So..

I have three balls:
a Solid Particle
A Pearl Particle
and A Pearl reactive

I used the same dulling procedure on all three... and got different results just by plain look.

the reactive pearl and the particle pearl are both tacky like hell and nice smooth dull

but the particle pearl is more shiny... and not so tacky but a bit slick like a polished ball it was before... the abrassive took no so much off the ball

so you must know the first two mentioned coverstock (pearl reactive and particle solid) are Brunswick and (I guess) PK18 origin
the Particle pearl is my Machine and old Track so Columbia origin

My question:
Are the old Columbia coverstocks harder by nature or why did the abreassive not take the ball down as it did the other two?

Oppinions?
--------------------
Sebastian Koch
"Have fun and bowl well!" - Grayson
"Some things are made so even idiots won''t fail using them.... But I ask what about the genius?" - Grayson

(\_/)
(x_x)
c('')('')

Unoffical Ballreviews.com FAQ
Hot Water Bath - instructions and experience

Bowling lessons and tips VIDEOS - VERY GOOD!

if the 3rd ball was the columbia and the same pad or paper by the time you hit the 3rd ball the paper or pad would be considerally duller

I had to resurface a Columbia Rock for a friend of mine. I had no problem getting the ball dull and tacky, but it has cost me a set of pads to get there.

It was very hard to sand and even with a 180 grit Abralon pad, there was not much sanded of.

I have no experience with other than Storm particles, but I know this one had a hard coverstock.



Edited on 9/7/2008 6:02 AM