New Snell Prime Golf Balls

[Shapotomous]

2 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

The testing of them were done in the last few weeks I believe. 

So this begs the next questions - If there are some boxes that now have the fixed or resolved golf balls in them and boxes that still have issues, what box are you getting when you purchase? 

I am not saying these are going to be bad balls to play, haven't played them before so I can't talk to the performance. What I am thinking though is that this casts a lot of doubt in my mind if I was to be playing them. Is it the actual ball? Is it another mistake and is a two piece, am I getting the better ones or do I have an old batch? 

To me that is the scary part of all this. 

Early this year they handled the previous issue with durability much differently.  They were open about the problem and offered those balls at a reduced cost.  At that point they were able to identify the problem batch from the good batch, I would think they could do the same with this inventory given all the barcoding and tracking in modern inventory systems.

[GolfSpy_APH]

8 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

Early this year they handled the previous issue with durability much differently.  They were open about the problem and offered those balls at a reduced cost.  At that point they were able to identify the problem batch from the good batch, I would think they could do the same with this inventory given all the barcoding and tracking in modern inventory systems.

Maybe - lots of stock to pull. 

Again I have no bone to pick or anything. Just an observer and someone who has never used their balls so just seems like a trick situation.

[DHollensbe1]

I’ve play Snell golf balls for 2 years and they are a great golf ball for the price. Played a round with both MTB Prime and Prime 3.0 and the durability issues with the MTB Prime were fixed with the Prime 3.0 based on my experience.  I have not experienced any issues with the Prime 3.0 over multiple rounds and will continue to play them. 

[Mike10487]

19 hours ago, JFish350 said:

Dean put out some pretty good info on what it takes to build a golf ball. More than I ever thought about. Out of round is a known issue on every single ball, why do you think Bryson finds the highpoint and marks it. I am thinking it isn't only for putting, but the tee shot as well. I don't think Bryson is playing a Snell ball, although I think that would be awesome. 

Dean did mention the out of round or maybe it was the piece between the core and the cover is really hard to make exactly even on every single ball. I would need to go back and look at other tests to see how far off the Snell ball is. 

 

Quality control is an issue with every single item ever made. When you have a part working without issue and then it breaks, now you have to go back and recalibrate that part, machine and product it makes not to mention if you have a new hire who isn't as skilled as the previous operator. Now do that with an entire factory. I am not an apologist for Snell, I can see where issues happened unfortunately for Snell and willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I will as I am sure most of those who play the Snell ball will be paying extremely close attention to the next test of this ball. the price point is to good to abandon this line. 

As I said before I am still buying a test pack and doing my homework 

But!!!!! When you have a part breakdown and have to go back and recalibrate it. YOU DONT LET THAT BATCH OF BAD PRODUCT GET SHIPPED OUT OF THE FACTORY. It looks to me that they knew about it and decided that they wouldn't get caught. The reason why I have lost respect for Dean and his company is that they just decided to sell the bad batch balls. Unlucky for them MGS was doing a ball test. If this was isolated, what are the chances of MGS buying bad balls unless there was a LOT of bad balls on the shelves. It boils down to greed. I wouldn't be surprised if Dean tries to take legal action. QC is super important with DTC. 

[JFish350]

4 hours ago, Mike10487 said:

But!!!!! When you have a part breakdown and have to go back and recalibrate it. YOU DONT LET THAT BATCH OF BAD PRODUCT GET SHIPPED OUT OF THE FACTORY. It looks to me that they knew about it and decided that they wouldn't get caught. The reason why I have lost respect for Dean and his company is that they just decided to sell the bad batch balls. Unlucky for them MGS was doing a ball test. If this was isolated, what are the chances of MGS buying bad balls unless there was a LOT of bad balls on the shelves. It boils down to greed. I wouldn't be surprised if Dean tries to take legal action. QC is super important with DTC. 

Fair point about letting a product get out to the public that is deemed bad by a manufacturer. I think Dean's point of "these are not bad balls" they don't conform to PGA weights & measures doesn't make them bad, just makes it so they are out of "legal limits" for the PGA. I'd be surprised if we find a single Snell ball on the PGA, LPGA, LIV DP tours. For us armatures and playing golf for the better part of 30 years, I have never seen one person pull out a scale to weigh a golf ball. 

I am not sure Dean would suite for this. I can see him asking for more tests and a chance to go into a deeper explanation as to what happened and why it won't happen again.  

[AndySP]

On 8/5/2024 at 6:25 PM, Shapotomous said:

I think Snell got caught between finding a new mfg plant and getting them up to the quality standards they want.  Maybe as Dean says they tightened up the specs and QA at the new plant addressing the issues MGS found.  Then again maybe thats all he is going to get quality wise out of a mfg plant in China.

