Author Topic: Really a dud? (Read 10513 times)

Gazoo · « **on:** June 28, 2009, 03:55:41 AM »

Video of 3 different bowlers throwing the Buzzbomb. Granted it is not hooking across 3 pair of lanes, but it does seem to hook and carry pretty well. Maybe it wasn't a dud after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTr8mMJN_I8
--------------------
"I don''t want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"

burly1 · « **Reply #31 on:** June 29, 2009, 04:54:23 PM »

My Fury was no dud, and neither is my Buzzbomb, this can not be said about my Black Widow solid, and my Cell both of which were not very good for me. To each his own I guess.
--------------------
----------------------------------------
Patrick

NoseofRI · « **Reply #32 on:** June 29, 2009, 05:05:36 PM »

quote:
My Fury was no dud, and neither is my Buzzbomb, this can not be said about my Black Widow solid, and my Cell both of which were not very good for me. To each his own I guess.
--------------------
----------------------------------------
Patrick

Sorry but you are missing the point. The fact is, the Fury Solid flopped as far as sales went and so did the BuzzBomb. And this is FULLY verified by the lack of sales on the pearl versions that were to follow. So yes they may have worked for you but in general they were a dud as far as a release goes. Now if you are saying the Fury and BuzzBomb work for you but the Cell and Black Widowm don't then you either bowl on a flood or have about 50-100 revs, because both balls that worked for you, hooked about 10ft earlier than the 2 you mentioned that didn't.

Edited on 6/29/2009 5:10 PM

JessN16 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 29, 2009, 05:32:30 PM »

quote:
quote:
So when the ball actually hit the shelves, it got a triple whammy of (a) not matching up for a significant percentage of bowlers, (b) being somewhat limited in its application in the first place, and (c) Lane #1 couldn't get a significantly different piece of gear out behind it to distract attention. To make matters worse, the next release was the BuzzBomb/R, and if you didn't match up with the original worth a da*n, you sure weren't going to buy the pearl version.

Using these three reasons almost defines a "dud" from a sales standpoint.
If the Lane #1 argument is that "it's not a dud because it works for some people" than going the other way it can fully be stated that it is a dud because it didn't work for others. Being a "dud" has absolutely NOTHING to do with reaction and use of a bowling ball. The fact is there's not a single bowling ball out there that has NEVER worked for a single person. Whether a ball is a dud or not is based on overall interest initially at release and continually after the has gotten to a few hands for people to see. So you see every ball has its place to be used and all this other blah blah that's being used for an argument. But for your argument to be that it works but I only use it when they are flooded and in tournament competition 3 times a year is a pretty dismal argument and does nothing in your defense for saying it isn't a dud.
So now my question to those making arguments that the BuzzBomb was NOT a dud....
Do you consider the original Fury Solid a dud? Simple yes or no on this answer.

Edited on 6/29/2009 4:54 PM

I don't remember what the Fury was marketed to be. That's kind of my point above.

If you market something to be usable on any conditions, or a wide range of conditions, or for a wide range of bowlers, and it's not, you have a problem on your hands. If you market something as being a niche product and people try to use it on conditions it was never intended for and then get pissed about it, that's not your problem.

If Lane #1 had marketed the BuzzBomb as "a great solid for people who bowl on medium-heavy and need a ball that gets into a heavy roll," we wouldn't be having this discussion. The BuzzBomb phenomena is what it is because Lane #1 tried to make it into something it wasn't.

It's akin to what would happen if Visionary had tried to market the Slate Blue Gargoyle as the answer to everyone's problems. The SBG is a urethane pearl that works about 10-20 percent of the time, tops, and is thus an arsenal piece and not a benchmark ball.

My definition of "flop" -- and you can apply this to the Fury or the BuzzBomb, if it fits -- is if you design a ball for a condition or set of conditions, and for a category of bowlers, and it can't deliver even for them. If, however, you design a ball for those criteria and it works under those conditions, but you instead try to make it something it's not, you have created a marketing flop and not a performance flop.

What this is, is a redux of the problems surrounding the Columbia EPX all over again. The EPX was an oiler that Columbia tried to sell to THS league bowlers, and when it didn't work for them, they went nuts (especially if they didn't follow the cleaning regimen for the epoxy cover). But as an oiler it does exactly what Columbia says it would do. So was the ball a flop or the marketing campaign a flop? The marketing campaign.

