win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?  (Read 5099 times)

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« on: November 04, 2008, 01:14:17 AM »
The topic tells everything - I got hold of a bottle of LM's polish and want to try it next weekend when I work on some balls. So far, I have only been using Brunswick's polish with good success on a lot of balls - but, from experts' experience, is there anything to watch out for with the LM stuff, e. g. concerning base sanding grits?

For the Brunswick polish, I normally use 2.000 Abralon or 1.500 wet sanded, and the result is a clean and shiny surface without any noticeable sanding lines.

I will probably try the LM polish on my Fuze Igniter, which will receive its first surface refreshment at all. Any input on this is highly appreciated

Thanks a lot in advance!
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com''s vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Logged
DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

 

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2008, 09:45:00 AM »
I have found the Lanemaster Polish very durable and longer lasting than the Brunswick High Gloss, but I have to be very-very careful when I use it and start with very small amounts of polish and go from there. As for me, a wee bit too much Lanemaster Polish will cause my ball to overshoot the break point worse than a wee bit too much Brunswick High Gloss.

I don't bowl enough any more to use a lot of polish, but have been trying the Valentino's Snake Oil with success. Here is a link to Valentino's...

http://valentinobowling.com/products.html
--------------------
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away."

Brick

Edited on 11/4/2008 10:46 AM
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2008, 01:01:25 AM »
Thank you very much. What you describe about LM's polish is also my concern - I found the Brunswick polish to be very "stable". Using too much of it does not add length for me, I just get to a certain point of shiny- and tackiness, and the excess polish is simply wasted.

So, thank you for the dosage advice!
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Logged
DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

Brickguy221

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9918
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2008, 01:18:03 AM »
Dizzy, keep in mind that many times polishes are like bowling balls in that a polish that matches up to me might not match up to someone else. I think it may have a lot to do with the line played on the lanes as well as the person's style, revs and how much hand he has of which I don't have much hand and have low revs. Just my opinion there. My comments of application of Lanemaster's is how it worked for me.
--------------------
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away."

Brick
Logged
"Whenever I feel the urge to exercise I lie down until the feeling passes away"

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2008, 07:13:05 AM »
Dizzy,

My experience is the opposite of Jim's.
I found that Lanemasters allowed me to go in stages of shine. It went on a little slower and I needed more polish and more pressure to get the level of shine and therefore, skid. With Brunswick's, it was an all or nothing kind of shine. It took the ball to a gloss shine quickly and with less polish and pressure than Lanemasters. It's kind of a one step polish, for me.

That's a reason where, if I decide to use either of them, I usually choose to use Lanemasters. I do have Brunswick's Factory Finish, but I can't recall the last time I used. Both work fine. It's more a matter of where you want to go and what your target is.

That said, 90% of the time now I use Valentino's Snake Oil, on everything and every brand.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2008, 04:02:03 AM »
Thnak you very much for the replies. I am not sure where to go or what to expect. Most important for me is to know if there are, from other users' experience, either "no gos"'s with LM's polish, or definite differences to Brunswick's stuff. Basically I think I will start with a 2.000 Abralon base + LM polish, just as a benchmark to my standard favorite finish with Brunswick's high gloss. I am really curious how it turns out
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Logged
DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

scotts33

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8452
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2008, 05:53:04 AM »
I'd agree with Jeff.  Legends polish you can take to varying degrees easier than many non-abrasive polishes that are on the market.  


--------------------
Scott

Logged
Scott

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2008, 05:55:33 AM »
Sounds also like a potential option for my Smash Zone, which is hard to tame...
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Logged
DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2008, 08:15:09 AM »
Dizzy,

As far as my description is concerned, don't read too much into it. There are definite differences that I tried to describe and often those differences are useful, but like all things bowling, the differences are not huge.

For the most part, these polishes are not very expensive (at least here in the US). You really need to try them to see how different you find them.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Edited on 11/6/2008 9:16 AM
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2008, 01:22:52 AM »
Finally I was able to work on some balls this weekend, and here my finds with the LM polish so far. I tried it on my Igniter on a 2.000 Abralon base, just as planned, to have a benchmark to my big B High Gloss balls.

