BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: strikeking on September 26, 2014, 10:13:58 AM
-
Can anyone tell me the RG and Diff of the old Brunswick Mark X?
What ball available today would match up with it the best for reaction?
Anyone have one for sale?
Thank You
-
LOL. Any 3 piece plastic ball should do it. Cover was probably a bit softer but on today's conditions, I don't think you'd notice.
-
Yep about any plastic ball, would replace the Mark X it's plastic ball.
Unless you mean the "Maxx X":
Reactive Solid with a Symmetrical core
Minimum RG 2.480
Maximum RG 2.522
Total Differental 0.042
-
You are both wrong. The Mark X had a plastic cover but, the weight block was no pancake! It had dual weight blocks. One for the thumb and another for the fingers. They were so hard you had to use a carbide drill to drill them. The carrying power was much more than any plastic with a pancake block!
-
I remember the Mark X being a ball that Carmen Salvino popularized. It was great if you used it on a shot 10-board out to the gutter. Anything inside of it the ball was a putz. (This also reminds me of the Columbia Orange Dot, its first foray with urethane: great if you were playing 10-board out to the gutter.) Also, the Mark X cover was very brittle and cracked; that was the second biggest complaint about it.
Besides, the LT-48 was such a game changer, who needed a Mark X?
-
You are both wrong. The Mark X had a plastic cover but, the weight block was no pancake! It had dual weight blocks. One for the thumb and another for the fingers. They were so hard you had to use a carbide drill to drill them. The carrying power was much more than any plastic with a pancake block!
While it may be a dual weight block, it is in basic form just a pancake type block.
imgs from 123bowl.com
(https://www.ballreviews.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F123bowl.com%2Fimages%2Fballs%2F1404-1.jpg&hash=841f825231deb83dbc0637ad9536a918e27f3d7b)
(https://www.ballreviews.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F123bowl.com%2Fimages%2Fballs%2F1404-c.jpg&hash=5e194b3acdcee83ed7816ef8a71c60de3e59d087)
Update: Correct core picture.
(https://www.ballreviews.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs5.postimg.org%2Fci03rtjt3%2Fmarkxblocks.jpg&hash=2800afed1edefca8289100a69da2ab8864df488b)
-
The main reason they cracked were due to the insecurity of the weight blocks in the mold...
-
That cover was really brittle. I even saw a couple warp and get ridges in them.
Great ball for the time, but on todays conditions it's not going to be any different than a White Dot/Maxim/Target Zone
-
The cover was brittle as most soft polyesters were but most if not all of the cracking was created by the instability created by the inconsistency of the weight block placements
-
A friend of mine won a PBA regional playing straight up off the gutter using a Mark X. Not really a very versatile ball however.
-
Look at the winners from the 81-82 season on tour....out of 16 it was over half that won using that ball including Earl and Cook won the ToC
-
The photo of the Mark X that was posted is NOT the true representation of the ball that I referred to. That photo shows a "pancake" weight block. The ball that I am referring to had a "TWO" Piece block and the ball had really good pin carry when it hit the pocket.
Carmen did come out with another 2 piece block with a urethane cover, but it never came close to the Mark X in hitting power.
-
Strikeking, some of us are old enough to remember the original stuff when it was introduced. If there was a urethane or reactive incarnation of the ball, I didn't recall there being one. It sounds like the Mark X you're describing is akin what's been done with the Blue Hammer and LT-48. I'll just leave it at that.
-
Strikeking, some of us are old enough to remember the original stuff when it was introduced. If there was a urethane or reactive incarnation of the ball, I didn't recall there being one. It sounds like the Mark X you're describing is akin what's been done with the Blue Hammer and LT-48. I'll just leave it at that.
He isn't talking about a urethane version of the Mark X, I believe he is referring to the Ebonite Thunderbolt Dual Block, which Carmen Salvino designed.
It had a weightblock shaped sort of like a curved "T", where the finger holes were meant to be drilled into the upper crossbar, and the thumb into the lower post.
Check out the link below to see what I am talking about.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wuHi_2c-2LM
-
Well I'd say it's to the point where your best bet is to email Brunswick and ask them.
It's unlikely though there will be any info on RG or Diff. for a ball that old.
(A poly Ball from back then, the RG will be high and the diff. practically nothing.)
As for the weight block, you can have a 2 piece "Pancake" . There was a dual density one I remember. One half was heavier than the other lighter side .
I'm not saying that's what it is and hey maybe that isn't the correct core picture for that ball. Just that it's possible.
Interest note: according to the Mark X ad, it was "Dynamically Balanced to Eliminate wobble"
Wobble was what they called Flare back then (and was thought to be a bad thing), so it was designed not to Flare.
-
If you are aanting a polyester for a strike ball, do a strongayour such as placing the core at 3 3/8" and a weight hole at 6 3/4" to create flare then sand it. If there's friction on the lane it will 'hook'
-
Okay here we go, I found the original patent for it.
Inventor: Carmen M. Salvino
https://www.google.com/patents/US4320899?dq=inassignee:%22Salvino+Carmen+M%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=17YmVKGcI82syAS88YKgAw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw (https://www.google.com/patents/US4320899?dq=inassignee:%22Salvino+Carmen+M%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=17YmVKGcI82syAS88YKgAw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw)
Yes the ball doesn't have a pancake, all it has is a small block for the fingers and small block for the thumb.
