On Amazon

I don't know any details or the author.Hopefully a handbook for dating etc.I ordered it,will let you know.

To the Bear Archery traditional bow enthusiast and to the archery community at large, this book Bear Archery Traditional Bows: A Chronological History (1949-2015) represents a singular compilation of the chronological history of Bear Archery traditional bow production through the Bear Archery Company's full timeline. This illustrated reference manual not only preserves the history and heritage of Bear Archery traditional bow production since 1949, it serves as a helpful reference to any and all archers interested in collecting and dating their vintage Bear Archery traditional bows. Each chapter covers a detailed chronology of factory production specifications for each specific bow model or group of related models. It includes photos of bow models for almost every year. The best part is this: at the end of each chapter, there is a table that allows readers to search out the characteristics of their bow by year, AMO length, riser material, medallion, limb glass colors, overlay colors, limb tip colors and where applicable, the two-digit serial number prefix.

Is it just me or has this fellow been flying under the radar?

DDave

Not just you Dave. A new name for me as well. Which is even more odd because I notice the bows on the rack behind him are Lafties!

Rick

Ordered one as well. It's either a book or buy a home on Wade's block. Book is way cheaper

Wow I need some reviews, report back after you receive yours cfokken.

Yup Never heard this name before ever ! Seems if he was an expert on this Someone would have !!!

Jorge is a wildlife biologist from Maryland. I knew he was into the older Bear Takedowns, but didn't realize he was into all the old Bears. He has used his old T/D's to take some real nice critters around the country. He was in pig hunting camp with our group in Florida several years ago. He posts some over on TG.

Ok yall post on the book if someone gets one PLZ !!!

I just ordered it . I will let you know how it is

LOL how can anyone not on the leatherwall be an expert?! :)

Obviously Jorge has been VERY busy! That book would sure be handier than my stack of catalogs and reams of correspondence from Frank Scott and Al Reader! Plus my mind is going and I can't remember everything anymore! All of my research material is currently in boxes in storage... so I'm not much help on old Bears anymore. Mostly I've been fishing ....the collecting kinda ended now that I'm on Soc. Sec. ! Any way to get this book OTHER than off the internet?

Just ordered it as well.

Didnt mean just on leatherwall Mike just never heard of him as i said iam not claiming too be an expert either i know and talk too some of the bigger collecters and they haven heard of him either !!!

I recall reading an article in professional bowhunter magazine if I am not mistaken

J.R. I never heard of you either until a year or so ago. But I don't collect Bows. I only own a few.

Hopefully it will be accurate and be a good reference

gun how long have you been on here .i know what JR is saying but one never knows so i hope the book is accurate .it would be nice to have the information in a book in order etc .

I was curious too and sent the author an email which he responded to immediately.

Good morning Lon, Thanks for your interest in my new book, Bear Archery Traditional Bows: A CChronological History (1949 - 2015). I am responding from my personal email address since you had contacted me at work. This book has been in demand for a long time. I finally decided that somebody had to do it as we're not getting any younger. It is full of interesting history and heritage. Some of my friends have reviewed it and were excited for me. Look for upcoming magazine reviews this year. If you pick it up i hope you enjoy reading it and I would like to know your reaction.

To be clear, I am not endorsing the book since I have not seen it either. With that said, I do think I will order one also.

Guys -

Certainly has my curiosity up. While I'd like to see a few reviews, it will probably be on my next Amazon order.

Viper out.

I recieved mine-from what I can see so far it is excellent and well laid out with tables,charts,photos.Sure to become a starting point reference book.Im sure there will be errors found as we go but from what I see buy Id recommend you buy it.

Has a real nice dedication to Al Reader

How bad can things be? Worst case take book to camp and use to start fires or the crapper?

It would be a great fire starter its already lite up some fires here already.LOL

Took as much to do the research as it is to put together. I'm getting it. Man can never have enough books even if he never lernts to spells.

Gents, Who the hell is this Coppen guy?

Oh, that's me! Hi everyone, my name is Jorge Coppen. I was told some folks were a buzzin' about a new book with my name on it on Stickbow.com. Yep, I have been flying under the radar for 55 years now. But I see Randy recognized me from the Florida hog hunt. Hi Randy!

