of the oval shape found 44 times on these 8 clubs. The August 26, 1898, issue of Golf describes the marks as shaped like a “rhombus with the obtuse angles rounded, or an ellipse with the ends run to a point [italics mine].”

“An ellipse with the ends run to a point” is the description of a vesica piscis, which can also be described as a pointed oval figure typically composed of two intersecting arcs.

The vesica piscis shape was used in Christian iconography for over a thousand years prior to the reign of James VI. It often frames images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and other saints, symbolizing holiness and the intersection of heaven and earth. The vesica piscis is a common motif in Gothic architecture, appearing in the design of windows, doorways, and other structural elements. Below are a few examples shown next to the stamps on one of the Troon woods—their connection is readily seen.

King James VI was a deeply religious man. He was raised a Protestant, and his faith deeply influenced his personal beliefs and political actions. He tried to unify England and Scotland under Protestantism and sought to maintain peace in doing so. Lest we forget, it was King James VI who in 1604 commissioned the translation of the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the time to produce what is now known as the King James Bible, first published in 1611.

James VI was a also a strong proponent of the divine right of kings, believing that monarchs (such as himself) were appointed by and answerable only to God. In his political treatise “The True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikon Doron” first published in 1598 (and last published in 1996), James sets forth the doctrine of the divine right of kings and of the king’s responsibility to God alone. Undoubtedly, he and his subjects were familiar with the symbolism and use of the vesica piscis in architecture and Christian art.

To review, the stamp consists of a crown over a thistle, the letters “I” and “C” separated by a heraldic star, and a vesica piscis that encompasses all the other marks. In addition, each wood is stamped six times in such a way that it replicates the vesica piscis shape of the individual stamp. These stamps are identification marks, not simply decorations. The stamp was created and used to identify the person who owned the clubs and to speak to any person who saw the clubs.

The facts are this: the crown represents the king and the thistle represents Scotland. The “I” stands for James in Latin, and the C stands for his son Charles, and the heraldic star between the letters shows succession—that Charles is the successor to the throne after James. The vesica piscis enclosing those symbols shows holiness or “divine approval” for James being the King of Scotland and Charles the heir. The stamps repeated six times in the form of a vesica piscis serves to emphasize the last point of divine approval/rights.

In short, these are the marks of a King, not a clubmaker. Furthermore, to attach the I and C to James VIII and Bonnie Prince Charlie, born in 1720, would require overlooking known facts such as the King James VI coins marked in near identical fashion and James VI’s deeply religious character. Plus, there is no connection between Bonnie Prince Charlie and Hull, England. Bonnie Prince Charlie was born in Italy and lived most of his life in Europe, spending approximately just 1 month of his life in England, and that was during the Jacobite uprising in 1745. It was not the type of trip where you would bring your clubs.

Attaching the “C” on the Troon clubs to Bonnie Prince Charlie would also require dating the Troon clubs within 50 years or less of James McEwan starting his business, which does not align with the historical development of either woods or irons. Dating the Troon clubs to the early 1600s based on their connection to King James VI is consistent with where they fit in the evolution of the golf club based on other ancient clubs, as shall be shown.

Attaching the Troon clubs to King James VI is—by far—the most logical answer.

Duke of York's "1682" Club

Property of Royal Musselburgh, the blonde club above right, known as the “Duke of York’s club,” is documented as having belonged to James VI’s grandson, the Duke of York who became King James VII of Scotland and II of England. The duke gave this club to Andrew Dickson after Dickson served as the Duke’s fore-caddie in 1681-1682.

According to Dr. John McPherson, in Golf and Golfers Past and Present, published in 1891, “McEwan, the club-maker of Bruntsfield Links, has shown us a club which Andrew Dickson received from the Duke of York (afterwards James II). Andrew was the fore-caddie to his Highness at the links of Leith and a great favourite. He excelled in the art of making clubs and was considered better than William Mayne, the clubmaker to James I.”³

The Duke of York’s club was displayed at the Glasgow International Exhibition of 1901, and the exhibition catalogue states that Douglas McEwan gifted this club to Royal Musselburgh and “supplied all corroborative evidence of the Royal ownership” (p. 257).

