Second Hand Golf Balls from the Bay

2»

Comments

  • cristphotocristphoto Members Posts: 3,315 ✭✭
    Unless it’s a bad angle the above ball looks like the core is not centered. One side of the cover appears noticeably thicker than the other.



    My last experience with water balls was about 15 years ago. Besides not feeling that I wasn’t getting proper distance when the strike felt good I had several tee shots that took off like knuckle balls - zig-zag flight. Even my playing partners noticed it. Never again. As others have stated there are too many good deals on last years models or the latest bunch on on-line balls (Kirkland, Snell, Cut, Vice, etc.) to risk playing water balls.
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,912 ✭✭
    I rummaged up a couple dozen used balls from my closet. Mostly purchased, in fact, as used golf balls from the ‘Bay as it were.



    My scale only reads to the nearest gram but they all seem to be 46g. Maybe none of these were ever in a lake, though.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • RobERobE Members Posts: 169


    Polyurethane does attract and retain moisture fairly readily. More than you'd ever want to know about it here:



    https://www.ptonline...roscopic-resins



    But here's the executive summary:




    Hygroscopic Resins

    (i.e., Nylon, ABS, Acrylic, Polyurethane, Polycarbonate, PET, PBT,)



    Have a strong affinity to attract moisture

    Will absorb moisture onto their molecular structure if exposed to ambient air

    Internal moisture can not be removed with hot air alone





    Which is suggesting that balls "exposed to ambient air" in the display case at the proshop are absorbing moisture.



    So, according to your research, we shouldn't purchase anything that's not fresh off the assembly line?
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,912 ✭✭
    edited Aug 7, 2018 #35
    BB28403 wrote:


    A ziploc bag keeps air and water out. Urethane is 8x thicker than a ziploc bag. I don’t think anything is getting in.



    RobE wrote:



    Polyurethane does attract and retain moisture fairly readily. More than you'd ever want to know about it here:



    [url="https://www.ptonline.com/knowledgecenter/plastics-drying/resin-types/hygroscopic-vs-non-hygroscopic-resins"]https://www.ptonline...roscopic-resins[/url]



    But here's the executive summary:




    Hygroscopic Resins

    (i.e., Nylon, ABS, Acrylic, Polyurethane, Polycarbonate, PET, PBT,)



    Have a strong affinity to attract moisture

    Will absorb moisture onto their molecular structure if exposed to ambient air

    Internal moisture can not be removed with hot air alone





    Which is suggesting that balls "exposed to ambient air" in the display case at the proshop are absorbing moisture.



    So, according to your research, we shouldn't purchase anything that's not fresh off the assembly line?





    Not suggesting anything. I am pointing out a technical reference saying that Urethane per se is not impervious to moisture, in response to a claim upthread that Urethane can not absorb moisture.



    Whether a lake ball has absorbed water or not is totally an empirical question. The reference I cited simply shows that to one extent or another many Urethane formulations are hygroscopic.



    I posted that link in response to the following rather nonsensical assertion:


    BB28403 wrote:


    A ziploc bag keeps air and water out. Urethane is 8x thicker than a ziploc bag. I don’t think anything is getting in.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • Break81Break81 Broke80 Members Posts: 2,022 ✭✭
    So here could be a fun test. Soak 1 ball for a month in water from a sleeve of any random urethane ball. After a month drill a hole in that ball and a dry ball from same sleeve.



    Then take a garden moisture meter and see if the submerged ball had a reading of any kind. I think if there is enough water logged in the ball to effect performance it would show up on the meter.



    What water might do to the elasticity of the cover it a completely different story.
    Cobra F7+ - Stiff
    Callaway V-Series 3 & 5 wood with Aldila Rouge Silver
    Srixon 585 5-AW - Modus 105 Stiff
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 53 & 58 Degree
    EVNROLL ER5
    Srixon XV - Yellow
  • North ButteNorth Butte Members Posts: 9,912 ✭✭
    Break81 wrote:


    So here could be a fun test. Soak 1 ball for a month in water from a sleeve of any random urethane ball. After a month drill a hole in that ball and a dry ball from same sleeve.



    Then take a garden moisture meter and see if the submerged ball had a reading of any kind. I think if there is enough water logged in the ball to effect performance it would show up on the meter.



    What water might do to the elasticity of the cover it a completely different story.