Unless you 1) have read a few past articles I worte in Traditional Bowhunter Mag., 2) read a few past aritcles I worte in PBS Mag., 3) are affiliated with Trad clubs in New Jersey or Maryland, chances are you never heard of me. Not one to ever seek the limelight I guess. I'm not into blogging but I have posted some in the past elsewhere (TG) as Randy stated. I see my response to Lon posted here. Hi again Lon.

To introduce myself a bit, I have served as the Vice President and magazine/newsletter editor for Traditional Archers of New Jersey, "TANJ" (since 2002) and was briefly President and newsleter editor for Traditional Bowhunters of Maryland too. I am still with TANJ doing the magazine/newsletter. I've been a rabid Bear Archery fanatic all my life and am 56 next month. I was lucky to meet Frank Scott at the Fred bear Museum once. I knew Al Reader and spoke to him on the phone or we wrote emails every once in a while over a couple decades or so. I barked at him to please write a book for us to pass on the knowledge but he would just shrug it off and laugh it off. Then we lost him.... He was a great guy and helped me with my passion for the history of vintage Bear bows. I learned alot from him and it inspired me to learn more. I started writng articles about dating Bear bows in my Traditiional Archers of New Jersey magazine "Off the Shelf." Eventually I just kept on going and decided I may a swell write the damn book Al Reader would not. Then I decided I would cover all production bows since mass production began in 1949 (but not the glass kids bows).

Obviously this book contains decades of research from many, many sources including Bear catalogs, a bunch of humans, some internet and from looking at thousands and thousands of bow photos on the big auction site.

Thanks for showing some interest in it. If you get a chance to read it, I hope you enjoy the book...or it can be used to light them fires at deer camp. :)

Anywhere to get this other than Amazon? I can 't do internet ordering.

Nice to meet you Jorge. I'm waiting impatiently for my copy now.

Steve, come to Kalamazoo and you can get mine and I'll get a new one!

Thank you, Dan. Lemme know your reaction when you read it (good, bad or ugly). Hi Steve, I would call your local Barnes and Nobels or other bookstore and order it from there. Best I can thhink of.

Thanks Jorge...I was thinking Barnes and Noble .... but never had much luck with them in the past even when I gave them a title and author! Bunch of dweebs working there that don 't actually want to do any REAL work.

Thanks for chiming in Jorge. I was waiting to see what others thought of the book before I dove in but I guess I'll have to get one. Thanks for all the research and time you put into it.

SB-I just ordered one from B&N yesterday. I went to the store, went to the customer service center and was done in under 5 minutes. I'm having it shipped directly to my home. Same price as Amazon if you included shipping that they charge. I have a B&N membership so I got a 10% discount and free shipping. I was told it would ship out next week while at the store, but I rec'd an email this morning from them and the book is already on the way.

Jorge, thanks for doing the book. I too kept waiting for Mr. Reader to compile his knowledge for us. Thanks for picking up the torch. I'm looking forward to getting the book.

Lance.

Jorge I really want to thank you for taking the time to write your book. I ordered 3 when rich mentioned that they were available. Hoping they will come in the next 2 days so I can take one on my Arizona coues deer hunt. I bought extras to give for presents. I hope you sell bunches. Good luck

How much are they?

Jorge,

It's on my "to get" list.

Looking forward to buying a copy.

I also heard about it from Rich Lopez on his site.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to put it together.

SB, they are around $30, or a little less. bvd

my wife bought it online for 24.95 shipped amazon.com

AK pathfinder, Knifeguy, Cousekiller, Recurve Crafter et al.:

Nice to make all your acquaintance(s) here in cyberspace. My goal in writing that book was to preserve the history and heritage of Bear Archery in print forever, recognizing that memories fade and people pass on and take their knowledge with them. Preservation is best done in print. The "expert collector Gods" may not need it. But I hope most folks will extract some useful information (which I wish I had 20 years ago!). Maybe the youth of tomorrow will find it helpful when us old birds have gone to the happy hunting grounds. Hope you find it somewhat helpful!

