Author Topic: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really? (Read 9529 times)

Sir Bowl-A-Lot · « **on:** May 08, 2006, 06:14:46 AM »

I have always wondered about this. Isn't one owned by the other?
--------------------
Yes, there is enough oil and no, the ball is not rolling-out.
Is that your answer to everything in life?

Read my profile and you'll see why I can honestly say this.

truexmiracle · « **Reply #16 on:** May 09, 2006, 12:33:53 PM »

why we using beer as an analogy.. Lolz...

Edited on 5/9/2006 12:34 PM

Sir Bowl-A-Lot · « **Reply #17 on:** May 09, 2006, 12:51:44 PM »

quote:
why we using beer as an analogy.. Lolz...

Come on now. Bowling and beer go together like lamb and tuna fish.

--------------------
Yes, there is enough oil and no, the ball is not rolling-out.
Is that your answer to everything in life?

Read my profile and you'll see why I can honestly say this.

charlest · « **Reply #18 on:** May 09, 2006, 01:45:05 PM »

quote:
quote:
The Legends would have a longer life span and cost $10-$15 more.

So you are saying that the Legends Satisfaxion will last longer than the LaneMasters Absolute Power? How is that?
--------------------
Yes, there is enough oil and no, the ball is not rolling-out.
Is that your answer to everything in life?
Read my profile and you'll see why I can honestly say this.

I remain highly doubtful that this is the case.

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

charlest · « **Reply #19 on:** May 09, 2006, 01:46:31 PM »

quote:
Supposedly, the materials used in the Legends are higher quality than the Lanemasters.
--------------------
The only difference between Genius and Stupidity is Genius has its Limits

AS of this moment in time, the only difference I know of between Legends and LAnemasters balls is in their particle balls: Legends uses diamonds and Lanemasters uses "Super-Carbon" (whatever that may be.).

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

Walking E · « **Reply #20 on:** May 09, 2006, 10:08:04 PM »

quote:
quote:
I would see Legends simply as a different line, not a "high performance" line of Lane Masters. I say this because the costs are pretty much the same for Lane Masters and Legends equipment. If one were considered a higher performance line then the costs would reflect this.
--------------------
Official Member of the BrunsTrackColumStormHammEboRotoBuzzAMF Nation!

I have 2 comments:
1. Well, do you know what the costs are for the Legends balls vs the Lanemasters balls or, for that matter, the Inferno balls vs the Zone balls? (we don't actually know that Activator coverstocks cost more than PK 18 covers, unless,that is, you are a Brunswick executive or accountant; we have presumed that they cost more since they sell for more.)

2. Higher performance does not mecessarily mean the ball costs more to make. It only means the company believes and markets those balls as being "performance".

For my end, I have only seen the Lanemasters company publicizing their Legends balls as being "higher" (my word and interpretation, not necessarily their word) performance than those marketed as Lanemasters balls.

I know Lanemasters people have said that the diamonds that go into Legends balls cost more than the "super-carbon" that goes into Lanemasters balls, but the difference is not large.

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

Allow me to re-state: not the cost to manufacture, market, distribute, etc., but the price for a consumer to purchase the ball. The prices are virtually identical, if not absolutely identical.
If you are a bowling company and you have two lines of equipment and one of them is considered "premier", by definition the other line must be considered lesser. So if the initial cost to own the ball is the same and yet one is a premier line and the other isn't, one of two things are happening to those people who buy this equipment:
1) The LaneMasters purchasers are getting ripped off
2) The Legends purchasers are getting a bargain

I prefer to think that neither of these is the case, and that the balls are considered "separate but equal". Any terms associated with the equipment ("premier", etc.) are simply marketing terms, and not a reflection of one line's performance against the other's.

IMHO, of course

--------------------
Official Member of the BrunsTrackColumStormHammEboRotoBuzzAMF Nation!

charlest · « **Reply #21 on:** May 10, 2006, 09:32:54 AM »

quote:

Allow me to re-state: not the cost to manufacture, market, distribute, etc., but the price for a consumer to purchase the ball. The prices are virtually identical, if not absolutely identical.

I know that it is true on the internet. It kind of suprises me a little, but not all that much. Considering the relatively trivial differences in diamonds vs super-carbon (which is the only diff I see or know about), I think the major reason for the internet price sameness is that the factor that these balls have a larger amount of hands-on labor in the manufacturing process than do other balls. I am not sure exactly how much, since I never visited the factory. I think the labor charge must out-weigh the parts price difference to such a large degree that the cost per ball is not different.

quote:

I prefer to think that neither of these is the case, and that the balls are considered "separate but equal". Any terms associated with the equipment ("premier", etc.) are simply marketing terms, and not a reflection of one line's performance against the other's.

IMHO, of course
--------------------
Official Member of the BrunsTrackColumStormHammEboRotoBuzzAMF Nation!

That is possible. However I thought I remember reading somewhere that they did consider the Legends balls to be their premium line. I've kept that idea in my head without remembering the source. Oddly, maybe psychosomatically, I'e had more success with the Legends balls than with the Lanemasters balls.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

stanski · « **Reply #22 on:** May 10, 2006, 11:52:40 PM »

I agree that "super carbon" versus "diamond" are ambiguous marketing terms. First of all, carbon is usually in two states, diamond or graphite. I am assuming that they are not using graphite in the balls, so the diamond would be the one they are using. But, diamonds would be much too hard or have to be in a very small amount in the coverstock, so i am assuming it is some sort of plastic compound that happens to have carbon on there and when everyone hears carbon, they think of "carbon steel" which is supposedly "better" steel. For this reason, the marketing directors decided to add "carbon," kind of like how other companies add random numbers and letters to make them sound hi-tech.