    The first-order easy test would soak a ball in water for a month, take it out and dry off the surface thoroughly, and weigh it.
    “1lb beefstak, with
    1pt bitter beer
    every 6 hours.
    1 ten-mile walk every morning.
    1 bed at 11 sharp every night.
    And don't stuff your head with things you don't understand.” 
  • Break81Break81 Broke80 Members Posts: 2,022 ✭✭
    Break81 wrote:


    So here could be a fun test. Soak 1 ball for a month in water from a sleeve of any random urethane ball. After a month drill a hole in that ball and a dry ball from same sleeve.



    Then take a garden moisture meter and see if the submerged ball had a reading of any kind. I think if there is enough water logged in the ball to effect performance it would show up on the meter.



    What water might do to the elasticity of the cover it a completely different story.




    The first-order easy test would soak a ball in water for a month, take it out and dry off the surface thoroughly, and weigh it.


    Well a small amount of water may not weigh enough to show in weight , moisture would be an immediate indication of water absorption even on a minor level
    Cobra F7+ - Stiff
    Callaway V-Series 3 & 5 wood with Aldila Rouge Silver
    Srixon 585 5-AW - Modus 105 Stiff
    Ping Glide 2.0 Stealth 53 & 58 Degree
    EVNROLL ER5
    Srixon XV - Yellow
  • TsarBombaTsarBomba Members Posts: 698
    bonsett wrote:

    TsarBomba wrote:

    me05501 wrote:


    I sorta doubt anyone here has a swing that is more consistent than the golf balls he plays, regardless of the condition of the ball.




    Yes this is true. However I doubt any of us would choose to loose 6 yards on both bad and good shots to save a penny.



    You came to a golf ball forum...presumably to learn more or provide input on matters relating to WHICH GOLF BALL..saying the ball doesn't matter sort of defeats the whole point of why people chime in here.






    Its a lot more than pennies. I can buy 5A Grade, no logo Pro V1's for about $20 per dozen which is less than half the price of new balls. That's what I'm trying to find out here from other golfers their experience with used balls. I think RobE is on to something with the weight. If he weighed the ball right after it was taken out of the water and it weighed the exact as a new out of the box ball, how could there be any water in it?




    True, more than pennies if compared to retail..but, there are routinely great balls at 20 per dozen new, like the Z-Star and Z-star XV which you then do not have to worry about performance drop off whatsoever.



    Im certain most of us have found that occasional lake ball that clearly spent quite a bit of time at the bottom of a lake such that it is stained brown..anybody notice a distinct difference in those?? I have. There is no telling how long each have of the lake balls you find spent down there. I don't want to worry about the shot being the ball or me. Discounted prior gen or even current gen balls is an obvious choice for me.
  • 1badbadger1badbadger Members Posts: 140
    bonsett wrote:


    Did a little research and found this study. According to this research, golf balls in the water up to 5 months had very little effect on performance. I would like to see a link from 1badbadger information. They seem to contradict.



    Link to study:

    https://golfballdive...re-played-balls




    Here is the big problem I have with this study...why does the data for "new balls" change for each test? These numbers should remain the same. If the initial "new ball" data is compared to "3 months in pond" it shows a loss of 8.6 yds of average total distance. Compared to "5 months in pond" it shows a difference of 14.8 yds.



    Like I mentioned, there are many variables that affect the performance difference...amount of time the ball is submerged, the materials used in manufacture, the number of layers of the ball, the temperature of the water, etc. But the idea that golf balls are waterproof isn't true. I've seen balls where the core has actually separated from the mantle layer due to water absorption and rattles when shaken.



    https://golf-info-guide.com/golf-equipment-news/waterlogged-golf-balls-to-play-or-not-to-play/
  • msgmsg Members Posts: 319 ✭✭
    edited Aug 7, 2018 #41
    Reading this thread, I bought 10 dozen of Wilson Duo because they went on sale here in Canada at $16 per dozen. Well out of curiosity, I tested the new ones and I have a sleeve of new Chrome Soft golf balls and my stockpile of used from ebay Supersofts and some Chromesofts as well using a launch monitor.



    With the driver, the average was all within the same distances, less than 3 yards from carry and total roll out. I never got to the irons or wedges. I warmed up first with old golf balls and hit 5 each from the different golf balls and checked the average.



