I have tried Sriver L 2.1 on a Sardius blade of a friend, felt like it was fairly great for the backhand. So I talked to my dealer to provide me with sheets of Sriver, she returned with sheets of Sriver FX! Come playtime, I wanted to get something similar to Sriver, so I asked her what she had on stock...Sriver G3 in 2.1mm, she says. And so, intrigued by the claims of 'no more fresh gluing for Sriver', I hesitantly (
) bought a sheet of Sriver G3, along with the promise of exchanging the Sriver FX for Sriver L in the near future. (Now, both are in my hands)
So what is the difference (first impression) of the Sriver G3 and the classic Sriver?
I recall Der_Echte posting his translation of a Korean review of the Sriver G3 (excellent work there, Der!). The guy there was pretty right on the money, with most of the characteristics of Sriver retained with a little bump up on the speed and spin department.
G3 is a fairly good short-to-mid-distance rubber with a medium throw angle. Has a more supple topsheet and a softer-feeling sponge than the classic Sriver. May be similar to Sriver with one to two coats of glue on it, with some play time in it to 'break-in' the topsheet and sponge.
Classic Sriver (L) has tough-feeling topsheet, with the difference to Sriver G3 much similar to an unglued Chinese sheet and a Chinese sheet reglued around two to three times. I reckon the classic Sriver is more hardy and requires less care and maintenance than the G3. It would also survive a table-edge attack in much better shape.
The pip size, shape, and spacing are fairly similar to the two variants. I think the difference lies in the material makeup in these two topsheets. The sponge of them both are similar as well.
It might look like a Butterfly scam (it's said to be so); it's not revolutionary as the Tenergy series, but it does deliver what it has promised: 'glue feeling Sriver'. They didn't mention that it was a light gluing feeling, however. Heavy gluers should perhaps look to either boost this rubber or look for alternatives.