SNELL GOLF BALLS??? anyone???

[monkeyboy]

I think some people need to take a deep breath and relax. It's a golf ball. After a test comes out, all of a sudden we demand that a ball be within a certain standard offline deviation...when we rarely hit the ball flush on every shot. I know of many supposed tests that say one thing, only to be contradicted by other tests and other experts. Sometimes science finds definitive evidence. Any golf test will give you a starting point vs an absolute, everyone has unique characteristics to their swing and impact. Same 100mph golf swing - Shaft A may be perfect for one golfer but terrible for another. Would you say that Shaft A is garbage?

 

In the end, pick what you think will work well for you, test it - if you like it, go with it. If you don't, move on.

 

Personally, I played the Snell Reds last season - loved them. As pointed out elsewhere, the MTB-X is a great upgrade. I have not had one shot in about 6 rounds now where I thought that the ball took something away from me. I also tested the Bridgestone Tour BX and Tour BXS. Nothing over 4 rounds with those told me that their dispersion was any better/worse....but I did see the MTB-X being consistently longer and more spin on approaches.

Pick a ball and have some fun.

[flushem]

> @monkeyboy said:

> I think some people need to take a deep breath and relax. It's a golf ball. After a test comes out, all of a sudden we demand that a ball be within a certain standard offline deviation...when we rarely hit the ball flush on every shot. I know of many supposed tests that say one thing, only to be contradicted by other tests and other experts. Sometimes science finds definitive evidence. Any golf test will give you a starting point vs an absolute, everyone has unique characteristics to their swing and impact. Same 100mph golf swing - Shaft A may be perfect for one golfer but terrible for another. Would you say that Shaft A is garbage?

>

> In the end, pick what you think will work well for you, test it - if you like it, go with it. If you don't, move on.

>

> Personally, I played the Snell Reds last season - loved them. As pointed out elsewhere, the MTB-X is a great upgrade. I have not had one shot in about 6 rounds now where I thought that the ball took something away from me. I also tested the Bridgestone Tour BX and Tour BXS. Nothing over 4 rounds with those told me that their dispersion was any better/worse....but I did see the MTB-X being consistently longer and more spin on approaches.

> Pick a ball and have some

 

It could be mental; I play better with Black than X and many other balls. much narrower dispersion.

[Flyers99]

Yeah ball tests are what they are. Usually variables seem different. Two very reputable sites tested the same two balls and came up with completely different results. One ball in a test was supposedly over 15 yards shorter. The other test from another site shows the ball was maybe 2-3 yards shorter. Who knows? I take any of these tests with a grain of salt because the test swing is not mine so any test result is not gonna be my result.

[Fairways_and_Greens]

I played the MTB from the day it was released. I only switched to the Srixon XV because it can be found for half the price as the MTB. I’d like to try the MTBX but wouldn’t know what to do with the stockpile of XVs! The dimple depth and pattern of the MTB looked a lot like the Red LDP. I can’t imagine how the MTB X does.

[Stanks]

I tell ya what, those Massachusetts boys sure can make a golf ball. Go Bruins and Go Snell.

[Bkgeneral]

I really like the MTB-X. I bought them in white, but after some play with Pro V1x in yellow, I am preferring the yellow. How does the yellow in MTB-X compare with the X? I looked at the pictures on Snell site, but isn't really very telling.

[SNIPERBBB]

Well after getting an Ace with the MTB-X wednesday, Ill probably be getting a few more dozen once I get some truck repairs paid for. Or get back on my money game win streak :P

[flushem]

> @Bkgeneral said:

> I really like the MTB-X. I bought them in white, but after some play with Pro V1x in yellow, I am preferring the yellow. How does the yellow in MTB-X compare with the X? I looked at the pictures on Snell site, but isn't really very telling.

 

Lime-ish yellow. way brighter than dim V1x yellow. It should be called "vivid" yellow. LOL

[GolfTurkey]

I have been playing the MTB-X for a few weeks now. I agree with the people who says it’s similar to the ProV1x. I think the MTB-X may have fractionally less iron spin although high with very good stopping power. It definitely plays better into the wind for me than the ProV1x, with which I had major ballooning problems. It’s long off the tee and given the price it’s a no-brainer for me to use.