There may be diamond particles in the legends balls, but the percentage would have to be very small and they would have to be very very tiny or else they would create a coverstock much too hard. For this reason, i really doubt those particles are much different or last any longer than other particles.
--------------------
stanski

charlest · « **Reply #23 on:** May 11, 2006, 05:04:27 AM »

quote:
I agree that "super carbon" versus "diamond" are ambiguous marketing terms. First of all, carbon is usually in two states, diamond or graphite. I am assuming that they are not using graphite in the balls, so the diamond would be the one they are using. But, diamonds would be much too hard or have to be in a very small amount in the coverstock, so i am assuming it is some sort of plastic compound that happens to have carbon on there and when everyone hears carbon, they think of "carbon steel" which is supposedly "better" steel. For this reason, the marketing directors decided to add "carbon," kind of like how other companies add random numbers and letters to make them sound hi-tech.

There may be diamond particles in the legends balls, but the percentage would have to be very small and they would have to be very very tiny or else they would create a coverstock much too hard. For this reason, i really doubt those particles are much different or last any longer than other particles.
--------------------
stanski

I think you're making assumptions here, and your bottom line is they are lying???

"For this reason, i really doubt those particles are much different or last any longer than other particles."

Their coverstocks are lasting a LONG, LONG time without tracking out; in fact, with hardly any scratches at all. Have you tried any?

They have said they use diamond dust as the particles. The Yeah Baby! is supposed to have a heavy load. That is, of course, a relative term.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

stanski · « **Reply #24 on:** May 11, 2006, 02:09:54 PM »

Charlest... I was referring to the particles from lanemasters versus legends, not compared to other companies. It is my belief that they do not last any longer or shorter when compared to eachother. Sorry for the confusion.

Sure I say that the company is lying in its marketing, but I will say that about nearly every bowling company on the market. It is just a way to sell balls, which they have a right to do. Having been around golf for a long time, I see these marketing techniques all the time with new golf clubs. I don't see any reason why it would be any different for bowling (or any signs that it is any different).

Here are some quick examples:
The exception 5.0 claims to have a spin time of 5 seconds... this consistently does not happen on the determinator.
The paradigm claims to be a pearl reactive cover... yet it is known by most people now that it is a pearl particle.
Lane 1... need I say more about them?
Brunswick claimed that assymetric balls were a pure marketing scheme in the 90s, yet they now come out with assymetrics.

--------------------
stanski

charlest · « **Reply #25 on:** May 11, 2006, 03:32:53 PM »

quote:
Charlest... I was referring to the particles from lanemasters versus legends, not compared to other companies. It is my belief that they do not last any longer or shorter when compared to eachother. Sorry for the confusion.

That comparison I haven't made. I don;t think Lm/L claims one or the other.

quote:

Sure I say that the company is lying in its marketing, but I will say that about nearly every bowling company on the market. It is just a way to sell balls, which they have a right to do. Having been around golf for a long time, I see these marketing techniques all the time with new golf clubs. I don't see any reason why it would be any different for bowling (or any signs that it is any different).

The essence of Madison Ave. is the lie you cannot prove or disprove. It's been that way for 60-75 years now. So you really can't say one company propagandizes (if there is such a word) more blatantly than another, ESPECIALLY when it comes to bowling balls,.

quote:

Here are some quick examples:
The exception 5.0 claims to have a spin time of 5 seconds... this consistently does not happen on the determinator.
The paradigm claims to be a pearl reactive cover... yet it is known by most people now that it is a pearl particle.
Lane 1... need I say more about them?
Brunswick claimed that assymetric balls were a pure marketing scheme in the 90s, yet they now come out with assymetrics.

--------------------
stanski

I completely understand where you're coming from, but you also know I don't lie or prevaricate. I am saying that the Legends balls I have been using wear very much better than any other ball I have ever used except my Brunswick Riot Zone. (That cover Brunswick should never have given up on; it is incredible.) Their (Lm/L) coverstocks seem toput up with a lot of abuse and show less, significantly wear (not "none", mind you) than almost every othe rball I have used in the past 10+ years. I think they are worth trying, even at their price level (still less than Lane#!'s, all joking aside).

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

Laybzz74 · « **Reply #26 on:** May 16, 2006, 03:47:46 PM »

The spelling !!!

(Same people, same company)
--------------------
Man, I LOVE this game; and I love it even more now that I'm using LEGENDS/LaneMasters balls ... Master the Lanes with Legendary hitting power !!!

Robb in O'Fallon, IL 62269 (near Scott AFB)
LAYBZZ74@AOL.COM

Retroman · « **Reply #27 on:** May 16, 2006, 09:18:32 PM »

Lanemasters and Legends balls have thicker coverstocks then most, just check the depth thru a finger or thumb hole as opposed to an ebonite ball as an example
--------------------
Tripping 10's, Its all about entry angle into the hole!!

Can you hear that? It sounds like a SAW

Cherry Pearl C/2 (3)

Super Carbide

Black Cherry Bomb

Cobalt

Cranberry

Enriched

EPXT1

Guaranteed

Zone Classic

Target Zone

F.O.S. Addiction

Author Topic: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really? (Read 9529 times)

Sir Bowl-A-Lot

What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

truexmiracle

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

Sir Bowl-A-Lot

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

charlest

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

charlest

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

Walking E

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

charlest

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

stanski

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

charlest

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

stanski

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

charlest

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

Laybzz74

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?

Retroman

Re: What is the difference between Legends and Lane Masters...really?