MGS Golf Ball Test

[TR1PTIK]

29 minutes ago, GolfSpy Stroker said:

 

Maybe I misunderstood but isn't that the point of the entire cut-it-open project?

Ignore the cover, cut it open, see what's on the inside and compare what you found; if you found something nearly identical turn it over and see who makes it.  Is one being sold at a lower price point?  Why?  Are you justifying their marketing by paying more for the pricier ball?  that money has to come from somewhere, right?

Yes it is. But why bother to show us identical golf balls if only one is available for purchase? The point is moot.

The more we've discussed this, the more I think their decision to select those three specific golf balls simply stems from that Acushnet lawsuit to illustrate what goes on, but it's not a good representation of current practices if they aren't using current models. At least that's how I look at that. Show me who's doing this NOW. Who's charging less/more NOW? Who's falsely claiming a white label ball as their own NOW?

The simple answer would be Vice, but until they've completely and objectively proven that Vice's statements are false, then the marketing claims are still at the very least plausible.

It's fun and intriguing to look at older models and see what's happened in the past, but we can't change the past. I'm not going to be upset about a company's past sins (so-to-speak) unless they have refused to change and continue on in the same fashion today.

EDIT:

I should note - I'm not saying I believe Vice's marketing claims, but if you're going to open the book then close it when you're done! Don't call them out and then leave room for them to spin it differently.

Edited July 9, 2019 by TR1PTIK

[chisag]

42 minutes ago, TR1PTIK said:

Yes it is. But why bother to show us identical golf balls if only one is available for purchase? The point is moot.

The more we've discussed this, the more I think their decision to select those three specific golf balls simply stems from that Acushnet lawsuit to illustrate what goes on, but it's not a good representation of current practices if they aren't using current models. At least that's how I look at that. Show me who's doing this NOW. Who's charging less/more NOW? Who's falsely claiming a white label ball as their own NOW?

The simple answer would be Vice, but until they've completely and objectively proven that Vice's statements are false, then the marketing claims are still at the very least plausible.

It's fun and intriguing to look at older models and see what's happened in the past, but we can't change the past. I'm not going to be upset about a company's past sins (so-to-speak) unless they have refused to change and continue on in the same fashion today.

 

... It shows that Vice is selling a ball others have sold. I like the proof as opposed to just saying "Other have sold the same ball Vice is selling now".  I also think it clearly shows Vice is doing zero R&D or QC, just buying the same ball others have sold and bought from the Foremost catalog. 

Edited July 9, 2019 by chisag

[TR1PTIK]

5 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... It shows that Vice is selling a ball others have sold. I like the proof as opposed to just saying "Other have sold the same ball Vice is selling now".  I also think it clearly shows Vice is doing zero R&D or QC, just buying the same ball others have sold from the Foremost catalog. 

Here's how Vice spun it on Instagram: "When we started out, we engineered our first high-performance golf balls, and because we didn't have so many customers, we let our manufacturer produce them for some other brands. Since then, we kept growing and now all our models are engineered and sold exclusively by us."

As it sits, their response is perfectly plausible. If you want to shine a light on the story, you gotta blow holes through this type of a response with present-day findings. That's my point.

[PMookie]

Here's how Vice spun it on Instagram: "When we started out, we engineered our first high-performance golf balls, and because we didn't have so many customers, we let our manufacturer produce them for some other brands. Since then, we kept growing and now all our models are engineered and sold exclusively by us."
As it sits, their response is perfectly plausible. If you want to shine a light on the story, you gotta blow holes through this type of a response with present-day findings. That's my point.

Do “engineered” and “made” by mean the same thing??????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TR1PTIK]

1 minute ago, PMookie said:

Do “engineered” and “made” by mean the same thing??????


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I'm not sure what the intent of your question is. Obviously, engineered and made by are not the same. To the best of our collective knowledge, Nike definitely engineered their own golf balls, and Bridgestone definitely made them. Vice's claim is similar. They engineer their golf balls, but they don't make them.

[MaxEntropy]

One relatively minor issue I have with the #finditcutit thing is the assumption that just because two chunks of rubber are the same color it means they are the same material. Tony replied to me in Twitter about it being a standard practice in the ball industry to make life easier during manufacturing - it's harder to mix up slabs of rubber if they are color coded. While I get that point, the coloring doesn't necessarily mean anything without doing a bunch of reverse engineering to confirm they are the same. So if Vice approached a manufacturer and said "we want the core material to have such-and-such properties," the plant could easily make tweaks to a recipe to meet Vice's specifications while not changing the color they once made for Rife or Monsta, yet it is, in fact, a different material. To take this to an extreme, look at tires: all tread compounds are black, but there is certainly a huge difference between the tread on some hippie's Prius (designed for long life) and an ultra high performance tire for a Ferrari (designed for grip).