[kauffee]

> @GolfTurkey said:

> I have been playing the MTB-X for a few weeks now. I agree with the people who says it’s similar to the ProV1x. I think the MTB-X may have fractionally less iron spin although high with very good stopping power. It definitely plays better into the wind for me than the ProV1x, with which I had major ballooning problems. It’s long off the tee and given the price it’s a no-brainer for me to use.

 

I’m glad you posted this. I also feel like the Snell is better in the wind than the Pro V1x. It’s hard to be sure since I’m not a robot but my sense is that the ball comes off my driver with a little less spin.

[aquapig]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @"Snell Golf" said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > @"Snell Golf" said:

> > > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > > @cpeck said:

> > > > > > still wondering if everything is good with dean. has he chimed in here since he last spoke about not doing that live interview or whatever?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > on that ball was the seam visible? i have never had a problem with the mtb b that i have played for quite some time going off line with it being ball error vs myself atleast i thought! got curious about the mtbx and ordered a dozen last night just to check out as i am super happy with my current ball.

> > > > >

> > > > > You know, I didn't even inspect the ball at the time, as I just so flabbergasted at how the **** it went where it did. I just hit it from the other fairway where it lied (into a bunker, but that was my fault for not making great contact). It is very possible that I just had a horribly open club fact at impact, but it does make me wonder if it was, possibly, the ball.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Just to clarify a bit.. Every ball has a seam on it... there has to be a seam.. how else could the inside of the ball get inside the cover.. two mold halves come together.. now, sometimes these mold halves are arranged where the seam will be alittle visible, and sometimes its set like a sine wave or serpentine where it is not as visible... but there is a a seam there... the USGA makes sure that the balls are symmetrical and test in seam, and cross seam for symmetry. The balls all have to fly the same distance and same trajectory and land with fractions of a second of each no matter how they are tee'd up...the old "seaming it" came from when the original PROV1 was lauched, and there was a distinctive distance difference if tee'd up in-seam.. meaning seam facing down range.. but that was addressed years ago, and is longer an issue...So, there are no worries at all with distance and consistency with respect to a seam.. if has to pass this testing to be legal... **As for comments with respect to the other sites testing, I have seen only what everyone on this site has seen with respect to the data and testing... So it is very tough to make any comments at all, because I was not there, and have not seen all the test conditions over the days of testing.** What I do know is that we have done several controlled distance tests over the past year, and have seen the dispersion and deviations to be very good from shot to shot. I do know that the golf balls we have are very fast in speed, and would challenge anyone to be legal and faster. That has been confirmed with several independent tests from several different people, including robot testing... So if we get the ball speed as fast as we can legally be, and we have low spin rates off the driver, then the ball has to be long... and this has been shown to be the case. I will not comment on the other balls being shorter, I just know the MTB X and MTB BLACK balls are both very fast in speed, both low in driver spin, and both long off the tee... thank you to those who sent me private messages or emails with respect to the personal issues I had to deal with... part of life, and life goes on and I will be fine.. appreciate the thoughts and support...

> > >

> > > How can essentially say "no comment" about this test when it comes to consistency and shot dispersion because you weren't there and didn't see the test conditions but send out an email title "Longest Ball in Golf!" and cite the same test in that email?

> >

> > I think if you would have made the next three sentences bold like you did for the one in your message, you would have answered your own question... I have copied it again so hopefully it is clear to you now on how I am comfortable with the distance results due to several tests I have done, and several others have done... as also as mentioned in the message I wrote, I have NOT seen this type of dispersion in several tests I have run, so I cannot comment on how this test was done or shots from this test because I was not there. I

> > **What I do know is that we have done several controlled distance tests over the past year, and have seen the dispersion and deviations to be very good from shot to shot. I do know that the golf balls we have are very fast in speed, and would challenge anyone to be legal and faster. That has been confirmed with several independent tests from several different people, including robot testing... So if we get the ball speed as fast as we can legally be, and we have low spin rates off the driver, then the ball has to be long... and this has been shown to be the case.**

>

> That doesn't answer my question. It's just a repeat of what you've already said. I understand you have done your own tests, however the email that was sent made no mention of those tests. It just cited the **** test. My whole point is that you are taking only the good from one test, using it to market the balls, then when questioned about other parts of the same test that aren't positive you're dismissing them. That's some cherrypicking.

 

Dude! It's a golf ball..RELAX!

Wow, just wow.

