Author Topic: Navy Faball (Read 6451 times)

dougb · « **on:** February 16, 2009, 02:14:32 PM »

Anybody know about the Navy Faballs? Many people seem to be crazy about these older Hammers. I may have a line on a NIB and I'm curious.

http://www.bowlingball.com/Bowling-Ball-2528/hammer-faball-1980-navy-reactive-by-faball.html

Thanks
--------------------
Arsenal:
Storm Gravity Shift
Storm T-Road Pearl
Hammer Cherry Vibe
Lane #1 Bullet
Columbia 300 White Dot - Blue Pearl

Juggernaut · « **Reply #1 on:** February 16, 2009, 10:18:02 PM »

Just a mild reactive cover over an original hammer weightblock. Check out this link for a bit more info:
http://www.123bowl.com/ball.asp?ballid=283
--------------------
Norm Duke was right

Good transactions list in my profile

My Bowl.com member page

scotts33 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 16, 2009, 10:22:01 PM »

No there is just one guy who is nuts about old Hammers...the reason pro's like Marc McDowell and some other failed for a few years were Faball/Hammers behind the times developments in reactive covers/balls. JMO!
--------------------
Scott

Juggernaut · « **Reply #3 on:** February 16, 2009, 10:36:40 PM »

quote:
No there is just one guy who is nuts about old Hammers...the reason pro's like Marc McDowell and some other failed for a few years were Faball/Hammers behind the times developments in reactive covers/balls. JMO!
--------------------
Scott

I have to agree with scotts33 here. The older pure URETHANE hammers were hard to beat, but, when the reactives came around, they just couldn't/didn't make stuff that would perform like the other guys.

They fell behind and people stopped buying them. Hammer FINALLY had a good thing going with their 3-D and SLEDGEHAMMER lines, but by then it was too late.

Like I said, the first reactive hammers were VERY mild reactives over the original hammer core. Just weren't strong enough to keep up.

IMHO, I think some of this was probably by design. Hammer built its reputation on solid, smooth, dependable performance and I just don't think the designers ever thought that people would prefer wildly strong, uncontrollable hooking monsters over their predictable, smooth performance. By the time they saw what was happening, they were just too far behind.

--------------------
Norm Duke was right

Good transactions list in my profile

My Bowl.com member page

Doug Sterner · « **Reply #4 on:** February 16, 2009, 10:45:13 PM »

The Navy Resin Hammer was released around 1990 if I recall and was wicked calm...I'd love to have one again but $100 is a bit more than I care to spend.

Of the 3 resin Hammers (navy resin with the original Hammer core, red resin with the "Track Nuke" looking core and the Violet with the lightbulb core) the red was the most well used and liked.
--------------------
Doug Sterner
Doug's Pro Shop
Owego, NY
http://dougsproshop@aol.com
www.dougsproshop.net
Lane 1 Buzzsaw...The Official Power Tool Of Bowling

dougb · « **Reply #5 on:** February 16, 2009, 11:15:49 PM »

So which are the coveted urethane models?

Juggernaut · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2009, 08:49:40 PM »

quote:
So which are the coveted urethane models?

ALL the original urethane models are sought after, some more than others

To me, they seem to fall in this order:

1. BLUE
2. BURGUNDY
3. PINK
4. BLACK
5. RED
6. RED PEARL
7. BLUE PEARL
8. PURPLE

There was also a Faball named The NAIL. It is the same core with a harder, polished cover. It was a darker blue color

If you find ANY of these undrilled in 15lb weight, they can bring a pretty penny, especially the BLUE and PINK hammers
--------------------
Norm Duke was right

Good transactions list in my profile

My Bowl.com member page

raiderh20boy · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2009, 08:37:57 PM »

I have a NEW NAIL 15 I think No box that I might be willing to part with for the RIGHT PRICE!!

MI 2 AZ · « **Reply #8 on:** May 22, 2009, 05:56:48 PM »

Are you sure that it is the original and correct box for that ball? Do the serial numbers match between what is on the ball and the box?

--------------------

I am the Sgt Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________

New to BR? - Please check this: BR FAQ

Doug Sterner · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2009, 08:38:51 PM »

The Navy reactive was most definitely not produced in 1980. The original Black Hammer was produced in the mid to late 80's.

The Navy Resin was not produced until 1993 or 1994. resin was not in production in anyu way shape or form until 1992 with the X Calibur and Purple Rhino Pro.

--------------------
Doug Sterner
Doug's Pro Shop
Owego, NY
http://dougsproshop@aol.com
www.dougsproshop.net
Lane 1 Buzzsaw...The Official Power Tool Of Bowling
For Real Time Interactive Bowling Conversation:
BowlingChat.net

joegunn · « **Reply #10 on:** May 23, 2009, 10:03:41 AM »

Definitely not 1980...Here is some additional info on the Faball Navy Hammer

http://www.bowlingballreviews.com/ball.asp?ballid=283

USBC Approved Bowling Balls as of 1/30/2009
Faball Blue Hammer 2001 Mar-'01
Faball Blue Hammer Jan-93

stormed1 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 23, 2009, 12:01:21 PM »

Hammer was the last of the major companies to come out with a resin ball. Naby did not like the Navy because it did not turn sideways off the spot. It was a very controlable piece that heavy handed players loved for its control.

Author Topic: Navy Faball (Read 6451 times)

dougb

Navy Faball

Juggernaut

Re: Navy Faball

scotts33

Re: Navy Faball

Juggernaut

Re: Navy Faball

Doug Sterner

Re: Navy Faball

dougb

Re: Navy Faball

Juggernaut

Re: Navy Faball

raiderh20boy

Re: Navy Faball

MI 2 AZ

Re: Navy Faball

Doug Sterner

Re: Navy Faball

joegunn

Re: Navy Faball

stormed1

Re: Navy Faball