 

On 8/6/2024 at 7:24 AM, Mike10487 said:

They addressed the issue months ago, but they were still sold to the consumer. Hmmm... If it had been Titleist or most other manufacturers, they would have never left the plant floor. Or at the very least, never been shipped. 

100%!!  You can’t be too upset if you knew they weren’t up to your spec and sold them anyway.  He could have sold them at a discount and reassured his customers that a better batch was coming soon.  I think Snell’s customers would understand. 
 

What’s the saying, “better ask forgiveness than permission”?  Not sure I’m on board with that one.

[TAGolf13]

On 8/2/2024 at 9:52 AM, ClevelandGirl said:

That new ball test is really worrying - my delivery of 5 dozen 3.0 balls arrived yesterday. 
 

I’ve been buying Snell balls since I started golfing. Feels weird to read that review. 

So the Snells have been working for you, right ClevelandGirl? If they're working for you, does a review really matter? Have you tried any other balls along the way? if you have and still play the Snells, I'm thinking you must like them for a good reason. No?

Okay, so I've now read the review that you mentioned along with all the comments by fellow spies. I can see why you'd be concerned, but I hope you continue to have a good experience with the balls reagrdless. 

Edited August 7 by TAGolf13
Addendum to original

[TAGolf13]

5 hours ago, AndySP said:

 

100%!!  You can’t be too upset if you knew they weren’t up to your spec and sold them anyway.  He could have sold them at a discount and reassured his customers that a better batch was coming soon.  I think Snell’s customers would understand. 
 

What’s the saying, “better ask forgiveness than permission”?  Not sure I’m on board with that one.

And I've never been on board with that one Andy. Tells you a lot about a person who is.

[TAGolf13]

6 hours ago, JFish350 said:

Fair point about letting a product get out to the public that is deemed bad by a manufacturer. I think Dean's point of "these are not bad balls" they don't conform to PGA weights & measures doesn't make them bad, just makes it so they are out of "legal limits" for the PGA. I'd be surprised if we find a single Snell ball on the PGA, LPGA, LIV DP tours. For us armatures and playing golf for the better part of 30 years, I have never seen one person pull out a scale to weigh a golf ball. 

I am not sure Dean would suite for this. I can see him asking for more tests and a chance to go into a deeper explanation as to what happened and why it won't happen again.  

If they are USGA nonconforming, that impacts amateurs who play USGA (and regional affiliates) tournaments, no?

[TAGolf13]

11 hours ago, DHollensbe1 said:

I’ve play Snell golf balls for 2 years and they are a great golf ball for the price. Played a round with both MTB Prime and Prime 3.0 and the durability issues with the MTB Prime were fixed with the Prime 3.0 based on my experience.  I have not experienced any issues with the Prime 3.0 over multiple rounds and will continue to play them. 

Love this response Dhollensbe1! Trust your own experience until it tells you something diffrerent. If anyone wants to sell me some of those Prime 3.0 balls cheap, I'm in!

[TAGolf13]

On 7/8/2024 at 4:11 PM, pozzit said:

I have really enjoyed the new Prime balls. I have played Snells in the past, MTB Black then X I wanted to the new Prime and they do not disappoint. I got a test pack and wanted to compare them all. Was really impressed with all but the 3.0 was my favorite.

Full review and comparison on my personal blog

Checked out your blog and appreciate you taking the time to share your experience with us!

[pozzit]

13 minutes ago, TAGolf13 said:

Checked out your blog and appreciate you taking the time to share your experience with us!

Thanks I appreciate that. I'm a bit surprised at the report from MGS but hearing Snells responds around pushing the legal limits of ball. It may help the player but it becomes poor quality in MGS metrics. 

[storm319]

10 hours ago, JFish350 said:

Fair point about letting a product get out to the public that is deemed bad by a manufacturer. I think Dean's point of "these are not bad balls" they don't conform to PGA weights & measures doesn't make them bad, just makes it so they are out of "legal limits" for the PGA. I'd be surprised if we find a single Snell ball on the PGA, LPGA, LIV DP tours. For us armatures and playing golf for the better part of 30 years, I have never seen one person pull out a scale to weigh a golf ball. 

I am not sure Dean would suite for this. I can see him asking for more tests and a chance to go into a deeper explanation as to what happened and why it won't happen again.  

The USGA/R&A equipment conformance limits are part of the rules of golf which all players are subject to, not just tour professionals (whether you choose to follow the rules or not is a personal choice, but the rules still apply to all regardless of enforcement). 

