Platinum Sponsor

First Release July, 2009

Are Second-Hand Golf Balls a Good Choice

For the Performance-Minded Golfer?
A Study of Relative Performance and Golfer Purchasing Perceptions

The Science of Golf Ball Selection

Contact Information:
Jim Campbell
Managing Partner
GBT Technologies, Inc.
www.GolfBallTest.org
Jim@GolfBallSelector.com

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

Introduction
It is estimated that more than 500 million to 750 million new golf balls are sold every year on a worldwide basis 1.
It is also estimated that somewhere between 125 million and 500 million+1 recycled or second-hand golf balls
are recovered and sold to golfers worldwide golf balls primarily culled from ponds and lakes on golf courses
(a.k.a. Lake Balls) 2. It is not known how many additional Lake Balls are retrieved and played by ordinary
golfers during the course of their rounds. And while the exact number of new and used balls sold in the market
remains elusive, what is clear is that billions of new golf balls have entered play over the past few years around
the world; and many of those end up lost and found as Lake Balls that are teed up again and again.
Today, there are a staggering number of golf balls marketed to the average player at prices ranging from less
than $1 per ball to more than $4+ per ball (or $50-$58/dozen) new. The online recycled golf ball retailers sell the
highest graded (Grade 5A / like new) Tour-level/branded golf balls, such as the 2009 Titleist Pro V1, at $32 per
dozen, and other high grade (Grade 4A) Tour-level recycled golf balls, such as the 2008 TaylorMade TP/Red LDP,
with only a minor abrasion or nick at less than $15/dozen2. Other lesser known brands or older vintage
(Grade 5) recycled golf balls may sell anywhere from less than $1 per ball to upwards of $3+ per ball2.

So, with the opportunity to pay up to 50% off retail price, are these second-hand Lake Balls a
worthwhile choice for most golfers?
We set out to study the relative performance differences between new golf balls and golf balls sold as the
highest grade recycled product. We also set out to identify the perceptions golfers-as-consumers have in
purchasing a recycled golf ball versus buying one new. In particular, we set forth the following objectives in
undertaking this study:
1. Determine if recycled (in particular, lake balls) golf balls have discernable performance and playability
factors versus balls purchased new at retail;
2. Determine how performance factors change according to reported grade levels of balls;
3. Assess golfers perceptions of value from recycled versus new golf balls; and,
4. Identify information, methods or tools that can be provided to the golfer-as-consumer in helping them
make more informed value-for-money decisions.
1

Estimated range provided, as exact market data is not published for new and second-hand golf balls sold. Some estimates of the new
ball market range from 240 million new balls sold in the United States (GolfDigest.com, May 2009) to 60 million dozen/720 million new
balls sold worldwide (TheGolfChannel.com, 2009). Answers.com estimates that the golf ball market is worth about $550 million, with
over 850 million golf balls manufactured and shipped every year. In a story reported in the North County Times, it is estimated that more
than 2.5 billion golf balls are lost each year (quoting GolfWorld magazine using National Golf Foundation data).
2

Industry practices of recovering and remarketing golf balls from a pond or lake suggest that although a large number of balls may be
recovered by divers and through other means in any given year, a portion of these balls may not be readily marketable except as range or
shag balls or otherwise, only at highly discounted prices to new - given their age, condition or emergence as older brand types
competing with newer technology offerings. Also, as new models are introduced on a regular annual cycle by major manufacturers,
brand new older model balls are often deeply discounted to liquidate inventories, which make such new balls competitive to recycled
balls of the same make and model type. Since it can take anywhere from 6-12 months for a new ball model to show up as a recycled
alternative, recyclers are always lagging the market for new balls. So, even though the amount of recovered balls may be a high number,
what is remarketed will also include a proportion of very good, but lesser known or older model, balls that must be sold at a much lower
price or otherwise liquidated in bulk, trapped in slow moving inventory stock, or even abandoned. Nonetheless, recyclers appear mainly
constrained by supply in their marketing of premium near-new Grade 4/5 Tour-quality balls, such as the 2008 and 2009 Titleist Pro V1;

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

and otherwise constrained in marketing other quality high performance balls given the ball buyers lack of knowledge or brand awareness
in alternative balls that can be an excellent value-for-money option for many golfers.

