BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: thedjs on November 29, 2015, 03:01:02 PM
-
Say you have two balls with the same specs. but one is a pearl polished and the other is solid polished, which would you prefer? Would the pearl give you more back end (snap) but also have an over/under potential? I'm thinking about the Hammer Red Legend Solid and the Hammer Red Legend Pearl. Or maybe the two Ebonite Warriors. Would also change the base to 1000 before polish on the solids.
-
Solids as I can change surface and manipulate the surface easier than with a pearl. Some pearls have slip agents, so sanding or dulling down a pearl does not mean the dull pearl can or will be close to a solid. I also like hybrid solid/pearl as the elimination of some pearl makes it less over under for me.
Pearls have a tendency (for me) regardless of surface prep or drill to be over under. Hit oil and the ball never recovers and I ping 7s all day or send it out, it sniffs dry, and it boomerangs through the nose.
I get in less trouble with solids, but everyone is different.
-
I believe that the time of the relevancy of the type of construction of a ball's coverstock has been and past. A ball is more than the sum of its parts; a ball is no longer SOLELY cover + core. More often than not, what a ball is designed to do is more important than the individual parts that make up the ball.
While there are ball twins out there (same core, used with a pearl and a solid version of the same coverstock) that you can say make a true difference, the situation of their being two sides of the same coin is much less true than it used to be.
2 examples are the extreme flippiness of the Motiv Graffiti Tag and the Columbia Dark Matter, both of which are solid coverstocks.
-
Solids as I can change surface and manipulate the surface easier than with a pearl. Some pearls have slip agents, so sanding or dulling down a pearl does not mean the dull pearl can or will be close to a solid. I also like hybrid solid/pearl as the elimination of some pearl makes it less over under for me.
Pearls have a tendency (for me) regardless of surface prep or drill to be over under. Hit oil and the ball never recovers and I ping 7s all day or send it out, it sniffs dry, and it boomerangs through the nose.
I get in less trouble with solids, but everyone is different.
+1 …. Well said.
There are those who claim that pearl or solid doesn't matter, but my personal experience says different. Everything else being equal, I too prefer solids because they're easier to manipulate the cover. Pearls have their place, but solids are my go-to most of the time.
-
Hate to say it, but it really doesn't matter.
-
What no hybrid?
I do not care what the coverstock is alleged to be my only concern is the finish. Adjust surface as needed.
-
Hate to say it, but it really doesn't matter.
The only way I know how to evaluate is to compare the reaction of the respective solid/pearl versions of a given ball. I have the following solid/pearl combos of balls, with each combination having similar drills:
1) Motiv Ascent and Pearl Ascent
2) Ebonite Pivot and Pivot Point
3) Columbia Severe Delirium and Delirium
Over time, I've done fresh pad 500/1000 surface preps for each combination, concurrently. None of the Pearls react like the Solids with the same cover prep. Without exception, the pearls are a bit more anemic to oil.
If I'm missing something with the "it really doesn't matter", please explain.
-
I have to agree with Steven. When I was good friends with a ball designer and eventual ball company president, he told me on several occasions that pearl balls were generally harder than the solid counterparts because of the process to cure the pearl coverstock went through versus a solid AND many times the slip agents embedded within the pearl covers to give the cover the "pearl" appearance also made the pearl balls go longer than a solid with the same drill and surface prep.
This was a few years back so maybe things have changed recently, but in my opinion, why would a company like Motiv come out with the Forza and Forza Redline if the balls were not designed to do different things? I have both and they do have the same drill (I throw the same drill on all my stuff) and the Redline is much cleaner and sharper on the back than the original Forza.
To each their own
-
Just when I think I like pearls better, I have a rough night with pearls and the solids react better. Then when I think I like solids better, I have a rough night with solids and I like hybrids better. Then when I think I like hybrids better, I have a rough night with them and I like pearls better. So, just to be clear, it all depends from night to night. ;-)
-
The "buying" of marketing is strong in this thread. :)
-
neither -- I prefer hybrids - mostly polished
-
The "buying" of marketing is strong in this thread. :)
Yes it is. Hopefully we will all come to our senses soon.
