Wilson Staff Model R (Raw) Golf Ball
Golf Balls

Wilson Staff Model R (Raw) Golf Ball

Wilson Staff Model R (Raw) Golf Ball

Wilson Staff Model R Golf Ball – Key Takeaways

  • Wilson’s Staff Model R is a completely raw/unfinished golf ball.
  • It’s expected to launch lower and spin more than the standard Staff Model ball.
  • Retail price is $44.99 per dozen.

We may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site.

Between off-center cores, concentricity issues and inconsistencies with diameter, weight and compression, MyGolfSpy’s Ball Lab has given you plenty to worry about with your golf balls. With the release of the new Wilson Staff Model R, the company is giving you one more.

Paint.

the sidestamp on the Wilson Staff Model R golf ball

About the Wilson Staff Model R

The Staff Model R golf ball is an idea that started under Wilson’s experimental labs initiative. The R stands for raw and, much as it does in the wedge space, raw refers to the fact that the ball is completely unfinished. It lacks both paint and a clear-coat protective layer.

For those of you unfamiliar with the golf ball manufacturing process, understand that Wilson’s new approach is unusual, to say the least.

The typical process for finishing urethane golf balls goes something like this:

The ball is painted (usually white). It’s then stamped (logos, player numbers, geometric patterns, etc.), and, finally, a protective clear coat is applied to give the ball a glossy look and protect against scratches and scuffing.

It’s worth pointing out that not every manufacturer paints all of its golf balls. The urethane Bridgestone uses in its Tour B series, for example, isn’t painted but the company does apply a clear-coat finish.

With the Wilson Staff Model R, Wilson skips steps 1 and 3 entirely. Seams are polished, the raw balls are stamped, boxed and (Shimmy Shimmy Ya) shipped to retailers.

the logo and player number on the Wilson Staff Model R golf ball

The Problem With Paint

At this point, you may be asking yourself, “Why is paint bad?”.

Fair question.

Dimples drive the aerodynamics of a golf ball. Paint coats the dimples. Therefore, paint has the potential to impact and even disrupt the aerodynamic performance of the golf ball.

It should go without saying but every golf ball manufacturer is aware of this and so every manufacturer accounts for the thickness of the paint layers when it designs dimples. That said, as with all things golf ball, perfection is not easily achieved. Sometimes mistakes happen. Sometimes big mistakes happen.

On those occasions when paint isn’t applied to the prescribed thickness and, especially when it isn’t applied evenly, the ball isn’t going to fly as intended. When paint isn’t perfect, it can be the difference between hitting or missing the green on a 200-yard shot. When paint is poor, it can be the difference between dry land and the Pacific Ocean on #4 at Torrey Pines South.

a photo of the core of the Wilson Staff Model R golf ball

Wilson Staff Model R Versus the Competition

As you would expect, Wilson’s data suggests that its paintless Staff Model R provides tighter dispersion than competitors’ (and presumably, its own) painted offerings.

The first of the two caveats is that the home team always wins in these types of comparisons so a favorable result for Wilson is to be expected regardless.

The second is that for its testing, Wilson chose the worst of what it pulled from competitors’ boxes so, while better is still better, the typical results might not skew as heavily in favor of the raw ball.

It’s also worth mentioning that Wilson’s tests showed some of its competitors to be significantly better than others. Without being specific, it’s a case of where you can round up the usual suspects and have a good sense of how things shake out with respect to paint quality.

Wilson Staff Model R Design and Manufacturing

Notwithstanding the lack of paint, the Wilson Staff Model R golf ball is the same as the current white Staff Model. It’s a Wilson-designed golf ball (including the dimple pattern) manufactured by Foremost in Taiwan.

As we’ve mentioned, Foremost is one of the leading factories in Asia. Generally speaking, the quality of the products we test out of Foremost falls within the average and, occasionally, the above range for our Ball Lab metrics. That said, on more than one occasion we’ve encountered a run of bad balls from the factory. Several in a dozen over the USGA’s weight limit and unacceptable compression range within a single box being the most notable problems.