There are way too many people for whom the BuzzBomb worked than those it didn't for the entire ball to be called a performance flop. Conservatively, we're still talking about two-thirds of the people who bought the ball liked it. However, the marketing campaign was definitely a flop and did damage to the company's sales.

Jess

Steven · « **Reply #34 on:** June 29, 2009, 06:04:24 PM »

quote:
If the Lane #1 argument is that "it's not a dud because it works for some people" than going the other way it can fully be stated that it is a dud because it didn't work for others. Being a "dud" has absolutely NOTHING to do with reaction and use of a bowling ball. The fact is there's not a single bowling ball out there that has NEVER worked for a single person. Whether a ball is a dud or not is based on overall interest initially at release and continually after the has gotten to a few hands for people to see.

Nose: Your overall analysis on the definition of a 'dud' is very good. I had just about given up on getting anything worth discussing. I agree that it relates more to interest in a given ball. But I'm not sure that Lane#1 has enough market share to fairly evaluate BuzzBomb sales relative to their other offerings. Besides that, I don't know that they even release that kind of information. Even if you're 'in the know' in the distributor network, I'm guessing that a high percentage of their sales are still direct.

quote:
But for your argument to be that it works but I only use it when they are flooded and in tournament competition 3 times a year is a pretty dismal argument and does nothing in your defense for saying it isn't a dud.

I'm not sure about this. I think most of us here have equipment that we use for special situations. Every company has a few balls designed for heavy conditions that are generally unusable unless you polish them to a high grit marble. I'm sure I could take the BB cover up to 4000 and/or heavy polish and get it to work as an everyday ball, but I've got plenty of other stuff for that.

quote:
So now my question to those making arguments that the BuzzBomb was NOT a dud....
Do you consider the original Fury Solid a dud? Simple yes or no on this answer.

Yes. There was huge hype before the ball was released, and for many it didn't live up to billing. Proshop sales took a huge hit within a short period of time. A West Regional player who was on Brunswick's Amateur staff gave up on his and gave it to me with about 30 games logged. I tried every combination of abralon finish from 360-4000 with and without polish to find some surface I could use consistently for any condition. Of the dozens of balls I've owned over the past few years, the Fury is the one I couldn't find any sweet spot on.

This might not make for a 'global dud' definition, but it certainly was for me personally.
--------------------
Sig not currently in use. I'm not interested in playing games.

Edited on 6/29/2009 6:29 PM

Gazoo · « **Reply #35 on:** June 29, 2009, 06:30:40 PM »

"My definition of "flop" -- and you can apply this to the Fury or the BuzzBomb, if it fits -- is if you design a ball for a condition or set of conditions, and for a category of bowlers, and it can't deliver even for them. If, however, you design a ball for those criteria and it works under those conditions, but you instead try to make it something it's not, you have created a marketing flop and not a performance flop."

We finally get to the proper terminology to describe this ball as well as the Fury and others balls this has happened too. "Flop" Yes, "DUD" No. If a ball is not inaffective for everyone then it can't be a "Dud", but it can certainly be a "Flop" do to lack of sales from it not being affective or perceived to be afffective by a percentage of bowlers.

--------------------
"I don't want to be remembered, I want to be forgotten"

Maine Man · « **Reply #36 on:** June 29, 2009, 07:27:45 PM »

I threw Lane #1 equipment almost exclusively for years, and Crusty is right, I have very extensive knowledge of drilling patterns on their equipment, tendencies, and bowler feedback on Lane #1 bowling balls.

Lane #1 balls, in general, have a certain roll pattern that mirrors itself across balls in their lineup. There might be slight variations in length, but the same hook pattern can be noticed from ball to ball. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is VERY noticeable by anyone who has thrown more than 3 different Lane #1 balls in their lifetime. You can talk all you want about changing ending weights, pin placement, etc., but the bottom line is this: Lane #1 balls roll a certain way, and that's just the way it is.

I have thrown many 300's and 800's with Lane #1 equipment, mostly back in the Carbide LRG days, but I have thrown some newer stuff like the Buzzbomb and G-Force line, so I can give you my first hand knowledge with their equipment. The problem with Lane #1 nowadays, is that there is more propaganda and less substance, and the company has gotten by on a reputation they built back in the Cherry Bomb days. But, more and more bowlers are realizing those days are long gone and have moved onto other companies, with more versatile equipment choices to fill their bowling bags.

