I believe that the last sentence in my post implies that I have not.
However, I guess that claim would not be entirely true. I did hit balls for a few minutes using it at last year's BCA tournament in Vegas. While I did notice the obvious differences in color, consistency, etc., I can honestly say that I noticed no real difference to speak of in how it actually felt while playing. But, again, this is coming from all of about 10 minutes using it. I probably need more time with it to give it a fair shake.
To answer JoeyA's question, I would most definitely pay $30 for the chalk if the claim that it would help me pocket balls better were true, but I have my doubts that the laws of physics would even support that claim. I'm no physicist though, so perhaps someone else (Bob Jewett?) could chime in and let us know if that would even be possible.
Lastly, I keep seeing comparisons to seemingly over-priced cars in the various threads concerning Kamui chalk. First, someone in this thread said that no one complains about the cost of Mercedes or BMW. As an owner of an E350, I can tell you that is not true at all. My sanity has been questioned on more than one occasion because of the higher maintenance costs, as well as the fact that that many people believe that you could buy a car that arguably performs as well for easily half of the cost. So, again, not true. People do question the cost of luxury cars.
With that said, I have two more points to make about the car comparisons. First, it's patently absurd to make the comparison in the first place. It's chalk. It isn't a luxury automobile, or even a Yugo, for that matter.
Second, and this is where the comparison gets really fun, is that $30 for a cube of chalk does not compare to the relative cost of a Mercedes or BMW or any other "common" luxury car. If a chalk like Master would be on par with, say, a Honda Accord (which it would almost certainly be at least that), and I can get a box of 144 pieces for the cost of 1 piece of Kamui chalk, it doesn't take much to figure out that you're looking at a car that our resident gozillionaire Fatboy might have to think long and hard about whether or not to spend that much money on. Let's see, cost of a new Honda Accord is around $25k, multiply that by 144, and we have $3,600,000. That's only about $1.2M more than a new Bugatti Veyron Super Sports. Sooooo ... in one corner, we have a new Bugatti with $1.2M sitting in the glove box, and in the other corner we have Kamui chalk. Doesn't seem like a very fair comparison to me.
Edit: I figured I'd add that you could get the el cheapo base model of the Veyron for about $1.7M or, comparatively speaking, like a half a cube of Kamui Chalk.
I'm just not in that end of the sciences.....now if it were a mitochondrion or something I could help......
