win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Inferno coverstock controversy?  (Read 3533 times)

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24521
Inferno coverstock controversy?
« on: February 15, 2004, 11:35:34 PM »
Having seen far too many disagreements over the makeup of the original Inferno's coverstock, I decided to write to Brunswick and let them give us the facts. To my query,
"Is this ball a pearl or a solid resin (or a combination)?"

Mr. Tom Tomaras, "Senior Trainer /Technical Engineer, Brunswick" sent this answer:

"it has Black Pearl and Orange Pearl mixed ... "

--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."



Edited on 2/17/2004 1:20 PM
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

 

WiscBowler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2004, 02:40:50 PM »
That's a brilliant answer...

TECH SUPPORT

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 982
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2004, 02:55:10 PM »
Ok so its a combination. Solid and a pearl. I dont care what its made out of because I like the ball regardless.
--------------------
Yesterday is a cancelled check; Tomorrow is a promissory note; Today is the only cash you have--- So spend it wisely..

TTforshort

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2053
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2004, 05:57:15 PM »
...so back to the original question. Is it a solid, pearl or combination?

My Inferno has predominately black and orange. So if they are both pearl,there is very little solid, reactive resin in the cover.

I would call it a pearl with a little solid.

....back to the original question....

TT
--------------------
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Edited on 2/16/2004 6:56 PM
ďA word to the wise ainít necessary ó itís the stupid ones that need the advice.Ē

DON DRAPER

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5576
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2004, 10:50:14 PM »
for years i've noticed that brunswicks pearl balls don't have the glittery specks and flecks that other companies balls have. technicaly these are mica chips of the dust variety. yet, you can have a pearl ball without mica. brunswick tells me the inferno is a pearl ball----so be it. i call the inferno "great".

HamPster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5584
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2004, 10:55:09 PM »
Lol, yeah Clemson.  Black pearl and Orange pearl would not make a solid/pearl . . .
--------------------
The weekly signature series, by Hamster, presenting a mini-series of quotes from Shrek!

"Oh I'll find those stairs, I whip they butt too.  They won't know which way they going.  Give me a step right here and now, I'll step all over it, kick it to the curb.  I am the stair masta, I've masta'd the stairs."

BowlersAidProShop-Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2004, 12:12:56 AM »
My understanding is that the components used for the Brunswick Covers are not susceptible to attributes found in other companies "pearlization".  The R&D from Brunswick I'm guessing is basically saying pearl or not, the cover is going to read the same. Pearlizing their reactive or particle shells doesnt affect the characteristics of the balls roll. So, it may very well be a pearl, just in a different sense of the word when comparing it to other products on the market.  Then again, I could just have no clue what I'm talking about :0

TWOHAND834

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4054
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2004, 12:47:01 AM »
The Inferno IS a PEARL.  The Ultimate Inferno is just the SOLID version of the original.  Why is there confusion on this may I ask?
--------------------
If anyone out there is worried about the scores being too high, try duckpin!!
Steven Vance
Former Pro Shop Operator
Former Classic Products Assistant Manager

agroves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4938
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2004, 12:59:48 AM »
I believe the Inferno to be a pearl.  The ultimate is a solid.  

Andrew
--------------------
FUFU
Spray and Pray
Rotogrip Brand Ambassador Staff

Round Holes No Grips Proshop at Lilac Lanes

FACEBOOK:  https://www.facebook.com/Round-Holes-No-Grips-Proshop-152619602077080/
YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSiq70MwEW0a1tli3w2P_Vw

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24521
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2004, 11:33:55 AM »
I am not sure from some of the comments I see here that you are reading the same 5 words that I am reading: "black pearl and orange pearl". In the English classes I attended, that is equivalent, no, identical to saying "black and orange pearl". So the two coverstock materials which the Brunswick advertising (webpage) says are "Fire and Smoke" are orange and black and they are both pearlized materials, "pearl". Nowhere does the word "solid" show up. The "combination" is a combination of two colors as opposed to a single color pearl.

I do not understand why some people need to put some kind of "spin", some kind alternative translation upon these words. Is it so hard to understand that this is a 100% Brunswick pearl?
--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."


Edited on 2/17/2004 12:30 PM
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Jeffrevs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11890
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2004, 11:42:59 AM »
I hadn't seen any ORIGINAL Inferno questions, it was the Raging that was the questionable one......and that is a particle pearl....but I don't recall seeing confusion on the original.......

However, the answer you got from Brunswick is ridiculous...because he didn't read your question!
--------------------
JEFF
Rebuilding my game one mid-500 series at a time !!

Edited on 2/17/2004 12:45 PM

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24521
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2004, 12:15:11 PM »
quote:
I hadn't seen any ORIGINAL Inferno questions, it was the Raging that was the questionable one......and that is a particle pearl....but I don't recall seeing confusion on the original.......
--------------------
JEFF
Rebuilding my game one mid-500 series at a time !!



Jeff,

While there has been discussion about the Raging, there is much confusion and misinformation floating around about the original Inferno. In one thread someone made fun of me for daring to disagree with him that the Inferno was a solid. Many others have indicated the same thing. Indeed, read all the above replies befoe yours; several are twisting Mr. Tomaras's reply around to suit their own feelings about the ball, despite his explicit statement that it has two colors and both are pearlized formulations.

--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2004, 02:13:58 PM »
My vote is that it's a 2 color pearl resin..!! =:^D

no1bucsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1270
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2004, 02:36:32 PM »
Who cares, it rolls beautiful, has a solid hit, and is very versatile. I could care less if it's a friggin plastic shell on it. I love it!!!
--------------------
You can always hit em hard when you've got the balls

Lefties are the only people in their right minds.

no1bucsfan

kendog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
Re: Inferno coverstock controversy?
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2004, 02:38:50 PM »
can you say cranial rectimitus?
--------------------
kendog
avoids spare shooting at all costs
just throw strikes
kendog