[mogc60]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @"Snell Golf" said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > @"Snell Golf" said:

> > > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > > @cpeck said:

> > > > > > still wondering if everything is good with dean. has he chimed in here since he last spoke about not doing that live interview or whatever?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > on that ball was the seam visible? i have never had a problem with the mtb b that i have played for quite some time going off line with it being ball error vs myself atleast i thought! got curious about the mtbx and ordered a dozen last night just to check out as i am super happy with my current ball.

> > > > >

> > > > > You know, I didn't even inspect the ball at the time, as I just so flabbergasted at how the **** it went where it did. I just hit it from the other fairway where it lied (into a bunker, but that was my fault for not making great contact). It is very possible that I just had a horribly open club fact at impact, but it does make me wonder if it was, possibly, the ball.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Just to clarify a bit.. Every ball has a seam on it... there has to be a seam.. how else could the inside of the ball get inside the cover.. two mold halves come together.. now, sometimes these mold halves are arranged where the seam will be alittle visible, and sometimes its set like a sine wave or serpentine where it is not as visible... but there is a a seam there... the USGA makes sure that the balls are symmetrical and test in seam, and cross seam for symmetry. The balls all have to fly the same distance and same trajectory and land with fractions of a second of each no matter how they are tee'd up...the old "seaming it" came from when the original PROV1 was lauched, and there was a distinctive distance difference if tee'd up in-seam.. meaning seam facing down range.. but that was addressed years ago, and is longer an issue...So, there are no worries at all with distance and consistency with respect to a seam.. if has to pass this testing to be legal... **As for comments with respect to the other sites testing, I have seen only what everyone on this site has seen with respect to the data and testing... So it is very tough to make any comments at all, because I was not there, and have not seen all the test conditions over the days of testing.** What I do know is that we have done several controlled distance tests over the past year, and have seen the dispersion and deviations to be very good from shot to shot. I do know that the golf balls we have are very fast in speed, and would challenge anyone to be legal and faster. That has been confirmed with several independent tests from several different people, including robot testing... So if we get the ball speed as fast as we can legally be, and we have low spin rates off the driver, then the ball has to be long... and this has been shown to be the case. I will not comment on the other balls being shorter, I just know the MTB X and MTB BLACK balls are both very fast in speed, both low in driver spin, and both long off the tee... thank you to those who sent me private messages or emails with respect to the personal issues I had to deal with... part of life, and life goes on and I will be fine.. appreciate the thoughts and support...

> > >

> > > How can essentially say "no comment" about this test when it comes to consistency and shot dispersion because you weren't there and didn't see the test conditions but send out an email title "Longest Ball in Golf!" and cite the same test in that email?

> >

> > I think if you would have made the next three sentences bold like you did for the one in your message, you would have answered your own question... I have copied it again so hopefully it is clear to you now on how I am comfortable with the distance results due to several tests I have done, and several others have done... as also as mentioned in the message I wrote, I have NOT seen this type of dispersion in several tests I have run, so I cannot comment on how this test was done or shots from this test because I was not there. I

> > **What I do know is that we have done several controlled distance tests over the past year, and have seen the dispersion and deviations to be very good from shot to shot. I do know that the golf balls we have are very fast in speed, and would challenge anyone to be legal and faster. That has been confirmed with several independent tests from several different people, including robot testing... So if we get the ball speed as fast as we can legally be, and we have low spin rates off the driver, then the ball has to be long... and this has been shown to be the case.**

>

> That doesn't answer my question. It's just a repeat of what you've already said. I understand you have done your own tests, however the email that was sent made no mention of those tests. It just cited the **** test. My whole point is that you are taking only the good from one test, using it to market the balls, then when questioned about other parts of the same test that aren't positive you're dismissing them. That's some cherrypicking.

 

Have you even played the golf ball? I’m dismissing some stupid test based on my own experience with the actual golf ball...or let’s call it 18 golf balls now. No issues..no dispersion issues...no errant unexplainable issues. No quality control issues. It’s an amazing golf ball and on par or better than any ball I’ve tried and I’ve tried them all. I’m a plus 2 to plus 4 hdcp and a former club pro of 18 years. I know a **** golf ball from a high end product. Seems you are the one cherry picking. You’ve got the owner of a company on here that responds to darn near every question anyone asks him on this site and signs every receipt that ships out to his customers and makes a high end golf ball at a great price. He’s also been behind some of the best golf balls ever produced. The ones with his own name on them included. I highly doubt he tested one ball and got a decent result and went “That’ll do donkey...that’ll do”

I just know it’s one of the best golf balls I’ve ever played...that answered my questions

 

[Myherobobhope]

> @Joker91 said:

> > @"Snell Golf" said:

> > > @Joker91 said:

> > > > @"Snell Golf" said:

> > > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > > @cpeck said:

> > > > > > still wondering if everything is good with dean. has he chimed in here since he last spoke about not doing that live interview or whatever?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > on that ball was the seam visible? i have never had a problem with the mtb b that i have played for quite some time going off line with it being ball error vs myself atleast i thought! got curious about the mtbx and ordered a dozen last night just to check out as i am super happy with my current ball.