You don't need to buy every ball in the Lane #1 lineup to know their reaction, and it's just a waste of money to do so, because you can't cover a well rounded arsenal with Lane #1 equipment exclusively. Sorry, you just cant because they are WAY too similar in reaction shape from ball to ball. They don't have a resin ball that will go as long as a Neptune, nor do they have a hockey stick ball like the Magic. They have variations of the same hook pattern wrapped in either pearl, dull, or hybrid covers. That's about it.

Here is where Lane #1 went wrong, in a nutshell. They got away from what they became famous for, and that is the simplistic diamond weight block with a super durable cover wrapped around it. Their best equipment was made with the traditional diamond design, with different internal flip blocks, and very durable Brunswick coverstocks. I think they could still make great equipment with 900 Global if they got back to that simplistic type of core, and ditched the doomsday weight block altogether. That weight block (and it's variations)is not conducive to matching up across a wide spectrum of bowlers. Some very specific few will like the hook pattern of the modern Lane #1 equipment, but most will not see the benefit of changing to an all Lane #1 lineup, because you can't cover every condition out there due to the fact that the balls all have a similar reaction shape, just at slightly different footage intervals.

Now, when it comes to the Buzzbomb, and Lane #1 sales in general, I would have to say that there is VERY little repeat business in our shop as it pertains to Lane #1 equipment. 5 or 6 years ago, there were many bowlers putting in orders for Lane #1 equipment, and many of those were people who longed for the reaction of balls like the Carbide/C and Cherry Bomb. Once these people saw that the "new" Lane #1 had abandoned their trademark reaction and durability, they left, and most around here haven't returned. Since the Buzzbomb came out, we have sold 1, count them 1, of them from the shop. The gentleman who purchased it wasn't impressed with the carry or reaction shape of the ball, so it was re-drilled, and he still didn't like it. He sold it to a buddy of his, and he didn't like how it rolled or hit, even with many surface changes and another drill pattern change. No matter what kind of drill pattern I put on the ball, it gave a similar reaction shape, which didn't match up to either bowler, who both bought Storm balls and shot very well with them afterwards. This is just a small example, but it speaks to a larger amount of bowlers who have jumped from the Lane #1 ship due to lack of versatility in the current lineup.

I don't know if I would use the word bust on a bowling ball, because sales can be regional specific, but Lane #1 has been a terrible seller in our shop in recent years. We do not stock any of their equipment anymore, because it will sit on the shelf too long, and the only way it will move out of the shop is if we put it on clearance and lose money on the ball. We do well with big B, Storm, Roto, and all the Ebonite brands, but Lane #1 just doesn't sell, period. Even the older hardcore Lane #1 guys in our area have found much more versatile arsenals, with different reaction shape equipment, from other companies, so they have abandoned the Lane #1 train also. I do not mean to degrade the company completely, because I feel they can still make viable equipment, they just need to get back to what they became famous for, which is simpler core shapes, and durable coverstocks. That is my take on it, anyone who would like to continue the discussion with me, please feel free to send me a pm, thanks.
--------------------
James Goulding
Moores Pro Shop
Bowler 2 Bowler Blog: http://bowler2bowler.wordpress.com
State Site: http://www.msusbc-maine.org
Local Link: www.lausbca.org
Chat: www.bowlingchat.net

DP3 · « **Reply #37 on:** June 29, 2009, 07:40:41 PM »

I don't feel like quoting essays but I have a sensible theory/feeling agree's with Crusty's feelings of many Lane 1 balls having the same roll characteristics. However, there's no use trying to explain them in a rational, technical, and intelligent manner because those who live and die by Lane 1 don't want to hear a borderline negative observation or have an technical conversation about them.

Now I say borderline negative only because for some people the quick rev, stand up, slow response to dry boards roll works well for their games. For bowlers trying to open up the lane on tighter conditions, and increase the motion in the backend of the lane, I feel that Lane 1 does not have the ability to do that based on their theory of center heavy only lower RG, med-high differential core designs.

This is a whole 'nother topic in itself and I don't really check the forums, nor care that much about it to have a week long discussion/arguement about it. Take it for what you want, if you like them, awesome. If you don't like them, that's ok to. If you stand by voodoo theories and educate novice bowlers with inaccurate information..........thennnnn I have a little bit of a peeve/problem with that.