The history of this club is documented by people who were alive much closer to the time when this club was made than we are. While history is not always recorded accurately, I have nothing to present or propose that would challenge the history of this club. The head is old, and its overall shape fits the stated period as slightly newer than the Troon clubs. Consequently, it provides a documented landmark for dating the oldest golf clubs.

The club does have a hickory shaft when ash would be expected, but clubs were often reshafted. This one was once owned by the long-lived McEwan clubmaking family, founded by James McEwan in 1770. Reshafting a club was easy work for him or any of his clubmaking posterity.

Both the Troon club shown above left and the Duke of York club shown above right have a slanted or “splay” toe, characterized by a relatively flat, angled surface between the toe of the face and the toe of the crown. The dramatically pointed splay toe on the Troon club is replaced with a flatter, less pointed splay toe on the Duke of York’s club as the evolution of the club works its way towards an entirely rounded toe. Outside of these two woods, I know of only four other ancient woods that have a splay toe: two that belong to the Earl of Wemyss and two of slightly more recent vintage owned by the R&A.

Over time, the splay toe became less prominent until it was replaced entirely by the round toe.

The size of the duke’s club from 1682 is hard to appreciate when shown next to the Troon club earlier. Both are extremely large with thick necks, but it is not until an old long-nose club is shown next to a newer long-nose club that the differences in their sizes become apparent and the older club is revealed as being much larger—that it is made from a larger piece of wood.

Therefore, in the image above, two typical spoons made by Hugh Philp, who was making clubs between 1817 and 1856, are shown next to the Duke of York club. A number of features on the duke’s club show that it is much, much older than the Philp clubs. Not only does the duke’s club have a splay toe, but its head is dramatically longer and thereby much larger than the Philp heads. Its neck is thicker and elongated before the whipping, and the neck under the whipping is much thicker. In short, the Duke of York clubhead when compared to the Philp clubheads is a much larger piece of wood.

James McEwan 1786 Spoon

The duke’s club is made up of many elements that indicate its age, but the size and thickness of its neck are fundamental. Necks were not given to novel designs and strange shapes by early clubmakers. They are a constant element that was gradually downsized until the end of the feather ball era. This was a slow, relatively linear progression. The typical long-nose club made between the early and mid-19th century will have necks of a similar size. Yes, there can be some variation depending on whether the club was a play club, spoon, or putter, but such variations are small in the vast majority of instances. It was only when the feather ball era came to an end that clubmakers reversed direction. With the adoption of the gutty ball, clubmakers began to thicken and increase the size of the neck to make it more durable against the harder ball.

Bearing both James McEwan’s thistle stamp and “McEwan” name stamp, the spoon above left was once the property of the McEwan family. Because there is no question that this club was made by James McEwan, it stands as a landmark club for the 1770-1800 period. The October 9, 1896, issue of Golf includes a picture of this club and states that Douglas McEwan, the grandson of James, wrote “James McEwan 1786” on its sole, which writing is still there to this day. The fact that this club is stamped with a Thistle dates it no later than 1800, when James McEwan, the only McEwan credited with stamping a thistle on his clubs, died.4 The club cannot date any earlier than 1770, as that is when James entered the clubmaking business. The 1786 date seems fair. It is a midpoint of possibilities especially given that it is not known when James started and stopped using the thistle, or how often he would apply the stamp to his work.