But, if Tony says that's the way it is in the industry, who am I to argue?

To me, some of the more interesting things are the QC aspects of cover thickness, core placement, etc., and the prospect of many different balls being packaged as the same from a manufacturer.

[TR1PTIK]

4 minutes ago, MaxEntropy said:

One relatively minor issue I have with the #finditcutit thing is the assumption that just because two chunks of rubber are the same color it means they are the same material. Tony replied to me in Twitter about it being a standard practice in the ball industry to make life easier during manufacturing - it's harder to mix up slabs of rubber if they are color coded. While I get that point, the coloring doesn't necessarily mean anything without doing a bunch of reverse engineering to confirm they are the same. So if Vice approached a manufacturer and said "we want the core material to have such-and-such properties," the plant could easily make tweaks to a recipe to meet Vice's specifications while not changing the color they once made for Rife or Monsta, yet it is, in fact, a different material. To take this to an extreme, look at tires: all tread compounds are black, but there is certainly a huge difference between the tread on some hippie's Prius (designed for long life) and an ultra high performance tire for a Ferrari (designed for grip).

But, if Tony says that's the way it is in the industry, who am I to argue?

To me, some of the more interesting things are the QC aspects of cover thickness, core placement, etc., and the prospect of many different balls being packaged as the same from a manufacturer.

Agreed!!! Playing fast and loose with the marketing of golf equipment is nothing new. I'm much more interested the things you mentioned. 

[BMart519]

What if this is all just a conspiracy to drive up ball sales by cutting them all up??? 

Is Achusnet financing this whole initiative? 

[sixcat]

Funny aside.  My company purchases 88/12 material golf shirts with the company logo on the right breast for the employees.  Those shirts are identical to the Under Armour Performance and Playoff polo depending on which style we order.  Under Armour sells those same shirts for between $55 and $80.  We get those shirts for $10.99 each if we order in bulk.  The quarter-zips Under Armour sells for $85 we get for $12 with our company logo.  I promise, stamped tags, buttons, stitching, material, everything about those shirts and pullovers are identical to the UA stuff I already own.  Absolutely identical. Not similar....identical.  The only thing missing is the UA logo!

This happens in every industry all over the world from the car you drive to the medicine you take to the milk you drink to the toothpaste you use!

 

[PMookie]

I'm not sure what the intent of your question is. Obviously, engineered and made by are not the same. To the best of our collective knowledge, Nike definitely engineered their own golf balls, and Bridgestone definitely made them. Vice's claim is similar. They engineer their golf balls, but they don't make them.

Ok, so that defines the message that Vice is sending out... They’re still not making their own balls. This doesn’t clarify whether or not other balls are using the same engineering. It’s picking apart fine print, and spin.... It’s what I do. Their reply doesn’t definitively say things have changed and that the Vice balls are one-and-only designs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[null]

1 hour ago, TR1PTIK said:

I'm not sure what the intent of your question is. Obviously, engineered and made by are not the same. To the best of our collective knowledge, Nike definitely engineered their own golf balls, and Bridgestone definitely made them. Vice's claim is similar. They engineer their golf balls, but they don't make them.

I think they take some liberty in defining "team".  

The statement is:

Quote

Our Team in Germany and Taiwan has been engineering and manufacturing high performance golf balls since the early 90’s. Today more than 200 engineers, designers, craftsmen and production workers build and operate sophisticated custom equipment for the production of millions of high-tech golf balls per year.

So Vice has been designing and manufacturing golf balls for over 20 years, but they only started branding them VICE and selling them over the last few years?

No - they are just flat out lying.  They pay a 3rd party contractor for balls.  VICE doesn't design, engineer or manufacture squat.  Like MGS showed in their video yesterday, you can send an email to a company and have that exact same team of engineers behind your golf ball.  There is no such thing as a Vice Golf Ball Engineer.  Period

[TR1PTIK]

7 minutes ago, PMookie said:

Ok, so that defines the message that Vice is sending out... They’re still not making their own balls. This doesn’t clarify whether or not other balls are using the same engineering. It’s picking apart fine print, and spin.... It’s what I do. Their reply doesn’t definitively say things have changed and that the Vice balls are one-and-only designs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Please read my previous post wherein I quoted from Vice's statement on Instagram.