> > > > >

> > > > > You know, I didn't even inspect the ball at the time, as I just so flabbergasted at how the **** it went where it did. I just hit it from the other fairway where it lied (into a bunker, but that was my fault for not making great contact). It is very possible that I just had a horribly open club fact at impact, but it does make me wonder if it was, possibly, the ball.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Just to clarify a bit.. Every ball has a seam on it... there has to be a seam.. how else could the inside of the ball get inside the cover.. two mold halves come together.. now, sometimes these mold halves are arranged where the seam will be alittle visible, and sometimes its set like a sine wave or serpentine where it is not as visible... but there is a a seam there... the USGA makes sure that the balls are symmetrical and test in seam, and cross seam for symmetry. The balls all have to fly the same distance and same trajectory and land with fractions of a second of each no matter how they are tee'd up...the old "seaming it" came from when the original PROV1 was lauched, and there was a distinctive distance difference if tee'd up in-seam.. meaning seam facing down range.. but that was addressed years ago, and is longer an issue...So, there are no worries at all with distance and consistency with respect to a seam.. if has to pass this testing to be legal... **As for comments with respect to the other sites testing, I have seen only what everyone on this site has seen with respect to the data and testing... So it is very tough to make any comments at all, because I was not there, and have not seen all the test conditions over the days of testing.** What I do know is that we have done several controlled distance tests over the past year, and have seen the dispersion and deviations to be very good from shot to shot. I do know that the golf balls we have are very fast in speed, and would challenge anyone to be legal and faster. That has been confirmed with several independent tests from several different people, including robot testing... So if we get the ball speed as fast as we can legally be, and we have low spin rates off the driver, then the ball has to be long... and this has been shown to be the case. I will not comment on the other balls being shorter, I just know the MTB X and MTB BLACK balls are both very fast in speed, both low in driver spin, and both long off the tee... thank you to those who sent me private messages or emails with respect to the personal issues I had to deal with... part of life, and life goes on and I will be fine.. appreciate the thoughts and support...

> > >

> > > How can essentially say "no comment" about this test when it comes to consistency and shot dispersion because you weren't there and didn't see the test conditions but send out an email title "Longest Ball in Golf!" and cite the same test in that email?

> >

> > I think if you would have made the next three sentences bold like you did for the one in your message, you would have answered your own question... I have copied it again so hopefully it is clear to you now on how I am comfortable with the distance results due to several tests I have done, and several others have done... as also as mentioned in the message I wrote, I have NOT seen this type of dispersion in several tests I have run, so I cannot comment on how this test was done or shots from this test because I was not there. I

> > **What I do know is that we have done several controlled distance tests over the past year, and have seen the dispersion and deviations to be very good from shot to shot. I do know that the golf balls we have are very fast in speed, and would challenge anyone to be legal and faster. That has been confirmed with several independent tests from several different people, including robot testing... So if we get the ball speed as fast as we can legally be, and we have low spin rates off the driver, then the ball has to be long... and this has been shown to be the case.**

>

> That doesn't answer my question. It's just a repeat of what you've already said. I understand you have done your own tests, however the email that was sent made no mention of those tests. It just cited the **** test. My whole point is that you are taking only the good from one test, using it to market the balls, then when questioned about other parts of the same test that aren't positive you're dismissing them. That's some cherrypicking.

 

Of course it's cherry picking... he's a guy selling golf balls... The question becomes: is he cherry picking because the other fruit is rotten or because he wants to sell the best fruit? As he said, his testing and others confirmed that Snell was one of the fastest golf balls (and lowest spinning on the market)... That agrees with the Mai Golf Thai testing. He has not seen dispersion problems with his ball... Mai Golf Thai did. Maybe ask them why they thought it happened, instead of the guy who didn't see it happen.