Carry on.

p.s. The shop I first started working in stocked 50-65% of their inventory with Lane 1 balls. I feel qualified to have a technical opinion to those who think I'm bashing.
--------------------
-DJ Marshall
just another never was

Steven · « **Reply #38 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:08:51 PM »

quote:
Since you seem so bound and determined to speak with my sources, I'll give him up: Maine Man.

Crusty: You came through. You named one of your sources and he responded. I'll focus on Maine Man's following statement, and go from there if needed:

quote:
have thrown many 300's and 800's with Lane #1 equipment, mostly back in the Carbide LRG days, but I have thrown some newer stuff like the Buzzbomb and G-Force line, so I can give you my first hand knowledge with their equipment.

There has been a lot of Lane#1 equipment released post LRG days and pre Columbia/Global. Much of that falls into skid/snap that hasn't been part of the Lane#1 stereotype reaction. The first two that come to mind are the Cranberry and the Golden Nugget. These two balls are all about skid/snap. I used a Cranberry to place third scratch singles in the California State Tournament. The pattern played very much like old Cheetah -- go up the twig with a ball capable of making a huge recovery. That simply wouldn't have been possible with the traditional heavy rolling diamond cores.

The current Dynamo is is heavier oil version for big backend reaction. It's a better version of the Black Widow Bite (and the Bite is one fine ball). I'm guessing the new Dynamo X2 will provide for the same hook shape on mediums.

The bottom line is that things Lane#1 have changed a lot over several years. The reactions are there if you look for them in the line.
--------------------
Sig not currently in use. I'm not interested in playing games.

bowlerdawg · « **Reply #39 on:** June 29, 2009, 08:13:56 PM »

no head exploding here C_rusty R_otten D_rawers or you BFB cgsucksbigfatones

I really like Maine mans post, and I think he nailed it.[PERIOD]

like i have stated before my high series came on a Buzzbomb last winter, but it was a short lived love affair.

the " Doomsday " bomb core was way too finiky, and honestly no core should be that finiky. What w/ all the static weights and all.

I had 3 of them, and burned through them fast
now I am hearing all kinds of problems w/ covers cracking like nobody's business.

Maine man nailed it
Back to fricking basics, and put a dayumn real ( preferably thicker ) cover on it.

Simple diamond , internal flip blocks, and just call it a freaking day.
Also read somewhere the roll is the same, and I kinda have to agree.

The best look I get w/ any of it , is with the C/2, and the powercoil 18

before Big B went hencho en Mexico, I was a junkie, and liked that sweet roll also, but No Mas for me ( hencho en Mexico )

too many quality issues, and too finiky

Love my chainsaw though, that one does roll different

you trolls play nice now

--------------------
c/2 flavored kool - aide is my favorite, but I am looking for black raspberry flavor

sluggo35 · « **Reply #40 on:** June 29, 2009, 09:37:49 PM »

well for me the buzzbomb was not one of the best of lane #1s best offerings. and i think im the only one in town that has one (i think). its a ok ball but nothing beats the brunswick poured ones. i only have three brunswick poured ones, gold nugget, scb, and black cherry. i also threw bruns till the twisted line, and hated them. have not thrown them since. untill the rattler that ball rocks. but the massacre has been the one ball that gives me the old lane #1 feel. what it comes down to is that bowlers that buy 1 ball every year or 2, can be left with a bad taste in there mouth from a ball that didnt work for them. right?

Maine Man · « **Reply #41 on:** June 30, 2009, 07:08:00 AM »

quote:
There has been a lot of Lane#1 equipment released post LRG days and pre Columbia/Global. Much of that falls into skid/snap that hasn't been part of the Lane#1 stereotype reaction. The first two that come to mind are the Cranberry and the Golden Nugget. These two balls are all about skid/snap. I used a Cranberry to place third scratch singles in the California State Tournament. The pattern played very much like old Cheetah -- go up the twig with a ball capable of making a huge recovery. That simply wouldn't have been possible with the traditional heavy rolling diamond cores.

Steven,

I have thrown more Lane #1 balls than the ones I listed, I was just giving examples of SOME of the stuff I have thrown so that I do not get mixed in with the trolls when I offer my analysis of Lane #1 equipment. I have also drilled hundreds of Lane #1 balls, so I know of what I speak.