I am ordering a copy today. Thanks for putting this together Jorge. Looking forward to getting it.

Jorge, Nice to meet you.

I received the book yesterday. Jorge has a fantastic chronological history of Bear bows. I am sure it took years of research to compile this info along with the related pictures. By the way, the pictures are well done. Have only read various chapters to date, but feel it will become my "go to" reference whenever Bear bows are considered. Good work Jorge!

Nice to meet you Jorge. Is Pearson next? ;-)

I just ordered one. Looking forward to getting it.

Ordered mine last night, can't wait!

Book is excellent and should put a huge dent to the endless ??s of dating Bear bows/ Nothing new to veteran collectors but the fella put a lot of effort into making this a great reference book. A+++++++

Thanks for the reviews. I'll be ordering one soon.

ordered 1 today

Hey Gents,

Thanks to everybody for your very kind statements and good wishes. Who says bowhunters are not good people? I am not used to attention like this. Hey Lucas - Sorry, don't expect a Pearson book from me my friend...I doubt I want to go through that experience again...too much work for this old dog! ;). Also, I made a $4,429 investment in the publication so I just hope to break even!!! LOL!

I tried to make sure the chapters were short and easy to read and I was overly careful to make sure the information in the tables were correct, since that's the most important part of the procedure. Just grab a bow you want to date, read the chapter for that bow first and then go right to the table and pin it down. Mostly, enjoy the process, be happy and live long!

Just ordered one this afternoon.

Just got mine today! What I have read is awesome!

Hi Jorge, I can certainly relate to what you're saying. I wrote and published a book about vintage .22 rifles a couple of years ago. They have been a passion of mine for a long, long time, and I learned a great deal in the process. So, even though we both had to invest quite a bit to bring our "babies" to fruition, in the long run I think it will be worth it. I have a fair collection of vintage recurve bows including several bears (my favorites are the '64. '65, and '66 Kodiak, Kodiak Magnum and Grizzly), so I will be ordering one of your books very soon. Best of luck with it. By the way, I'm almost at the "break-even" point with mine.

WalnutBill, I hear that! Congrats on your publication and not being broke by it :)

I rec'd my copy today and have already dived in. This is a great reference book and well written. Even my ancient brain should be able to keep some of the info near the surface! Lance.

Hi Gents,

If I may so bold, I will add one more thing...Even if you trashed everything I wrote in the text of each chapter and dismissed it as "fluff" (not gonna happen), I personally guarantee that the data in the tables at the end of each chapter (the most important part of the information for dating your vintage Bear bow) is 100% correct. Forty years of data confirm it as such. So you cannot go wrong Bear bow daters! Enjoy!

I managed to get one ordered from Barnes and Noble today! They said it is a print on demand . So be a week or so. Looking forward to it. . Thanks Jorge !!! This should cut down on my digging through piles of notes!

SB, please let me know what you think after you read it friend!

Will do Jorge! I only have around 200 Bears at the moment for reference! Your book will give my brain a rest. Can't rely on memory anymore! I have a lot of notes written down....somewhere!

Steve, you know...with 200 Bear bows...you could have written your own book! Don't as ke me to write it...I am the WORST friggin'typist in the world (two finger hunt & peck style) LOL!

I have a question, is it about the bows only or is the material in the book on some of the other bear merchandise?

Hey Bigdaddy, It's all about putting a date to Bear Archery bows from 1949 to 2015 and nothing but.

Not me Jorge. I am by far the worse as far as getting something across in print! With zero typing skills to boot! Guess those A 's in typing classes in the 60's didn 't stick !

I'd like to know how you made it through 2015 ....after they moved to Gainesville vey little of it makes sense as far as specific dating of a model. 1977 is the last year I can make it to.