Above right is an unmarked spoon with a 43” shaft. Complete with knots in the wood atop its toe, this clubhead is distinctly older than the McEwan thistle spoon shown, which has a 41 1/2” shaft and notably more loft. The head on the unmarked spoon is wider, especially from the middle of the head back to the neck. Its neck is more elongated and thicker, and the head is half an inch longer than the McEwan. Furthermore, on the unmarked spoon the entire top of the head is more crowned, rounded from front to back, and the apex (furthest protruding area) of the rear of the head is at 9:00 while the McEwan is at 7:30. The back of its head is thinner, top to bottom, and its lead protrudes well beyond the wood. The 1735 spoon does not have a splay toe, but its toe is distinctly narrow and not as broad as the McEwan’s. There is more, but the differences listed combine to provide unequivocal evidence that the unmarked spoon is much older than the McEwan.

In its entirety, the c.1735 spoon has a completely different head shape that stands apart from any of the known Alexander Neilson (working 1772?-1787), James McEwan (working 1770-1800), and Cossar clubs (working 1775-1816 2 ) or any of the clubs made by the clubmakers that followed them. Clubs by these three makers are very similar and tell us what clubs looked like during the 1770s to the early 1800s. Clubmakers did not work in a vacuum. They knew what a good club looked like, what other makers were producing, and what their customers expected.

Evolution Basics

The four clubs above show some of the basic fundamentals in the evolution of the size and shape of the oldest woods.

The Duke of York club to the far left has a splay toe that is not as pointed as that on the Troon clubs. The second club from the left has an elongated head, curved face, and thick neck that are much like those things on the Duke of York club. However, it does not have a splay toe. Instead, the area where the splay used to be is neatly rounded. The third club from the left has an even broader round toe. The circa 1840s Hugh Philp spoon to the far right has a rounded toe that is shorter on the face side because the face was given a great deal of loft.

It is extremely difficult to gauge the size of a long-nose club and its features when there is nothing to compare it to. The three clubs above to the right were all side by side for this image, so their size differences are obvious. Notice how the heads and the necks become progressively smaller when arriving at the c.1840s Philp. This club is a short spoon, so its head is about as wide and big as a Philp clubhead will be. Even so, it is still much smaller than the c.1735 spoon. While both might have the same dimension at their widest points from front to back, the 1735 spoon is much wider across the entire length of its head than the Philp club—its head being formed from a much larger piece of wood. Given the approximate 100-year span between the creation of these two clubs we get an idea of how much the size of the clubs changed in general during those 100 years. Comparing the Philp to the c.1700 spoon shows an even more dramatic difference in the head and neck size between the two clubs.6 ⁶

Notice the exceptionally elongated necks on the Duke of York and c.1700 spoon when compared to the c.1735 spoon and the c.1840 Philp. The thickness and length of the neck, the shape given to the toe, and the size of the head are all typical structural features that are part and parcel to the eras from which these clubs were made.

Spoon Evolution in Six Clubs

From left to right are six spoons made between approximately 1750 and 1880: c1750 unmarked, c1770s McEwan, c1786 thistle-stamped McEwan, c1840 Hugh Philp, c1870 Tom Morris, c1880 George Forrester. These six clubs show how spoons continued to evolve smaller between 1750-1880.

1. The circa 1750 spoon on the far right is not marked with a name, which is normal for the oldest clubs. It has the thickest neck and beefiest head of the group. Notice how much larger this clubhead is when compared to the c.1786 McEwan thistle-stamped spoon. It is clearly older.
2. The c.1770s blonde McEwan has a bigger neck—thicker all the way up its length—and a bigger head than the 1786 McEwan to its left. There are large knots in the wood across the face. Knots were eventually seen as blemishes as clubmaking matured. The shaft is the most unrefined, asymmetrical shaft in a McEwan that the author has handled, with many flat spots up and down its length. This is evidence of great age. It is not known when James McEwan started marking his clubs with a thistle, but most likely he acquired a name stamp first. This club has the earliest McEwan stamp, and the serifs on the individual letters to not show wear.
3. The 1786 McEwan spoon was made by James McEwan. He worked from 1770-1800 according to the McEwan family history published in the October 9, 1896, issue of Golf. This club was one of nine clubs in the McEwan collection of old clubs shown in an image that accompanied the article. “James McEwan 1786” was written on the sole in ink by Douglas McEwan to show who made this club and when. This club also bears a 1901 Glasgow International Exhibition label on its shaft.
4. The c.1840 Philp spoon has a relatively broad head approaching the 1786 McEwan next to it, but it has a much shallower/thinner head than the older McEwan and other older clubs shown. This difference is apparent in the depth of their faces as shown. It also has a slightly thinner neck. As big as the head looks from the top view, the head uses less wood than the older three clubs.
5. The 1870 Morris shows that the clubheads made then are not all that much different from what was made 80 or so years prior.
6. The 1880 Forrester likewise shows they are not much different.