    I think I am not that consistent enough to feel these changes at all. Or maybe it's all in my mind? I know it's not super extensive what I have done but I am now looking at the 10 dozen of Duo's I bought lol
  • BB28403BB28403 Members Posts: 3,687 ✭✭
    msg wrote:
    Reading this thread, I bought 10 dozen of Wilson Duo because they went on sale here in Canada at $16 per dozen. Well out of curiosity, I tested the new ones and I have a sleeve of new Chrome Soft golf balls and my stockpile of used from ebay Supersofts and some Chromesofts as well using a launch monitor.



    With the driver, the average was all within the same distances, less than 3 yards from carry and total roll out. I never got to the irons or wedges. I warmed up first with old golf balls and hit 5 each from the different golf balls and checked the average.



    I think I am not that consistent enough to feel these changes at all. Or maybe it's all in my mind? I know it's not super extensive what I have done but I am now looking at the 10 dozen of Duo's I bought lol




    I do this, I start with new ones. If I suck I go with eBay ones. And I can’t see the difference ever. Usually my game comes back and the eBay ones perform perfectly fine. I actually have balanced a lot of them with a balancer. And the new ones had more that were off balance. I have stopped balancing because I never could align the ball any way where it flew more correctly.



    And I get the balls so cheap off the bay I even take some to the range to get that feedback from my gamer ball. Yeah it’s an extra $5, here and there, but the feedback is priceless.
  • msgmsg Members Posts: 319 ✭✭
    edited Aug 7, 2018 #43
    BB28403 wrote:

    msg wrote:
    Reading this thread, I bought 10 dozen of Wilson Duo because they went on sale here in Canada at $16 per dozen. Well out of curiosity, I tested the new ones and I have a sleeve of new Chrome Soft golf balls and my stockpile of used from ebay Supersofts and some Chromesofts as well using a launch monitor.



    With the driver, the average was all within the same distances, less than 3 yards from carry and total roll out. I never got to the irons or wedges. I warmed up first with old golf balls and hit 5 each from the different golf balls and checked the average.



    I think I am not that consistent enough to feel these changes at all. Or maybe it's all in my mind? I know it's not super extensive what I have done but I am now looking at the 10 dozen of Duo's I bought lol




    I do this, I start with new ones. If I suck I go with eBay ones. And I can’t see the difference ever. Usually my game comes back and the eBay ones perform perfectly fine. I actually have balanced a lot of them with a balancer. And the new ones had more that were off balance. I have stopped balancing because I never could align the ball any way where it flew more correctly.



    And I get the balls so cheap off the bay I even take some to the range to get that feedback from my gamer ball. Yeah it’s an extra $5, here and there, but the feedback is priceless.




    Yeah I got a friend who bought from me my used TP5 5A. He said he never got used to them because it messes up his mind specially when he thinks about the chlorine soaked golf balls. They look like new but they really smell like bleach.



    But I have shot the lowest scores of my golfing life using used golf balls, even one time it was a beat up Supersoft lol
  • BB28403BB28403 Members Posts: 3,687 ✭✭
    msg wrote:
    BB28403 wrote:

    msg wrote:
    Reading this thread, I bought 10 dozen of Wilson Duo because they went on sale here in Canada at $16 per dozen. Well out of curiosity, I tested the new ones and I have a sleeve of new Chrome Soft golf balls and my stockpile of used from ebay Supersofts and some Chromesofts as well using a launch monitor.



    With the driver, the average was all within the same distances, less than 3 yards from carry and total roll out. I never got to the irons or wedges. I warmed up first with old golf balls and hit 5 each from the different golf balls and checked the average.



    I think I am not that consistent enough to feel these changes at all. Or maybe it's all in my mind? I know it's not super extensive what I have done but I am now looking at the 10 dozen of Duo's I bought lol




    I do this, I start with new ones. If I suck I go with eBay ones. And I can’t see the difference ever. Usually my game comes back and the eBay ones perform perfectly fine. I actually have balanced a lot of them with a balancer. And the new ones had more that were off balance. I have stopped balancing because I never could align the ball any way where it flew more correctly.



    And I get the balls so cheap off the bay I even take some to the range to get that feedback from my gamer ball. Yeah it’s an extra $5, here and there, but the feedback is priceless.




    Yeah I got a friend who bought from me my used TP5 5A. He said he never got used to them because it messes up his mind specially when he thinks about the chlorine soaked golf balls. They look like new but they really smell like bleach.