I think you didn't understand what I was saying when it came to Lane #1, and that was their best equipment was made pre-columbia, in the PK17 and PK18 days. Now, I will take the two examples you gave, the Cranberry and Gold Nugget. Cranberry used PK18 polished, and the Gold Nugget used PK17 w/particle additive. Both of these balls fall into the realm where Lane #1 was making solid equipment with Big B covers, as I stated in my previous post. Also, both of these balls used a C2 core, which falls into the "traditional heavy rolling diamond core" arena. Also, both balls were touted for medium oil, which means if you were using them on a heavier blend (i.e. old cheetah), you would be able to get adequate length out of each. It sounds like the tournament you shined with them in had a ton of volume which allowed the heavy rolling equipment to get down the lane longer. Remember, just because a pattern may be shorter (like the old Cheetah), doesn't mean it is low volume. On the contrary, actually, most of the time when I see shorter patterns they have more volume up front to compensate for the shorter length of oil down the lane. I suspect this was the case in your tournament, as I have yet to see a Gold Nugget go "hockey stick", especially with a particle pearl cover and a C2 weight block. If you can go "up the twig with huge recovery" I suspect you have a swamp in the heads to get the ball to set up for you, unless you're throwing it 20+ mph.

Lane #1 has pretty much always been low RG, med. diff., not exactly a formula for skid-flip. The Cranberry may have given you more length due to the polished cover, but no way was it a hockey stick ball, I just haven't seen it in action. I believe that it gave you good length and a hard arc off the spot, but a true "hockey stick" look, I am just not buying it. Let me know what your layouts were on both balls if you don't mind, you can pm those to me if you wish. I am very curious as to what layout you used to get the reaction for which you speak. I am not calling you a liar, I would just like to know what it takes to get hockey stick hook out of older Lane #1 bowling balls. Also, send me your stats, speed, rev rate, PAP, and it will help me understand where you're coming from, and if you could get me a lane graph from the tournament you bowled in, that would help also, thanks.

quote:
The current Dynamo is is heavier oil version for big backend reaction. It's a better version of the Black Widow Bite (and the Bite is one fine ball). I'm guessing the new Dynamo X2 will provide for the same hook shape on mediums.

The bottom line is that things Lane#1 have changed a lot over several years. The reactions are there if you look for them in the line.

I agree that things at Lane #1 have changed over the years, and not for the better IMHO. Saying the Dynamo is a better version of the BWB is like saying having a solid bowel movement is better than having diarrhea. They're both still sh!t, either way you slice it. I think that they (Lane #1) make pretty much 7 or 8 balls all touted for different conditions, but in reality only built to handle 2 or 3 different shots. Heavy oil, and medium-heavy to medium house blend are what their lineup works on best, and they have no real answer for toast when it comes to a resin ball. Sorry, they just don't. Also, they don't have enough difference between balls (rg, diff., coverstock combos) to cover sport patterns and be able to open up the lane and transition with the lanes on flat oil. You need more versatility to have a complete lineup, and I am just not seeing it anymore with Lane #1.

Maybe if they made a high rg medium diff. ball, or a medium rg high diff. ball, I could get on board again and build a solid lineup for THS all the way to a 2:1 sport pattern. Until then, I will keep drilling the competition that my bowlers ask for in the shop, and Lane #1 sales will continue to suffer in my area. Any questions, please feel free to pm me, and we can continue this lively debate, thanks.
--------------------
James Goulding
Moores Pro Shop
Bowler 2 Bowler Blog: http://bowler2bowler.wordpress.com
State Site: http://www.msusbc-maine.org
Local Link: www.lausbca.org
Chat: www.bowlingchat.net

NoseofRI · « **Reply #42 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:02:54 PM »

quote:
The first two that come to mind are the Cranberry and the Golden Nugget. These two balls are all about skid/snap. I used a Cranberry to place third scratch singles in the California State Tournament. The pattern played very much like old Cheetah -- go up the twig with a ball capable of making a huge recovery. That simply wouldn't have been possible with the traditional heavy rolling diamond cores.

Steven I do have to disagree with you on this point. When bowling on something like old cheetah and traditionally any shorter pattern the most sucess is usually found with a ball that smooths out the transition at the end of the pattern. It is the pattern itself that gives a ball that recovery. So therefore on patterns such as these, a medium ball that's heavy rolling and slower response time to the friction would clearly be most beneficial. Too much angle and "flip" at the end of shorter patterns results in an extreme over/under.

