I started bowling during the urethane days, so I remember just how the bowling world was knocked on its arse when the X-Caliber came out and revolutionized what we saw and expected out of a bowling ball. As such, like many, I was very curious to see what would happen when the first epoxy ball, the EPX-T1, hit the market. In the months leading up to its release, I heard all kinds of crazy stories, some from very well-respected sources, about the things that were happening during the epoxy tests. One of my favorites had Brian Voss throwing a flush pocket strike with his favorite AMF ball of the time, I think it was a Nighthawk, and then standing in the same spot with the Epoxy test ball and having it hook off the lane into the left gutter! But I digress. The point of this post is this: Most of us know that when the EPX-T1 hit the market, its impact fell drastically short of what many people wanted and expected. That's because people expected it, like the X-Caliber, to give us something we'd never seen before in ball reaction. Instead, what it actually did was give us a reaction we had seen many times over, just not for a very long time!

In my experience, the EPX-T1 is like a new take on urethane. It grabs the lane fairly early and just rolls smooth and easy all the way through the lane. Sure, it doesn't chew through super floods, and it doesn't offer 30 boards of hellish backend. What it does is remain smooth and consistent on just about any pattern you can throw at it. In essence, it's the perfect benchmark or "keep me in play" ball. I've used mine on house shots, the PBA animal patterns, the USBC Open Championships pattern and just about everything in between. What I've found really surprises me. The tougher the pattern, the more valuable this ball is because of its smooth-rolling nature and predictability. Now, when they're playing easy, I have much better pieces in my bag. However, when they're tough, this is a great option.

So in conclusion, I'm saying that C300 really made an excellent ball with the EPX-T1; they just didn't make the type of excellent ball they or the bowling public was hoping they'd made. I don't know how easy these are to find anymore. I've heard some really interesting stories about what happened to the unsold ones that were languishing around the country. Nevertheless, if you need a good benchmark or save my arse ball, don't overlook one of these if you're lucky enough to find one. I think it's another in a long line of misunderstood and underappreciated bowling balls! Either that, or I'm just full of crap.

You have to remember, that Columbia put out some far fetch claims and comments during their introduction to the Pro Shops.  I can remember Del Warren comments on how great this ball was how it would revelutionize the industry.

For whatever the reason, the ball did not live up to the hype and flopped which in turn started the downfall of Columbia.

I still have my original given to me at the seminar.  I take it out every now and then, I even baked it to turn the cover a bit darker (was suppose to make the ball react better).  I will say, based on  my experience and my game, the ball will work on certain conditions, but infortunately, that condition does not pop up that often, so it stays on the shelve in  my shop.

I never owed one but from what i saw it was a decent ball. Not nearly what they were describing. A lot of companies were doing that. I was at a brunswick seminar and they were describing the Raging Inferno as one of the most aggressive backend reactions in Brunswicks history. The T-1 had cover issues. Between cracking after drilling or during (as i was a witness to one crack while being drilled.) That scared a lot of people away. There also, i believe, were better, cheaper options in a particle ball. Brunsick had the proven activator cover and the Fuzes, storm had a couple of oiler particle pieces, ebonite was doing big things at that time with the big time, and people werent seeing the oil to effectively use the EPX-T1.