At first I was a bit worried, because the LM polish is much thinner and reminds me a bit of car wax. I started carefully and did not get much shine out of the ball on the spinner. But I kept up my standard routine - and had to prep 6 sides of the ball to get to a high gloss shine I receive after 4 sides with Brunswick's stuff. But that's nothing bad, you can tune the level of shininess much better with it than with Brunswick's polish.´

And the effective finish of the ball surface is different, too: the fine sanding lines still can be seen. Additionally, the ball feels different to the touch. More "delicate", I'd describe it.
I haven't tried the Igniter yet, but from the way it feels to the touch I'd expect it to have more length than with High Gloss, and probably react snappier to dry boards.
Really anxious to try the ball again
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Logged
DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2008, 06:16:38 AM »
Dizzy,

While Brunswick's High Gloss works with their instructions very well, I wonder, at times, if it is a non-abrasive polish, like Lanemasters and Valentino's Snake Oil. As you noted about still seeing the sanding lines with Lanemasters, even using Brunswick's with their base of 400 grit, it does seem to smooth out the sanding lines more like a rubbing compound, than like a simple polish. That makes it no more or less effective, just more aggressive than other polishes.

--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2008, 06:48:51 AM »
Jeff, I am pretty sure that Brusnwick's polish is in fact a very fine rubbing compound, finer than the Finesse-It II compound from 3M which holds some gritty material you can actually feel.

I always have coverstock residues in my polishing cloth after using Brunswick's polish (esp. with single color balls - my green Renegade leaves frightening stains!), and I also wondered why the sanding lines disappear under the application of the Brunswick stuff. That's nothing bad (just something different), but I do not think that it is a "true" polish like the LM stuff, which appears like a coat on top of the ball surface. The ball surface also feels different. Hard to describe, but different, less tacky. I really wonder if I see performance differences - and while they might only be small, this little difference can sometimes be decisive, and it is always good to know the options at hand to make the right decisions

Thanks a lot for the input, again
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Logged
DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

tenpinspro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4161
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2008, 07:15:14 AM »
Quote
[it does seem to smooth out the sanding lines more like a rubbing compound, than like a simple polish./quote]

Hey dizzy,

I also get similar results to what charlest and you see.  I can get actual coloring on the polishing towel using Bruns.  The only unique thing I've seen is when certain polishes that tend to have better results on their own products vs others.  

Reacta shine seemed to yield better results for me on Storm balls compared to when it was applied to other manufacturers, not sure if that was intended or maybe my situation is unique.  Just thought I'd share...
--------------------
Rick Leong - Ten Pins Pro Shop
Tag Team Coaching - Co-Founder
"El" Presidente of the Legion

Logged
Rick Leong - Ten Pins Pro Shop
Co-Founder - Tag Team Coaching
"El" Presidente of the Legion

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2008, 08:31:24 AM »
As an addendum, I checked the USBC website for allowed polishes, and found Brunswick's High Gloss (together with Rough Buff) under the list of restricted products that are not allowed during play which contain solids or abrasives.

THESE PRODUCTS CONTAIN SOLIDS OR ABRASIVES AND, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY NOT ALTER THE SURFACE HARDNESS OF A BOWLING BALL, CANNOT BE USED DURING USBC CERTIFIED COMPETITION BECAUSE IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 18. HOWEVER, THESE PRODUCTS ARE ALLOWED BEFORE OR AFTER LEAGUE AND/OR TOURNAMENT SESSIONS.

Interesting, and it would explain the way High Gloss polish works.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Logged
DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Re: Polish comparison: Brunswick's High Gloss vs. Lanemasters polish?
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2008, 04:23:45 AM »
First test with the refreshed Igniter: I think the LM polish really leaves something different than Brunswick's High Gloss polish (or better: compound). Not only can the 2.000 Abralon sanding line still be seen, the surface feels different and on the lanes the Igniter became a real hook and snap monster! Just as advertised on the bottle, the LM polish adds length and back end. I was pretty impressed by the Igniter before (which has a 4x5 layout, with the pion high above the fingers and plenty of finger weight to get it far down and flip hard) at its OOB finish, but the light surface refreshment with LM polish enhanced this go-long-turn-left-in-frightening-angle reaction. Wow!

IMHO, if you want more length out of a shiny ball, LM's stuff is a way to go. Very clean through the heads (better than big B's High Gloss), but still good traction at the break point.

Very happy with the result, and another secret weapon to tweak ball reactions Will try it on other balls, too.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section

Logged
DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany
Pages: [1]
« previous next »