Steve,

From 1977 forward there was a gradual change in the stable of models offered in Bear catalogs and the number of “traditional” bows offered dropped from 11 in 1978 (not counting glass kids bows like the Red Bear or Golden Bear) to only 3 by 1985. Only about 4 models were offered through the 1990s. So, I just went by the catalogs those years but I also looked at thousands and thousands of bow photos on the big auction website. These were fairly easy to track. Of course, with no cosmetic changes for some overlapping years I can only group them in blocks. One example is the Bear Take-Down Hunter (1980 through 1982), which was Sylvan Brown magnesium alloy. Another example, the Bearcat Take-Down (1993-2004) in Hamerstone Silver magnesium alloy was identical all those years. I did not have serial number ledgers to take those to the year.

By 1996, with the growing resurgence of traditional archery, Bear Archery brought back some of the classic models that were overshadowed by the popularity of the compound bow. There were 10 models in a 1997 traditional catalog dubbed “Fred Bear Classics.” Lots of bow groupings in this range but a change to the "Freddy Kruger" coin medallion (1998-2003)and some serial number changes (as in 2003 when Escalde Sports bought out the assets from the failed North American Archery Group, LLC) and some changes to riser materials (hardwoods to Dymondwood) helped.

From at least 2001 forward the serial number incorporates the year of production. More recently, serial numbers provide both the year and month of production. So dating a bow to the year is essentially automatic from about 2001 forward.

Cool info on the later bows.

Can't wait to get my copy.

I got a copy a few days ago. I am not very knowledgeable on Bear bows and found this book a good way to increase my expertise. I have a few older Bear bows and had fun determining the vintage of each one. It's nice having all this information in one place. For me the book is well worth the money.

Ordered me a copy from Amazon this morning!

Hi Catsailor, You are exactly the kind of folks the book was intended for. Now you know! Plus you had FUN applying it and that is what really matters! Thanks for the positive review.

I DID know the recent Bears were dateable as to year and month. Didn 't know that system started as early as 2001 though. And I still have trouble deciphering it at times. I don 't have much interest in Gainesville bows anyway ! Looking forward to my copy !

Got my copy today. Very well done with plenty of information and illustrations. If you collect Bear bows, or are a fan of Fred Bear and Bear Archery, I do not think you will be disappointed. Worth the price.

Mine showed up today, nice job Jorge! I really like the the tables at the end of each section. I'm sure a lot of Bear enthusiasts are going to like it.

jay b how did it come ups or fed ex .

Jeff W and Jay B,

Thanks for that! Special thanks to Jeff W. for leaving a great customer review for me on Amazon for the book! If others care to testify on the book I would be eternally grateful! here's the link:

http://www.amazon.com/Bear-Archery-Traditional-Bows-Chronological/dp/1682890317

With an investment of $4,429.00 and royalties of $3 to $4 per book sold I only have to sell 1,476 copies. Please circulate, Daddy needs a new bow! LOL!

I don't know who brought it, my son brought it in when he got home, I was surprised it came on MLK day though.

STILL waiting on mine! I think you'll make out just fine on this one Jorge! Who first discovered this book was out there? I knew nothing about it until it popped up on the Leatherwall!

Steve,

Far as I know, Rich Lopez let the cat outta the bsg first. He came over to my house to pick up thge first copy I released to the hounds :)

Well... Thanks to Rich for opening the bag then !!!!

well my book showed up today looks good . well gotta get reading.

Mine finally arrived. I LIKE what I see so far.

As i stated to Jorge.. I read the book cover to cover in 7 days. Yes as with any self publication there are a few typos..BUT not many. The information for the most part, is lengthy and accurate. Not every nuance can be known and veteran collectors will have their opinions. Mentor and Bear collector Al Reader has passed and HE WAS the most knowledgeable in this arena next to Ole Fred Bear himself IMO, so the dedication alone was humbling. The chapters where not too long and not too short, and the visual display of color photo's added a real nice touch.

The standard bows that most collectors focus on Kodiak, Grizzly, Kodiak Hunter, Mag, and Take-down bows, etc..where all covered well and the table's at the end of each chapter are great and quick reference.

The book was written in an easy to read and to the point meat and potato reference with a few fun facts thrown in. Very humbling.

What I thoroughly enjoyed is the target bow chapters... I have been collecting bows since 1972 and in my experience EVERYONE focuses on the standards and very little is discussed or printed on the target models. Two thumbs up Jorge.