For its part, Wilson has employees working inside Foremost to, in part, oversee the quality of the product. That’s also a relatively common story among brands who do a high volume through Foremost (and other factories). We’ll have a better sense of to what degree those efforts are successful after we’ve run the Staff Model R through our Ball Lab.

For now, we can tell you that the compression is 98. That puts it solidly in the firm category alongside balls like the Titleist Pro V1x, RZN HS-Tour, and the TaylorMade TP5x.

Wilson Staff Model R Performance

The lack of paint is not without performance implications. Despite being fundamentally the same as the standard Staff Model, you can expect the Staff Model R to perform a bit differently. With that in mind, Wilson is positioning the Staff Model R as a performance alternative to the standard model, not just a cosmetic one.

The lack of finish creates a bit more friction between ball and club throughout the bag. Because of that, the Staff Model R can be expected to launch lower and produce more spin throughout the bag.

The upside is you’re going to get more stopping power on approach shots and greenside play. The downside is you’re going to generate more spin off the driver, which typically means shorter drives that potentially stray a bit further offline.

What About Durability?

The durability chapter of our Wilson Staff Model R story is interesting. To some degree, paint and clear coat exists to protect the ball but neither is essential to the design of a golf ball.

When a ball gets a minor scuff or scrape, it’s typically in the paint layers. Urethane is more durable than paint so Wilson contends the Staff Model R will prove more resilient to the minor damage that most golfers associate with durability.

That doesn’t necessarily mean golfers are going to love the way the ball wears over the course of the round. Bottom line: don’t expect the Staff Model R to look as good as new for more than a hole or few.

Without the protective layers, numbers and logos are likely going to wear and stains from grass and dirt are going to impregnate the urethane. Whether that means the ball looks unpleasantly dirty or, as Wilson suggests, will develop a cool patina, is entirely golfer dependent.

On Course with the Wilson Staff Model R

Using the Wilson Staff R over the course of a round, I was able to get some sense of both performance and durability.

First, whether you want to call it dirt or patina, that part of the story is absolutely real. The ball discolors relatively easily and while a good bit of the worst of it will come off in the ball washer, if you like your golf balls shiny, bright and white, the Staff R probably won’t be your favorite.

Despite no contact with trees, cart paths or anything other than normal ground conditions, I did observe some scuffing … bits of slightly shredded urethane on the surface. I also found a reasonably large strip of urethane in my grooves after a crisp wedge shot. Maybe it’s something, maybe it isn’t, but in two years of moving between Bridgestone’s Tour B X and Titleist’s Pro V1x Left Dash, I never had to clean any ball out of my grooves.

For what it’s worth, our John Barba, who also played the Staff Model R, found no cause for concern.

Interesting, but Not For Me

The performance piece is intriguing, though not in a way that works for me. I’m a high-spin guy, so any ball that can deliver on a promise of more spin throughout the bag isn’t going to ideal for me.

On wedge shots, in particular, the flight was a bit lower than what I typically see from my gamer. With that came appreciably more spin as well. Sucking back wedges – which is basically what happened with every clean wedge I hit – is something nearly every golfer loves to see. That part was fun.

Sucking back 7- and 8-irons, even if it’s only just a couple of feet, is less ideal. That happened and it was less fun.

The bottom line is that the Wilson Staff Model R, anecdotally anyway, appears to live up to the lower-launch, higher-spin billing. Unfortunately, that also means it’s not a particularly good fit for me.

If you’re looking for more spin, however, the Staff R appears to be a legitimate option to deliver just that.

Staff Model R – Parting Thoughts

Fit issues and durability concerns aside, I find myself warming up to the idea of a raw golf ball. As a challenger brand dealing with competitors who are splashing color, painting lines, patterns and even fruit on their golf balls, Wilson’s path to differentiation in the market place is narrow. And, yet, here we are with Wilson occupying an entirely unique position in the ball space.

