Personally, I don't remember how delicate or sturdy the particles, of Track/Columbia balls were in that era.
Why take a chance?
I think the Scotch-Brite maroon (360 grit), Green (600 grit CAMI/1200 grit FEPA) and Light Grey (8000 grit CAMI/1600 grit FEPA) will do as good a job as Abralon or Siaair, in getting back to the original surface. SB non-woven pads are certainly cheap enough.

FYI That was an aggressive core and an aggressive coverstock back then; still not weak today. I hope she's seeing a good deal of oil or has some degree of ball speed for this ball at this surface. Dull particle balls need oil. Good luck.

I believe that ball was 800 dull. 360/500/ finish 800/800 Abralon

Use what ever pads you have available. Plenty of bowling balls today have particle in them its just not advertised.

My knowledge of particle balls is that once you resurface them, the particle or "beads" on the cover were removed during the process, - in turn, destroying the original intent.
I dont know about this one in particular, the theory was mentioned in a seminar I attended a few months ago also

The "particles" are mixed throughout the coverstock, not just on the surface so you don't just sand them off and they are gone.

What happens is depending on particle type and what you sand them with, it can damage the particles or wear them down. That's why scotchbrites were mostly used, they didn't damage the particles


Heres a old article that talks about it:

Even though you have asked about mica, your question addresses all particle technology balls-some of which use mica but others which use PET, plus the ProActives, Pro Reactives. TECs, and Syntactives use either ceramic or glass. These "active" coverstocks are an extended version of particle enhanced reactive resin. They use a much stronger particle addition that changes the characteristic much more significantly but they are only a strong extension of what began earlier (mica and PET). I want to answer your question about mica, but I also want to cover all of these different particles because of their functional similarities and also because of their differences regarding resurfacing.

First, let's talk about the factors that affect motion in these particle technology balls. There are five things to consider:
1.  The type of particle used
2.  The percentage by weight offloading of these particles within the coverstock
3.  The size of the particle
4.  The shape of the particle
5.  The toughness (not hardness) of the particle

Let me start with a little history. The modern era of enhanced particle technology began with the introduction of larger mica particles. The original enhanced particle technology ball (of which I'm aware was the Brunswick LT-48), but we have been using small mica for almost 40 year. They first appeared in the original polyesters in the early 1960's.

Until particle enhancement came along, the chemistry of the coverstock is what changed the reaction. The chemistry is an interesting thing. Until you change the shape of a molecule and change the nature of the cover y adding something and then watch the ball, you cannot predict how those changes will affect the ball's motion on the lone. It's trial and error procedure.

Particle technology is changing that. Now we can more easily and more accurately predict changes in ball motion by adjusting the percentage of loading and the nature of the particle that is added to the cover. It's going to make it easier for bowling ball manufacturers to make better bowling balls in a shorter period of time-as evidenced by the frequency of the launch programs of the modern bowling ball companies. Now that we have all of these balls, I need to get back to the question: How to maintain properly and get the maximum performance out of particle enhanced coverstocks after resurfacing.

The maintenance procedure necessary for particle enhanced coverstocks is dependent on the nature of the particle that's enhancing the performance. The tougher the particle is, the harder it is to change its shape or size or affect the ball's performance. The less tough the particle is, the more likely it is that sanding the ball with any abrasive will make the surface smoother, more uniform, and reduce the effectiveness of the particles.

Ranking the particles from least to most tough:
1. PET, because a polymer is the least tough.
2. Mica is next
3. Ceramic and glass are the toughest.

Mica and glass fracture when they're hit with an abrasive. Ceramic and PET do not, but they are so dissimilar in toughness. You can wear PET very easily, and you cannot wear ceramic hardly at all. In the "actives" glass will have more edges than ceramic.

Storm and Hammer use PET. Track, Columbia, AMF and Brunswick use mica.

Editor's Note: Brunswick uses ceramic in their Proactives. Ebonite uses a treated thicker-walled glass bead of similar toughness to ceramic in their Pro Reactives. Hammer uses ceramic in their Syntactive, Columbia uses a then-walled glass "bubble" in Columbia TEC, Track Pro Traction and AMF SPT coverstocks.