The evolution of the long-nose clubhead took time. The necks of the Morris, Philp, and 1786 McEwan shown are not all that much different, although the McEwan is the largest of the three. There is, however, a marked difference between the necks on those clubs and the necks on the 1770s McEwan and 1750 unmarked spoon.

Play Club Evolution in Two Clubs

On the left is a play club formerly the property of the Cowdray Park Golf Club located near Midhurst, England. To the right is a c1800 McEwan Play club with the early McEwan stamp.

Notice that the Cowdray Park club is not only bigger but also dramatically larger in the neck. Again, the big head and thick neck are evidence that this club is much older than the McEwan play club. Its round toe and head shape compare well to the c1735 spoon shown two images earlier, but its neck is much thicker all the way up, more like the c.1700 spoon shown two images earlier. This indicates that the club was likely made after the c.1700 spoon but before the c.1735 spoon. This club has a hickory shaft where ash would be expected. However, the shaft appears to be a replacement given that the whipping lacks its finishing coat of pitch as was normal.

Putter Evolution in Two Clubs

Above, the right-handed c. 1860s McEwan Putter and the left-handed HG putter are approximately 150+ years apart in age, the left-handed putter dating to the early 1700s.

Currently, the oldest reference to a putter or “putting club” as it was termed is found in a letter dated 1690 (Chronicles of Golf p146). Consequently, we know putters were in use by that time. That same letter refers to clubs being stamped with the initials “G.M....as the tradesman’s proper signe for himselfe.”

This left-handed putter, stamped “H.G.” on the crown, possesses a number of features that date this club to the early 1700s, if not a little before. Chief among these features that include an extremely large head, thick neck, protruding lead, and nailed listing grip is the slight splay toe. It is not nearly as prominent as the splay toes on the Troon clubs or the Duke of York’s club discussed earlier, and it is not readily apparent when viewing the top of the head due to the wear along the edge of the crown. But the flat toe is there, visible on the end of the toe right around the corner of the end of the face as shown in the two images below. The fact that it is shorter and less prominent shows that the splay was on its way out when this club was made.

The dramatic splay toes on the Troon woods did not simply disappear from the world of clubmaking overnight. Instead, the splay was gradually reduced until the round toes took over. You can see this evolution occurring with the Duke of York’s club (which is not as old as the Troon clubs) having a less pointed toe than the Troon clubs, and here this putter (which is not as old as the Duke of York club) has an even less pointed toe than the Duke of York’s club.

In the two-putter image above, we again see the evolution of wood head clubs during the feather ball era. Like spoon and driver clubheads, putter heads slowly evolved from large to small, splay toe to round toe, and thicker neck to thinner neck—from being made with big pieces of wood to smaller and smaller pieces of wood.

Putter Evolution in Seven Clubs

The image above shows the general evolution of the putter from roughly 1750 on the left to 1880 on the right. Club evolution took time, and this image shows the relative time it took for clubs to evolve in their size across approximately 130 years. From left to right, the clubs are as follows:

