Dean Snell response

[Craw]

Just received email from Dean Snell also.  Haven’t watched yet- but am glad he’s responding 

[NM01]

Response to?

[ColdOkieGolf]

11 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

Response to?

MGS stating that the Prime 3.0 is basically the worst ball they have ever tested.

Dean stated that some issues are valid and have been addressed,  but other issues are a matter of data points vs. actual real world impact to the consistency and performance of a golf ball.

[GolfSpy_APH]

Mentioned this in the other thread, but him acknowledging there were issues and were resolved is all well and good. But why not ensure that the fixed balls are in for testing?

Especially since there were some pretty glaring issues with the ones tested. Mistakes do happen like the wrong ball being in the package, but still. 

Ive never used their balls and would still be willing to try them, but still the data speaks for itself. 

Who knows maybe a retest will happen with the proper or updated ones? 

[Blueberry_Squishie]

7 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Mentioned this in the other thread, but him acknowledging there were issues and were resolved is all well and good. But why not ensure that the fixed balls are in for testing?

Especially since there were some pretty glaring issues with the ones tested. Mistakes do happen like the wrong ball being in the package, but still. 

Ive never used their balls and would still be willing to try them, but still the data speaks for itself. 

Who knows maybe a retest will happen with the proper or updated ones? 

Isn't part of the Balllab testing that they get balls by using non-MGS people buying through typical retail channels to ensure that manufacturers don't specifically supply a sample that is perfect?

[ColdOkieGolf]

8 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Mentioned this in the other thread, but him acknowledging there were issues and were resolved is all well and good. But why not ensure that the fixed balls are in for testing?

Especially since there were some pretty glaring issues with the ones tested. Mistakes do happen like the wrong ball being in the package, but still. 

Ive never used their balls and would still be willing to try them, but still the data speaks for itself. 

Who knows maybe a retest will happen with the proper or updated ones? 

His main argument is that the "data"  isn't indicative of the actual performance of a golf ball.   I'd like to believe if there is a big enough variance that there clearly would be a performance difference,  but the question is how much does that variance need to be?



 

[GolfSpy_APH]

4 minutes ago, ColdOkieGolf said:

His main argument is that the "data"  isn't indicative of the actual performance of a golf ball.   I'd like to believe if there is a big enough variance that there clearly would be a performance difference,  but the question is how much does that variance need to be?



 

Balls weren't round - that kinda seems like a big deal.

Off center cores have been shown to make up to 30 yards difference.

The weight is what it is and unless in competition I can see that. But the others are tricky to justify.

If a ball isn't round it isn't going to putt as true that's for sure.

Maybe a better question is why buy them if others at similar price points say Vice offer golf balls that don't have these imperfections? 

[ColdOkieGolf]

6 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Maybe a better question is why buy them if others at similar price points say Vice offer golf balls that don't have these imperfections? 

No real argument there.   I played the original Snell balls and liked them,  just like I played the original Kirkland ball and liked it.  
 

But these days I'd look to Maxfli or Vice.

[BradM]

1 hour ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Mentioned this in the other thread, but him acknowledging there were issues and were resolved is all well and good. But why not ensure that the fixed balls are in for testing?

Especially since there were some pretty glaring issues with the ones tested. Mistakes do happen like the wrong ball being in the package, but still. 

Ive never used their balls and would still be willing to try them, but still the data speaks for itself. 

Who knows maybe a retest will happen with the proper or updated ones? 

I was just gonna say, not sure that circles the square. He must not have known there were issues, or he did know like he said but what is the point of the accuracy and reliability of the testing if the manufacturers can just turn in their best product? 

[storm319]

3 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Mentioned this in the other thread, but him acknowledging there were issues and were resolved is all well and good. But why not ensure that the fixed balls are in for testing?

Especially since there were some pretty glaring issues with the ones tested. Mistakes do happen like the wrong ball being in the package, but still. 

Ive never used their balls and would still be willing to try them, but still the data speaks for itself. 

Who knows maybe a retest will happen with the proper or updated ones? 