[JFish350]

52 minutes ago, storm319 said:

The USGA/R&A equipment conformance limits are part of the rules of golf which all players are subject to, not just tour professionals (whether you choose to follow the rules or not is a personal choice, but the rules still apply to all regardless of enforcement). 

How many golf balls are you testing at home before you use them? That is on the golfer to make sure all equipment is conforming to USGA/R&A rules?? 

I am not a saying what or how the balls went out is right, just saying in 35 years I have never had or heard of a conversation where people were talking about testing golf balls at home before play. 

[JFish350]

4 hours ago, TAGolf13 said:

If they are USGA nonconforming, that impacts amateurs who play USGA (and regional affiliates) tournaments, no?

Better buy the equipment and test every ball before using in tourney play. 

[cnosil]

8 hours ago, JFish350 said:

How many golf balls are you testing at home before you use them? That is on the golfer to make sure all equipment is conforming to USGA/R&A rules?? 

 

Do you test your clubs prior to play to ensure they conform?   Probably not becuase we typically trust the OEM claims about meeting the rules and the ruling body has evaluated samples.    There are cases where the production models do not meet the rules ; a Wishon driver recently had this failure. 
 

MGS in their ball test validates claims that are made by the OEM and the quality of the ball.   The claim made by most ball manufacturers is that the ball is compliant with the rules.  simple tests prove or disprove those claims and those tests were performed by the MGS team.  It was found that the Snell balls did not meet the conditions specified in the rules.   That is the simple fact and we as players make decisions based on those findings; no different than reading a product review and deciding to buy or not buy 

[JFish350]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

Do you test your clubs prior to play to ensure they conform?   Probably not becuase we typically trust the OEM claims about meeting the rules and the ruling body has evaluated samples.    There are cases where the production models do not meet the rules ; a Wishon driver recently had this failure. 
 

MGS in their ball test validates claims that are made by the OEM and the quality of the ball.   The claim made by most ball manufacturers is that the ball is compliant with the rules.  simple tests prove or disprove those claims and those tests were performed by the MGS team.  It was found that the Snell balls did not meet the conditions specified in the rules.   That is the simple fact and we as players make decisions based on those findings; no different than reading a product review and deciding to buy or not buy 

I am not arguing the point that there was/is a problem with the golf ball, we know there is/was from the MGS test and I am not saying the test was not fair, I belief it was done just like every ball test done by MGS. I think the sticking point is the word "BAD" ball, This is where Dean had a big issue. I agree with your statement "It was found that the Snell balls did not meet the conditions specified in the rules". Maybe that's all that needed to be said. 

Bryson is now using a Titleist Pro V1x Left Dash golf ball. The Left Dash ball according to Titleist. "Golf Monthly https://www.golfmonthly.com/gear/gear-news/bryson-dechambeau-whats-in-the-bag-137914". I don't know when this article was written, it was the first one that popped up in my search for which ball Bryson uses. Bryson puts his golf balls in Epson salt to find the high point of the ball. Point is, he is doing his due diligence to find how a ball will roll. I don't know if puts them on a scale. Even the largest most used and correct me if I am wrong most expensive golf ball on the market has issues. 

To your question of do I test my club, No I don't. I should as I am sure every club has been fatted which I would guess after so many times of that a club could loose its original Loft & Lie angles. I don't have those machines in my garage or readily available for my use.

I trust MGS test and everything they do here. I know they have spent and are spending extreme amounts of money to get us readers information, facts & tests on golf equipment. We are allowed to have a different opinion, if we didn't these forums would be empty. Hope we can still be friends. 

[cnosil]

48 minutes ago, JFish350 said:

I am not arguing the point that there was/is a problem with the golf ball, we know there is/was from the MGS test and I am not saying the test was not fair, I belief it was done just like every ball test done by MGS. I think the sticking point is the word "BAD" ball, This is where Dean had a big issue. I agree with your statement "It was found that the Snell balls did not meet the conditions specified in the rules". Maybe that's all that needed to be said. 

I actually talked to the HQ guys  and they are sticking by the word bad becuase a ball advertised as conforming that isn’t. Is “bad”.  Basically a ball is good or bad in their measurements.  
 

to an earlier point I think you made, the ruling bodies do get sample balls and validate that they conform.   Balls are collected from retail and tournament sites and if the ball fails the test it is removed from the conforming list.  So essentially MGS is mimicking the check test done by the ruling bodies.  
 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/2021 USGA Golf Ball Submission Guidelines Final.pdf

[JFish350]

19 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I actually talked to the HQ guys  and they are sticking by the word bad becuase a ball advertised as conforming that isn’t. Is “bad”.  Basically a ball is good or bad in their measurements.  
 

to an earlier point I think you made, the ruling bodies do get sample balls and validate that they conform.   Balls are collected from retail and tournament sites and if the ball fails the test it is removed from the conforming list.  So essentially MGS is mimicking the check test done by the ruling bodies.  
 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Equipment/2021 USGA Golf Ball Submission Guidelines Final.pdf

Good enough for me. 