1. Circa 1750 unmarked putter. This is an important club. It has the largest head, thickest neck, and deepest face of the group.⁷ Compared to the c1850 Philp in the center, it’s dramatically larger.
2. This replica 1780 Cossar putter features a slightly smaller head but maintains approximately the same neck thickness as the c.1750 putter. This replica was made to match the dimensions of the Cossar putter on display at the James River CC in Newport News, Virginia, and it does. I have checked the dimensions on both. However, it does not accurately capture the shape of its toe. The replica appears to have a splay toe. The genuine club has a beautifully rounded toe and looks more like the club on the left, just not quite as big.
3. Circa 1800 McEwan Putter with early McEwan stamp. Compared to the Cossar, this McEwan has a slightly smaller head and thinner neck but the neck is a little more elongated.
4. This circa 1840s Hugh Philp putter is significantly smaller than the c1800 McEwan putter and has a thinner neck./li>
5. Circa 1850s McEwan Putter.  This putter is more refined with a much smaller head and thinner neck when compared to the c.1800 McEwan putter. It is much like the Philp putter next to it as they are close in age.
6. This c. 1865 Alexander Grieg putter has a slightly but distinctly larger head than the McEwan and Philp putters preceding it.
7. To the far right above, this c.1880 Tom Morris putter has an even larger head and neck than the Grieg.

“In 1784 Dr Spens presented an ancient bow and a pair of arrows, [italics mine] to be shot for on seven successive Saturdays-ten ends each day—to be gained by the highest aggregate of points at the end of the seven weeks. Another member also presented a bow and pair of Ghent arrows to be shot for. But one of the most valuable and interesting prizes which the Company have ever shot for was brought under their notice during this year. At the dinner after the competition for the Edinburgh Arrow, Mr. Grieve, the Lord Provost of the city, and Mr. Alexander, the Provost of Peebles, who were guests on the occasion, were both admitted members of the Royal Company without payment of fees. The latter gentleman brought with him a silver arrow belonging to the town of which he was chief magistrate, and which bore medals dated so long ago as 1661. The Council, it is stated, ‘desirous that so ancient a prize should be revived and shot for annually [italics mine], signified their wishes that Provost Alexander to mention their inclinations to his brethren of the Town-council of Peebles with regard thereto, and inform [the Council] of their resolutions upon the matter.’ Meanwhile the arrow was left in the hands of the Treasurer of the Company; and the wishes of the Council, as we shall see, were afterwards complied with.”

Again, many of the Honorable Company of Edinburgh Golfers were members of the Royal Company of Edinburgh Archers.  As Paul documented, on at least one occasion during the 1700s they found competing for an antique bow and 2 arrows to be a worthy prize.  Furthermore, in 1784, already competing for an arrow made back in 1603 and another made in 1709, they also valued the age of “so ancient a prize” as a 123-year-old silver trophy arrow and they wanted to compete for it. As Paul goes on to report, the ancient Peebles arrow was revived and then shot for annually by the Royal Company.

Given the desirability of antique bows and arrows and antique silver arrow trophies to the Royal Company of Edinburgh Archers during the 18th century—and the fact that so many of the Royal Company of Archers were also members of the Honorable Company of Edinburgh Golfers—it is eminently conceivable that the Honorable Company would want a silver club modeled to a past 17th-century design. Actually, it is not just conceivable, that is precisely what happened.

To demonstrate that 18th-century golfers wanted their respective trophies to embrace the antiquity of their sport, much like the silver arrow trophies they were competing for, six of the oldest silver clubs will be reviewed. Unfortunately, nothing was recorded to document the models the silversmiths used for the various silver clubs they made in the 18th century. However, like genuine clubs, sterling silver clubs lined up in a row tell a story, albeit with a completely different spin. Unlike genuine clubs, silver clubs were made by silversmiths to serve as perpetual trophies. They were not made by clubmakers for golfers to use.

Six Antique Silver Clubs: Beautiful Trophies, Poor Benchmarks

The 1840 club, however, has a larger and more prominent splay toe!? This is the opposite of what occurred on actual clubs. Splay toes were gradually made smaller over time before dissapearing altogether

Clearly, the silversmith of the 1840 club replicated a completely different clubhead design than that of the 1754 club. The toe on the club he copied, however, which in 1840 (and for well over a century before) would have had a round toe, was replaced with a splay toe. Just by changing the toe from round to angled, the two clubs are tied together and look really old, like the Troon clubs which also have a splay toe.

