Ball Lab: Cut DC Review
Golf Balls

Ball Lab: Cut DC Review

Support our Mission. We independently test each product we recommend. When you buy through our links, we may earn a commission.

Ball Lab: Cut DC Review

MyGolfSpy Ball Lab is where we quantify the quality and consistency of the golf balls on the market to help you find the best ball for your money. 

About the Cut DC

The Cut DC represents the value brand’s foray into the four-piece space. The DC stands for “dual-core.” As the name should imply, the construction of the Cut DC is similar to the Titleist Pro V1x or Srixon Z-Star XV. For less than $30 a dozen, that’s a rare find

The DC features a 360-dimple cover. The company lists the launch and spin characteristics as “workable.”  While that might typically imply high spin, our hunch is this one will shake out somewhere in the middle of the launch and spin chart.

Cut DC — Compression

On our compression gauge, the Cut DC measures 99. That put it on par with the Wilson Staff Model and the Mizuno RB Tour X, just a tick softer than the Callaway Chrome Soft LS, and a whisker softer than the Pro V1x Left Dash.

We’re talking about a ball on the extreme end of the compression range. That should immediately suggest a high ball speed offering (especially for faster players).

Cut DC — Diameter and Weight

On the positive side, not a single ball in our Cut DC sample exceeded the USGA’s weight limit. We also noted that the Cut DC runs a tick large by urethane “Tour ball” standards but certainly doesn’t qualify as oversized.

A single ball in the sample failed to meet our roundness standard and was flagged as bad accordingly.

Cut DC — Inspection

Centeredness and Concentricity

Generally speaking, the Cut DC fared reasonably well in the inspection portion of Ball Lab. We flagged four balls as bad (including the ball that failed the roundness test). In all cases, the failing grade was the result of significant variation in cover and/or mantle thickness.

While we noted several cores that were less than perfectly centered, none was significantly off-center enough to be of any serious concern.

a photo of the cover of the Cut DC golf ball

Core Consistency

Core consistency was generally good. However, we did note a couple of handfuls of balls in our sample with more visible regrind/non-uniform material than the majority of the sample. None of the variances was deemed to be significant.

Cover

No significant cover defects were noted.

Cut DC — Consistency

In this section, we detail the consistency of the Cut DC. Our consistency metrics provide a measure of how similar the balls in our sample were to one another relative to all of the models we’ve tested to date.

Inconsistencies within our Cut DC sample were minimal.

Weight Consistency

  • Weight was generally consistent across the three boxes tested.
  • Overall weight consistency fell within the low end of our Good range.

Diameter Consistency

  • Diameter consistency for the Cut DC golf ball falls within the low end of our average range.
  • Box 3 was a bit smaller overall

Compression Consistency

  • Overall compression consistency falls within the Good range.
  • Box 3 was a tick firmer overall.
  • While the three-point compression delta was generally good, a couple of balls were noticeably firmer on the pole.

True Price

True Price is how we quantify the quality of a golf ball. It's a projection of what you'd have to spend to ensure you get 12 good balls.

The True Price will always be equal to or greater than the retail price. The greater the difference between the retail price and the True Price, the more you should be concerned about the quality of the ball.

Cut DC — Summary

To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.

The Good

  • Above-average consistency across our gauge metrics.
  • For less than $30 a dozen, the consistency exceeds expectations.

The Bad

  • 11 percent of the balls were bad.
  • The cover is exceedingly thick for a premium urethane offering

Cut DC — Final Grade

The Cut DC gets an overall grade of 84.

Overall, the quality exceeded expectations. The concerns are the thicker cover which typically coincides with decreased durability and greenside spin, and a firmer feel relative to the actual compression.

Given the variation in Box 3 relative to Boxes 1 and 2, I’m not convinced that we wouldn’t have diminished results if our purchase window was a bit wider. If you typically buy your balls for the season in a single order, it shouldn’t be of concern.

The “True Price” of the Cut DC is $33.69. That’s an increase of 13 percent over retail.

An overview of the equipment we use can be found here. To learn more about our test process, how we define “bad” balls and our True Price metric, check out our About MyGolfSpy Ball Lab page.

Support Unbiased Testing.

DID YOU KNOW: If only 1% of MyGolfSpy readers donated $25, we would be able to become completely independent in 12-months. With every donation, you create change.

