in ball reaction between the IQ and the original Virtual Gravity (not the Nano)??

I wonder if there might be more similarity if the IQ (not the Tour version) were sanded 500/4000, just like the VG?
(I assume the IQ is a 500/1000/2000/3000 sanding sequence.)

Thanks.

I dont really think so. The asym core of the O.V.G. would make it a bit more angular and pronounced  move off the friction. The IQ's are going to be smoother. But still a good question. I think the same type of look can be simulated as far as making the IQ's more angular but the O.V.G. would prevail as you chase in.

Well, don't eliminate any differences just because of the core's specs.
The surface preparation is also different, with the VG's promoting angularity!!
PLUS the IQ's coverstock is different from all others. 

(Don't forget that the IQ has a different coverstock from the IQ Tour also. So don't lump them in the same basket.)

Agreed about the influence of the VG's asymmetric core.
A friend polished his IQ and found a very strong backend, much stronger than a polished Marvel
PLUS I recall reading somewhere (probably the BJI's review of the IQ) that the IQ's coverstock was designed with the intent of providing more length and more backend for/with the same surface as the Marvel's coverstock family.

in ball reaction between the IQ and the original Virtual Gravity (not the Nano)??

I wonder if there might be more similarity if the IQ (not the Tour version) were sanded 500/4000, just like the VG?
(I assume the IQ is a 500/1000/2000/3000 sanding sequence.)

Thanks.

I completely understand what you are saying. The Marvel has the same cover as the Virtual Gravity, but seemed to be a little more mild on the backend of the lane. I would use the Marvel on the fresh, and switch to a Virtual Gravity as the pattern carried down a little, but didn't "break down". The IQ seems to fit in the arsenal very much the way I used my Virtual Gravity. It is a little cleaner, and a little more angular than the Marvel.

Very astute observation Charlest.

Sometimes I think bowlers get too caught up in what "should be" instead of what actually "is". What does the ball actually do, compared to what we think it is supposed to do. With large balance holes, it is easy to get a symmetrical ball to roll like an asymmetrical ball. The difference is, the asymmetrical ball doesn't need the extra hole to make the core imbalanced.

What I didn't see a big difference out of was the IQ and the Marvel.  Maybe it's because I'm partial to the marvel series but I honestly didn't see a difference to warrant the release of the IQ.