Above, these six silver trophy clubs are arranged from the oldest on the left to the newest on the right.

1. 1744 Honorable Company of Edinburgh Golfers silver trophy as shown inThe Golf Book of East Lothian, Rev. John Kerr, 1896 p43.
2. 1754 R&A silver trophy as shown in Golf: History & Tradition 1500-1945, David Stirk, 1998 p49.
3. 1766 Royal Blackheath Golf Club silver trophy as shown in 400 Years of the Blackheath Golfer, Neil Scaife, 2008 p25.
4. 1786 Glasgow Golf Club silver trophy as shown in The Oldest Clubs, Robert Gowland, 2011 p188
5. 1824 Royal Perth Golf Club silver trophy. Image taken by the author.
6. 1840 R&A silver trophy as shown in Golf: History & Tradition 1500-1945, David Stirk, 1998 p49.

As shown above, these clubheads are not perfectly accurate in their comparative lengths and widths one to the next, other than the two R&A clubs which were shot in one image. However, their head shapes and proportions are accurate. Consequently, it can be seen that none of these clubheads match—none of these clubheads is a copy of one of the others. Yet, they all have a splay toe. The largest splay is on the 1840 R&A club. The most pointed splay toe is on the 1824 Royal Perth club; the smallest splay is on the 1766 Blackheath club. This is the opposite of the evolution of actual clubs, where the oldest clubs have the most prominent splay toes.

In short, the chronological arrangement of these six clubs based on the date of their creation does not make any sense if these are true and complete copies of genuine clubs. They do not match the evolution of the splay in genuine clubs as shown earlier, where the splay toe was reduced and transformed into the round toe. If these silver clubheads had round toes, as I will now show, then their order fits the evolution of the long nose except club 5, the 1824 silver trophy, which is clearly modeled after a club made upwards of a hundred years earlier.

To better understand what is going on with these silver clubs, that they were all made after the splay toe had been left behind, five of them will be presented individually.

Artistic License & Muirfields 1744 Silver Club

Another point: What looks like gold protruding out of the back of the Perth clubhead is the reflection of the cabinet wood on what is a protruding silver backweight. Protruding backweights are found on a variety of old woods from the 1700s and earlier—but not on the 1744 silver club.

Note that the 1744 silver club in the two images shown earlier is a duplicate of the genuine article. This copy was made in the early 2000s under the direction of Alexander Kirkwood & Son, silversmiths in Edinburgh since 1826. Kirkwood was hired, at great expense, to produce a replica of the 1744 club. According to David Kirkwood, principal of the firm at the time, in order to duplicate the actual club, meticulous measurements were taken as well as photographs of the clubhead from all angles. The next step was constructing a duplicate head from wood, to assist in producing an exact silver replica. I have no question that the silversmiths involved did their work with precision. Given that my access to the actual club is zero, this replica is a valid stand-in for the original silver trophy club. The two are virtually identical twins. Hence the abnormalities in the shape of the genuine silver clubhead when compared to the clubheads made in the mid 1700s and earlier are clear.

Replacing Round Toes with Splay Toes

Above left is the silver club from 1823 next to the c.1735 spoon shown earlier. Other than their toes, these two clubheads share the same basic head shape including the bevel given to the crown and back of the head. They both have a protruding backweight. To my eyes, when the silversmith made the 1824 club, he used an approximately 75 to 100-year-old club as a model to help his finished silver trophy look old. To make it look ancient, he changed the round toe of the model to a splay toe on the trophy.

There is no better way to make a long-nose club look ancient than to include a splay toe, pure and simple. By changing just that one element—a round toe into a splay toe—any silversmith could make any silver trophy club look much older, garner more attention, and pay homage to the antiquity of the game far more than the club that served as the model—as shown above and by the two clubs that follow.