 

I have lots of problems with the Mai Golf Thai testing... and the lack of data transparency. I still think it was good and useful information that can be a solid place to start a golf ball hunt (I certainly used it for this purpose). I haven't played enough Snell balls (or any ball this season) to notice a problem...

[Philomathesq]

> @Joker91 said:

> **Nothing I said or asked has anything to do with playing the ball.**

 

And therein lies the problem. This is a thread about playing the ball. Take your advertising/marketing issues elsewhere and let the rest of us focus on discussing the playability of the ball.

 

 

[mogc60]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @Joker91 said:

> > **Nothing I said or asked has anything to do with playing the ball.**

>

> And therein lies the problem. This is a thread about playing the ball. Take your advertising/marketing issues elsewhere and let the rest of us focus on discussing the playability of the ball.

>

>

Exactly. Well said

[storm319]

> @Joker91 said:

> First off, none of you can tell what what I can discuss with anyone. I'm not calling anyone names or ridiculing anyone like some of you are. **If you don't like it, move on.**

>

Please heed your own advice.

[Philomathesq]

> @Joker91 said:

>~~First off, none of you can tell what what I can discuss with anyone. I'm not calling anyone names or ridiculing anyone like some of you are. If you don't like it, move on.~~

>

> I have 5 dozen MTB-X I got last week. I used them for the first time this weekend. I like them. They felt nice around the greens. My miss is a thinner shot a couple grooves low with the irons and I didn't see as much of a loss of yardage with some other balls. Nice flight off the driver and seemed to not have too much spin, I didn't see any ballooning. Durability was good, saw no cuts or scuffing.

>

>~~Nice try on calling me out on not owning any. You failed miserably.~~

 

 

Much better. Glad we are finally back to discussing the actual playability and merits of the ball.

[RobDMB]

Have many that previously played the MTB Black switched to the X? Findings/thoughts?

[Philomathesq]

> @RobDMB said:

> Have many that previously played the MTB Black switched to the X? Findings/thoughts?

 

TLDR: For me, the Black has better "feel" and I control it better.

 

I tried out the Black and X before settling on the Black. On drives, I didn't notice any appreciable performance difference between the two, but I prefer the feel of the Black off the driver. For me, the short game is where I see a performance difference. I have more control with the Black than the X, and the Black feels much better of the putter than does the X.

 

Having said that, I'm sure there are others that feel the exact opposite way. Obviously, the best thing to do is to get a sample pack (Black/X) and play them side by side and see which you like better.

[iutodd]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @RobDMB said:

> > Have many that previously played the MTB Black switched to the X? Findings/thoughts?

>

> TLDR: For me, the Black has better "feel" and I control it better.

>

> I tried out the Black and X before settling on the Black. On drives, I didn't notice any appreciable performance difference between the two, but I prefer the feel of the Black off the driver. For me, the short game is where I see a performance difference. I have more control with the Black than the X, and the Black feels much better of the putter than does the X.

>

> Having said that, I'm sure there are others that feel the exact opposite way. Obviously, the best thing to do is to get a sample pack (Black/X) and play them side by side and see which you like better.

 

I’m curious - what kind of putter do you have? Because I’m way more comfortable with the X putting. I have a Versa Works 7 and the combo of the Black and the relatively soft insert makes me feel like I don’t have any distance control over the ball - like I can’t feel it off the putter face because it’s all just so...creamy and soft. Which is weird because I’ve played soft balls in the past (Q star Tour) and didn’t feel this way about it. Something about the black just doesn’t jibe with how I putt.

 

But yeah - get a test pack and see what works for you! Can’t say it any better.

 

Very happy with the Yellow X. Durability has been great and it flies well in the wind - played with maybe a club wind yesterday and ballooning was well under control.

[Philomathesq]

> @iutodd said:

 

> I’m curious - what kind of putter do you have? Because I’m way more comfortable with the X putting. I have a Versa Works 7 and the combo of the Black and the relatively soft insert makes me feel like I don’t have any distance control over the ball - like I can’t feel it off the putter face because it’s all just so...creamy and soft. Which is weird because I’ve played soft balls in the past (Q star Tour) and didn’t feel this way about it. Something about the black just doesn’t jibe with how I putt.

 

I have an Odyssey Stroke Lab Seven S, which also has the White Hot insert (though, my guess is the Stroke Lab putters use a different version/iteration than the Versa Works). This just goes to show that "feel" does matter, no matter how much the-site-that-shall-not-be-mentioned says it doesn't.