Our Approach and Methodology

All testing protocols and results were developed, administered and analyzed by GolfBallTest.org in association
with GolfBallSelector.com.
We focused our data collection and analysis on three critical macro level ball performance factors: (1) distance;
(2) control/spin; and (3) feel. We also addressed structural integrity factors, such as compression, weight,
roundness and cover hardness; and addressed surface cover integrity and color differences.
For our initial wave of testing, we selected three popular Tour-level balls from the 2007 and 2008 model years:
Titleist Pro V1x (2007)

Bridgestone Tour B330 (2007)

Nike ONE Platinum (2008)

Pole and Seam Identification Markings

Courtesy of The Digital Ball Catalog

TM

at GolfBallSelector.com

We used brand new golf balls straight from the package and compared them to a random sample of recycled
golf balls. We acquired our second-hand balls from a leading retailer who sources most of their balls from ponds
and lakes. This is a random sample, so we do not know how long the balls may have been in the water, or on
the shelves before or after use; and we do not know how many times a given ball may have actually been hit
prior to arriving at our test facility. In all cases, however, we only tested the highest grade available for secondhand balls (validated as Grades 5A and 4A by GolfBallTest.org); and we did not test any refinished, refurbished
or re-manufactured golf balls.

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

We tested the two highest Quality Grades described below on the GolfBallTest.org Quality Grade Scale:

5A = Top Grade. Like New golf ball in overall appearance and performance. No surface blemishes. No cover
discoloration. Virtually indistinguishable from a shiny new ball in every way. Equivalent to Grade 1, Grade AAAA,
st
Grade 5A, Mint Balls, 1 Quality or Pearls on some sites.
4A = Very High Quality Grade. Similar in appearance to a 5A quality grade golf ball, except for minor cover
abrasion or blemish. Very little to no change in cover color or shine. Described on some retailer sites as AAA, Near
nd
Mint, Near Perfect, Grade 4A, 2 Quality, Grade 2 or Grade B.

Here are examples of 4 different grades of recycled golf balls:

Golf Ball Surface Condition Grading

Courtesy of GolfBallSelector.com

Performance Bench Testing

A frequent question we are often asked is: Does a golf balls compression or weight change after it has been
sitting in the water?

Compression and Cover Hardness Tests: We conducted compression testing using the same ATTI
compression and TECLOCK Type C cover hardness measurement devices and in approximately the same
environmental conditions as when testing new balls.

ATTI Compression Testing Device

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

Courtesy of GolfBallSelector.com

TECLOCK Type C Cover Hardness Testing Device

Courtesy of GolfBallSelector.com

Compression and Cover Hardness Testing: We benchmarked the findings against reference compression
and cover hardness ratings assembled at GolfBallSelector.com. This table shows the raw test data for the
second-hand Lake Balls:

The reference measurements for the new balls and the differences to the averages for the recycled balls are:

Compression
5A Grade
Titleist Pro V1x
Bridgestone B330
Nike ONE Platinum

New
100
115
105

Recycled
101
114
105

Difference
1 Unit (~ 1%)
1 Unit (< 1%)
No Difference

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

Compression
4A Grade

Titleist Pro V1x

Bridgestone B330
Nike ONE Platinum

New

Recycled

Difference

100
115
105

101
116
106

1 Unit (~ 1%)
1 Unit (< 1%)
1 Unit (< 1%)

Cover Hardness
5A Grade

Titleist Pro V1x

Bridgestone B330
Nike ONE Platinum

New

Recycled

Difference

78
80
77

78
81
75

No Difference
1 Unit (~1%)
2 Units (<3%)

Cover Hardness
4A Grade

Titleist Pro V1x

Bridgestone B330
Nike ONE Platinum

New

Recycled

Difference

78
80
77

78
81
76

No Difference
1 Unit (< ~1%)
1 Unit (~ 1%)

Weight Tests: We conducted weight measurements using the OHaus SP 602 (Scout Pro), the most updated
model of the OHaus scale used by the USGA and R&A in their Weight and Size Test Procedures (dated December,
1999):

OHaus SP 602 (Scout Pro) Scale

Courtesy of GolfBallSelector.com

We weighed our Grade 5/Grade 4 Lake Balls and our New Golf Balls using the 5-sided protocol set forth by the
USGA:

