Great observations downlowkey! I went to my supply and confirmed what you show above. I still am a fan of the ball and honestly never believed the marketing hype of the CG alignment giving you longer drives. My wife and I took the Titleist ball plant tour at Ball Plant 3, which makes the ProV, 1X and AVX, in New Bedford MA last summer. The tour host was the one of the manufacturing management hierarchy, I forget his actual title. The tour is free and would be worth it if they charged. When I left there I understood why Titleist's are priced as they are. They too use a 2 piece cast urethane cover. The cover mold is made from titanium and is super expensive to make and obviously way tighter tolerances than the MaxFli, During the tour I asked if there is any truth to the golf legend of early pro V1s being aligned in a certain orientation produced longer drives. I was told that could never be the case with a golf ball approved by the regulating bodies. That the testing conducted for the acceptance of play orients the balls in different axis's during test. If one were to provide a performance advantage, that ball would not be approved. BTW if you look at a Pro V you can see the seam along the ProV1 labeling, although far less noticeable than the Maxfli which is quite pronounced, remember what I said about the cover molds and cost of the Titliest balls. This is one of many reasons why. I like playing ProV1s and if money were no object I'd play them exclusively. I'm always on the look out for a tight course ball, one to be used on courses where if you miss the fairway there is a greater than 90% chance you lose your ball. Which is why I tried the MaxFli Tour, it's easier to swallow losing a $2 ball vs a $4 ball. If I were of greater ability and skill, and played competitively for $, then I would be playing a Titleist no question. But for me, for now, the Tours play pretty well.