Above left is the 1787 Glasgow Golf Club’s silver trophy spoon next to the 1770s McEwan spoon shown earlier.  Other than their toes, these two clubheads share the same basic head shape and look like they are brothers. Again, the silversmith changed out the round toe on his wooden model for a splay toe on this silver trophy.

On the left is the R&A silver trophy first awarded in 1840. On the right is a Hugh Philp spoon that recently sold in a Jeff Ellis golf auction as circa 1840. Despite the shadowing on the back of the silver club, the two clubs clearly share distinctly similar head shapes other than their toes. The two are not identical, but if the round toe on the Philp was remade as a splay toe when crafting a trophy, the finished product would look very much like the R&A’s 1840 trophy. The point being, I do not believe the splay on the silver club was on the wooden club the silversmith used as a model. It would make sense for the silversmith to use a Philp club as his initial model. Hugh Philp was the highly esteemed clubmaker to the R&A between 1819 and his death in 1856.

Above left is the R&A’s 1754 silver club next to a club stamped “AD,” the initials of Andrew Dickson who died in 1753. Other than the treatment given to their toes, these two clubheads share very similar shapes. Again, the silversmith changed out the round toe on his wooden model for a splay toe on this silver trophy.

While the Royal Burgess round toe silver club of 1815 (which I did not show in this report) is in all respects modeled entirely after a club contemporary with its age, as are some of the additional round toe silver clubs made after 1815, it is clear that the six silver trophy clubs shown in this report were all made to provide the effect of great age.

Given that during the 1700s the Royal Company of Archers in Edinburgh found competing for an actual antique bow and two arrows to be a worthy prize, that they placed high value on a recently uncovered “ancient” 123-year old Silver Arrow—and that so many of the members of the Honorable Company of Edinburgh Golfers were also members of the Royal Company of Archers—it is only common sense that the Honorable Company would want their golf trophy to present an air of age, like the 1603 and 1707 Silver Arrow trophies they had long vied for at the Royal Company. Such a trophy would reflect golf’s royal and ancient heritage and be more impressive than a modern-looking club made from silver.

The fact that golf was played by kings as far back as King James IV of Scotland (1473-1513) had long been celebrated. King James IV is recorded as having played golf at the Royal Links of Leith in Edinburgh. He was said to have purchased golf clubs and balls from a local bowmaker in 1503. Between 1502 and 1506, several entries by the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland record expenditures in connection with the King’s golfing activities. His enjoyment of the game influenced his successors to enjoy the game as well, successors such as Mary Queen of Scots (1542-1587), King James VI (1567-1625), King Charles I (1600-1649), King Charles II (1630-1685), King James VII (reign 1685-1688), and Queen Anne (1665-1714), the last monarch of the Stuart Dynasty and first monarch of Great Britain.

There is no question that Scottish golfers in the 1700s and later looked back on the history of the game and its royal participants with great pride, as well worth embracing. In 1834, to further connect to and emphasize golf’s royal and ancient heritage, the Society of St. Andrews Golfers (who played for the 1754 and 1840 silver clubs shown earlier) received permission from the British Monarch to change their name to the “Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews.”

The glaring problem with accepting the oldest silver clubs as a definitive measure for dating early golf clubs is the fact that silver clubs are not golf clubs. They are trophies. They are trophies modelled after golf clubs and we do not know how much artistic license was taken. As shown earlier, sometimes it was a lot. Consequently, in most instances dating ancient clubs based on silver trophy clubs does not work.

Art Work

Dating clubs based on the clubs shown in old artwork also does not work for two simple reasons. First, we do not know what the actual club actually looked like. We only see what the artist painted be it reasonably accurate or artistic. Second, when a club in a painting/print does appear to be spot on, it does not tell us when the club was made, only that it was used as a prop in the picture on the date the print or painting was executed.

A case in point is the Neilson long-nose putter on display at the Royal Sidney Golf Club and shown below left. In addition to the Neilson maker’s stamp, it bears the “Allan” stamp of a later owner, the famed golfer and feather-ball maker Allan Robertson. Neilson died in 1787. Robertson died 70 years later in 1857. This putter was made during the lifetime of Neilson and used by Robertson at some point during his lifetime. That’s a usage span of approximately 70 years, and for a wooden club which is not as durable as an iron club.

