Chalk this one up to very interesting timing. Today, Wilson Golf is launching a new golf ball and subscription service. Following in the footsteps of the irons and utility that have been previously launched and feature the same name, the Staff Model golf ball is designed for the lower handicapped golfer looking for the best control of their game.
Before getting into the Baller Box (yes that is real), let’s go over the new Staff Model ball which offers some intriguing technology. The 4-piece golf ball features a cast urethane cover and 362 dimple pattern design. I always enjoy the dimple count in the technology details from companies for some strange reason, despite being able to say without a shadow of a doubt that golfers don’t care. If there are #DimplePeepers out there, let us know in the comments below. Wilson is touting maximum distance with tour level spin, as expected, but the details show a very promising golf ball.
The 4 piece golf ball breaks down as cover, two mantle layers, and a core. Starting on the outside and working our way in, the cover is new for Wilson. The balancing act that manufacturers go through with the golf ball cover is constant battle between increasing spin and losing durability. While the materials remain largely the same here, the Staff Model is thinner on the outside than their previous tour offering to increase the spin around the green. Moving to the inside of the golf ball, we start with an outer mantle that is a firm/hard ionomer material much like you would find on the cover of range balls. The inner mantle is a HPF, which is another name for ionomer, but in this case, a softer version according to Wilson. They don’t want to abandon the soft feel they have had in place for years.
The core is where this gets really interesting. Mentioned above, Wilson doesn’t want to sacrifice the feel that their avid customers love, but the company did go firmer with the core. In design principles, this is in part where the speed comes from. Some like to call it the engine, I prefer the term gas pedal. Firmer can lead to more speed, while also a bit more spin (player dependent), so it is a careful balance. It is important to note that speed does not automatically equal distance. Distance is primarily a combination of ball speed, launch angle, and spin, which is why we continue to support fitting.
“Featuring a thinner cover and harder core, the Staff Model ball provides higher spin rates on iron shots and holds the maximum allowable initial velocity based upon USGA conformance for a more impressive velocity than traditional urethane covered balls.” said Frank Simonutti, Global Director of Golf Ball Innovation.
You don’t often get velocity twice in the same sentence, so you know they are excited, and they should be. The Staff Model lineup has been extremely well received so far on the THP Forum and their premium golf ball lineup has always been an underrated product by the masses.
A subscription golf ball service is being rolled out at the same time as the Staff Model golf ball. In fact they will be sold exclusively as part of this new program that Wilson calls The Baller Box. You choose how many dozen each month. You choose 3, 6 or 12 months. You choose your customization. You can try it for a single month at a cost of $49.99, but the subscription model only exists of course, with discounts based on longevity. Sign up for 3 months and your Baller Box is $44.99 per dozen, 6 months, drops that to $42.99 and 12 months takes it down another two bucks to $40.99.
Choosing multiple dozen per shipment does not reduce the cost of the Baller Box and despite the catchy name, the box only contains the personalized golf balls you order.
The Staff Model ball is rather intriguing based on construction and Wilson’s pedigree in the space, but the subscription service exclusivity is a tiny bit puzzling. The Baller Box, is a dozen Wilson Staff Model golf balls, and ordering a dozen golf balls means you are ordering a Baller Box. Baller Box and Staff Model in this instance are identical, yet called two different things, but are necessary to complete the order. Still with me? This is where it gets weird, but we believe like anything new, this gets reworked and hammered into a positive in time. Let’s take a look at the subscription math, as we like to call it.
Signing up for 6 months and 2 dozen golf balls per month, means your total cost will be $515.88. Not bad, right? Signup for 12 months at 1 dozen per month and your cost is $491.88. See the issue? Both subscriptions give the golfer exactly 12 dozen Wilson Staff Model golf balls. Nothing more, nothing less. Yet a golfer with a 6 month season is punished in this instance for ordering more golf balls per month, as they are paying an extra $24 for the same number of balls. Crazier still? The golfer that wants 12 dozen now will pay $599.98, more than $100 more for the same 12 dozen if they break them down to one dozen per month.
The Wilson Staff Model ball is an intriguing advancement in design from the company and we look forward to our community of golfers putting them in play and offering feedback. Being a brand new program, I am willing to give them a pass on the math is hard costs part, as we expect them to grow and tweak the program relatively quickly. For more information, check out their website at www.wilson.com/BallerBox
UPDATE
This story ran yesterday and then we received notice from Wilson that they are going to suspend the Baller Box program and just offer the Staff Model in one month trial and the more you buy, the more you save.