(https://www.ballreviews.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs5.postimg.org%2Fci03rtjt3%2Fmarkxblocks.jpg&hash=2800afed1edefca8289100a69da2ab8864df488b)
FIG. 2 is a schematic representation (partly in section) of the preferred embodiment of the bowling ball of this invention and showing the position and location of the weight blocks;
side note:
Excerpt about Wobble from the patent:
A bowling ball that is not dynamically balanced will, among other things, wobble as it is rolled down a lane. Evidence of wobble behavior can be seen in the flared nature of the resulting ball track on the exterior surface of the ball. Wobble behavior can also be observed by a trained individual standing at the foul line or on carefully obtained high speed films.
A wobble condition due to dynamic imbalance in the ball produces numerous variables which affect the ability of the bowler to consistently use the ball to obtain high scores. Bowling with a consistently high degree of scoring requires accurate placement of the ball in the strike zone. When a spare is desired, a high degree of accuracy is required in order to knock over a pin or, in some cases, achieve a desired degree of pin action in order to knock over a number of standing pins. Dynamic imbalance in the ball impedes the ability of the bowler to control his game
-
Back to Strikeking's original question if there was any differential or RG numbers for the original Mark X? The only numbers back then were of any note -- and were discussed -- was the ball's hardness. The Mark X was probably a 78 in hardness, which was pretty soft for the time.
If memory serves me correct, a bowling ball's RG and differential wasn't a statistical (or better yet, marketing) tool until the early 1990s when reactive resins were introduced.
-
I was still learning quite a bit about the game back then as an enthused 18 year old, but I always had heard the Orange Dot was Columbia's only foray into the rubber ball market. They were trying to get the LT-48 throwers that also like the bleeder yellow dots to buy Orange Dots.
I remember owning a Wine U-Dot which is what I always thought was the first urethane by Columbia.
I seem to remember seeing an article about Dave Husted's early years stating that he felt behind because Columbia was one of the last major ball companies to get a urethane ball out. Of course they cornered the market with the Black U-Dot back then a few years later........
This also reminds me of the Columbia Orange Dot, its first foray with urethane:
Besides, the LT-48 was such a game changer, who needed a Mark X?
-
Bigmike, I stand corrected if the Orange Dot was a soft rubber ball. All I know is that those of use who used the Orange Dot got rid of it real fast.
Interestingly, I bought a Black U-Dot with a dull cover in late 1990 just before I moved from South Florida to Richmond, Va. I remember having it drilled stacked positive layout, but I didn't use it for a few years. When I did use it, the ball didn't do anything for me -- it was as if it was merely a spare ball -- and I went on to buy a Blue Hammer and Burgundy Hammer, which I still own and use. I suppose the Black U-Dot was great on wood lanes and during the short-lived short oil era.
I also had during that short-oil era a Wine U-Dot, which I liked, but pin carry was an issue once moving inside the 10-board; that was solved when I copped a Brunswick Whine Rhino from a prominent touring pro. If you recall the Pearl Gold Dot, that was my go-to ball, not so much for scoring but for accuracy and consistency. It's also my only artifact from the 1980s.
-
I remember the Gold Dots. The shop that I started to frequent in the late 80's really pushed those and the pricing was on the cheap for that era.
Bowling ball history from the 70's - early 90's is kind of fascinating as each company had their "answer" to another companies success story. Plus some of the regional success stories... I live in central Ohio so we were close to where the original Star Trak's (Track's original plant in Solon near Akron) were put out. Lots of Force Ten's on racks around here in the early 80's.
Getting back to the original topic, I had always heard that the Mark X was to be Brunswick's answer to the bleeder. Or at least they tried to have it be. I also heard they used crushed walnuts in the core material and supposedly continued that with the Edge. The Edge was the first urethane I ever threw and when the lanes had a little more oil in the front or middle, it was huge compared to my bleeder. I also had a teammate who would not bag his Mark X until it finally just literally broke in two on him at home in the closet. I just remember running my hand across the cover and feeling the grooves or "ripples". I had never seen anything to that point in my young bowling lifetime.
-
Bigmike, the only kind of bowler I recalled having any success with the Edge (an orange urethane ball for the young 'uns) was those that had no hand and no game. Anyone who had hand and/or game stayed away from that Edge like it was poison. You needed a lake just so the ball could clear the heads. Even so, it had nothing left for the backends. Ah, but Brunswick eventually got it right with the Rhino series for the remainder of the short-oil era.
-
I hear you. :) I got mine right when the center that I frequented must have put out the contract shot because they got slicker and slicker each week and the Edge looked better and better. Than summer came and the Edge became a reddish turd. I put my hands in a friends black Hammer that fit pretty well, threw it, and the Edge was for sale within minutes.
And that my friends...is the rest...of the story. LOL
-
I believe the Orange Dot was a composite polyester, rubber compound. They were doing a lot of experimentation in those days, because the only shell that really worked well on the urethane lane finishes was super soft polyester, which had been outlawed.
-
Loved that Mark X. The difference in hit was noticeable from contemporaries. However, After I fractured the third one, they wouldn't give me another...got an Orange Dot (poop!)
I have an undrilled Mark X...has ripples in the cover you can feel. Also have an undrilled Orange Dot...I don't know why.
-
The ball was a HUGE hit when it first came out...
But after about 3-6 months...the covers on the ball started to ripple...
Brunswick stood by their product and replaced everyone that was defective...That
my shop sent back...
I believe we sold about 205 of them...Please remember...In those days there wasn't
that many balls out...
Don't remember how many became defective...I think it was about 60...
That's a long time ago...
-
It's funny when I was still with Brunswick, abt 7 yrs or so ago, we had a rack with abt 12 on it and the covers ranged from perfect to abt as bad an olde mtn/gravel road...
-
So you're saying it was the first particle ball...
:p