Mint/Near Mint Used Ball Performance

[Stuthedog]

Has there been any definitive testing done on the performance of mint or near mint used golf balls that have presumably been under water for varying amounts of time?  

In some googling and forum surfing I've found plenty of anecdotal and contradicting viewpoints/"Studies" but nothing that I would consider reliable or comprehensive.

 

 

[Londo]

I wouldn't consider balls that have spent more than a few hours submerged in water, mint or near mint. It would be interesting to see the degree that water logging affects ball performance, however I am sure that it varies by model as well. It seems general consensus that balls submerged more that 12 hours will have performance affected.  

[tony@CIC]

I seem to recall (but can't find) MGS in their testing blog doing something with 5A vs. new. I use to order 5A all the time, but there is only a $4-5. dollar /doz. difference now between 5A and a host of new tour balls available with great reviews - Vice, Snell , Maxfli, etc. so it doesn't make sense for me to go 5A, 

[Stuthedog]

1 hour ago, Londo said:

I wouldn't consider balls that have spent more than a few hours submerged in water, mint or near mint. It would be interesting to see the degree that water logging affects ball performance, however I am sure that it varies by model as well. It seems general consensus that balls submerged more that 12 hours will have performance affected.  

I just use that terminology since, presumably, all or nearly all of the balls you find on the popular used ball sites are fished out of water.  Was hoping there was some foresight data comparing balls from those sights to New ones (That weren't commissioned by said websites).  

I use Snell nowadays and those along with Vice and Maxfli are definitely the best value but I play a lot of narrow tree lined courses and losing a ball when I miss the fairway by 20 feet gets old.

[Londo]

1 hour ago, Stuthedog said:

I just use that terminology since, presumably, all or nearly all of the balls you find on the popular used ball sites are fished out of water.  Was hoping there was some foresight data comparing balls from those sights to New ones (That weren't commissioned by said websites).  

I use Snell nowadays and those along with Vice and Maxfli are definitely the best value but I play a lot of narrow tree lined courses and losing a ball when I miss the fairway by 20 feet gets old.

I understand that for sure and agree. I have only purchased a few dozen mint balls and did not notice any difference from new however, they were from a homeowner on a golf course.

Golf balls have gotten good enough that you can find a ball that is $25-40/dz with the same properties as a $50/dz ball, only difference is branding and maybe a slight QC bump. The price of the ones you are using new is probably only $5/dz more than mint/near mint ProV1s and you know they are new. Unless you are losing more than 3-4/rd I think what you're doing right now is the way to go.

Otherwise, you could order a dz mint of Snell/Maxfli/Vice to try vs what you are using and if that would be another way to save? I think most of those sites offer deals regularly too

[GregGarner]

3 hours ago, Londo said:

 It seems general consensus that balls submerged more that 12 hours will have performance affected.  

I mean, they have a vested interest here, but with enough digging, the science checks out...

[Lefty19]

On 12/6/2021 at 2:55 PM, Stuthedog said:

Has there been any definitive testing done on the performance of mint or near mint used golf balls that have presumably been under water for varying amounts of time?  

In some googling and forum surfing I've found plenty of anecdotal and contradicting viewpoints/"Studies" but nothing that I would consider reliable or comprehensive.

 

 

LMK if you ever do as I've gotten away from buying "mint" ProVs & AVX by just buying 2021 Maxfli balls for less- reminds me to change my signature. haha

Can I tell the difference between the "mint" ProV and new Maxfli Tour, not really as the only way is around the green on sound only? I've gotten maybe a shot here and there (handful) that I wondered if it was the ball though, weird flight but nothing extreme.

I'm not good enough to tell you the flight difference on a mint and brand new of the same ball unless something was way out of whack.

 

 

David

[fixyurdivot]

On 12/7/2021 at 10:51 AM, greggarner said:

I mean, they have a vested interest here, but with enough digging, the science checks out...

Interesting question and, based on what I've found thus far, seems to be a split decision.  I'm unable to open the link provided in this article and the referenced study by "Golf Ball Divers", (like Vice, not exactly what one might consider a non-biased source), but they claim submersion is not an issue.

At ~02:05 this states that UL tested balls submerged for several days and did confirm a weight change - though very insignificant.  

What about those recovered from saltwater graves?  What do you suppose the father/daughter team do with all those golf balls?

How Golf Is Polluting Our Oceans. 300 million golf balls land in the… | by Dalmeet Singh Chawla | OneZero (medium.com)

If anyone can find a more thorough, independent study on this subject/question, please share with the rest of us.  Until then, I'm using it as an excuse .