There’s no guarantee raw will succeed or even outlast its release cycle. It’s also true that Wilson’s Staff Model R is unique – and therefore compelling – only as long as its competitors allow it to be.

Everybody has the capability to not paint a golf ball.

For now, though, Wilson offers something in the ball space that nobody else does. Between brand loyalists and the curiosity factor, lack of paint may be just the thing to move the needle for Wilson (on a relative basis) in the Tour category.

Pricing and Availability

Retail price for the Wilson Staff Model R golf ball is $44.99.  Available now through Wilsongolf.com.

For more information, visit Wilsongolf.com.

For You

For You

News
Apr 22, 2024
Strength Training for Golfers: Building a Strong and Stable Core
Golf Balls
Apr 22, 2024
Callaway Supersoft Mother’s Day Bouquet
Golf Technology
Apr 21, 2024
Testers Wanted: Shot Scope V5
Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Steve S

      3 years ago

      It’s interesting enough to create conversation. There should be were WIlson uses this bit of buzz to do a BOGO or something to create an opportunity for people to try it. It seems this is where they always screw up. They tend to sit back and believe we are going to flock to your products just because you brought one to market. Give us a reason to try that goes beyond not painting a ball. Then if it works we feel good and if it doesn’t we don’t feel screwed over

      Reply

      David

      3 years ago

      Easier to use on the “Tour” than “us” because they would change balls every hole.

      Wilson needs a great “golf marketing” person. Not a great “marketing” person. The Proctor & Gamble approach won’t work. Staff Dynapower Irons is their Leadership. Living in the past? Perhaps, but competing 1-on-1 with Callaway/Taylor-Made/Titleist isn’t working. PXG will need to be careful they don’t fall into that trap as well. Be the best at something, not everything.

      Reply

      Art

      3 years ago

      Only float-tested a sleeve, which is all the rep gave me, but here’s what I observed: 2 balls had tier 2 weight distribution, the other ball tier 1. Why pay Titleist prices for less-than quality?

      Reply

      Tom Fullerton

      3 years ago

      Paintless or pointless?

      Reply

      Tim

      3 years ago

      Good job Wilson! The market is hard as it is full of monkeys who only follow high brands. If those guys were to evaluate balls “blindfolded”, they couldn’t separate anything among top half balls. I have been testing drivers at ranges where they have Trackman to show the shot data. There is practically no difference between the new top brand drivers fitted for me compared to my old one.

      Reply

      David Mahoney

      3 years ago

      I’ll try anything that will help accurate shots

      Reply

      Jebediah Lorenzo III

      3 years ago

      Wilson has 0 distribution and 0 marketing, they have less than 1% share in any category for a reason. They are trying to compete in the hardest markets to tap into. I don’t understand their business model

      Reply

      Ryan

      3 years ago

      The ball itself feels very tacky. Like when you pick up a new grip vs. a worn one you can immediately tell the difference. I’m curious to see try these out. Hopefully my rep will dump a couple my way and I can try them. I liked the feel and performance of the few staff models I got to try, so why not right?

      Reply

      scott

      3 years ago

      To boldly go where no ball manufacture has gone before. Next step is to have anyone in the top 25 on the PGA to use it in a tournament .
      In golf equipment world monkey see monkey buy , even if it doesn’t work for there game. .

      Reply

      Travis

      3 years ago

      I really think this is a cool concept. People are always complaining about same ole same ole from manufactures, but complain about something new like this? Id love to try them. Price is a little steep, ill probably pull the trigger on a dozen anyways, but an introductory BOGO deal would be cool. love seeing new stuff like this, especially from a company that isn’t the big 5.

      Reply

      Frank Lee

      3 years ago

      Curious how this ball will putt. With no paint on the would it not have more drag/friction on a the Green.

      Reply

      Steve C

      3 years ago

      This concept tends to confirm the problem with purchasing refinished golf balls. Certainly a refinisher that’s in business to make a quick dollar isn’t going to put much care or technology in repainting a golf ball.