 

Thanks for reaching out to the HQ guys. 

[JDHolmes]

Bought the samoler pack and played all 4 balls. Only would continue to play the 4.0. I left a review in another thread but did actually hate the 3.0. This was before I read the ball test but now that would explain some of the weirdness I found in the 3.0. Still have 2 of 3 unplayed. Guess they go to the practice bin.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Ldaubney]

I bought the new snell3.0 ball right before the myspy test that gave it a 19. I wasn’t looking forward to playing it after reading so I sent Snell a email saying I wasn’t looking forward to playing their ball since it scored the worst score ever for a ball. I went and played the ball and it was a great ball. Two days later I got a call from Dean Snell who wanted to explain why the ball was better than the score it received. I was impressed with him caring enough to explain to me. I have since played another 3 rounds with the ball and it has performed as well as my previous ball Maxfli tour x.

[JohnnyO3478]

Adam's comments:

 

 

[tvrepairex]

I am a senior golfer  but I have been playing the Snell Black,then MTB-X ,and now the Prime 3.0 along with Srixon ZStar XV divide all in yellow. These balls "shouldn't" be right for me because of swing speed but they seem to work better than some of the softer balls. I started playing Snell partly because of price(not paying $55/dz for ProV1x) but I loved how they performed. I have just played a couple rounds with the Prime 3.0 and so far they have performed well for me.Maybe my swing speed is too slow to show the results of the different "issues"they are supposed to have. My only complaint with the Prime 3.0 is the yellow paint,which seems durable enough but is an ugly shade of yellow vs their previous vibrant yellow and Srixons yellow/green sparkle.

[Cape Cod Bill]

Played the Prime 3.0 for the first time today. My normal ball is PRO-V1X I've been playing for 20 years. I go back and forth between PRO-V1 and the X. As a 6 HC I'm consistent with all shots and putting. My honest option: the Snell Prime 3.0 is ok. Is not a tour level ball and does not compare to the PRO-V family to put it straight. The 3.0 is very consistent; driving, with iron shots, chipping and putting. It is a spinny ball. However, I don't know how Snell does it, it flies well off the driver and does not seem to spin much. This is good. With the PRO-V1X my drives are very consistent for spin, flight and distance. I will say, a couple of driver shots hit perfectly with the 3.0 flew 10+ yards longer then normal. The most disappointing thing with the 3.0 is durability. After a round of 78 shot it was very scuffed up. To the point I would not play it again. And oddly, I think the ball developed an "out of roundness". It is hard to say, but on the last couple of holes I had a couple of odd "flyers".  On hole 17 I birdied, a par 5; my drive was in play but flew right nowhere near where I aimed. It was not me as I hit it well. My normal shot is straight, or baby draw and this drive started out straight and oddly just inched right about 20 yards throughout the flight. The second shot was perfect onto the green. On 18, the ball flight was also odd as well, was a nine iron for a 130 yard par 3. It flew off the face like it was possessed, a rocket ship that seemed like it didn't want to land and ended up flying a bit left. The ball flight was the big surprise, it acted like a driver flight. The only reason I bring this up is about the durability issue, the ball seems affected by 78 shots and lost it's consistency. In all the Prime 3.0 is a decent ball, is $10 less a dozen then Titleist tour balls. In my opinion the $10 is well spent for Titleist consistency and durability. I would not play the 3.0 I played today for another round of golf. I wouldn't trust it. The most I play any ball is for 2 rounds. The Prime 3.0 basically wore out after 78 shots. If you hit 100 shots with it, it would be junk. My point is, I bought the 3.0's from the hype they are as good as PRO-V1 and cheaper. If you care about your game and are playing a tour level ball, I would not buy the Snell's because they are cheaper. If you buy less then tour level, performance type balls to me they would compare. Just understand you will throw ball away after one round. So, they are truly not cheaper to buy based on durability. I don't recommend these balls.  I would also say: most all tour level balls play the same with little difference in regards of brand. Callaway, Taylormade and Srixon tour balls are all similar in performance. Each golf ball has a little different characteristic that through experimentation will provide you with the best choice for you. The Snell Prime 3.0 does not provide the best performance for me.