I would encourage any collector both novice or veteran to add this to their library. 350+pages of a life's work is nothing short of heartfelt dedication, sacrifice, and love of archery. A refreshing reference masterpiece.

Hey Jorge, George here...friend of Jawge and others. I'll be ordering the book as well. Maybe you can sell enough on the traditional forums to get your investment back and save for new bow. Al was a good friend to me as well and we did some horse trading back twenty couple years ago. I always enjoyed his phone calls that started out, "Jawge....Al Reader here."

Just ordered mine! I bought this fabulous Grizz a few weeks ago from one of our great LW regulars, and have no idea what year. The static tip (top pic) is streamlined way down from the massive (and to me, ugly) brush nock tips, but gives a more pronounced "Static Tip" feeling in the draw than the slightly later static tip Griz (lower pic) which just has stiffening lams in the outer limb. Almost feels like a "proto-type" Saluki, and I have one of those.

I'm about 1/4 of the way through mine. Good book, well written. More info than I will "ever" remember.

I got mine yesterday. You wont regret buying one.

I got box of ten today to take to K-Zoo for Jorge. Show up early before they're gone!

Hey gents,

Taking a break from shoveling some 30 inches of snow from my "shooting lane" to the target! Thanks very much guys for the flattering comments and to Rich Lopez for the humbimg book review!

George, I hear ya, I miss talking to Al on the phone. In later years he was harder to keep in contact with given his eye issues and such. I hope he is smiling up there in the happy huntring grounds reading chapter one!

[URL=http://s977.photobucket.com/user/jlcoppen/media/002.jpg.html][IMG]http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae260/jlcoppen/002.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

I got mine and really love it.

Well done Jorge!

Thank you, sir! Happy Reading and collecting.

Finally got mine Jorge! Well done! Havn't ' found any discrepancies yet! This is going to be a time saver. No more digging through reams of notes. Course you know.... there 's still a lot of oddballs and transition bows out there! We'll probably never figure all of those out!

I'm really enjoying my copy of this book!

So I guess I'm out of business....eh CD? ;)

Steve, Glad it arrived! Quoting myself from page 19 "There are several expert collectors out there that may fill in blanks more judiciously and present more detail about the chronological history and nuances of a particular bow model for which they have attained expertise and knowledge. However, most collectorshave such knowledge and expertise with only a few Bear Archery bow models at best. As you might expect, the most collectible bows have the largest following in the collector world."

Most of what I learned was from others so if there are any discrepancies I'd like to learn them.

HAPPY READING!

Blackstick, Yes all are paperback. It would have cost me $250 more for the Hard Cover option, but I would have gotten 5 complimentary copies. That means I would have to sell them at $50 each to recover the cost...too risky and I'm too cheap.

paper back is fine with me .

Jorge -

Thanks so much for taking the time to write this book. I'm certain it will save us older collectors countless hours of answering questions for years to come. As with everything, it is important that someone take the bull by the horns and write the initial book.

Having written 9 books about archery collectibles (not bows), I know first hand that regardless of how complete any book is about collectibles, there will always something to add or change for the next edition.

Holy Cow! THE one-and-only Bear expert Wade Phillips writing to me. I never would have imagined that...I am humbled and super-HONORED! Thanks, Wade.

I waited for years for Al Reader (or somebody) to write this book that both Al himself and Joe St. Charles said was needed many years ago. When we lost Al, reality struck me and 6 years later I commited. As you might gather it took a little bit of courage to publish it knowing others (like yourself) could have done a much better job in writing it.

You are correct. It is never 100% perfect. In fact there are some typos and other mistakes my copy editor did not catch and I looked it over many times but you just read through your own mistakes as the brain fails to catch them in the process of proof-reading. THAT'S WHY I WROTE MY NEW THEME SONG....

Sung to the tune "My Way" (Elvis Presley version):

"Mistakes, I made a few But then again, too few to mention I did the best that I could do And saw it through for Bear Archery Nation

I planned each chapter as best I could Al Readers knowledge… it gave me wood And more, much more than this I did it my way…"

LOL, thanks Wade!