Would you be willing to help by giving a donation? Every dollar will help. Make a donation to support our independent and expert golf equipment research. A PayPal account is not required in order to donate.

Donate to MGS


Amount

Frequency

For You

For You

Irons
Apr 24, 2024
PXG Irons: Model By Model
Putters
Apr 23, 2024
PING 2024 Putter Line Extension
News
Apr 23, 2024
Nelly Korda Deserves Her Caitlin Clark Moment, So Why Isn’t She Getting It?
Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Yogi

      1 year ago

      Haters gonna hate. I work in manufacturering so to me your rating system makes perfect since, process capability over being in spec with wide variation. Outliers will exist every now and then but to have this much consistency for the price is great value.

      I like the firmer compression – have seen about 10 yard gains in my drive and increased green side spin. I havent seen durability issues other speak of minus the small scuff due to nailing a tree. For the price this ball is tough to beat in the dual core segment. And they have a yellow option!

      This and the Maxfli Tour X are my gamers.

      Keep up the good work!

      Reply

      El

      3 years ago

      “irony of their name – weak cover durability”

      Made me laugh.

      Reply

      David P

      3 years ago

      The chart appears confusing when it shows Good Balls at 100% and Compression, Diameter, Weight, are all Good but the Score is 93 for one brand ball and a 91 for a different ball with the same ratings.

      Reply

      JL

      3 years ago

      I tested these Cut balls out for a little bit, sadly the covers would get beat up so quickly that I was having to change balls out too frequently to justify the lower price. Also, I would echo that they felt too firm for me and the greenside spin was lacking.

      Reply

      Tyrant Rex

      3 years ago

      Agreed. The durability of these balls is terrible. I couldn’t get through more than a couple holes before having to switch to a new one because the cover was so scuffed. It is a shame because I did like the feel of these balls. I must applaud Cut’s customer service though. I voice my complaints on a Facebook post and they reached out to me immediately to speak about my concerns. They even sent me a free dozen. Shame they don’t last, because I always like supporting a company that really seems to care about their customers.

      Reply

      Aart van der Molen

      3 years ago

      When will you analyze other popular mid-price balls like the Bridgestone E6, Callaway Supersoft and ERC Soft, Srixon AD333 and Soft Feel, and the Titleist Velocity?

      Reply

      Jack B.

      3 years ago

      Thank you for the review. Why does a thicker cover typically coincide with decreased durability?

      Reply

      Lou

      3 years ago

      What you do in the Ball Lab is great metric stuff for those that wish to know every single nuance of their ball. I submit that most golfers, however, are far more interested in how a ball performs vs. other balls. This is why it is so disappointing that it’s June, 2021, the height of the golf season, and you have not had a ball vs ball review in over 2 years. You must realize the golf ball is the one thing every golfer uses every round so it is, arguably, more important than pull carts, shoes, gloves, clubs, rain jackets, etc. You seem to have gone all in on golf ball weights and measures and have discarded ball performance as important to golfers. I, for one, do not understand it.

      Reply

      Josef

      3 years ago

      You must be fun at parties.

      Reply

      Paulo

      3 years ago

      Not as much fun as your mom is

      Adam

      3 years ago

      I love that you do both the major brand balls and the DTC companies. according to the latest survey you released a few days ago Kirkland balls are more popular than some of the other DTC brands out there. I personally play them as well and I think they would be a great one to study in the ball lab. At $24.99 for 2 dozen, they are probably the cheapest 3 piece urethane cover on the market. It would be really interesting to see how they compare to similar construction balls on the market.

      Reply

      Adam

      3 years ago

      So sorry, I had only been paying attention to recent results and those that made it on the comparison list. I finally did a search and it seems that you already reviewed the Kirkland balls. Thanks so much for all your work. It is greatly appreciated.

      Reply

      Rob

      3 years ago

      The did the old kirkland balls, not the 2.0 version that came out late last year as far as i’m aware.

      Ryan

      3 years ago

      I’ve recently bought 2 boxes of these in UK, and have found the cover to be exceptionally frail. After a few holes the cover looks worse than a ProV1 does after a round. The cover comes away in the scuffs in a manner that almost certainly impacts aerodynamics. I won’t be buying these again. I’ve found the Inesis to be similar, though not as bad, in this regard. The search for a budget premium ball continues. I haven’t tried Snell yet, as there’s no supply available in the UK. Seed is on my list too, but shipping from Ireland is expensive..

