Disadvantages of Lake Golf Balls..

[fozcycle]

I had no idea what you are getting when you purchase refinished golfballs. I gleaned the following from Vice Golf.com... SOME SAD LAKE BALL FACTS

These facts about used golf balls and lake balls have been proven again and again in scientific studies and tests conducted by prominent golf magazines such as Golf Digest:

1. TOO LONG IN THE WATER — DECREASED DRIVING DISTANCE

After just twelve hours in the water, the outermost layer of the golf ball allows water to enter into the ball. This is mainly because modern layers of multi-layer golf balls (such as Urethane and UPC) are usually constructed to be extremely hydrophilic (moisture attracting) in order to prevent adverse affections due to weather. But if golf balls sit in the water for longer periods of time, permanent damage will be result. While invisible from the outside, this damage will clearly affect the driving distance off of the tee.

The further result is significant damage to the golf ball's core, which is designed to be ball's energy source. Studies show that after just one week in the water, lake balls will lose 5 to 10 yards in driving distance off of the tee; after 3 months, the distance loss widens to 20 to 30 yards.

2. A REFURBISHED BALL HAS VERY LITTLE IN COMMON WITH THE ORIGINAL GOLF BALL.

Many lake ball packagers are just giving a facelift to the golf balls they find by sandblasting. Through this treatment, the outermost transparent sealing layer of the golf ball is completely removed. Moreover, this often leads to alteration of the golf's ball sensitive dimple structure. 

After surface treatment, the outermost layer - including the manufacturer's logo - is applied again from scratch. The paints used have nothing to do with the elaborate seals developed for use with the original ball. The substantial interference with the surface structure, as well as changes to the weight of the golf ball, has a significantly negative impact on the ball's aerodynamics and flight stability.

 

 

Can anybody chime in on this concept?

 

 

 

[The Dansome]

This all makes a lot of sense. Thanks for posting.

[hckymeyer]

You have to be careful when buying used golf balls.  Always go recycled instead of refinished.  As a counter point this is from lostgolfballs.com tests of their recycled balls.

 

https://www.lostgolfballs.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=377

 

I'm always a little weary of testing done by the company trying to sell me the product though.

 

I smell an MGS Labs in the making!!  New vs recycled vs refinished...let the games begin!

[fozcycle]

Great idea hckymeyer.........and you could be the overseer of the project?

[hckymeyer]

Sounds like a good winter project

[markb]

I'm calling BS on the first part.

 

Absolutely true on the second part.

 

I've played salvaged balls for years, in fact I rarely buy new balls.  I play ProV's that are either given to me or that I find and fish out of streams etc.   I have never noticed one iota of distance difference in a water ball vs. a new ball.

 

Now I'll grant you that the same is not true of the old balata balls.   Water could and did get at them and you could see this easily through discoloration, warping of the ball's shape, and bubbling of the skin.    I've never seen the same thing happen to a newer urethane ball.

 

Conversely, I'll never play a refinished ball.  It has, at best, a new coat or two of paint and a new clearcoat ON TOP of whatever was underneath.   There is no way that can't change the weight and feel of the ball.  But my beef isn't with the weight or the feel.   My beef is that I don't really know what was underneath.  Could be an NXT for all I know or a ProV 392.   I'm not buying a pig in a poke.

 

At least with the water balls I get to decide which ones go back in play and which ones go in the shag bag.

 

This would be very easy to test.   Simply weigh a few new balls on a precise apothecary scale, then immerse for a week or so and re-weigh the same balls after removal.   If you see no weight change you can be pretty sure no water has soaked in.

[sp0rtsfan86]

Definitely  a good test to do. I'm really interested in the results... especially considering I've always thought about getting used golfballs, but worry about the cost/effectiveness of used balls compared to new ones.

 

MGS... please do this one.

[fozcycle]

Excellent idea.

[RookieBlue7]

That article is about refurbished balls, which aren't close to the same thing as found/lost balls. Studies have also shown that urethane takes years to break down in water, not hours like this shows. Urethane also doesn't attract water, again, various studies from credible universities have proved that. It takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 years before you see any signs of te effects of water on a golf ball. The first part is just wrong, science has proven it wrong.

 

The second part is hideously incorrect. Companies that sell recycled balls do not sandblast them, they wash them. The ones that have damage after washing to clean them up are then sold to refinishers who don't use sandblasting. For 1, sandblasting isn't a controlled media and it'd leave inconsistencies. They chemically remove the clear coat and repaint them. The refinished balls are balls that have been in water long enough to have damage. Refinished balls will perform differently. But recycled, nope exact same ball.

 

Where's this graphic come from anyway? Nevermind, I found it.

 

Hilariously, they're trying to sell a new golf ball. Imagine that, someone that's a ball manufacturer trying to say anything that takes sales from them isn't as good...

 

That whole graphic? Marketing, simple marketing. They're wrong. Science has proven them wrong. And now I definitely won't be buying their product because they're trying to mislead consumers.

 

You want to test their information? It's a very simple test. Have a postal scale? You can test it. How? Weight a brand new golf ball. Any ball of your choosing. Write that down. Submerge said golf ball in water for 12 hours. Remove, dry the exterior and weigh again. I'll bet you get the exact same weight.

[fozcycle]

Thanks for the input Rookie,  as I came across this last week, I put it out not because I thought it was true, but to generate quality discussion.  