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

Weight Testing
Testing Procedure >
Grade

Source

Logo
Facing

Pole
Up

Logo
Reversed

Blank
Facing

Random

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

Average
Weight

Ball

Year

Grams

Bridgestone B330-S
Bridgestone B330-S
Bridgestone B330-S

2007
2007
2007

4
5
New

C3 Select
C3 Select
New

45.55
45.75
45.72

45.56
45.75
45.72

45.55
45.75
45.72

45.55
45.75
45.71

45.55
45.75
45.71

45.55
45.75
45.72

Bridgestone B330
Bridgestone B330
Bridgestone B330

2007
2007
2007

4
5
New

C3 Select
C3 Select
New

45.69
45.62
45.72

45.69
45.62
45.72

45.69
45.62
45.71

45.69
45.62
45.71

45.69
45.62
45.71

45.69
45.62
45.71

Nike ONE Platinum

Nike ONE Platinum
Nike ONE Platinum

2008
2008
2008

4
5
New

C3 Select
C3 Select
New

45.53
45.52
45.56

45.54
45.52
45.55

45.53
45.52
45.55

45.53
45.52
45.56

45.53
45.52
45.55

45.53
45.52
45.55

Titleist Pro V1x

Titlesit Pro V1x
Titlesit Pro V1x

2007
2007
2007

4
5
New

C3 Select
C3 Select
New

45.8
45.85
45.78

45.81
45.85
45.78

45.81
45.85
45.78

45.81
45.85
45.77

45.81
45.85
45.77

45.81
45.85
45.78

Notes
Grade 4 and Grade 5 recycled balls provided by C 3SELECT and validated by GolfBallTest.org
Weight testing per methodology of USGA and R&A Rules Ltd: "Weight and Size Test Procedures"
Weight measurements recorded using Ohaus SP 602 (Scout Pro) Scale

Weight Testing Result: We found no more than 0.05% difference on average between new and second hand
balls our sampling. Further, the maximum observed difference in gram weight of new to second hand of -0.21%
(new balls slightly heavier) and 0.16% (new balls were slightly lighter):

Weight Differences Across Make and Model - We also were interested in how much variation there was
across manufacturers balls; so we tested ALL New Balls coming straight out of the box and conducted the USGA
5-sided protocol on the:
Bridgestone B330 / B330-S / B330-RX and e7+
Titleist Pro V1 / V1x
Srixon Star-X
Srixon Star
Nike ONE Vapor / ONE Tour / ONE Tour D
Callaway Tour-i

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

In this sample, we found one ball that was 0.24 grams (+0.13%) heavier than the mean of the sample group; and
4 others that were between 0.11-0.13 grams (~0.055%) lighter than the mean of the sample group.
Additional Weight Testing: We are currently testing a larger sample of each of the balls (NEW) to
evaluate consistency in weights that a customer may experience. Some ball experts have hypothesized
that weight inconsistency can result from possible variations in manufacturing process and/or from
impact from environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity, that the ball faces prior to
sale.
Technical Note: Recently, 2 manufacturers voluntarily recalled their golf balls when they were found to
be out of conformance with USGA specifications. How much does weight matter? Well, based on
ballistics modeling and our flight equations, we estimate that the performance difference between a
balls weighing in at 45.5 vs. 45.92 (all other construction and aerodynamics and other performance
characteristics held equal) will result in 0.82 yards more carry and approximately 1.2 total yards (carry
and roll) when flying a heavier ball.

Roundness Testing: We next conducted roundness test of our sample of new and second hand golf balls using
the USGA specification that requires that a ball passes/does not pass through a specific diameter ring gauge.
In our test we checked for roundness by passing each new and second-hand ball in the sample through a golf
ball measurement gauge of 1.680 inches in diameter multiple times to confirm that each ball falls within the
specification set forth under The Rules of Golf (Rule 5, Appendix III)

Accu-Chek Golf Ball Gauge- Manufactured by OK Automation

Courtesy of GolfBallSelector.com

In each and every case every ball passed the roundness test.

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

Findings from Bench Testing: These bench tests indicate essentially no difference in compression readings
between new and second-hand balls in the sample; and only the Nike ONE Platinum showing any difference in
cover hardness; and that is less than 3% degradation in new vs. old and within the estimated margin of error.
We also found no significant difference in the weight of the new versus the second hand Lake Balls in our Grade
4A and 5A sample; but a variation of almost 0.8% in weight when different balls are compared across different
manufacturers and model types.
Given that the Lake Balls we used were validated on cover integrity, with no cuts, it is unlikely that water
penetrated the cores. It is also unlikely, in the balls we tested, that water penetrated the skin/mantle layers or
affected the construction/compression. Moreover, we used only Grade 4A/5A balls, where the cover color is
near that of new. If the covers were yellowed or otherwise compromised, this might be an indication of long
submersion time in a pond or lake and could be a sign of possible penetration or damage. In our case, the color
tests were indicative of a short duration or soak time that did not impact performance.
Some R&D experts in the golf ball industry believe that golf balls can pick up moisture and may become
excessively heavy and out of conformance with USGA Rules after soaking in the water and being returned to
play. Further, experts state that consistency (in weight) is a key consideration in playing a new versus secondhand lake ball. Further testing should focus on the consistency of weights across a sample of all new balls from
each manufacturer to detect manufacturing and other possible environmental affects (e.g. humidity capture in
stocking the balls) prior to purchase and usage of the ball by the golfer

Ballistics Testing
We conducted robotic testing of the new and recycled golf ball sample set using a Miya Swing Robot 3 in a
controlled indoor testing environment.

