Earlier this year, Wilson launched a new golf ball called Staff Model, complete with what they called a Baller Box subscription. Within just a few short days, the subscription service was scrapped, but the Staff Model golf ball remained their current premium product in line.
Today, they are launching an extension to that line with the Staff Model R. Conjuring up images of Gordon Ramsay, R stands for RAW! Yes, that’s right, Raw golf balls. You are probably asking yourself “why”, so we will get to that before getting into the nuts and bolts of the product.
“The painting process can frequently result in balls with poor, uneven paint coverage and pooling of paint in these shallow dimples,” said Frank Simonutti, Global Director of Golf Ball Innovation. “This can significantly affect the trajectory and the directional stability of the flight of the ball. By eliminating the paint, we were able to eliminate all of the short comings attributed to the paint process used on all golf balls.“
According to Bob Thurman, VP of Wilson Labs, current tour golf balls on the market can result in offline drift as much as +/- 25 feet from 200 yards, based on their internal testing. Under a black light he says it is very easy to observe the inconsistencies and paint pooling in the dimples. Wilson added the imagery to the front of the box as seen below.
Wait what? Is this true? Now I have to keep black lights away from hotel rooms I am staying in and my golf ball stash? This brings up a lot of questions, but let’s say for the sake of argument that Wilson Labs is absolutely correct. That paint is causing drift upwards of 25 feet. What does this say about their entire ball line, including the Staff Model released earlier this year?
Whether true or not, taking them on face value, it makes a little bit of sense. Dimple designs are created at a depth and configuration for aerodynamics. Introducing another layer on top of the thin urethane layer will could alter consistency. With that said, it is done for a number of reasons, including aesthetics.
Nobody likes playing a scuffed up golf ball. Well, paint is a big part of that. UV stability, resistance to staining and overall looks come from that application. The Staff Model R is not going to have that. In fact, you should expect it to stain, discolor and look pretty “pre-owned” after a short bit of play. Will a level of consistency change that way of thinking for you?
If you have made it this far, you are probably ready to hear about the Staff Model R and what makes it unique in terms of tech. Nothing. Well, not nothing as far as the golf ball performance, Staff Model is a very good golf ball. Nothing as far as it being new or different in terms of construction from that ball. The Staff Model R is the Staff Model, minus paint. Thinking about Gordon Ramsay again…”It’s Effin Raw”!
The new Staff Model R golf ball will hit Wilson.com and select retailers starting today for $50 a dozen. Joining the Staff Model as two of the higher priced golf balls on the market. Have you seen inconsistencies in the current product you choose making you want to give this a shot? Give us your thoughts below.
Update: Wilson has updated the pricing to $45. $50 was an error and that both Staff Model golf balls will be priced the same.
Great write-up JB.
So they’re no painting a urethane golf ball and charging me $50 for it? WTH
I saw the Wilson teaser on insta last night, looks like it should be a top golf ball in Vegas.
This just seems like bad manufacturing tolerances to me, fix that, don’t release an unpainted golf ball.
*Edit just thinking about these for glowball would be fun
One thing that never changes….Well written article by JB. Well done.
The Wilson site has them at $44.99 for the regular STAFF ball.
then you go and do this..
Then they are either on sale or being discounted already, because they sent us info at $50.
Interesting.
I’m so confused!
I took a few of the Wilson Balls out of the Baller Box and put them in play, loved the ball, hated the subscription model to get them.
I seen that I was referring to they made mention that the paint of other balls wouldn’t be perfect and adversely affect the flight would the same occur if adding a stain or debris to the ball in affecting the balls flight would it be to the same degree as the paint or lesser per there tests?
Probably not. Paint will be thicker and pooling could be even more so. Staining wouldn’t change much, debris such as something stuck to a ball could, but that could really happen to any ball.
Assumption that this hasnt been tested.
As the article states, it is the same ball as the Staff Model, which I have personally said multiple times is very good and have tested it thoroughly. According to Wilson, they are eliminating variables in performance, which we did not find with their painted ball.
If it does, then I can just blame the ball for missing my FIRs!
And I am unsure now whether dealers can buy them or there are only available on their website. Also where their margins are huge.
Last thought. Based on this article….Why would I buy THEIR painted STAFF ball.
They appear to be changing the price to $45 all of the sudden, but as you can see from their own messaging, it was $50. They will be available at select retailers as well.
View attachment 8974642
Hey, They managed to get 4 pages of conversation out of this thing.
Its an interesting question, and I say no. They have had a sub $40 premium tour ball for a while now, and nobody is clamoring for it (which is a shame, because its decent).
Your last thought is spot on. A true head scratcher for many here judging by the responses in the thread.
I mean I know they’ve kind of put themselves into that little category before and everybody just said now they’re bad quality. But like they’re in this weird spot where they can’t compete at the premium prices ball or equipment wise, but if they go any cheaper into the category with tour edge or some of the other companies they get scoffed at as cheap and sh***y stuff. It’s a lose lose. It stinks because their irons and wedges are sooo good. And I actually enjoyed the Cortex for ayear or two until I found my sz extreme haha
That was the first thing I thought of too, tough competing at that price point
I think they can compete, but it comes down to messaging and what you are telling. In today’s space where so many are investing so heavily into equipment R&D and golf balls, just releasing something and hoping doesn’t seem to end well.
Look at it like this. They released their irons and it was mostly pretty positive. Now nothing and it doesnt come out for a couple of more months. Have pre-sale ready and strong marketing to continue to create momentum.
This ball release is a perfect example. They have a differentiator. A good one too. Yet on the surface they are telling people the rest of their balls are not good, or at best giving them a choice in dealing with imperfections in aesthetics or possibly giving up performance.
This was a chance to stake a flag in the ground, with a Wilson Staff logo and make a bold play.
It is an unfinished ball. It is a similar but different take on a matte ball. It will wear faster, and perform worse in various conditions than a ball that is painted. It is going to scuff easier, debris will stick to it easier causing the potential for more mudballs…
This is the ball that nobody asked for and nobody wanted.. Big miss in my opinion..
Very valid and strong points.
Website still shows $49.99.
View attachment 8974646
Even at that price it’s too much IMO. If I’m standing in a store and looking at this product that offers no paint, can stain and potentially not be as durable (in my mind) or something like a Chrome Soft with Triple Track technology or Truvis that is marketed like crazy and both are at the same price point, the decision is probably going to be easy.
If they would go all in and not offer paint on any of their golf balls (except maybe the colored options) then I could see it being a pretty cool strategy. But the way they are approaching it at this point is pretty terrible.
Very very few will pay that for this ball.. That is more than TP5, Z stars, and bridgestone balls. Why would any pay this for a weird tech story that they even say will wear out faster??
I was referring to the first version of the STAFF ball
Technically it might be the opposite. Minor scuffing that occurs is actually the paint scuffing, since urethane is a harder material.
Any idea based on testing (yours or theirs) what the impact would be of playing an unpainted ball in wet/rainy/muddy conditions other than the cosmetic impact? The price point pushes me out of this one, but I’m genuinely curious about the possible negative impacts here. This seems like a feature, that if it were such an advantage, would have been exposed prior to 2020. Says the armchair commentator. ?