Honestly, I don’t care enough to check the moisture. I checked the playfields in real world conditions. The scale is off As to the actual hardness numbers, but the comparisons don’t lie. Also, a larger sample size would be great, but again, I don’t care enough. I checked a dozen of what was available to me. The results don’t lie, some were “harder” than others. Finding out why is a complex and expensive endeavor, and I did the test just to check with what I was personally seeing on my own pins.

As I’ve said before, do I think it’s a big deal? Meh, probably not. I’m gonna play it if it’s a cratered mess or not. The fact that I had two NIB pins with similar plays next to each other...one looking like hammered dogshit and the other looking pristine peaked my interest enough to check. I’m a consultant for a living, and do materials analysis daily. If someone’s chooses to disagree and says they are all mostly the same, great. The information is there to do with it as you wish. Again, I have no bias one way or another, but I decided to check based off what I personally saw. The results don’t lie. With the hardness scale being off, it may be that the playfields are closer in “hardness” than it actually seems. It is curious one of the “softest” playfields had ghosting issues, but freak things happen all the time.

Also, as I posted before, drop tests don’t mean a lot unless you’re achieving max force. Crashing two cars into a wall at 15 mph and both crumpling one foot doesn’t mean much. You only will find out by ratcheting up the force and crashing both cars into the wall at 50mph, and seeing one crumple 18 inches and the other 24 inches to truly compare. Only then can you see the difference between them. If you stuck with the 15 mph test you may think they all are the same.

Overall, something is different between the playfields. Is it the apocalypse? No. Does it make a major difference in the enjoyment of the pin? Probably not. It’s just another intricacy of the long and complex manufacturing process where the slightest change can make a big difference in the end product. Other than the data speaking for itself, I’m still going to play my pins, even looking like hammered dogshit or not.

A dozen playfields is more than enough to see there’s a difference. Again, I don’t know the reasoning, I just know the results. Could it be the clear, wood, moisture, etc? Sure. It can always be figured out, but the question is if it’s financially viable. The test was just done to see if there is a difference, and I believe it showed there is, backing up what some people thought they saw.

Just as an example, a major airplane manufacturer kept getting batches of aluminum parts that were the wrong temper. A few weeks later and almost $100k in cost, we finally found the issue. While the parts were being transferred to another building, one guy on night shift would stop for a smoke break. Even though it was only a short time, the below freezing temps and the parts not fully cured caused the temper to change. It can be some minuscule change has a big effect down the line.

Again, I don’t think this is a huge deal. I’m going to play it either way, but there is a difference in some playfields. The fact one of the softest readings had ghosting issues may be something, but a way more scientific approach would be needed to know for sure.

What a joke. If you can’t extrapolate data from a dozen readings, that’s on you. First it was you need a destructive testing device, then it was moisture and now it’s sample size. It was a simple and quick test to see if there was a difference. There was. The data is there for people to make up their own mind. You choose not to believe it, or believe it is so flawed that isn’t valid at all, then so be it. I did it for myself and shared the results. I can’t make any definitive statements as to cause because I truly don’t know. Could it be a coincidence that the softest play field had ghosting issues? Sure. Is their likely some correlation between the hardness and ghosting? Maybe.

Again, the data is there to do with it as you wish. Don’t believe it or think it’s flawed? Great. Ignore it, I’m sure you have a better method and will post your results. I did it for myself, and I’m glad some found it useful. Honestly I’m just trying to kill the time in between plays of my hammered dogshit play field... it’s good to know that more dimples will smooth it all out to a high gloss shine after long enough. Pfft

Oh no! Please let me apologize for my language! Do you want to send me your approved words for use on a pinball forum?

You must of mistaken me for someone who gives a shit if you believe what i posted. Don’t, ignore it. It’s clearly an uphill battle with anyone offended by the word dogshit.

Sorry this upset you so much. It’s evident you are really bothered by all this. You’re free to ignore whatever you want since you obviously can’t pull anything of value from the readings, as I’ve said...a dozen times. Apparently you take this so seriously you think we need a full blown study to get any results, which I’m excited to see you do since you are so passionate about it.

Once again, I sincerely apologize for you getting so upset by this and if I would have known I never would’ve posted...pfft. Also, thanks for schooling me that even a small amount of data is better than none at all. Any more pearls of wisdom feel free to shoot them over! (Sans all the Insane adjectives)

You don’t even know what pin I had a problem with (MMRLE), and trying to pull anything from my completely imaginary statement is ridiculous.

It’s hard to make head or tails of your entire bloviated post, and I have never made a definitive statement one way or another. I simple said they are different. Take from that what you will.

I could be biased in that I saw what looked to be abnormal wear, tested it, and for the most part the readings lined up with what I visually was seeing. Honestly though, I don’t care enough to spend any more time on it. It was enough for me to develop an opinion. You clearly desire more info, so you should take the torch and show everyone how it’s done. I’m glad you’ve seemingly calmed down from your first post, because I hated seeing someone get so upset over something as ridiculous as a playfield. Best of luck in your search for statistical truth.

Shew, you get more pathetic with each post. One playfield had abnormal wear compared to my other pins. It was an MMRLE for anyone thinking I’m just bashing stern. Hell, my sterns looked great truthfully...my LOTRLE looks unused after 1500 plays. So I took an evening and tested all the pins available to me, mine and some of my neighbor’s pins. That’s it man, no grand conspiracy, no searching out shit looking pins, just did the ones I had immediate access to. The fact I even have to explain that to you is embarrassing.

You think someone would go around and find shit play fields to get readings to post on a pinball forum? I promise you my friend, the story ain’t that great. Have pins, noticed wear on one more than others, was curious if there was a difference, have the equipment, tested them, posted it. I don’t even proclaim to know what the difference is, just that they’re different. You getting so visibly upset by all this and coming up with these conspiracies says a lot more about you than me.

(edited)

If you want to discuss further I’m always available via PM instead of clogging up the thread with me explaining everything for you?

Either way, glad I got you squared away. Sorry if you took my words as attacks. Hopefully when you calm down you will see I was just being helpful. If I can help clarify or explain anything else to you be sure to let me know.