[markb]

That article is about refurbished balls, which aren't close to the same thing as found/lost balls. Studies have also shown that urethane takes years to break down in water, not hours like this shows. Urethane also doesn't attract water, again, various studies from credible universities have proved that. It takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 years before you see any signs of te effects of water on a golf ball. The first part is just wrong, science has proven it wrong.

 

The second part is hideously incorrect. Companies that sell recycled balls do not sandblast them, they wash them. The ones that have damage after washing to clean them up are then sold to refinishers who don't use sandblasting. For 1, sandblasting isn't a controlled media and it'd leave inconsistencies. They chemically remove the clear coat and repaint them. The refinished balls are balls that have been in water long enough to have damage. Refinished balls will perform differently. But recycled, nope exact same ball.

 

Where's this graphic come from anyway? Nevermind, I found it.

 

Hilariously, they're trying to sell a new golf ball. Imagine that, someone that's a ball manufacturer trying to say anything that takes sales from them isn't as good...

 

That whole graphic? Marketing, simple marketing. They're wrong. Science has proven them wrong. And now I definitely won't be buying their product because they're trying to mislead consumers.

 

You want to test their information? It's a very simple test. Have a postal scale? You can test it. How? Weight a brand new golf ball. Any ball of your choosing. Write that down. Submerge said golf ball in water for 12 hours. Remove, dry the exterior and weigh again. I'll bet you get the exact same weight.

 

I'm in the middle of just such an experiment now, but you'll need more than a Postal Scale.   You'll need a scale that weighs milligrams.   My postal scale only goes down to grams.

 

Doesn't matter though, it's going to show no change in weight no matter how long I submerge it.

[RoverRick]

I am going to call BS on part of this, in that I just don't buy it.  Both urethane and ionomer are impermeable to water, meaning that a submerged golf ball will not absorb water.

 

If you want to waterproof your deck what is the normal way to do that?  Simply coat it with a urethane or polyurethane coating. 

 

This does not mean that a Pro V1 that has been in the lake since 2008 performs the same.  The cover will degrade over time exposed to water.  The cover is the part that you can see, so if there is no visible damage, than there is no damage.

 

This is why you should never buy refinished balls.  They have been refinished for a reason.  Typically, because their covers have been degrade to the point no one would buy them so they buff them up and repaint them.

 

But even if he cover was permeable to water, what would the water displace to get inside of the modern golf ball.  Back in the wound days there may have been some space there for the water to displace air trapped inside of the ball, but solid modern balls not so much.

 

Even if water could get inside the ball, it would displace air.  Water is heavier than air.  This would make the golf ball heavier.  This heavier golfball would fly farther because it would be the same size a non water logged golf ball.

 

Water is incompressible so it would either feel much harder or go "splat" when you hit it.

 

OK,, That is my opinion, I am not an expert but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last week.

 

I have played recycled balls for a couple of years now, and have had a smattering of new ones thrown in and I can not tell the difference.  Granted, these are the premium used golfballs not the 100 for $10,

[mbrodeur86]

I had been using Titleist Prov1 x (the 2012 models) for a while now. I just recently switched to Bridgestone Tour B-330. I have always used found golf balls from a guy I met on ebay who sells them to me direct. Unless I'm losing 20-30 yards, I don't care. I cannot justify paying $5 a ball only to lose it in the woods. I know I'm not the best ball striker, but prefer the feel of these balls compared to any other. It's just more cost effective for me.

[mnfats95]

I have been playing the XOUT Prov1x's at 29.95 a dozen. I have retail ones for tournaments when someone might try to call me out for a "non legal" ball, but I have noticed zero difference with the XOUTS.

 

I've found refinished balls but I always put them in the range bucket.

[fozcycle]

With the Master Grip C4 ball being only $20/dozen from mggolf.com....according to Master Grip,

 

The 3-pc urethane Tour C4 BEAT the Titleist^® Pro V1^®, in robot tests with MORE carry, MORE total distance and comparable spin! And at only $19.99/dzn, it thrashes the $47.99/dzn street price of the Pro V1!

 

I tried them this past week and they perform equal to the new Pro V1's.......that said, why go for refurbs or lake balls when you can get new balls for only $20/dozen?

[RookieBlue7]

I reviewed the C4 on here a long time ago. They're a pretty decent ball and what I generally play in the winter if I have nothing else. But I buy large quantities at LostGolfBalls of my preferred ball and they're even cheaper and they're not as short off the tee as the C4 (which is the old Ben Hogan Tour Deep patent ball). In my experience the C4 performs identically to lower swing speeds when comparing. But they're too spinny off the driver for me and cost me distance(verified with TrackMan in summer).

[fozcycle]

I reviewed the C4 on here a long time ago. They're a pretty decent ball and what I generally play in the winter if I have nothing else. But I buy large quantities at LostGolfBalls of my preferred ball and they're even cheaper and they're not as short off the tee as the C4 (which is the old Ben Hogan Tour Deep patent ball). In my experience the C4 performs identically to lower swing speeds when comparing. But they're too spinny off the driver for me and cost me distance(verified with TrackMan in summer).

Thanks for the input Rookie. With my mid 90's SS, the C4 was excellent off the Tee and terrific on my FW.....173 yd Eagle with my 5 wood and 175 yd approach to middle of green for a Birdie with my 5 wood.....besides the Ben Hogan Tour Deep was a terrific ball.