Miya Swing Robot 3 and Max Out Golf Launch Monitor

Courtesy of GolfBallSelector.com

We tested each ball in the sample using a Driver, 6-Iron and Sand Wedge.
For the Driver, we used a TaylorMade Model r7 425TP 9.5 loft with a Graphite Design PM902 shaft.

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

For the 6-Iron, we used a Mizuno Model MP-60 with a True Temper Dynamic Gold shaft.
For the Sand Wedge, we used a Zodia 56 degree with a True Temper Dynamic Gold shaft.
We collected ballistics data using the Max Out Golf patented IGMS system to measure performance outputs and
used a consistent player Ball Speed/Launch Angle set up for all the new and recycled sample ball testing.

IGMS Launch Monitor Data Capture/Output

Courtesy of GolfBallSelector.com

Findings from Driver Ballistics Testing:

The maximum observed difference between a new and a Grade 5A recycled ball was 3 yards total distance
(carry plus roll) for the Nike ONE Platinum (2008) a 1.2% measurement difference over the test range of 244 247 yards and within the testing error range.
The maximum observed difference between a new and Grade 4A recycled ball was < 2 yards total distance
(carry plus roll) for the Titleist Pro V1x (2007) ball. This is less than 0.8% measurement difference over the test
range of 255- 257 yards and within the testing error range.
All other differences in total driver distance were less than 0.8%

Findings from 6-Iron Ballistics Testing:

The maximum observed difference between a new and a Grade 5A recycled ball was 1.5 yards total carry for the
Nike ONE Platinum (2008) as well as for the Bridgestone Tour B330; however one was 1.5 yards longer and one
was 1.5 yards shorter than its new ball counterpart and both less than 1% difference versus the test range of
approximately 163 - 167 yards.
All other differences in total 6-iron distance were less than 0.9% with the Grade 4A balls showing even less
difference than the Grade 5A sample golf balls.

10

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

We also tested observed spin using the launch monitor and found no appreciable systematic decay in spin
tendency in moving from a new to a second-hand Grade 4A or Grade 5A ball, using the 6-iron.
The maximum observed difference between a new and Grade 4A recycled ball was < 2 yards total distance
(carry plus roll) for the Titleist Pro V1x (2007) ball. This is less than 0.8% measurement difference versus the test
range of 255- 257 yards.

Findings from Sand Wedge Ballistics Testing:

In our study, we found no performance difference in the test data between new and either Grade 4A or Grade
5A balls for distance or for spin using the Sand Wedge. The maximum deviation from new to Grade 4A/5A for
spin is less than 0.6%.

Golfer Perceptions on Performance and Value

In addition to our data capture and analysis, our study findings are drawn from: daily interactions (Q&A) we
receive at GolfBallTest.org, discussions we have with members at GolfBallSelector.com, interviews and
discussions with regular golfers who have made the switch from new to second-hand golf balls, discussions with
golf equipment representatives (fitters and wholesalers), and from our discussions with professional golfers,
PGA professionals, and owner/operators of leading recycled golf ball companies.
Except for a minority group of players, who will only play new balls (and who tend to be highly brand loyal),
most performance-oriented golfers are open to hearing the evidence about relative performance of new vs.
recycled. Moreover, once such an audience has the opportunity to physically inspect (and better yet, hit) the
recycled product, they are highly likely to make some purchases through an online outlet, via eBay, or in a
traditional pro shop/golf retailer providing a second-hand golf ball even if for practice or just for trying out a
new brand or model.
Key considerations for converting this performance-oriented buying group from interested to committed
(and growing the overall second-hand golf ball market) center around shipping costs and evidence of
trust/quality in their purchase.
Online trust factors influencing this buy decision include such considerations as: differences in reseller claims on
grading levels; color consistency/shine and general cover condition (and general lingering doubts about bait
and switch).
We have also found that online recycled golf ball purchases also tend to improve in likelihood when
independent, credible information/guidance is provided to the golfer on which ball is the right ball for them. We
have also found that to a lesser extent, some players are looking only for second-hand balls that are free of
player marks and corporate/school logos or they want to pick the recycled balls for themselves at a physical
store/outlet. Increasingly, more and more golfers report they are interested in purchasing recycled product in
support of their commitment to the environment.
When asked if the average golfer seeking value-for-money would increase their purchase of recycled balls given
third party Performance Certified validation or warranty, many answered yes while others said that once