    But I have shot the lowest scores of my golfing life using used golf balls, even one time it was a beat up Supersoft lol




    You are quite the friend to alleviate him of that burden. Haha. That’s weird I’ve never smelled bleach on balls. Those premium premium balls may get fraudulent on eBay. It’s such a profit for those guys . I go with the ones going for less than 30-35 cents.

    Callaway makes some good balls too!
  • SoCalTitleistSoCalTitleist Members Posts: 3,255 ✭✭
    With all these recycleing companies and the amount of used balls on the market I don’t think waters balls are sitting in ponds for more than a few weeks and these guys are fishing them out at a high rate .



  • msgmsg Members Posts: 319 ✭✭
    edited Aug 13, 2018 #46
    I shot 1 over par over the weekend while playing a tournament. All game long I thought I was using the brand new Chromesoft I bought. Apparently I was using the old ball that was mixed with my bag that I got online from the used golf ball company that I usually buy my golf balls from. image/biggrin.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' />



    The following day, I made sure I play the new Chrome Soft. I shot 84. image/swoon.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':swoon:' />
  • Dustin_JDustin_J St. Louis, MOMembers Posts: 154 ✭✭
    edited Sep 27, 2018 #47
    1badbadger wrote:

    bonsett wrote:


    Did a little research and found this study. According to this research, golf balls in the water up to 5 months had very little effect on performance. I would like to see a link from 1badbadger information. They seem to contradict.



    Link to study:

    [url="https://golfballdive...re-played-balls"]https://golfballdive...re-played-balls[/url]




    Here is the big problem I have with this study...why does the data for "new balls" change for each test? These numbers should remain the same. If the initial "new ball" data is compared to "3 months in pond" it shows a loss of 8.6 yds of average total distance. Compared to "5 months in pond" it shows a difference of 14.8 yds.



    Like I mentioned, there are many variables that affect the performance difference...amount of time the ball is submerged, the materials used in manufacture, the number of layers of the ball, the temperature of the water, etc. But the idea that golf balls are waterproof isn't true. I've seen balls where the core has actually separated from the mantle layer due to water absorption and rattles when shaken.



    [url="https://golf-info-gu...or-not-to-play/"]https://golf-info-gu...or-not-to-play/[/url]








    "Note that since the three groups of pond balls were tested on different days in different weather and atmospheric conditions (which impact performance) each set of pond balls was tested against its own set of new "control" balls on the same day. "



    He's attempting to control for weather/atmospheric conditions via retaining "pristine" control balls and testing them vs. the water balls on the same day for each given comparison. I suppose one could argue that the control balls deteriorate over time well, but that seems fairly unlikely, unless, as suggested before, they're absorbing atmospheric moisture and deteriorating over time themselves. In that case, age (assuming exposure to atmospheric humidity), rather than lake exposure, would be the problem. To be fair, if the guy doing the research was really focused on ruling out alternative explanations, he could have sunk the first set of balls (5 month balls), waited 2 months and sunk the second set (3 month balls), waited 2 more months and sunk the final set of balls (1 month balls), then tested all of them on the same day (or, even better, across multiple days) alongside the control balls. Heck, he could have even stored some control balls in over that time in low vs. high atmospheric conditions. That wouldn't completely rule out the control balls deteriorating over time, but it would allow a "new" vs. 1 month water vs. 3 month water vs. 5 month water comparison that's more straightforward. With that being said, there is no actual research presented in that link that I can see. Who did the research? What was the methodology? Where are the quotes coming from? Granted, we don't know much about the study from the Oakland University researcher, but at least there's something to go off of.
  • mcasella08mcasella08 Members Posts: 81 ✭✭
    Go on ebay and sort by closest distance, that's what I did and now I have a local guy to text if I need balls.
  • AbelvisAbelvis Members Posts: 34 ✭✭
    edited Jan 11, 2019 4:07am #49
    Why would you buy 2nd hand balls if brands like Cut, Vice, PearlGolf etc. offer new balls (premium quality)at the same price?
    [font=Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif]Driver: taylormade.png RBZ TP
    Woods: taylormade.png RBZ stage 2 TP Wood (15 degree)
    Hybrid: taylormade.png RBZ 4 (22 degree)
    Irons: titleist.png 718 AP 1 (5- 53 degree)
    Wedges: cleveland.png 56 & 60 Degree
    Putter: odyssey.png Versa #7
    Ball: Pearl Pure Pro
    [/font]

    [font=Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif]gamegolf.png[/font]
Sign In or Register to comment.