Mentioned in the other thread, but balls are not provided by the OEMs for ball lab testing. The MGS staff anonymously purchases samples at retail over a period of time in an attempt to get balls from different batches and to avoid OEMs submitting cherry picked samples.

Ball Lab procurement process:

”We purchase three dozen of each ball model we test at retail. When possible, we source balls from different vendors and at different times. By sampling across multiple batches, we can obtain a more comprehensive picture of quality and consistency.”

https://mygolfspy.com/about-mygolfspy-ball-lab/

[PMookie]

4 hours ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

Mentioned this in the other thread, but him acknowledging there were issues and were resolved is all well and good. But why not ensure that the fixed balls are in for testing?

Especially since there were some pretty glaring issues with the ones tested. Mistakes do happen like the wrong ball being in the package, but still. 

Ive never used their balls and would still be willing to try them, but still the data speaks for itself. 

Who knows maybe a retest will happen with the proper or updated ones? 

And this was a point the Dean made: where is the shot data? I agree with his assessment that since no performance of the balls was actually tested it’s tough to say they’re “bad” balls. As to your question about why he didn’t ensure the fixed balls were in testing, did MGS call him and ask for balls, or did they just go buy some and conduct the test without Dean even knowing? Curious.

[storm319]

1 hour ago, PMookie said:

And this was a point the Dean made: where is the shot data? I agree with his assessment that since no performance of the balls was actually tested it’s tough to say they’re “bad” balls. As to your question about why he didn’t ensure the fixed balls were in testing, did MGS call him and ask for balls, or did they just go buy some and conduct the test without Dean even knowing? Curious.

One example is the weight test. A ball was deemed to be “bad” if it exceeded the USGA/R&A weight limit (seems like a fair call to me). 20 balls from the 36 ball sample exceeded that limit. In this case, performance is moot if the ball does not conform to the rules of golf. 

As was mentioned in the procurement procedure, MGS does not request samples directly from the OEMs and for the non-DTC brands, samples are purchased from retail outlets that are independent of the OEM so that the samples are not cherry picked for the test. Again, they are trying to get a fair representation of what any consumer would get buying at retail, not a sample that was pre-screened to ensure a favorable result. 

Edited August 6 by storm319

[GolfSpy_APH]

1 hour ago, PMookie said:

And this was a point the Dean made: where is the shot data? I agree with his assessment that since no performance of the balls was actually tested it’s tough to say they’re “bad” balls. As to your question about why he didn’t ensure the fixed balls were in testing, did MGS call him and ask for balls, or did they just go buy some and conduct the test without Dean even knowing? Curious.

Balls were bought anonymously, but doesn't mean they don't have an idea that these tests happen. Which is where for me if you knew you had quality issues early and resolved then months ago, but these balls are still on the shelf to be purchased, why isn't there a recall of early stock? 

I give him credit for being upfront, but these balls were still clearly not great and had flaws. If these were known issues and flaws then they should have been pulled from shelves and recalled. Then the new and fixed models replaced.

The fact there was an entirely different ball sucks, hard to say that wouldn't perform differently. Again fully realizing that mistakes happen.

Regardless of if shots were hit this speaks to the overall quality control of the early runs which is not great.

[TT78]

19 hours ago, Craw said:

Just received email from Dean Snell also.  Haven’t watched yet- but am glad he’s responding 

Did you email Snell directly or was their a response online somewhere? It's sad to see such a dramatic fall in their product quality because I started using Snell balls back in their early days when it was the MTB Black and Red. I hope they find a way to right the ship because they used to make really good golf balls.

[Nm243008]

what happened to Dean Snell?? Went from Prov1 to the worst ball ever tested?  wow

[GolfSpy_BOS]

15 minutes ago, Tsecor said:

what happened to Dean Snell?? Went from Prov1 to the worst ball ever tested?  wow

His business got caught up in some factory consolidations... I think Taylormade bought the main factories?

Whoever it was, the little guys like Snell and some of the other DTC brands needed to find new factories.  This test may have been from an early run as Dean said in his follow up video.  I think it's natural to see some growing pains since he had to find a new supplier and get them running up to his standard.  I'll wait to see next year's results.  Hopefully Snell will be back to being a quality ball for those more budget conscious.  I was really surprised they found that many issues, I was a fan of the MTB-X and played a sleeve of Prime 4.0 that seemed good as well.  