Jorge -

I have found that it is always a lot easier to buy a book then to write it. I'm just glad I waited long enough for you to come out with this one.

Your song is cute. Are you going to record it with Ted Nugent?

Wade, I met Ted Nugent twice, first in 1977 at Detriot radio station WABX. He was huge back then. I and a friend of mine walked up slowly in the line to get his autograph. When we did I asked ted where he was hunting this fall. Then my buddy said "Hey Ted, Jorge is your biggest fan here at home in Detriot." Nugent turned his eyes up and barked : "NO! I am my biggest fan!" ...I have a better chance of being the Queen of England thsn recording with Nugent. He's a better guitar player anyhow.

I will be ordering a copy. This is cool, Thanks for doing it.

Jorge -

I've also met Ted a couple of times... and spent way too much time with him. He really works at being different and has been extremely successful at that over the years.

When you are in the area, you need to stop and spend a few days with us. Maybe together we can get all of these old Bear Bows identified... I have a very interesting old article about Ted's earlier years that was in Floyd Eccleston's stuff. I think it was from the Detroit Free Press.

I doubt you need my assistance, Wade! Dang, I wish this would have happened back in late-Sept / early-October 2014 while I was bowhunting Muleys in Wauneta, Nebraska. Maybe we could have met up at Plum Creek Cabin in the Nebraska Sand Hills near Basset, NE. That would have been a kick! I know Fred Bear first hunted at Dick Mauch's Plum Creek cabin back in 1963 and again in 1964 with Ed Bilderback, Bob Kelly, Dr. Judd Grindell, K. K. Knickerbocker, Bob Munger and Mike Steger...and that Fred returned to hunt in Bassett in 1975 with Bob Kelly.

Duirng my Wauneta hunt I saw more rattle snakes, bull snakes and black widows than mule deer as it was too hot. Lots of snakes. Could have collected plenty of bow backing!

New River, Please let me know your reaction when you read it (the good, the bad or the ugly)...

Jorge -

Never hunted in the Wauneta area, but have killed lots of rattle snakes over the years. You should have stopped here on that trip as you surely took I-80, and we are just a few miles off of that main drag. We have an extra bedroom just for guests, the former Fred Bear Room. In addition to seeing the Antique Archery Arsenal, you could have seen our 350 rose bushes putting on a fall show through the first part of November. The past few years, our warm falls have really extended the growing season for them as many can survive when low temps drop to the high 20s.

Yes, there are lots of good stories about Fred hunting in Nebraska. The best stories of those hunts are told by Dick Mauch.

As you probably known, Will Compton did all of his early hunting with the bow and arrow in Nebraska and regarded it as some of the best big game hunting in the country. Of course that was 130 to 140 years ago... and game populations have changed dramatically since then.

Great history! I wonder if that arrow Fred Bear had shot into the exterior of the Plum Creek cabin in 1982 is still stuck there? I'd pay to see that! In fact, here is a neat photo I keep around showing Fred Bear, Glenn St. Charles and Dick Mauch at Plum Creek cabin. Now I need both you and Dick to sign my book!

Jorge -

Sorry to report that Fred's arrow is no longer in the peak of the cabin. Over the years, there have been several additions and modifications to the cabin, increasing the size and making it much more comfortable.

Jorge -

Back to the subject of this thread... Your Book...

I read it cover to cover in a little under 24 hours after its arrival. The way your presented it sure reminded me of my endless conversations with Al Reader over the years. :)

As you know, many collectors place a different importance on different features when dating bows. Al and I always had a little different idea about the importance of some minor features.

You did a remarkable job of putting your book together. It will be extremely helpful for all collectors as most of us have limited collecting interests not to mention limited resources to acquire bows.

Because I only seriously collect all Bear Hunting Bows from the 1930s to the mid 1960s, I petty much skimmed through many parts referencing the late 1960s to 2015, or I may have never reached the Epilogue on page 357. I do have a question for you about the 1970 to 1972 Kodiak Magnums (which I don't seriously collect). Here is a photograph of 3 Kodiak Magnums...