[archieadams]

So Vice has been designing and manufacturing golf balls for over 20 years, but they only started branding them VICE and selling them over the last few years?
No - they are just flat out lying.  They pay a 3rd party contractor for balls.  VICE doesn't design, engineer or manufacture squat.  Like MGS showed in their video yesterday, you can send an email to a company and have that exact same team of engineers behind your golf ball.  There is no such thing as a Vice Golf Ball Engineer.  Period

Their reply to the MGS message on Twitter does say that their models are now exclusive.




Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[sixcat]

2 minutes ago, PMookie said:

Ok, so that defines the message that Vice is sending out... They’re still not making their own balls. This doesn’t clarify whether or not other balls are using the same engineering. It’s picking apart fine print, and spin.... It’s what I do. Their reply doesn’t definitively say things have changed and that the Vice balls are one-and-only designs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Agreed!  I don't believe Vice is "engineering" anything nor do I believe they ever did.  My interpretation of the Vice press release is "we have an exclusive deal with an Asian manufacturer to stamp "Vice" on the side of the balls they once stamped Monsta, Dixon, Kick X, Rife and several others."

As I stated with the example of the Under Armour gear above, this isn't exclusive to golf balls nor does it mean Vice isn't selling a quality ball.  They are just disingenuous by which the advertise and market their product.  But then again, so is virtually every other company selling something on the retail market these days. 

[null]

4 minutes ago, archieadams said:

 

Their reply to the MGS message on Twitter does say that their models are now exclusive.




Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

 

Man they are good with words - no wonder they are a marketing company.

So in the past that 3rd party manufacturer produced the specific ball for multiple brands.  Now, VICE has more buying power and can maybe pay a bit of a premium for exclusivity.  So the other brands disappeared and Vice continues to have their name printed on the ball.

Still no design or engineering.

[null]

1 minute ago, sixcat said:

Agreed!  I don't believe Vice is "engineering" anything nor do I believe they ever did.  My interpretation of the Vice press release is "we have an exclusive deal with an Asian manufacturer to stamp "Vice" on the side of the balls they once stamped Monsta, Dixon, Kick X, Rife and several others."

As I stated with the example of the Under Armour gear above, this isn't exclusive to golf balls nor does it mean Vice isn't selling a quality ball.  They are just disingenuous by which the advertise and market their product.  But then again, so is virtually every other company selling something on the retail market these days. 

Bingo

[archieadams]

Man they are good with words - no wonder they are a marketing company.
So in the past that 3rd party manufacturer produced the specific ball for multiple brands.  Now, VICE has more buying power and can maybe pay a bit of a premium for exclusivity.  So the other brands disappeared and Vice continues to have their name printed on the ball.
Still no design or engineering.

Don’t disagree, but whatever they have now shouldn’t be found in any newer balls that have been release. Sure you may find them in older/refurbished products but going forward what they have should be unique to them whether they “made it” or not.


Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[TR1PTIK]

24 minutes ago, jlukes said:

I think they take some liberty in defining "team".  

I agree 100%. 

24 minutes ago, jlukes said:

So Vice has been designing and manufacturing golf balls for over 20 years, but they only started branding them VICE and selling them over the last few years?

"Our Team in Germany and Taiwan has been engineering and manufacturing high performance golf balls since the early 90’s." The key words here are "our team". It doesn't say WE; it doesn't say VICE. Again, this is not an uncommon practice in any industry. When X company claims XXX years of experience it is often time representative of cumulative experience among all staff.

24 minutes ago, jlukes said:

No - they are just flat out lying.  They pay a 3rd party contractor for balls.  VICE doesn't design, engineer or manufacture squat.  Like MGS showed in their video yesterday, you can send an email to a company and have that exact same team of engineers behind your golf ball.  There is no such thing as a Vice Golf Ball Engineer.  Period

They certainly could be lying. They very likely are lying, but until conclusive evidence is provided it's just the words of one party against the words of another.

Edited July 9, 2019 by TR1PTIK

[chisag]

6 minutes ago, jlukes said:

Man they are good with words - no wonder they are a marketing company.

So in the past that 3rd party manufacturer produced the specific ball for multiple brands.  Now, VICE has more buying power and can maybe pay a bit of a premium for exclusivity.  So the other brands disappeared and Vice continues to have their name printed on the ball.

Still no design or engineering.

 

... Are you saying the guy with a beanie in 90* heat on a golf course doing their commercials isn't chemically or aerodynamically engineering their golf balls? No commercials turn me off more to a product than Vice, with the exception of Parsons and PXG.  

[null]

2 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

... Are you saying the guy with a beanie in 90* heat on a golf course doing their commercials isn't chemically or aerodynamically engineering their golf balls? No commercials turn me off more to a product than Vice, with the exception of Parsons and PXG.  

But Golf Digest gave them 5 Stars for Performance and Innovation!