[russtopherb]

Knowing Snell and some of the folks that work for him, odds are they're very disappointed with that initial run and the results. Dean isn't one to sit back and say "oh well" when things like this get published. I do agree that the factory switching probably had more to do with these results than they were anticipating. 

[Coulter]

On 8/5/2024 at 4:37 PM, GolfSpy_APH said:

Mentioned this in the other thread, but him acknowledging there were issues and were resolved is all well and good. But why not ensure that the fixed balls are in for testing?

Especially since there were some pretty glaring issues with the ones tested. Mistakes do happen like the wrong ball being in the package, but still. 

Ive never used their balls and would still be willing to try them, but still the data speaks for itself. 

Who knows maybe a retest will happen with the proper or updated ones? 

My issue with his response is if he knew that he had so many issues then why not do some sort of recall? I really like the snell balls that I’ve tried but the fact that he knew there were issues and still sold them makes me as a consumer lose confidence that I’m spending money on something that is worth my time. To be clear I don’t have any idea what a recall of a product like a golf ball would consist of but still has lost my trust 

[GolfSpy_APH]

9 minutes ago, Coulter said:

My issue with his response is if he knew that he had so many issues then why not do some sort of recall? I really like the snell balls that I’ve tried but the fact that he knew there were issues and still sold them makes me as a consumer lose confidence that I’m spending money on something that is worth my time. To be clear I don’t have any idea what a recall of a product like a golf ball would consist of but still has lost my trust 

That's kinda where I was getting at. Wouldn't a recall have been the smart play? Now there are so many questions...

[storm319]

9 minutes ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

That's kinda where I was getting at. Wouldn't a recall have been the smart play? Now there are so many questions...

My guess is that it would not be feasible for a company this size to perform a recall. It seems like they were taking the risk of potential exposure which comes with reputational damage that could potentially exceed the financial impact of a recall long term. To be fair, we are talking about golf balls and not something that poses a safety threat like a vehicle. 

Ultimately all of this is a relatively new thing for OEMs to consider because prior to about 5 years almost no one was worrying about any of this and most simply assumed conformance/consistency.

[cnosil]

36 minutes ago, storm319 said:

Ultimately all of this is a relatively new thing for OEMs to consider because prior to about 5 years almost no one was worrying about any of this and most simply assumed conformance/consistency.

I would say it is not a new thing for OEMs.  The ruling bodies do periodic check tests where balls are purchased at retail and collected at tournament sites and evaluated for conformity.  If a ball fails it is removed from the conforming list    Basically what MGS is doing is a portion of the conformity test.  

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

 

[storm319]

14 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I would say it is not a new thing for OEMs.  The ruling bodies do periodic check tests where balls are purchased at retail and collected at tournament sites and evaluated for conformity.  If a ball fails it is removed from the conforming list    Basically what MGS is doing is a portion of the conformity test.  

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

 

By relatively new I was referring to the consumer interest and wide audience 3rd party testing. Have 3rd parties tested and cut open balls in the past? Sure, but their findings weren’t seen by millions of people. 

The current mass and size limits are over 90 years old at this point so obviously this is not new for OEMs. OEMs have long accepted that some of the product that they ship will be nonconforming because most consumers weren’t really aware or interested, but this 3rd party testing exposed to such a large audience seems to be changing that. 

[cnosil]

6 minutes ago, storm319 said:

By relatively new I was referring to the consumer interest and wide audience 3rd party testing. Have 3rd parties tested and cut open balls in the past? Sure, but their findings weren’t seen by millions of people. 

 

yes, 3rd party ball testing like MGS is doing is new. But the premise of MGS is to validate OEM claims and get to the truth.   As we have seen on this forum the tables lean toward the MGS.   On other forums the tables lean heavily away from MGS on the validity of the ball lab.   No matter what MGS finds there will be people that continue to use the ball no matter the findings.     
 

why should it matter if this is new?  Testing like this has exited in other consumer industries for years and consumers typically read reviews of products prior to purchase.   Why should golf balls be treated differently?