 

 

[iutodd]

> @Philomathesq said:

> I have an Odyssey Stroke Lab Seven S, which also has the White Hot insert (though, my guess is the Stroke Lab putters use a different version/iteration than the Versa Works). This just goes to show that "feel" does matter, no matter how much the-site-that-shall-not-be-mentioned says it doesn't.

>

>

 

(I should have looked at your signature! Didn’t think of that til now - I sort of forgot how everything around here works with the redesign.)

 

Very interesting - before these balls and my experience putting I don’t know that I would have ever felt so strongly about the ball off the putter. I wouldn’t have ever thought: “Hey in order to pick between these two balls I’ll putt with them”. Feel is something that only an individual person can define - it’s like music or art. In fact it is those things.

 

And I guess...like say the X was way shorter or didn’t help with my side spin issue...then I’d figure out how to putt with the black or find a different ball...but the X and Black are pretty close otherwise from my point of view.

[4puttJohnny]

Meh. Tried them. Felt like old rocks. Gave the other 3 sleeves to some kid standing outside the pro shop.

[skraly]

For me the MTB-x feels ever so slightly softer than a ProV1-x. The MTB-x is a tad longer than the ProV1-x off of the driver. Full iron shots are a wash. On part shots the ProV1-x spins slightly more. No real difference off of the putter. The one thing I did notice is that the cover of the MTB-x is less durable than the ProV1-x. After one round the MTB-x looked noticeably more used than a ProV1-x. With the price difference the MTB-x is a viable option. YMMV.

[flushem]

> @4puttJohnny said:

> Meh. Tried them. Felt like old rocks. Gave the other 3 sleeves to some kid standing outside the pro shop.

 

What do you normally game? Air?

[bunta]

> @flushem said:

> What do you normally game? Air?

 

Tofu

 

 

[Bkgeneral]

> @skraly said:

> For me the MTB-x feels ever so slightly softer than a ProV1-x. The MTB-x is a tad longer than the ProV1-x off of the driver. Full iron shots are a wash. On part shots the ProV1-x spins slightly more. No real difference off of the putter. The one thing I did notice is that the cover of the MTB-x is less durable than the ProV1-x. After one round the MTB-x looked noticeably more used than a ProV1-x. With the price difference the MTB-x is a viable option. YMMV.

 

I would parrot this completely. I am going to try the yellow, as I have found yellow in other balls to hold up just a little better.

[Murv]

I have played the Black since it came out. Always loved the feel. But, had to try the x after the test. I think it goes a little farther which I really need. Got used to the feel difference with no problem.

Now...I read about this seam issue. Made no difference to me. But, when I look at images of the X on line I see no seam where the MTB-X is printed. But, very obvious on all of the balls I have. Hmmm. I ordered mine on 5/15 was prepared for a wait but had them in 2 days. But they play fine.

Anybody have X's with out a seam?

 

Murv

[trackcoach13]

> @Murv said:

> I have played the Black since it came out. Always loved the feel. But, had to try the x after the test. I think it goes a little farther which I really need. Got used to the feel difference with no problem.

> Now...I read about this seam issue. Made no difference to me. But, when I look at images of the X on line I see no seam where the MTB-X is printed. But, very obvious on all of the balls I have. Hmmm. I ordered mine on 5/15 was prepared for a wait but had them in 2 days. But they play fine.

> Anybody have X's with out a seam?

>

> Murv

 

They don't exist without seam. The seam has no impact other than in a persons mind. Play them and hit them long and straight!!!!!

[Murv]

> @trackcoach13 said:

> > @Murv said:

> > I have played the Black since it came out. Always loved the feel. But, had to try the x after the test. I think it goes a little farther which I really need. Got used to the feel difference with no problem.

> > Now...I read about this seam issue. Made no difference to me. But, when I look at images of the X on line I see no seam where the MTB-X is printed. But, very obvious on all of the balls I have. Hmmm. I ordered mine on 5/15 was prepared for a wait but had them in 2 days. But they play fine.

> > Anybody have X's with out a seam?

> >

> > Murv

>

> They don't exist without seam. The seam has no impact other than in a persons mind. Play them and hit them long and straight!!!!!

 

Well, some balls have unnoticeable seams.

The seams on the X's are more visible than on the Blacks. Wonder why?

No problem with the straight part but with our weather the balls splash in the fairway.

 

Murv