      Reply

      Sandy

      3 years ago

      What happened to the other comments?

      Reply

      WYBob

      3 years ago

      Tony: thanks for another ball lab report. That said, how y’all come up with your overall grade is one of the great mysteries of the universe. The Cut DC gets the same grade as the 2019 Titleist Pro V1 at 84. Yet the Pro V1 scored as follows: compression consistency= good approaching excellent; 0% were found not round; 0% too small; 0% over the USGA weight limit; 0% off-center cores: 0% cover defects, 2.7% layer concentricity issues (vs. 11% for the Cut DC) and a good ball % of 97% vs. 89% for the Cut DC. There is no observable reason that the Cut DC should grade out the same as the Pro V1 (unless your grading on the curve for price. As Ricky used to say to Lucy- “you got some ‘splainin’ to do”.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      I love people who seem to believe they’re owed a detailed explanation for everything we do here. Seriously, do you leave these type of messages for other brands? Curious who else has splainin’ to do (for time intensive, costly process that’s offered free of charge to anyone who wants to use it).

      Absolutely unreal, but what the hell, I’ll humor you.

      Putting a total score on golf ball quality (or performance for that matter), is not a particularly natural thing to do…making it simple (out of 100) trickier still.

      It simple for the casual observer, but if you’re serious about understanding how it comes together, it’s best to think of the elements (good ball% and the 3 consistency metrics) as separate things.

      Good ball % makes up roughly 45% of the score. The rest is split almost evenly between the 3 consistency metrics. I say almost because compression is weighted a bit more because it’s effectively 2 separate metrics (consistency across the 3 points measured on each ball + consistency across the sample as a whole).

      There is a bit of a curve (related to math, not price) as we want the best scores to be in the 90s.. Excellent ratings (the highest value) are theoretically possible, but highly unlikely we’ll see many. Excellent means 2 standard deviations above the database mean for a given metric – it’s an incredibly high standard.

      So let’s talk about 2 specific examples.

      First, the Cut DC. In terms of bad ball % it’s exactly average. Not awesome, not bad. Just average. Where math is concerned, most things fall within the average range.

      Ratings for both compression and Weight each fell within the good range. (albeit just barely). It’s not excellent but it’s roughly a handful of points better than average.

      Given that our system is dynamic (averages and subsequent ratings are updated each time a new ball is added), ratings for the Cut DC could drop a bit as balls are added. Likewise, the Pro V1 is just below the “good” threshold for Diameter, so it’s rating could improve as balls are added.

      Looking at how the math comes together, the DC takes a hit for the 4 bad balls in the sample, but in terms of general consistency across the sample, it gets a boost for being better than the database average fir cinoressuin and weight.

      So what I would say is that the Cut DC balls are mostly alike, but you’re going to get a really bad ball once or twice per box.

      Looking at it from the other side, a few questioned the ratings on the CSX LS because the good ball % was 97%. Basically, that means there was, individually, only a single disqualifying defect, but that metric doesn’t speak to consistency across the sample.

      It got most of available good ball points, however, it was no better than average for 2 of our consistency metrics, and took a hit for falling into the “Fair” range (below average) for weight consistency..

      With CSX LS, I’d say you’re not going to encounter many really bad ones, but the ‘good’ ones aren’t going to be a similar as some of balls we test.

      Reply

      WYBob

      3 years ago

      Tony: I appreciate what MGS does and use it as a valued resource So much so that I made an annual donation because I know anything of value isn’t free and I look at it as an investment in MGS. I appreciate you taking the time to explain how your grading works (not just for me but for the broader MGS audience). If you put the 2019 Pro V1 Ball Lab grading side by side to the Cut DS grading there are several considerable differences in the results. That makes both balls getting the same Golf Ball Quality Comparison Tool scoring something reasonable to question. With regard to your question, I utilize 5-6 solid resources for my golfing information, and if I see something on the surface that does not make sense, I do question it and ask for an explanation. Never had any pushback until now. If the phraseology I used put you off, I am sorry for that.