Price Breakdown for Staff Model 1 DZ Trial Baller Box:
- Buy 1 for $49.99
- Buy 2 for $47.49 each and save 6%
- Buy 3 for $44.99 each and save 11%
[QUOTE=”JB, post: 9285216, member: 3″]
[B][SIZE=7][U]UPDATE[/U][/SIZE][/B]
Received notice from Wilson that they are going to suspend the Baller Box program and just offer the Staff Model in one month trial and the more you buy, the more you save.
[I]Price Breakdown for Staff Model 1 DZ Trial Baller Box: [/I]
[LIST]
[/LIST]
Super curious about THPers thoughts on this new setup and pricing structure.
[/QUOTE]
This is more digestible, however my original pushback on the pricing strategy is still there. I think the price point needs to be lower in year one to get the ball in more golfer’s hands.
[QUOTE=”KEV, post: 9285249, member: 36767″]
Srixon too…
This seems like a big mistake to me. I guess I don’t see why Wilson thinks people would spend more money on an unproven and unknown ball instead of something like a ProV, Bridgestone or Callaway. Even more of you’re ordering a ball online why wouldn’t you go with something like Snell that is proven and embraced and significantly cheaper? It doesn’t sound like a very well thought out plan.
[/QUOTE]
Question?
Wilson has the most expensive ball on the market (I know the Honma ball cost more, but stay with me). JB mentioned that the ball has 362 dimples, just like their previous golf ball line did. One would think that a totally new ball with a higher price point wouldn’t be so similar to their previous ball offering on the surface.
Why the higher price?
[QUOTE=”JDax, post: 9287490, member: 22002″]
Question?
Wilson has the most expensive ball on the market (I know the Honma ball cost more, but stay with me). JB mentioned that the ball has 362 dimples, just like their previous golf ball line did. One would think that a totally new ball with a higher price point wouldn’t be so similar to their previous ball offering on the surface.
Why the higher price?
[/QUOTE]
That is really perceptive actually and something that gets glossed over a lot. Dimple pattern in golf balls matter. But if I dive into that a bit (great question), golf balls are made with tooling. To use an example that everybody can relate to, Bridgestone was called the B330 for a number of years because they had that many dimples. When the TOUR B came out, there was some naming backlash, but they had to change it, since the dimple count changed.
As you pointed out, the tooling used to create the ball appears to be the same as the DUO Professional ball, that also features the 362 dimples. So from the cover stand point, it would be the same (I have not verified that). As a company bringing out their most expensive golf ball to date at $50 a dozen (although that goes down with bulk purchase), some might have expected a complete rebuild.
None of that says the golf ball is not incredible, because I believe it will be very good. But it is super perceptive and does the opposite of create intrigue for those that have played their balls in the past.
We need a Live Stream Q&A with Wilson Marketing… Forget Driver v. Driver, we need a show on this. If a Driver was named “The Baller” on the show, they would laugh it out of the room.
[QUOTE=”JB, post: 9287493, member: 3″]
That is really perceptive actually and something that gets glossed over a lot. Dimple pattern in golf balls matter. But if I dive into that a bit (great question), golf balls are made with tooling. To use an example that everybody can relate to, Bridgestone was called the B330 for a number of years because they had that many dimples. When the TOUR B came out, there was some naming backlash, but they had to change it, since the dimple count changed.
As you pointed out, the tooling used to create the ball appears to be the same as the DUO Professional ball, that also features the 362 dimples. So from the cover stand point, it would be the same (I have not verified that). As a company bringing out their most expensive golf ball to date at $50 a dozen (although that goes down with bulk purchase), some might have expected a complete rebuild.
None of that says the golf ball is not incredible, because I believe it will be very good. But it is super perceptive and does the opposite of create intrigue for those that have played their balls in the past.
[/QUOTE]
So based on your explanation (Which is really good BTW), do we have in the end a “B330 RX” and “B330 X” like golf balls here if the dimple patterns are the same, Professional and Staff?
If this is truly the case, that might have been a better sell….
[QUOTE=”Iceman!, post: 9287517, member: 32688″]
So based on your explanation (Which is really good BTW), do we have in the end a “B330 RX” and “B330 X” like golf balls here if the dimple patterns are the same, Professional and Staff?
If this is truly the case, that might have been a better sell….