-
I believe that the time of the relevancy of the type of construction of a ball's coverstock has been and past. A ball is more than the sum of its parts; a ball is no longer SOLELY cover + core. More often than not, what a ball is designed to do is more important than the individual parts that make up the ball.
While there are ball twins out there (same core, used with a pearl and a solid version of the same coverstock) that you can say make a true difference, the situation of their being two sides of the same coin is much less true than it used to be.
2 examples are the extreme flippiness of the Motiv Graffiti Tag and the Columbia Dark Matter, both of which are solid coverstocks.
900 Global makes the Dark Matter, not Columbia. ;)
-
solids and pearls (not hybrids).
-
I prefer pearls for most house conditions.
I have always hit on the ball from the hard rubber days. Now I have become speed challenged as well.
My style tends to want to read the lane too early. The extra skid built into pearls help me delay the ball over reading the mid-lane.
I have had success with solids but I have polished them to a high shine in most instances.
While I have a solid with some surface for extreme oil I seldom have to use it.
-
What if I said that that the marketing both does and doesn't matter? In my opinion, a company can make a "pearl" react like a "solid," and a "solid" react like a "pearl." But in general, they keep everything having their stereotypical reactions to help marketing. I believe that additives can change a reaction. Look at the rocket and sky rocket. They both come at the same surface, but the change in additives make the sky rocket a little longer with more in the backend. They gave it the pearl look and BAM! Market it as a pearl and it fits the stereotype. But because of balls like the tag which someone else stated, you have to look at the intention of a ball too. It is a ton in the back end, but it is also a polished ball, even if it is a solid
-
What if I said that that the marketing both does and doesn't matter? In my opinion, a company can make a "pearl" react like a "solid," and a "solid" react like a "pearl." But in general, they keep everything having their stereotypical reactions to help marketing. I believe that additives can change a reaction. Look at the rocket and sky rocket. They both come at the same surface, but the change in additives make the sky rocket a little longer with more in the backend. They gave it the pearl look and BAM! Market it as a pearl and it fits the stereotype. But because of balls like the tag which someone else stated, you have to look at the intention of a ball too. It is a ton in the back end, but it is also a polished ball, even if it is a solid
Agree. The difference is intent. A manufacturer can make a ball fit an intent with any of the coverstocks (pearl, hybrid, solid). Within a line of balls, most manufacturers will name the earlier one solid, later one pearl and the middle hybrid. This might be further marketed by adding something to the covers to give each ball its stereotypical look.
But in reality, all three balls can look the same and still accomplish the three different reactions. It is marketing but also necessary for ease of identification.
-
But in reality, all three balls can look the same and still accomplish the three different reactions. It is marketing but also necessary for ease of identification.
If slip agents are added to the "pearl" version to give it a different look, how can it react the same as the solid with the same cover prep?
-
Pearl covers contain mica -- that is what makes them pearl. It makes the covers stiffer, resulting in a smaller footprint on lane and less overall traction.
It's been my experience that you can polish up a solid and get close to a pearl reaction.
-
Additives put into "pearl" balls for reaction purposes are not the same as additives for "pearl" appearances.
-
I would rather use a reactive over pearl because of the versatility being able to change cover, I also like the hybrid cover stock
-
what about the Hammer Plague? Looks like a pearl ball but Hammer claimed that it's a solid. And I don't find the Tag to be flippy at all.
I'm to the point that I can't tell what I think the reaction is going to be as expected these days.
Sooo on that note I find solids are more to my expectations, not that's what I want all the time though.
-
Six Pack
Back a decade, Track came out with a ball called the "Animal" and "Sheer Havoc". Balls both look pearl but Track denied either had any pearl and were solids. Been going on for a long time.
-
I have no preferences. When choosing a ball, I refer to feedback from other bowlers with similar styles. I've had 'winners' and 'losers' in all coverstock combinations.