Steven · « **Reply #43 on:** June 30, 2009, 12:52:08 PM »

Maine: Thanks for the rational responses. Unfortunately, it's too rare around here.

quote:
I will take the two examples you gave, the Cranberry and Gold Nugget. Cranberry used PK18 polished, and the Gold Nugget used PK17 w/particle additive. Both of these balls fall into the realm where Lane #1 was making solid equipment with Big B covers, as I stated in my previous post. Also, both of these balls used a C2 core, which falls into the "traditional heavy rolling diamond core" arena.

Actually, both the Cranberry and the Gold Nugget utilize the Buzzsaw/C core, which has a single embedded mini Diamond as opposed to the dual separated Mini Diamonds found in the C2 core. You're right about C2's heavier rolling characteristics. I saw it in the Blueberry, and I was surprised at the degree of contrast with the Cranberry drilled with up with pretty much the same specs. The Buzzsaw/C core generates much more length and a noticeably sharper turn off the breakpoint. They really are quite different.

quote:
Also, both balls were touted for medium oil, which means if you were using them on a heavier blend (i.e. old cheetah), you would be able to get adequate length out of each. It sounds like the tournament you shined with them in had a ton of volume which allowed the heavy rolling equipment to get down the lane longer.

It was the 2005 California State tournament, and I don't remember that they published the pattern up front (I'll see if I can dig it up). I just remember that it played like the old Cheetah that I've experienced in tournaments since. I'm guessing the pattern did not have a ton of volume in the heads because I started doubles with a Pearl Uranium that kept checking up too early. Also, short high volume patterns tend to transition quickly, but this pattern held through much of the 6-game doubles/singles. Anyway, I was stubborn and kept trying to make the Uranium work with no success. The Cranberry gave me the hockey stick look I needed up the 2-board for adequate length and recovery.

quote:
The Cranberry may have given you more length due to the polished cover, but no way was it a hockey stick ball, I just haven't seen it in action. I believe that it gave you good length and a hard arc off the spot, but a true "hockey stick" look, I am just not buying it.

I don't know what to tell you other than the "C" core provides for a more angular reaction than the "C2". Maybe we have a different thoughts on a "hockey stick" look. Certainly, there are degrees of anything. However, my assessment is that if my Cranberry or Gold Nugget were more angular than they are on fresher backends, the resulting over/under would make them (for me) too inconsistent.

quote:
Let me know what your layouts were on both balls if you don't mind, you can pm those to me if you wish.

When I get some time, I throw some stuff together and PM you.

quote:
Saying the Dynamo is a better version of the BWB is like saying having a solid bowel movement is better than having diarrhea. They're both still sh!t, either way you slice it.

LOL. Graphic, but gets the point across. I'm curious what issues you have with either if you don't mind sharing. I've honestly collected checks using both. They're currently two of my favorites.

I'll PM you later. Thanks again for the exchange.
--------------------
Sig not currently in use. I'm not interested in playing games.

Edited on 6/30/2009 1:08 PM

T-GOD · « **Reply #44 on:** June 30, 2009, 04:11:53 PM »

quote:
they have no real answer for toast when it comes to a resin ball.

The Chainsaw might be the BEST resin ball on toast..!! =:^D

bowlerdawg · « **Reply #45 on:** July 01, 2009, 09:38:45 AM »

quote:
quote:
they have no real answer for toast when it comes to a resin ball.
The Chainsaw might be the BEST resin ball on toast..!! =:^D

+1
--------------------
c/2 flavored kool - aide is my favorite, but I am looking for black raspberry flavor

Author Topic: Really a dud? (Read 10513 times)

Gazoo

Really a dud?

burly1

Re: Really a dud?

NoseofRI

Re: Really a dud?

JessN16

Re: Really a dud?

Steven

Re: Really a dud?

Gazoo

Re: Really a dud?

Maine Man

Re: Really a dud?

DP3

Re: Really a dud?

Steven

Re: Really a dud?

bowlerdawg

Re: Really a dud?

sluggo35

Re: Really a dud?

Maine Man

Re: Really a dud?

NoseofRI

Re: Really a dud?

Steven

Re: Really a dud?

T-GOD

Re: Really a dud?

bowlerdawg

Re: Really a dud?