[/QUOTE]
No, not necessarily. While I am not saying this, the closer comparison would be 2010 model to 2012 model if one assumed the cover made the tooling made the ball, right?
To use a different parallel, Titleist used the same tooling in the Pro V1 over the span of two cycles. The compression did in fact change and get firmer, but that wouldn’t make it a Pro V1x. And if it got softer, it wouldn’t make it an AVX.
The complete make up make a ball what it is. In this instance, it appears quite different from the Professional, albeit the same tooling, which is a bit perplexing (for multiple reasons). I explained it in the article, but will add to it here. There are two mantle layers. One firmer than the other, which makes perfect sense and helps create speed, while still offering a feel that the Wilson fans enjoy. Most companies do this in one way or another and it is a fantastic process. In this case they are called Ionomer and HPF. The confusion for those that know materials is that HPF is ionomer. Its made by Dupont.
So circling back I believe this all comes back to messaging. They might have something very good on their hands. I am very much looking forward to testing them out soon (my dozen arrived Saturday). Over the last 6 months we have seen some really really good golf balls launched and I believe Staff Model could be one of those. But if you take a look at the features on THP (and other places) and read the messaging and info provided by the different companies, you see some stark differences.
I hope this rambling makes sense and answers the question. Im happy to add more if you have other questions.
[QUOTE=”JDax, post: 9287494, member: 22002″]
We need a Live Stream Q&A with Wilson Marketing… Forget Driver v. Driver, we need a show on this. If a Driver was named “The Baller” on the show, they would laugh it out of the room.
[/QUOTE]
Might be better than Tiger King. Just call it Baller Box!
I just took a look at Wilson’s web site… they’ve got some nice looking irons and a plethora of choices for golf balls… the thing I came away with is confusion. Looking at ther 50 Elite… 2 different prices for the same thing? Slightly different packaging but same ball… I’m guessing different model years. And some of their offerings are buy 3 get 1 free…
The ballet Staff Model has its own dedicated web page… the packaging is greyscale… the price structure is listed, but there’s nothing to me that compels me to check it out. I’ll grab the Elite 50 for $12.99 🙂
[QUOTE=”JB, post: 9287528, member: 3″]
No, not necessarily. While I am not saying this, the closer comparison would be 2010 model to 2012 model if one assumed the cover made the tooling made the ball, right?
To use a different parallel, Titleist used the same tooling in the Pro V1 over the span of two cycles. The compression did in fact change and get firmer, but that wouldn’t make it a Pro V1x. And if it got softer, it wouldn’t make it an AVX.
The complete make up make a ball what it is. In this instance, it appears quite different from the Professional, albeit the same tooling, which is a bit perplexing (for multiple reasons). I explained it in the article, but will add to it here. There are two mantle layers. One firmer than the other, which makes perfect sense and helps create speed, while still offering a feel that the Wilson fans enjoy. Most companies do this in one way or another and it is a fantastic process. In this case they are called Ionomer and HPF. The confusion for those that know materials is that HPF is ionomer. Its made by Dupont.
So circling back I believe this all comes back to messaging. They might have something very good on their hands. I am very much looking forward to testing them out soon (my dozen arrived Saturday). Over the last 6 months we have seen some really really good golf balls launched and I believe Staff Model could be one of those. But if you take a look at the features on THP (and other places) and read the messaging and info provided by the different companies, you see some stark differences.
I hope this rambling makes sense and answers the question. Im happy to add more if you have other questions.
[/QUOTE]
Very interested in hearing feedback on the balls. Thanks for the explanations that are coming. I think the distribution is key. They have an uphill battle as the Baller Box has them taking a couple steps backwards as does the price. Hope they hit a home run and then continuation of the following that the Duo earned.
[QUOTE=”Gman79, post: 9287568, member: 52297″]
Very interested in hearing feedback on the balls. Thanks for the explanations that are coming. I think the distribution is key. They have an uphill battle as the Baller Box has them taking a couple steps backwards as does the price. Hope they hit a home run and then continuation of the following that the Duo earned.
[/QUOTE]
Based on what we have in place, there really isn’t distribution. As we said in the article linked in the first post, these are currently being offered exclusively from Wilson Dot Com.
I can’t wait to see the reviews on the performance of the ball itself and maybe the performance of the ball will make up for the marketing disconnect.
I don’t understand why (if the product is outstanding), they don’t want to attempt to get it in more golfer’s hands (like the Srixon trial pack promotion).
