Author Topic: the nano pearl (Read 3219 times)

ithinkican · « **on:** September 13, 2011, 12:26:40 PM »

I had the virtual gravity and didnt like it except on long sport shots. i bought the energy and i used it on almost everything over 37 foot and under 45. i loved it so much that i bought two more. i didnt buy the nano because i was afraid i would be unsatisfied just as i was with the original virtual gravity. but now storm is coming out with the nano pearl. i am wondering how will the ball compare to the virtual energy. will it be better and just as forgiving. will it be just as versital. Does anyone think it will get ball of the year?

The Bowling Shop Tyson · « **Reply #1 on:** September 16, 2011, 10:43:52 PM »

In my opinion, it will be every bit as versatile as the Energy, and maybe even more. Storm appears to have taken the Virtual Gravity and made an even better coverstock with that core on the Nano, and I would expect much of the same with the Nano Pearl.

As far as ball of the year, that is quite a title to throw out there, and it has some big time catching up to do if it is to even be considered. With balls out there like the Taboo, Victory Road and so on, that may be too tall a hill to climb. Either way, ball of the year does not mean the ball will be best for everyone, it will continue to be all about a bowler matching up with a given ball. The Virtual Gravity had so much success that it was still being produced into this year, pushing 3 years after release, but as you said, you didnt like it except on longer stuff, so I would not judge you decision of if it will work for you on whether the ball gets ball of the year or not.

The Bowling Shop

www.thebowlingshop.com

All the latest equipment at the lowest prices!

ithinkican · « **Reply #2 on:** September 17, 2011, 02:03:43 PM »

I've noticed that everyone who has thrown the nano has loved it. except some crankers. yea they still maintain a 225+ average but they are not completely satisfied with the ball. But that is a common thing especially on common ole standard house shot.... I'm not saying the nano is a bad ball. I mean at the house i bowl there are more nanos than there is sand on the beach. Im just wondering, the original gravity was the same way then the energy came out. And it was a resulted in a completely different competitive atmosphere. I am wondering if the nano pearl will do the same thing. if you know what i mean.

ccrider · « **Reply #3 on:** September 17, 2011, 06:12:42 PM »

I would take issue with the claim that the Nano is better than the original. That has not proven to be true for me.

I did not care for the virtual energy so will likely pass on the nano pearl. I don't see how it will be much different than a polished virtual gravity.

Those that can do. Those that can't complain. Pimpin ain't easy, but it's mandatory.

Most things we like, we don't need. Most things we need, we don't like. Don't confuse your likes with your needs.

Dan Belcher · « **Reply #4 on:** September 19, 2011, 07:18:33 AM »

Polished solids give me a very noticably different reaction from either polished pearls or dulled pearls. When comparing the same core on a polished solid coverstock versus a polished or dull pearlized coverstock, the pearl cover is cleaner through the heads, more angular on the back, and able to handle lower volumes of oil. The polished solid can handle carrydown better, but is more likely to lose its energy in the front part of the lane once the shot starts drying up.

ccrider wrote on 9/17/2011 6:12 PM:I don't see how it will be much different than a polished virtual gravity.

ccrider · « **Reply #5 on:** September 19, 2011, 08:15:35 AM »

Interesting observation Dan. I have not noticed that much of a difference, but understand how you are likely correct.

Last night I started with my OOB VG drilled pin uncer 5 x4 shot 258. Struggled with it the second game on carry down for some reason shot 171. Picked up the polished Nano drilled 5x5 and shot 256. Nano got through the front of the lane easy and was relatively smooth, but continuous off the dry. Carried everything.

I may try the Nano Pearl out of couriosity, but the polished Nano acts very much like most pearls that I have thrown, only a little smoother, and more continuous off the spot.

Those that can do. Those that can't complain. Pimpin ain't easy, but it's mandatory.

Most things we like, we don't need. Most things we need, we don't like. Don't confuse your likes with your needs.

ithinkican · « **Reply #6 on:** September 19, 2011, 02:41:32 PM »

I prefer the longer and stronger continuation on pearl and hybrids than solids. My polished gravity reaction was very similar to my energy OOB finish. but i had to adjust way early and when the gravity broke on me it seemed to lose its drive and start hitting like a potatoe. it would hit the pocket and deflect instead of drive like the energy does. both of my balls had the 4x4x2 layout and the balance holes were relatively in the same place. the energy was a far more versital ball that the gravity was for me. I like the way yall think but a polished solid ball is completely different that a pearlized ball last time i recall

Author Topic: the nano pearl (Read 3219 times)

ithinkican

the nano pearl

The Bowling Shop Tyson

Re: the nano pearl

ithinkican

Re: the nano pearl

ccrider

Re: the nano pearl

Dan Belcher

Re: the nano pearl

ccrider

Re: the nano pearl

ithinkican

Re: the nano pearl