The Robert Forgan “pre-Prince of Wales plume” putter shown below right further demonstrates the challenge of dating a club in a painting. This putter was made between 1856 and 1863. As a small prop in an old painting, neither the Forgan or the Neilson would be readily identifiable despite their major age difference.

Final Provisos

Everything in this report is based on how I see the world today. I continue to learn and my knowledge continues to grow.

Evolution took time. By noting the differences in the size of the neck and the wood used to make clubheads from different identified eras, one can better gauge the time it took for size to evolve from one point to another. It is important to remember that play clubs will have thinner heads and necks than spoons and putters made during the same era. The amount of wood used to make a long spoon can be slightly less than what was used to make a short spoon or baffy spoon, which typically have slight wider heads from front to back and deeper faces to accommodate the additional loft given to the face. Any differences in the neck will typically be small, and that’s if there are any differences. Suffice it to say there is a range in head and neck size as found on the different clubs made during the same era, be it a putter, play club, or spoon. However, the further apart two long-nose clubs are in age, the greater their differences in neck thickness and head size.

Of course, two examples of the same club, be it a driver, putter, or spoon, made by the same maker during the same day, month or year can have two different dimensions, including slightly thicker or thinner necks. Again, there can be differences, but the differences are typically small unless the maker was in business for a long period of time. McEwan clubs, for example, cannot be reasonably dated based on their name only. Makers could also vary in their work. Philp made some exceptionally slender necks on some of his clubs. While the variations can be noticeable, they are still within the general realm of their era. Because play clubs will have thinner necks and use less wood than spoons and putters, it’s important to compare play clubs to play clubs, spoons to spoons, and putters to putters when dating clubs based on physical features.

There are many factors to consider when dating a club, not just its size or shape. For example, I recently saw an iron with hosel nicking that looked like it could date into the late 1700s, but the rest of the head was typical 1850s. So the club was made in the 1850s and the blacksmith went old school with the nicking for whatever reason. Everything about a club needs to be examined in order to accurately date it. There can be features on a club that look older but others that date newer. Again, every feature must be considered in the context of the entire club. (This is especially true in a world that now includes counterfeit everything.)

In this report, I tried to select clubs for the above group images that were representative of the typical clubs made during the eras in which they were formed. A few times I used replica clubs as a reference. In every instance they are valid examples for comparison, the clubheads of these particular replicas being closely modeled after the originals. The Cossar putter used in an earlier group shot is not readily available to anyone, so its replica was close enough to the real thing to demonstrate where it fits in the evolution of golf clubs. The copy of the Honorable Company’s 1744 silver club is also a valid stand-in for the genuine article. As previously mentioned, these two replicas closely match the size, shape, and dimensions of the original examples they were modeled after.

None of the images in this report have been manipulated. The clubs are as the images show, with none of them having been altered to adjust their shape for appearance purposes, etc.

Previously, I have shown only images of the actual Troon clubs, but I will conclude by showing a replica of one of the Troon spoons, complete with six stamps on the head. This entire clubhead was formed using templates made from tracings of a genuine Troon spoon. While its color and finish, etc. do not match the real thing, it’s head and neck size do—they are spot on.

As is obvious, there is a gargantuan difference in the size of the replica Troon club and the genuine c.1850s John Patrick play club to its left and the c.1840s McEwan play club to its right. It took centuries for the Troon clubs to evolve to these two clubs. This is made even more obvious by comparing the rate of change on clubs made during the late 1700s, when the earliest McEwan, Neilson, and Cossar clubs date, and clubs made at the end of the long-nose era. Simply review the prior group images of spoons and putters to see the rate of change that was typical across 100+ years.

A special thank you to those who helped provide some of the clubs and images it took to create this report and edit its pages.