[fixyurdivot]

On 8/5/2024 at 8:08 PM, storm319 said:

One example is the weight test. A ball was deemed to be “bad” if it exceeded the USGA/R&A weight limit (seems like a fair call to me). 20 balls from the 36 ball sample exceeded that limit. In this case, performance is moot if the ball does not conform to the rules of golf. 

I was just going to ask how the balls faired with respect to USGA conformance.  A 55% fail rate for weight alone is nuts.  So, to your point, even if the ball flight data on these was spectacular, they cannot be put into regulation play.  I haven't looked at the MGS lab testing/report, but Jamie is stating OOR condition as well. 

This sounds like a significant breakdown in quality control and a good amount of product should have never left the factory.  Dean has provided we users with some great performing balls at a very competitive price... sure hope this gets resolved and we can all remain confident in Snell balls.

### PS ###

I completely missed the genius in these balls and Dean's submittal... the larger diameter, increased weight, and off-center cores will meet the new rollback specs .

Edited August 8 by fixyurdivot

[Nm243008]

On 8/6/2024 at 3:29 PM, GolfSpy BOS said:

His business got caught up in some factory consolidations... I think Taylormade bought the main factories?

Whoever it was, the little guys like Snell and some of the other DTC brands needed to find new factories.  This test may have been from an early run as Dean said in his follow up video.  I think it's natural to see some growing pains since he had to find a new supplier and get them running up to his standard.  I'll wait to see next year's results.  Hopefully Snell will be back to being a quality ball for those more budget conscious.  I was really surprised they found that many issues, I was a fan of the MTB-X and played a sleeve of Prime 4.0 that seemed good as well.  

This could really sink his reputation within a growing space. Hopefully he comes back with a better ball next time around but the issues with this ball should have been seen before releasing this product......im just shocked at how bad this was. 

[Hacker60521]

I really wasn’t paying attention to the Snell golf ball test until this thread started. I watched the video, and found it really interesting. I’m not a golf ball expert, rules expert, or manufacturing expert. But I can appreciate how candid Dean Snell was with his public response. I was worried it was going to be a variation of “I’m the victim, it’s a conspiracy, blame someone else”. But it was an open and candid view of how he sees things. 
 

It sounds a lot more like he was having manufacturing and quality control issues that he wasn’t aware of. I’m guessing that the factory workers are under pressure from its owner, management, etc to fill production quotas as quickly as possible with the least amount of discards to maximize profits. Hopefully, this all goes back to the manufacturer and Snell can get this back on track.

 

Finally, while I’m not sure a recall is practical, I’m wondering if he could offer a credit for future purchases of Snell balls to those who already bought the 3.0. I’m also just waiting for some lawyer to file a class action lawsuit against Snell for this. 

[Golf2Much]

I definitely see both sides of this story.  Snell was booted out of their factory, had to establish new materials and vendors during COVID and ramp up production with multiple firms and locations.  When MBT Prime came out last year, the initial lots had some cover durability issues (which I observed as I purchased three dozen).  They owned up to it, made the corrections and the issue seemed to die down.

Now they launch three new balls, again presumably from different locations (likely to protect continuity of supply...remember the plant fire not too long ago).  For those who haven't started up a manufacturing line or new products, it can be extremely challenging, especially when you don't own the facilities or not a major customer.  

It's interesting that many DTC golf balls and even other golf merchandise can tend to have almost a cult like following.   People love to stick up for the little guy.  But, they rely on products to have acceptable quality and overall performance.   Whether they knew the full extent of the quality problems or not, the optics aren't certainly the best.  Discounting the issues of balls not meeting USGA specs, it also remains uncertain how other imperfections ultimately yields significant ball performance issues that the average golfer could detect.

I guess the old adage of not buying a car that was built on a Monday may hold true with DTC golf ball manufacturers.  Instead, it's don't buy new golf balls a few months after their introduction. 

Edited August 9 by Golf2Much