I am super curious to see what changes they make to the subscription service once it is rolled back out. I expect that some of them will sound like suggestions from this thread. The way this thing has gone the ball will probably be awesome and everyone will want it. Wilson has nothing to lose. As JB pointed out they dont have any of the better ball market anyway. Still. Tim Clarke has probably raised his voice a few times this week.
[QUOTE=”JB, post: 9288045, member: 3″]
Based on what we have in place, there really isn’t distribution. As we said in the article linked in the first post, these are currently being offered exclusively from Wilson Dot Com.
[/QUOTE]
Was not clear in post. Distribution meant getting them in online bloggers Instagram users and podcasters. They need word of mouth to travel positively and fast.
Probably going to hold out for the upgraded Shot Caller Box.
[QUOTE=”annsguy, post: 9287542, member: 19928″]
Might be better than Tiger King. Just call it Baller Box!
[/QUOTE]
You say Baller Box and all I can see are those square face Drivers. :p
[QUOTE=”annsguy, post: 9288124, member: 19928″]
I am super curious to see what changes they make to the subscription service once it is rolled back out. I expect that some of them will sound like suggestions from this thread. The way this thing has gone the ball will probably be awesome and everyone will want it. Wilson has nothing to lose. As JB pointed out they dont have any of the better ball market anyway. Still. Tim Clarke has probably raised his voice a few times this week.
[/QUOTE]
Im not sure I agree about management, but that is for a different thread.
My gut feeling is what was spoken to them before release. Sliding scale in price based on amount purchased as well as duration.
Then possibly other items thrown in or discount codes.
Did I say that about not having anything in the premium market sales wise? If so, it wasn’t meant that way. Going off memory I would say their Professional and Urethane models make up .5-1% of off course golf ball sales. Thats not a tiny number, despite it sounding that way. If a company has 5-8% of off course market share, it definitely matters.
[QUOTE=”Gman79, post: 9288125, member: 52297″]
Was not clear in post. Distribution meant getting them in online bloggers Instagram users and podcasters. They need word of mouth to travel positively and fast.
[/QUOTE]
Gotcha. Pretty sure that was done, or at least most media has them in hand already.
[QUOTE=”JB, post: 9288144, member: 3″]
Im not sure I agree about management, but that is for a different thread.
My gut feeling is what was spoken to them before release. Sliding scale in price based on amount purchased as well as duration.
Then possibly other items thrown in or discount codes.
Did I say that about not having anything in the premium market sales wise? If so, it wasn’t meant that way. Going off memory I would say their Professional and Urethane models make up .5-1% of off course golf ball sales. Thats not a tiny number, despite it sounding that way. If a company has 5-8% of off course market share, it definitely matters.
Gotcha. Pretty sure that was done, or at least most media has them in hand already.
[/QUOTE]
I did not intend to misrepresent what you said in regard to the premium market sales. What I read in a reply you said,” Most shops do not carry their premium balls”. I do believe that management can’t be thrilled with how this has been received based on this thread alone. I think its safe to say they would have wanted it to be much smoother. Still, I don’t know what’s in Tim’s head and probably best for me to leave it alone.
I find it hard to believe the average golfer cares about dimple patterns and numbers.
[QUOTE=”golfunfiltered, post: 9288260, member: 34546″]
I find it hard to believe the average golfer cares about dimple patterns and numbers.
[/QUOTE]
they don’t. Have to be a golf nut to care about that stuff. Dimple pattern only if it’s something different and marketed as such.
[QUOTE=”ddec, post: 9288262, member: 782″]
they don’t. Have to be a golf nut to care about that stuff. Dimple pattern only if it’s something different and marketed as such.
[/QUOTE]
But even still, if the core is different, does the dimple count matter?
[QUOTE=”golfunfiltered, post: 9288275, member: 34546″]
But even still, if the core is different, does the dimple count matter?
[/QUOTE]
in design or to the consumer? In terms of design, sure it does. To the consumer, nah.
[QUOTE=”ddec, post: 9288279, member: 782″]
in design or to the consumer? In terms of design, sure it does. To the consumer, nah.
[/QUOTE]
I guess that’s my main point.
There’s a lot of chatter about the price point of the new ball, which happens to also have the same dimple count. But if we agree that the average consumer doesn’t really care about dimple count, then why couldn’t Wilson charge whatever they want to see if consumers buy?
[QUOTE=”golfunfiltered, post: 9288275, member: 34546″]
But even still, if the core is different, does the dimple count matter?