      Reply

      Chris

      3 years ago

      I’ve actually done a head to head comparison of the Wilson Staff Model and the Staff Model R. I drew the same conclusions as the author. Now, the regular staff Model was good enough for me to switch from ProV1’s to the year’s Wilson ball. For me, (3-handicap) it had similar playing characteristics of the slightly older ProV1x models with higher launch and lower spin. I wish My Golf Spy would have included some playing or testing observations on their write-up on that ball in April. It really is a great ball.
      Exactly as the author writes, the R model spins the hell out of the ball. If that’s what you are looking for, then this is a great solution for a premium ball. Just not a good fit for me as I play towards spinning the ball too much with my irons. The regular painted Wilson Staff Model Golf Ball fits me perfectly.. Every now and then this year I’ve put a ProV1 into play and it also just spins too much for me.. The R version definitely is great around the greens though.. A firm golf ball with tons of greenside spin. $45/dozen is in range for the performance. Hell, my local course clubhouse is trying to sell logo ProV1s at $72/dozen.

      Reply

      Mike

      3 years ago

      While it’s always fun to think outside the box, I’m surprised Wilson actually expended R&D $$$ on something like this. A harder ball, with more spin, that scuffs more easily. Who exactly is the golfer they’re trying to market to? And for $45 a dozen? Right now, we find thousands of golf balls and if I had a dollar for every Wilson “tour level” ball we’ve found over the past year, I couldn’t buy a single pizza! Guys, stick with your core market, Duos and the two-piece distance balls.

      Reply

      DaveB

      3 years ago

      I’ll take another dozen Pro V1x, please.

      Reply

      Allan Crowder

      3 years ago

      Great comments overall and great article. I play Wilson C300 forged irons and really think Wilson did a great job with them.. Kudos for trying something out of the box but this reminds of their RAW FG tour V 6’s, I recoiled when I read about them ., This type of release hurts their brand and seems gimmicky..

      Reply

      Large chris

      3 years ago

      Again, I congratulate Wilson for some good original thinking, always got a soft spot for the brand.

      And missing out two manufacturing steps is going to lead to a nice cost saving for the consumer, let’s have a look……

      49.99 !!!! You kidding me ???

      Guess it doesn’t then. Hard pass.

      Reply

      David

      3 years ago

      Then it’s added profit…

      Reply

      dski93

      3 years ago

      I’d like one for my shelf – best core color combination so far IMO.

      Reply

      matt rieger

      3 years ago

      How does Bridgestone Tour b have a yellow ball but they dont use paint? If that yellow ball is painted how does it play differently then the non painted white?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      With Bridgestone’s yellow models, the urethane itself is dyed yellow. Still not painted.

      Reply

      Robert Westendorf

      3 years ago

      Bridgestone no longer sells the Tour B or BX in yellow. The Tour B RX and RXS do still come in yellow.. I’ve never heard a reason why they dropped it, and I’d like it back.

      Reply

      Kevin

      3 years ago

      Great write up, I look forward to trying them out! It looks like they are currently priced at $49.99 (after shipping) on Wilson.com. In my opinion, they need to get these into stores to have any chance of selling. Even then, Wilson is going to have a hard time due to the known competition in the tour ball space. I would be curious how the Staff-R balls compare to Srixon Z-Stars which are currently going for around $25 per dozen and performed well in MGS tests.

      Reply

      cody

      3 years ago

      Wilson out in left field staring at clouds again.. This is stupid…

      Reply

      Brock

      3 years ago

      Why? What’s wrong with trying something different? If there’s a legit gain and a market for something, go for it. Doesn’t mean it has to be for everyone.