11

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

they found a supply source that was trustworthy, they were likely to stay with that vendor and make repeat
purchases, but would still appreciate seeing some form of validation process in place. Some interviewees
indicated they would pay up to $5/dozen more for a validation seal on recycled golf balls.
When asked if brand matters in the secondary recycled market, few respondents could name a brand, but they
thought there were labels and that well known retailers and sports outlets carried them in the leading brands.
Our respondents also said that price information (stability in prices); and the ability to compare prices across
online and offline retailers/vendors was important; but only if they knew they were actually comparing the same
type and quality of golf ball.
Lastly, when offered the opportunity to test a number of second-hand balls prior to purchase, many
respondents liked the idea of inspecting/trying a recycled ball before making a larger ball purchase; as well as
trying different varieties of balls that are offered in a large, sometimes confusing, array of makes, models and
performance claims.

Summary
In this study, we set out to determine if second-hand Lake Balls have discernable performance and playability
factors compared to balls purchased new at retail. We also sought to assess golfers perceptions of value of
recycled versus new golf balls; and identify information, methods or tools that can be provided to the golfer-asconsumer in making more informed value-for-money decisions.
In our sample, bench testing on factors such as compression, weight, roundness and cover hardness and our
ballistics testing on flight characteristics (including distance and spin) - indicated no appreciable difference
between the highest quality Grade 4A/5A recycled golf balls we sourced and new golf balls.
Our study of golfer perceptions on relative performance and value-for-money in using a recycled golf ball over
a new golf ball indicates a high interest level in using a recycled or Lake Ball with factors such as online trust
and shipping costs from online vendors important considerations. Increasingly, performance-minded golfers,
who play frequently, seem to be using second-hand golf balls to reduce their costs to play and to support their
interest in helping the environment.
Golfers also reported more interest in switching from new to recycled or in trying recycled some of the time if
they had some performance validation/seal attached to the balls they were getting; and if the balls they are
buying are the same make, model and year as those they buy new. Some golfers say they would pay up to $5
per dozen to have their lower priced reclaimed golf balls validated by a 3rd party or sold under a seal of approval
or warranty.
Lastly, our study of golfers finds that they would like to try recycled balls prior to making a large purchase and
they would like to have more information, more tools in supporting their buying decision; and the opportunity
to try more than one type of ball to see what the right/better ball may be for them.

Next Steps

12

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org

Platinum Sponsor

Further work in this area should apply the analysis techniques to a larger universe of golf balls and expand the
testing below the tour level to other high performance amateur and average performance player balls.
Testing may also be done on lesser grade balls (below 5A/4A) to determine when and if material performance
decay occurs. Other analysis should focus on environmental factors and their impact on ball performance, such
as exposure to extreme heat/cold.
Additional perceptions studies may help determine which factors and information may help convert the
interested buyer and expand the overall market for second-hand balls, such as:
Does an independent testing/warranty help reduce any negative perceptions about Lake Balls?
What type of information should be presented to a would be ball buyer (e.g. data; visual
pictures/features/ samples of scuffing and yellowing to the cover to provide better disclosure of
grading and pricing differences?
What brand elements would help consumers reduce performance concerns or anxiety they may have in
buying golf balls in the secondary marketplace (especially online)?
Does packaging and presentation matter?

+++++++
About GBT Technologies, LLC and GolfBallTest.org
GBT Technologies is a company established in 2007 to focus on delivering decision support services to the golf
industry. GBT Technologies invented and built GolfBallSelector.com - a vendor-neutral web-based business
designed to help golfers select the best golf ball for them based on their unique swing characteristics and game
characteristics. GBT is also involved in component parts testing, technology acquisition/mobilization and
creation of new technology-enabled businesses for the golf equipment, media and information technology
elements of the golf industry. Independent testing; data analysis and reporting on golf ball technology advances/
industry activity is administered through GolfBallTest.org.

About GolfBallSelector.com
GolfBallSelector.com, heralded by GOLF Magazine as one of the best innovations in golf, is an interactive online
golf ball fitting system that helps golfers select the right golf ball, based on their unique player profile and game
objectives. GolfBallSelector.com matches a golf ball to the golfers unique swing characteristics and game
objectives through an innovative online fitting process. The Golf Ball Selector System finds the optimum
combination of spin rate, ball construction, cover hardness, aerodynamics and other factors to meet each
individual golfers performance objectives generating a list of recommended golf balls custom-fitted to each
player. The GolfBallSelector.com online system is supported by independent testing of 74 leading golf ball
models.

13

2009 GBT Technologies, LLC

www.GolfBallTest.org