[/QUOTE]
It can matter, absolutely. But not to people buying them typically.
What I really want to know…. is the ball any good? The intrigue is there.
[QUOTE=”golfunfiltered, post: 9288286, member: 34546″]
I guess that’s my main point.
There’s a lot of chatter about the price point of the new ball, which happens to also have the same dimple count. But if we agree that the average consumer doesn’t really care about dimple count, then why couldn’t Wilson charge whatever they want to see if consumers buy?
[/QUOTE]
Are you saying that people are balking on the price because the dimple count is the same?
[QUOTE=”golfunfiltered, post: 9288286, member: 34546″]
I guess that’s my main point.
There’s a lot of chatter about the price point of the new ball, which happens to also have the same dimple count. But if we agree that the average consumer doesn’t really care about dimple count, then why couldn’t Wilson charge whatever they want to see if consumers buy?
[/QUOTE]
I am missing something here. To me, I’m reading this as a bizarre parallel. I guess I am not seeing the dimple count vs price battle. Wilson can charge whatever they want for the golf ball.
[QUOTE=”radiman, post: 9288296, member: 15228″]
Are you saying that people are balking on the price because the dimple count is the same?
[/QUOTE]
It would appear some of the comments in this thread imply that it might be a factor, unless I am misinterpreting that part of the discussion.
[QUOTE=”ddec, post: 9288299, member: 782″]
I am missing something here. To me, I’m reading this as a bizarre parallel. I guess I am not seeing the dimple count vs price battle. Wilson can charge whatever they want for the golf ball.
[/QUOTE]
This is where I am at. I don’t understand the argument here. Wilson can take a ball and price it however they want. They seem to be doing just that. I think I have seen dimple count referenced once here. But, I think the price discussion goes way beyond dimple counts and hits more on marketing and brand perception.
[QUOTE=”Molten, post: 9288289, member: 22040″]
What I really want to know…. is the ball any good? [B]The intrigue is there.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
it is…but unlike a truss putter, I want to try this.
[QUOTE=”golfunfiltered, post: 9288275, member: 34546″]
But even still, if the core is different, does the dimple count matter?
[/QUOTE]
It all matters. The part about the dimple count was that it was the same as the previous generation, although I made a joke in the original article where I said here it is, but can say that no golfers care.
[QUOTE=”Molten, post: 9288289, member: 22040″]
What I really want to know…. is the ball any good? The intrigue is there.
[/QUOTE]
AND how much better than the previous premium Wilson ball?
[QUOTE=”golfunfiltered, post: 9288301, member: 34546″]
It would appear some of the comments in this thread imply that it might be a factor, unless I am misinterpreting that part of the discussion.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=”radiman, post: 9288302, member: 15228″]
This is where I am at. I don’t understand the argument here. Wilson can take a ball and price it however they want. They seem to be doing just that. I think I have seen dimple count referenced once here. But, I think the price discussion goes way beyond dimple counts and hits more on marketing and brand perception.
[/QUOTE]
The point being made, I believe, is that if the dimple count/pattern is the same on the new Staff ball, as the other W/S balls, they didn’t have to re-tool. So, this, in essence, should keep product costs down, and in turn, consumer price down as well.
There is a video on YouTube of a guy comparing the new Staff ball to a ProV1. It’s a crappy video and he raves about how great the Staff ball is. I think he might be a brand ambassador? Maybe? I didn’t link it because [USER=3]@JB[/USER]’s OP is way more informative than that video. But, if you’re curious, just type Wilson Staff Model Golf Ball in the YouTube search bar.
The Baller name is dumb for a premium ball, imho. Ideally, you launch the new ball after a staffer wins a tournament. But, with the tour shut down and low number of staffers, that wasn’t an option. Price it a couple bucks below the competition for a dozen. The buyers program is a good idea. Pricing is messed up though.
[QUOTE=”radiman, post: 9288302, member: 15228″]
This is where I am at. I don’t understand the argument here. Wilson can take a ball and price it however they want. They seem to be doing just that. I think I have seen dimple count referenced once here. But, I think the price discussion goes way beyond dimple counts and hits more on marketing and brand perception.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t even consider it in price when deciding on a ball. I’d assume at this level the company knows how to make dimples. Where they market it price wise is up to them but I don’t see a price per dimple model being a reality. Haha
[QUOTE=”scott.french3, post: 9288538, member: 53307″]
The Baller name is dumb for a premium ball, imho. Ideally, you launch the new ball after a staffer wins a tournament. But, with the tour shut down and low number of staffers, that wasn’t an option. Price it a couple bucks below the competition for a dozen. The buyers program is a good idea. Pricing is messed up though.
