Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Jack Nicklaus Golden Bear Irons - need info please!

6 posts in this topic

Hi there.  I don't currently golf but am very interested in starting and am in the market for a new set of clubs.  I "inherited" a set of MacGregor Jack Nicklaus Golden Bear 2-9 Irons, Reg.088.  They are in excellent condition, the grips show little to no wear and, overall, they look like they have barely been used.  Being a woman, I'm assuming I should stick with a woman's set but I would love to use these as trading material or sell them to put towards a new set for me.  I have seen numbers all over the board online in terms of value but have not seen any in this pristine of condition.  Any thoughts on value for these or if there is any market for these?  I wanted some idea of what these are before I dealt with anyone directly.  Thanks much!


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

The MacGregor Nicklaus "Golden Bear" irons hit the market about 1986. Ralph Maltby, who analyzes playability (user-friendliness) of irons, ranks them as Classic. This means they were OK irons back when they were made, but are much harder to hit than most modern irons.

Early versions were a blade design with extra weight on the sole area, while the later MV model shows early perimeter-weighting (to make it easier to get the ball into the air).

On eBay, I see Golden Bear irons selling from $40 to $120. Online sales would be best - just see what people will pay.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The Golden Bear irons I remember were inexpensive clubs sold in department stores like K-Mart. They were forged blades and nothing special. If these are the type you have, they won't be worth much as a trade-in, no matter how good a condition they may be in. You would be lucky if they take them at all. Not bad clubs (I had a set once), You might as well play them until you are ready for a modern technology set.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • The tournaments I enter do not use my USGA handicap, it uses a handicap from the associations own summary of scores (I don't enter any scores, they do everything on their own).  My USGA handicap I use for only my own reflection.  I guess I never made that clear.
    • Go for it. But as it's fairly off topic here, please post in this thread:   If your proposal to improve 18-2 is to not allow marking/lifting/cleaning on the putting green… it doesn't really change 18-2 at all, because the ball can still move after being at rest, due to the player or other things. This thread is to propose changes to rule 18-2. Everyone gets to have their own opinion, but I've yet to see one that has changed my mind. I'm against making the standard of proof "virtual certainty" (particularly when your ball is on pine straw, or in the rough, or countless other situations beyond the putting green), but I'd be amenable to some sort of threshold around 75%, not that I have the faintest idea how to word it or apply that relatively evenly. That's incorrect. The weight of all evidence is considered and the most likely cause(s) identified. If the player was ten feet away and the wind didn't blow and the earth didn't shake or other things… the player would not be deemed at fault even without any "extenuating circumstance(s)." Your proposal is based on a misunderstanding of the current rule. DJ was deemed to have caused the ball to move, because of his actions very near to the ball in time and space. He caused his ball to move, the rules committee deemed. It wasn't simply the lack of "extenuating circumstances" that doomed DJ. It was what he did right near the ball and right around the time the ball moved. The absence of those "extenuating circumstances" and the presence of his own actions are what caused the rules committee to feel he surpassed the 50% threshold. The USGA and R&A apply this rule the same. I suggest you re-read 18-2/0.5 again. Particularly: @Gunther, 18-2 is not a case of "guilty unless proven innocent." I believe @Fourputt was suggesting the rule go back to the way it was a decade ago or so. I disagree with that (reverting to the older rule), @Fourputt. Yes, it was "cleaner" to apply, but it resulted in penalty strokes being assessed to players who did nothing wrong and did not, themselves, cause the ball to move. That's not worth the "cleanliness" IMO.
    • Sort of along these same lines for me.  I'm not at 2.5 but in the past year I've passed under 5.4 and 4.4, both of which are threshholds for qualifying tournaments I've always wanted to play.  As long as I can stay under those threshholds, and ideally keep going down (there is another qualifier available to me at 3.4, as well as at 2.4 and 1.4) then I'll be happy and keep entering those qualifiers.  But if I don't, then well, it's not a huge deal either.
    • Ugh. High heeled golf shoes. No thanks. 
    • Actually it looks like there are several local rules that allow dropping in a water hazard. EDIT:  Sorry, do these just mean a bunker and not any type of water hazard?  
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. billymo2
      (24 years old)
    2. bostonboy9416
      (16 years old)
    3. kpaulhus
      (29 years old)
  • Blog Entries