Introduction
In my previous two Phantom reviews, the 9.2R and Phantom 7, I mentioned that I wanted to try the jet neck versions of both heads.
This time, I got the chance with the Phantom 5.5.
On paper, it looked promising. The jet neck should, in theory, suit my stroke better than some of the other Phantom models I’ve tested recently. That made this one particularly interesting.
First Impressions
Behind the ball, I’m not sure I like this head shape.
The way the fangs narrow towards the back gives it something of a horseshoe look, or almost like the pincers on a crab. The perimeter of the head is fine; it’s the internal shape of the fangs that I struggle with. Overall, I found it visually confusing, and I much preferred the cleaner, straighter lines of the Phantom 7. There’s just too much going on behind the face here for me.
That is clearly a personal reaction, though, because this is a very popular putter on tour. Plenty of top professionals use it (including Justin Rose and Russell Henley), so it obviously suits some players far better than it suited me. Justin Thomas is the player I most associate with this model, but it appears he recently switched back to a blade.
This putter was fitted with the standard grey Full Contact pistol grip, which I find comfortable and a good overall size.
Specification (as tested)
Total weight: 575g
Head weight: undeclared
Swing weight: E
Length: 34”
Loft: 3° (+/-1°)
Lie: 70° (+/-2°)
Toe Hang: Face-balanced
Grip: Standard grey full contact pistol
There is a decent amount of fine-tuning available for loft and lie, and length can also be specified in 0.5” increments from 33” to 35”.
Protocol Snapshot (How I Tested It)
Surface: The very nice practice green at the St Andrews Golf Academy.
Conditions: A lovely April afternoon with warm sunshine and a gentle breeze. Just nice enough for short sleeves.
Make Test: 6 putts x 3 reps from 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 ft
Lag Test: 40 ft to 3 ft - uphill and downhill - run once
Start Line: Gate drill (two tees at 18 inches ahead, gate only just wider than a ball)
Benchmark: SeeMore Nashville mFGP
Full testing framework: HERE
How Did It Perform?
Notes
Well, that was a shock.
On paper, the Phantom 5.5 looked like a strong fit for me, but the performance on the green never backed that up. Broadie would say the numbers were around what you might expect from a scratch player, and in that sense, there is no great disaster here.
But the SeeMore was so much better.
I found the fangs distracting from the start, and that fed into a lack of confidence in both my aim and my stroke. I really wanted to like this one and was genuinely excited to test it, which probably made the outcome even more surprising.
Pros and Cons
Looks (neutral): On the shelf, this is a very attractive putter. The quality is obvious and it feels every bit like a premium product. For me, though, the problem started once it was behind the ball. That is a personal thing rather than a universal criticism, but looks matter if they affect how confidently you aim and stroke the putter.
Grip (+ve): The standard grey Full Contact grip is a classic Scotty Cameron shape and felt comfortable straight away. Good size, good feel, no complaints.
Headcover (-ve): This is becoming a familiar complaint in my Scotty Cameron reviews. At this price point, I expect something better, especially a more secure and reliable closure.
Aim/Alignment (-ve): I tried to focus mainly on the leading edge and top line, but the fangs kept drawing my eye. For me, the shape was visually noisy, and that made it harder to aim with confidence.
Feel and Sound (neutral): Like the other new Phantoms with the full-face insert, I prefer the feel of the older fully milled faces. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not unpleasant, it just feels and sounds a little hollow to me. That said, I still found it considerably better than the smaller insert models.
Pace Control (+ve): Despite not loving the sound or feel, pace control was reasonably solid. My misses felt more related to aim than distance.
Performance Overall (-ve): Of the four Phantom models I’ve tested recently, this was the worst performer for me. That came as a real surprise because I expected it to do much better. Relative to a scratch benchmark, it is not a disaster. Relative to my SeeMore and to what I want from a putter, it was disappointing.
Price (neutral): At £449, this sits firmly in premium territory, although that is no longer unusual in the putter market. The putter itself looks and feels like a high-quality item. As with the other Phantoms, the weak point is the headcover.
Conclusion
The Scotty Cameron Phantom 5.5 surprised me, and not in a good way.
Everything about the spec sheet suggested that I should get on well with it.
But I didn’t.
Fit verdict (for me)
Would I game it tomorrow? No, I’m still slightly in shock.
What would I change? The fangs.
What have I learned? Just because a putter looks like a good fit on paper does not mean it will work once you get it on grass.
Have you tried any of the new Phantom putters from Scotty Cameron? I’d love to hear what you thought, and whether you ended up buying one.
This Phantom 5.5 didn’t work for me. That was both a surprise and a disappointment, but it also reinforced the importance of testing putters with an open mind. Fit is about much more than a spec sheet.
You can find the other Phantom reviews through the link below, and there is still one more to come in the shape of the Phantom 5 OC. Can zero-torque do better than its more conventional stablemate?
If you found this review useful, hitting the like button helps more people find it.
If you value independent testing and would like new reviews sent directly to your inbox, then please subscribe. It’s free, and you can cancel at any time.
Links:
Full testing framework: here
All my other putter reviews: here