PING i59 Irons Review

50 Words or Less

The PING i59 irons have a striking blend of good looks, solid feel, and surprising forgiveness.

Introduction

When I heard that PING was introducing a new players iron, I expected a follow up to the i210 [full review HERE].  Then I heard the name, i59, and became confused.  Numbers in the 50s were previously reserved for the S Series irons, designed for Tour players.

Name and number confusion aside, the PING i59 is aimed at the same thing as many modern irons: players looks with more forgiveness.  I was eager to see how it stacked up against the leaders in this category.

Check out the new PING i525 irons HERE

Looks

In the playing position, the PING i59 is most similar to the PING iBlade [full review HERE].  The offset specs are nearly identical.  My eye tells me that the top line and face of the i59 are larger than the iBlade, but the difference is quite small.  Overall, the i59 is a compact players iron with a very tidy look at address.

In the bag, the i59 is one of the cleanest irons from PING or any other maker.  The branding is minimalist: a small “i59” near the toe and “Forged” near the heel.  The iron gets a decidedly modern look from the fact that the “cavity” does not have clear boundaries.

Sound & Feel

Striking a urethane-covered ball with the PING i59 irons produced a solid feel with just a touch of crispness.  The sound of impact is low-pitched and quiet.  On both these counts, the i59 is very reminiscent of most of the PING players irons that I’ve tested.

Feedback from the i59 is good, but it’s not going to slap you in the face.  The feel of impact loses its crispness on mishits.  If you’re paying attention, you’ll have no issue knowing where the ball met the face.

Performance

The PING i59 looks like a simple, forged iron.  It’s anything but.  There are three distinct pieces to this iron: a forged 1025 carbon steel body, a 17-4 stainless steel face, and an aluminum insert.  PING calls this “AlumiCore Technology” and its purpose is moving 30 grams from the center of the club to the perimeter.  Thanks to this construction, the i59 has the same MOI as the i210 despite being smaller.

To combat the dreaded flier, PING added MicroMax Milled Grooves to the i59.  This is PING’s name for the tighter spacing that crams an average of four more grooves on each iron.  The result is more predictable spin and slightly higher spin in the long irons.

In my testing, I found the i59 to be a solid improvement on the iBlade.  In addition to looking similar, both irons have the same stock lofts.  I found the i59 to be slightly longer on average thanks to the improved forgiveness.  Because of the fairly traditional lofts, the i59 produces ample spin to hold greens and shape shots.

As is their custom, PING offers a load of stock shaft options for the i59 irons.  In addition to PING’s Alta and AWT shafts, you can get Tour-style shafts from Project X, True Temper, Nippon, and KBS.  Players seeking something lighter are offered the UST Recoil and True Temper Elevate.

Conclusion

The PING i59 irons deliver exactly what they promise: increased forgiveness in a players package.  Whether you’re coming from the iBlade looking for more forgiveness or from the i210 seeking a smaller head, you won’t be disappointed.  These irons are not going to overwhelm with distance, but for the good or improving ball striker, the balance of looks and consistency is impressive.

Visit PING HERE

PING i59 Irons Price & Specs

Matt Saternus
Latest posts by Matt Saternus (see all)

21 Comments

  1. Nice review. Going to be a tough sell at that price. Others out there in this iron category that can do what these do for less. Unless your a Ping affectionato, don’t think it’s going to be a big seller

  2. Thomas Calder

    If you had to choose between the I59 and Blueprint what would you select? I ended up staying with my Blueprints.

    • Matt Saternus

      Thomas,

      It depends what you want. Obviously the i59 is a lot more forgiving, the Blueprint is more visually appealing to the player with traditional tastes.

      As I discussed with Matt Meeker here: https://pluggedingolf.com/podcast-episode-136-when-to-replace-your-clubs/
      a new club has to be a lot better than my current one for me to switch. My Blueprints are already built to my spec, and I like them a lot, so I’m keeping them. If I didn’t have any irons and was starting from scratch, I might be smart and take the forgiveness of the i59.

      -Matt

  3. I must have missed the part of the review where he said the price was ridiculous.

  4. I like the way the performance technology is built-in to such a simple, clean looking iron. One function that is always of high importance to me is the way a club glides or diggs through turf. There’s no mention of this. Why is this important? Because the club is still in contact with the ball as it makes it’s way thru the dirt. It’s important that there’s as little resistance as possible and the club holds it’s intended path thru the ball. One can only determine the quality of this function by test hitting the club. Beauty is always only skin deep.

    • I have the i525’s with my 4,5 and 6 iron. I have i59’s with my 7,8,9 and wedge. The i59’s are more accurate and their interaction with the turf is very good. They don’t have the distance the i525’s have but from 150 yards in they are a better club for me.

  5. Purchased Ping Blueprint irons 18 months ago. Order a spec defined 7 iron. Liked it, ordered remaining irons to specs. My swing coach asked me specs during a lesson. He took irons and specs them..told me not only were they not specs but all were different. Called Ping and was told to send them.back. I declined and the rep offered to sent me a Ping hat. Ordered a i59 7 iron to specs. Iron came in 3/8 inch too long…sent it back and ordered p790s. Here in a week and love them.

  6. Sr YV player

    More thank 20 years I bough my new Ping ISTK iron set ($800). Let me tell you, I am very glad with it. I prefer to continue playing with my old good ping set using the best golf balls

  7. May I recommend a review of the PXG 0211 ST irons. Feel like they fall in the same category, and they are currently an absolute bargain for a blade/players iron.

    • Yeah they’re pretty cheap right now, just looked last night. I think they look great but I just got fitted for a set of 0211 dc2s, and anyone looking to get a set of those should jump on that now. Even cheaper than what I paid.

  8. Crazy price, but great looking clubs. I’m not a huge fan of pings but I like these.
    The price is a killer. But sometimes you get what you pay for.

  9. I’ve been a Ping guy for decades. These irons are beautiful! That said, I’m going to have to give blood a couple times to finish paying Santa’s bills before I can consider $1,800 ish for new sticks.

  10. I’ve hit the 7i on several occasions from a bay to the outside range and really like these irons. I think the Arccos at the top take off a half-inch, so if you don’t use Arccos, ask Ping about shaft length without it. But the i59 look great, feel excellent and launch consistently – you get more consistent yardage than a hollow body, in general. Looking forward to more testing. As to price, the cost of steel has increased 4X in the last several years – so it’s not entirely on Ping – we need more steel suppliers.

  11. How would you rate vs srixon x7.
    Forgiveness etc..

  12. Matt LaChance

    I play to a 8.5 handicap blah blah, played the I 500 before. These irons our pure. The constancy is incredible. I am 61 I have played them all but the this is the best when you hit a pure shot

  13. Ian Perry

    How would you compare the workability of this iron vs the i210

  14. Yes No Wheel

    I’m glad I found this blog post. I’ve been looking for a Ping i59 iron for a while now. I’m glad I found this blog post.

  15. Daniel Snyder

    Would you go Wilson staff cb or ping i59?

    • Matt Saternus

      Daniel,

      I would always recommend a fitting, but I think the i59 is a little more forgiving.

      Best,

      Matt

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *