Let's talk about seamless plastic ball

I think I can clarify some issues on the celluloid free table tennis balls.
Patent issue: Patents are valid only in countries where it has been granted. The patent holder has the right to prevent others to manufacture/use the patented product/process only within that country.
Indeed there is a granted patent to "In Sook Yoo International Project Management - IPM" in United States (US8105183), Korea (KR101331035), Japan (JP5078894) China (CN101272830) and in countries which are a party to European Patent Convention (EPC) (AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LI, LT, LU, LV, MC, NL, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK and TR) (EP1924331). Please note that IPM has to pay the necessary fees to those countries to keep the patent rights. Furthermore, there is an opposition to the EP1924331 patent. At the end of the opposition procedure within the European Patent Office, that patent may be totally revoked within EPC countries.
The scope of protection of the patent: I'll only evaluate the EP patent. The patent claims "Celluloid-free table tennis ball, preferably having a diameter of 38.5 to 45 mm, a weight between 2.0 and 4.5 grams and a shell thickness between 0.20 mm and 1.30 mm, where the shell is composed of plastics whose principal component is an organic non-crosslinked polymer, which has not only carbon atoms but also heteroatoms in its main chain, characterized in that the principal component a) is a thermoplastic, furthermore b) is having a density according to DIN EN ISO 1183 of 1.22 g/cm3, as well as c) is having water absorption at standard climate according to DIN EN ISO 62 of less than 1.0 %." All other claims are dependent on this claim. If any manufacturer in any of the above mentioned countries, manufactures a table tennis ball according to the claim, without the consent of IPM, will be infringing the patent rights, regardless of the ball being seamless or not.
However, any table tennis ball manufactured by using crosslinked polymer will not infringe the IPM patent. Also, even if non-crosslinked polymer is used, if the specifications of the polymer is different than that of the specified in (a), (b) or (c), there will be no infringement; eg., anyone can use a non-thermoplastic polymer, or a thermoplastic polymer with a density of less than 1.22 g/cm3, without the fear of the patent.
Since there are many celluloid-free balls on the market, the manufacturers may have either have found ways to avoid the patent or may be manufacturing with the consent of IPM.
IPM patent is not valid in other countries. For example, any manufacturer can manufacture in India and export to countries which are patent free.
Possibility of different characteristics of table tennis balls manufactured by the same company: Contract manufacturers manufacture according to the process and specifications of the contract giver. To give an example, DHS may manufacture its own balls according to its own specifications and for lets say for Stiga with according to Stiga's specifications, or to Butterfly with the same specifications with DHS if Butterfly accepts. They are arranged with commercial agreements within companies.
I hope it helps.
Regards

Yes, I suspect the material is how the patent is being evaded. As for your last point, it is true that the brand can tell to the manufacturer what quality control specs they will accept, but the fact is that there is almost no difference between the playing properties of seamed plastic balls made in China.

Here is one other point in favor of seamless balls vs. seamed balls currently made in China.

All of the ITTF-approved seamed Chinese plastic balls (such as Nittaku SHA) have manufacture date of June 2014 or later. I think this is because the T3 circular from ITTF was modified in May 2014 to allow a delay in balls meeting final specs until January of 2016. This meant that ITTF would approve what in effect are crappy balls, and so they started selling them at that point. Seamed plastic balls could not have been approved before then, I am guessing because they didn't meet specs for bounce, roundness and weight (and/or possibly durability). Something was substandard or they wouldn't have needed to announce temporary change in what they will allow, and I personally can't see how the bounce of these balls meets the specs. Supposedly once January of 2016 comes around, all the balls will have to meet the original stringent standards, according to ITTF.

The seamless XuSaoFa ITTF approved balls that I have were made in March and April of 2014, importantly this is BEFORE that temporary change. That means that those seamless balls already met the ITTF specs that will exist in Januar 2016 because at the time they were approved, those were the specs. I think that is why a lot of us prefer their playing properties.

In my experience, the best playing plastic ball is Nittaku Premium Japan 40+ (not the same thing as Nittaku SHA 40+). But it is almost impossible to buy at the moment. The next best choice in terms of playing quality is an ITTF-approved seamless ball. Unfortunately, many tournaments are using these Chinese made seamed balls like Joola 40+, DHS, Nittaku SHA, which are really inferior and have properties that are only being approved on a temporary basis for the next 13 months.

Baal, do the ITTF specs for the 40+ state that the balls must be non-celluloid?
That is, could a manufacturer make a celluloid ball or poly+celluloid to 40+ specs?

It does not formally say that there can be NO celluloid in it, but I doubt that is what makers are doing. This is what ITTF Technical Leaflet T3 says:

[FONT=&quot]Material[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Notwithstanding the instability and flammability of celluloid, it has always been the standard material for a table tennis ball. The Laws do not prescribe the material, leaving manufacturers free to experiment. We need a better material, and manufacturers are encouraged to search for one. Experience suggests, unfortunately, that the search will be a very difficult one.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The ITTF Equipment Committee will support balls with a playing performance similar or identical to that of celluloid balls. We are aware that some of the specifications given in this Technical Leaflet can be met only with difficulty by non-celluloid balls. The Committee is prepared to accept a compromise which makes an approval possible if the playing characteristics are similar or identical to those of currently approved balls. However, the ball shall have good and stable properties, which must not change at typical use before, during and after play, except a regular ageing, which should be kept at a minimum. E.g.: Permanent indentations or stress whitening as well as a flimsy or battered appearance must be clearly avoided. [/FONT]

Here is the official leaflet with a lot of information on how they will test.

http://www.ittf.com/stories/pictures/T3_Ball40mm_BoD2013.pdf

I tried a DHS *** poly ball today, and while it wasn't as bad as I feared, something definitely did feel off. It's almost as if it lacks arc compared to the old celluloid ball.

I had my second hit with the NEXY 40+ Poly Ball, which is supposed to be made in the same factory as XSF, since this ball is seamless. I got a six pack (of the 40+ balls) and I kept two, sent the other 4 out to a 2300+ modern defender to tryout and handout.

I can say my experience with the Nexy 40+ Poly Ball is a ton more positive than with the Joola 40+ Poly ball. After one match, I had an immediate and burning desire to find and promptly disintegrate EVERY Joola 40+ ball I could get within FLAME TORCH range. Dude, I wanted to burn every one of those suckas so bad, I never wanted to see another Jolla 40+ ball ever again.

Of course this ball is plastic AND it is around 1 full mm larger than the celluloid balls we are accustomed to, but this thing played like a celluloid ball or what I would expect out of a celluloid ball that is larger. Consistent enough bounce, no weird hops, no sudden braking effect on a light push (man I HATED that with the Joola) no swing and miss on balls near endline... I could go on, but this thing played reasonably close enough to celluloid ball.

I would not go into a national protest if my next tourney used these seamless balls.

Tried the Joola *** poly ball yesterday, and it was a god damn nightmare. Bounce completely uneven an unpredictable, and I was really struggling to produce spin. My backhand loops are usually spinny as hell (my game relies on that quite a bit), and my opponents didn't seem to have any trouble blocking or countering my forehand loop attacks. Also, a lot of my backhand blocks hit the net.

It really took me some tome to adjust to it, but when I switched back to celluloid, it was as if I died and went straight to heaven.

Have tried a number of seamed and seamless balls. Without a doubt the best ball out there is the XuShaofa is the best. They've absolutely nailed it. The quality hardness and bounce is outstanding. The most disappointing was the Stiga ball. The DHS seamed balls come in second behind the XSF ballls. All the balls I tried were the ITTF 3 star competition balls.

I am going to edit this but leave the original because it is funny: Original in brackets and a funny color: [There are very few good balls out there. All the seamless balls are actually made by XSF and they are all pretty decent. Better than all the seamless balls but one. Better by a mile. A kilometer. A 100 kilometers. The one seamless ball that is good is the Nitakku PREMIUM 40+ ***. The one made in Japan. NOT THE Nitakku Sha 40+ *** (made in China), but the Nitakku Premium 40+. That one is really good. Better than anything else, except in one way. The XSF ball is more durable. But the Nitakku Premium plays better and does not break quite as easily as all the other seamed balls. I don't know why, but they are doing something right.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Nitakku made a seamless ball in Japan (a seamless Nitakku Premium!!!). That would undoubtedly be the best by far.]

Edited version with what I meant:

There are very few good balls out there. All the seamless balls are actually made by XSF and they are all pretty decent. Better than all the seamed balls but one. Better by a mile. A kilometer. A 100 kilometers. The one seamed ball that is good is the Nitakku PREMIUM 40+ ***. The one made in Japan. NOT THE Nitakku Sha 40+ *** (made in China), but the Nitakku Premium 40+. That one is really good. Better than anything else, except in one way. The XSF ball is more durable. But the Nitakku Premium plays better and does not break quite as easily as all the other seamed balls. I don't know why, but they are doing something right.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if Nitakku made a seamless ball in Japan (a seamless Nitakku Premium!!!). That would undoubtedly be the best by far.

Thanks Baal for pointing out how I just kept using the word seamless to mean seamed.

Carl, in your post I think you wrote seamless several times when you meant to write seamed. And you are right, the only ball with seams that is worth a crap is the Nittaku Premium, which is currently indefinitely backordered everywhere in the world as far as I can tell (in other words, you can't even buy the damned things).

So buy seamless. They are better and cheaper.

How are these chinese balls in terms of spin?

BTW, what about Butterfly? Their three-star poly balls are supposed to be official balls for the upcoming WTTC, but they're only available for pre-order in their webshop. Has anyone actually tried them yet?

Baal said:

Carl, in your post I think you wrote seamless several times when you meant to write seamed. And you are right, the only ball with seams that is worth a crap is the Nittaku Premium, which is currently indefinitely backordered everywhere in the world as far as I can tell (in other words, you can't even buy the damned things).

So buy seamless. They are better and cheaper.

Click to expand...

You are right. hahaha. I am going to edit it. Thanks for knowing what I meant and disregarding what I said. hahah.

M51 said:

How are these chinese balls in terms of spin?

BTW, what about Butterfly? Their three-star poly balls are supposed to be official balls for the upcoming WTTC, but they're only available for pre-order in their webshop. Has anyone actually tried them yet?

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that if it has a seam and it is not the Nitakku Premium, it sort of sucks. That, it has an inconsistent bounce because of the seam and it breaks too easily because of the hardness at the seam. And when the seamed balls break, the split at the seam and are instantly done. They sort of look like Pac-Man when they break.

i just got my BTF poly balls now will be trying them tom, idk how to upload photos U.U

Sadly, the Btfly 40+ is basically the same as Double Fish -- just another terrible seamed Chinese ball with a low bounce.

Baal said:

Sadly, the Btfly 40+ is basically the same as Double Fish -- just another terrible seamed Chinese ball with a low bounce.

Click to expand...

Yep...it breaks like Pace-Man, just like all the seamed balls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Baal and Carl are the only two US forum members who actually put .25 cents into an arcade machine and played the original Pac-Man in te 70s and know what a "Jukebox Hero" is.

I have tried butterfly 40+ plastic ball and I think that it' s just fantastic. I love to play with that ball because rallies are much longer than with celluloid ball...I play topspin against topspin rallies and i like the way it feels... I have won against a guy who was stronger then me with the celluloid ball. I' m so exited to play with that balls also in my locali league...☺

Tried BTF and Yasaka Balls today
both brands are getting closer to a perfectly round ball
consistent bounce which is good
but Xushafao still the best for me <3

Jukebox Hero? Man, that's going back!