      Reply

      vince zachetti

      3 years ago

      i love your articles and entire website,,,the last bunch of ball reviews are awesome. now this article really intrigues me, being an older guy and grew up playing balata’s and hitting wedges and mid irons that i can ‘one hop and stop’, my swing speed obviously has dropped significantly and the new balls, (pro v), at least for me i cant hit that shot anymore. i see the tour boys do it and i relive those balata days when i could also it that shot,,it was so much more fun,,lol. keep up the good work !

      Reply

      Whitey

      3 years ago

      I’m with you, in the early 2000’s I could make the prov 1 dance. On a 30 yard knockdown it would one hop and stop. Can’t make that happen anymore, Declining skill? Maybe, but the ball has changed significantly to accommodate the brute strength. prevalent now. I’d like to see the top 5 play a 2000 era pro v 1.

      Reply

      RT

      3 years ago

      I play Wilson equipment ,V2 irons hybrids,wedge and Wilson balls .
      I like my ball white and shiny so I’m not to keen on playing a ball that has stains and etc. But I do like the spin factor for wedges so I will try this ball and then decide if it’s a keeper or dump it !!! But The performance is the TRUE Test so if it’s an improvement that matches my game I would switch to this ball. .It’s great that Wilson is forging ahead with new ideas that tells me they want to get back to being the King of The Hill !!! Great to experiment to get ahead of the competition . I like that ..

      Reply

      David

      3 years ago

      I would think this would also be a cost-down benefit for the manufacturer. Less processing steps, plus no paint and clear-coat cost. If that is not passed onto the customer, it’s more profit for Wilson.

      Reply

      Jk

      3 years ago

      I have had some difficulty with Wilson Staff Duo in the past. For whatever reason, I have managed to crack six of them is the Model R ball more durable?

      Reply

      Brian Cass

      3 years ago

      I could live to be 187 and I will never (repeat never) pay 45 bucks for a Wilson golf ball. Their own staff guys don’t even play them (yes I know Woodland and Harrington get paid to play other balls but doesn’t matter, if the ball is soooo good, make a change right?). I might try the 3 piece duo but there’s really no need, so many solid 3 piece balls out there already in the $25-$35.00 zone that I’ve really liked. Snell MTB Black, Bridgestone E12 soft, TaylorMade Tour Performance and even yes GASP the 3 piece Top Flite Gamer.. Wilson has a real uphill climb in that price range. Maybe in Europe they will do well but in the USA market I just don’t see them selling enough of these to warrant production.

      Reply

      Barry Schwartz

      3 years ago

      I would be interested in knowing how much more spin this ball has compared to the painted Wilson Staff ball. If significant, it could open up an entirely new category that the other ball manufacturers can exploit.

      Reply

      JW

      3 years ago

      They’re thinking outside of the box, kudos for that. This product however will be an absolute bust.

      Reply

      Kevin

      3 years ago

      Is there any concern about playing this ball when it’s wet? I don’t believe urethane absorbs water, but I recall matte finish golf balls not performing as well in the wet as the shiny painted golf balls.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      We’ll have some wet/dry vs. data for you next week. It’s important to note that this isn’t a matte white ball like Vice and others have used in the past. It’s an unfinished ball, which isn’t the same.

      That said, I was a bit disappointed to discover that Wilson hadn’t done any specific testing in this area. All they could tell me is that it had been played in wet conditions and nobody had mentioned/provided any specific feedback about performance degredation.

      Reply

      Kevin

      3 years ago

      I was wondering as urethane can be quite smooth, but maybe not as slick as paint. I can picture you guys spritzing and hitting balls like Bryson now. Thanks and keep up the good work!

      Chris

      3 years ago

      I’m hoping you can also have some driver numbers as well. Specifically, I’d be curious about how much spin (if any) is increased by the R Model vs the regular Staff Model. Maybe even compare to ProV1x. and ProV1 for a baseline..

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    News
    Apr 22, 2024
    Strength Training for Golfers: Building a Strong and Stable Core
    Golf Balls
    Apr 22, 2024
    Callaway Supersoft Mother’s Day Bouquet
    Golf Technology
    Apr 21, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Shot Scope V5
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.