      Steve C

      3 years ago

      I appreciate the explanation of the process. When you put a number on something it helps to know where it came from.

      Eric

      3 years ago

      For a company who has built their business on questioning OEM’s and pushing them towards better transparency it’s more than a little ironic that you would belittle a loyal reader for asking for some transparency about your process that is, as I’m sure you would admit, not very straight forward on its face. Without knowing the process and how/why you score the way you do, these numbers mean little when they are not accompanied with performance analysis

      Sandy

      3 years ago

      If you only care about price, buy a cheap ball like this Cut and play the lottery with bad balls. Personally, I’ll stick with a great ball like Titleist Prov or Bridgestone B and stock up when they are 3 for the price of 2. The price will be close to that of the wannabes and if you care about your game the price differential is insignificant.

      Reply

      Gregg H

      3 years ago

      It’s too bad the ball I tried from them last year shredded after three holes. Wont be sucked into trying this one no matter what the Lab says

      Reply

      Joey

      3 years ago

      You got 3 holes out of yours? I think mine (Cut Blue?) lasted one hole. They sent me a sleeve of DC because of the issue but I stayed away ever since. the covers just tear up too fast.

      Reply

      Jeffrey

      3 years ago

      What’s the chance of getting Quantix balls tested ?

      Reply

      TxKevin

      3 years ago

      What warrants an “excellent” (double up arrow) on the chart. Even with some balls rated 97+%, no rating has achieved the “excellent rating” for a single category.

      Reply

      rsnman

      3 years ago

      According to Tony, for any ball to achieve “Excellent” in any category, it must score 2 standard deviations above the mean for all balls for that category. So for the “roundness” metric, if the mean (average) for all ball types tested is 95% round with a std dev of 3%, then a ball would have to have 101% of balls tested being round to qualify as “Excellent” for that category, which is mathematically impossible. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but I’m guessing even 1 bad ball for roundness, weight, size, etc out of 36 tested will take it below the “Excellent” range for that category since almost all the balls being tested score quite high in most areas.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      3 years ago

      It looks like some clarification is in order. Our 3 consistency metrics – Compression, Weight, Diameter (not roundness) – are measures of consistency across the sample. The fundamental questions we’re answering:

      1) Are the balls in the sample roughly the same size based not the average of the points measured.
      2) Are the balls in the sample roughly the same weight.
      3) Do the balls in the sample have roughly the same compression and is that compression roughly consistent across the entire golf ball.

      The bad ball designation is for:

      1) Individual balls that do not adhere to the USGA standards for max weight or minimum diameter
      2) Individual balls that are not round (based on a reasonably generous standard of pole vs. seam average)
      3) Individual balls that deviate significantly from the average compression for the sample or where there is significant variation across the 3 points measured on a single ball.
      4) Individual balls that have glaring physical defects.

      Worth mention – where there is significant 3-point compression, we typically also find significant variation in the pole to seam diameter measurements.

      The consistency metrics are based on standard deviations of the sample relative to the database average standard deviation.

      For example, if the average standard deviation within the database for a given metric is X, anything within 1 std dev is average, +1/-1 is good/fair, +2/-2 is excellent/poor. We do get some poors, but currently, we don’t have any balls rated as excellent for any metrics.

      Jared

      3 years ago

      Great write up as always. I know in the ball test a few years ago the Cut Ball had some durability issues with the cover, do you think they have improved that with these new golf balls?

      Reply

      League Golfer

      6 months ago

      I can’t speak for the Cut Grey or Blue, but the latest version of the DC (which just says CUT DC on the side and doesn’t have the word Blue on it) has remarkable durability for a urethane covered ball. Its durability is better than any other urethane golf ball I have played. I don’t know if it’s performance is anything special though.

      Reply

      Scott

      3 years ago

      Great work as always. The irony of their name is their reputation for weak cover durability. If they can work with their manufacturer to figure that out they should be a solid choice to have.

      Still would love to see a Ball Lab of tour balls of different brands but made in the same ball plant.

      Reply

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Irons
    Apr 24, 2024
    PXG Irons: Model By Model
    Putters
    Apr 23, 2024
    PING 2024 Putter Line Extension
    News
    Apr 23, 2024
    Nelly Korda Deserves Her Caitlin Clark Moment, So Why Isn’t She Getting It?
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.