[/QUOTE]
The ball is actually called Staff Model. There is a ton of info in the link in the first post on the launch.
[QUOTE=”dacatalyst41, post: 9288544, member: 40754″]
I don’t even consider it in price when deciding on a ball. I’d assume at this level the company knows how to make dimples. Where they market it price wise is up to them but I don’t see a price per dimple model being a reality. Haha
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, me either. I know nothing about dimple counts and the benefits of whatever number the OEM advertises. I just didn’t understand the dimple count to price comparison.
[QUOTE=”Molten, post: 9288289, member: 22040″]
What I really want to know…. is the ball any good? The intrigue is there.
[/QUOTE]
I’ll let you know once I find one in the woods and try it out.
[QUOTE=”JB, post: 9288553, member: 3″]
The ball is actually called Staff Model. There is a ton of info in the link in the first post on the launch.
[/QUOTE]
I know that. But, the baller association is dumb.
[QUOTE=”JB, post: 9287493, member: 3″]
That is really perceptive actually and something that gets glossed over a lot. Dimple pattern in golf balls matter. But if I dive into that a bit (great question), golf balls are made with tooling. To use an example that everybody can relate to, Bridgestone was called the B330 for a number of years because they had that many dimples. When the TOUR B came out, there was some naming backlash, but they had to change it, since the dimple count changed.
As you pointed out, the tooling used to create the ball appears to be the same as the DUO Professional ball, that also features the 362 dimples. So from the cover stand point, it would be the same (I have not verified that). As a company bringing out their most expensive golf ball to date at $50 a dozen (although that goes down with bulk purchase), some might have expected a complete rebuild.
None of that says the golf ball is not incredible, because I believe it will be very good. But it is super perceptive and does the opposite of create intrigue for those that have played their balls in the past.
[/QUOTE]
You mentioned the Professional,let’s not forget the FG Tour which also has 362 dimples and is a 4 piece ball also!
BTW, I still have the Professional in my rotation. but I still feel that their best ball within the last few years was the Duo-U.
[QUOTE=”buckeyewalt, post: 9288693, member: 7203″]
You mentioned the Professional,let’s not forget the FG Tour which also has 362 dimples and is a 4 piece ball also!
BTW, I still have the Professional in my rotation. but I still feel that their best ball within the last few years was the Duo-U.
[/QUOTE]
I believe the DUO U has the same tooling as well.
[QUOTE=”strawboater, post: 9288363, member: 9198″]
AND how much better than the previous premium Wilson ball?
[/QUOTE]
And what sets it apart from the multitude of other premium balls on the market which are priced lower?
I dunno – I’m not a marketing guy so maybe it’s just over my head, but none of it makes any sense to me.
Bumping to ask if we know when this ball will be tested and reviewed.
[QUOTE=”annsguy, post: 9291683, member: 19928″]
Bumping to ask if we know when this ball will be tested and reviewed.
[/QUOTE]
In the current climate, I would say small delay, but I have some information coming up soon by request that might help.
I actually like the baller box name. I also love the idea. Its not very often we see a company trying something new. They did drop the ball by not getting them in stores. I am not going to pay 50 bucks to try it especially when a ProV is a few bucks cheaper. I want a dozen to try before signing up for the baller box. 50 bucks is too much. If they could get these down to 35/dzn they got a player.
I bought a dozen cant wait to try I love their irons and the professional ball
This ball really had me interested until I saw the price. Not that it’s outrageous for the type of ball it is, just expensive for me for golf balls.
Even though I have over 60 dozen used pro vs at home I still like to try different golf balls but I can’t justify spending that much just to give it a try. I’d much rather spend $7 on Inesis distance and see how they work but thats just me.
I love the logo and the font on the Wilson balls. Very well done!
Only short game work but got a chance to test these out. They feel decent. Check was what I have expected out of most Wilson premium golf balls. If you like the cover of their previous urethane this one has that same feel. I don’t mean off the club face, but in hand, where it’s almost tacky.
There wasn’t anything that said “whoa”, but it didn’t appear to be lacking. Not the spinniest I have tried, not do I think that is their goal, but it performed fine in this small sample.
Cool. Nothing surprising about the ball… thanks!