KU 11096 - 55# KU 37307 - 45# KU 43884 - 45#

I'm not an expert on identifying Shedua or Pa Ferro as I don't see much of it in the bows I collect seriously.

These three bows appear to be the same except the first one is missing the insert bushing. They all have the flush brass standing Bear coin and the Canada Patent.

Just what you didn't want, everyone asking questions... Sorry...

Wade, Nice bows!

1970 to 1972 Kodiak Magnums:

In 1970, according to the Bear catalog, the Kodiak Mag. riser was constructed of Pau Ferro and African Bubinga. In my photo here, using Kodiak Hunter models (since they were constructed similarly to Kodiak Mags as part of the “Dynamic Duo”, you can see the first 2 bows pictured from the bottom up contain Pau Ferro/African Bubinga (hence 1970 bows). Pau Ferro looks more “swirly” than Shedua but I think variation in wood grain makes it difficult at times to be confident.

While 1971 represents the first year that the stabilizer insert became “standard equipment”, you could order it as an option in 1970, so all three years of the Kodiak Mag. might carry one. So, we cannot consider that to differentiate among the three in your photo or mine.

In 1972, both silk-screen logos appear on the belly side of the limbs. As you stated, all your Kodiak Mags here have the Canadian patent, so they range from 1970 to 1972. But, does any of your bows pictured have both silk-screen logos on the belly side of the limbs? If so, it’s most certainly a 1972.

If you determine the bow has a riser of shedua/African Bubinga, you have either a 1971 or 1972 Kodiak Mag. The difference is in the silk-screen logos as I described above. If the are both on the belly side it's a 1972, otherwise it's a 1971.

From your photo of the 3 Kodiak mags it looks to me that they all contain shedua/African Bubinga, even though that lower KU11096 serial # bothers me a bit (I will bet it is from the early manufacturing season for the 1971 models (as you know they started making bows Sept. to Sept.). ________________________________________

My Koddiak Hunters pictured here:

Top: KT36823 (1971), Shedua/Bubinga Middle: KT20260 (1970), Pau Ferro/Bubinga Bottom: KT24769 (1970), Pau Ferro/Bubinga

If you can look at those silk-screen logo positions, you may be in business to separate out 1971 from 1972. Let me know what you think Wade.

Jorge -

Thanks so much for taking the time for posting your detailed response and your nice photographs.

You sound like Al. Yes, I agree the woods are Shedua/Bubinga.

I was focusing on your chart on page 89, which I assumed was everything I needed to know on that one page. However, even through I read notation "a", "c" and "d" on the next page, I only caught the second line of notation "d". Can't remember ever dating any of my pre mid 1960's bows by using the location of the logos.

I'm still confused. As I look at the chart on page 89, guess the major irregularity with dating the bows at 1971, is that they all have the "Brass Standing Bear Coin", which is different than the chart on page 89, which states "1971-1972" as having "Nickel-Silver Standing Bear Coin".

Frankly, I don't even use coins for dating bows, as I have found them to be the least reliable method for identification. The other feature that I find nearly equally unreliable is serial numbers...

However, I also want to mention that the three bows go from serial number KU 11096 to KU 43884 a span of 32,788 numbers. Since 1970, 1971, and 1972 have a KU prefix, I would assume that the 1970 Magnums would have serial numbers somewhere below 11096 and 1972 Magnums would have serial numbers somewhere above 43884. Do you concur with this assumption?

Sorry to be such a pain in the hind end.

Jorge if you still have an option to have hard covers printed I would like to have one. You should also consider putting a few on the big auction site so the others that don't follow these forums can buy your book. thanks again Noble in Albuquerque

Jorge -

Now I feel like I am being a bigger pain than really possible...

As I looked over page 89 and compared every detail to the three bows, I notice the chart states the riser overlays are

1970 - White/Grey Glass, White Tips 1971 - White/Green Glass, White Tips 1972 - White/Green Glass, White Tips

When I look at the 1971 & 1972 Catalogs, the riser overlays appear to be black. Can't really tell on the 1970 catalog.

When I look at the three supposed 1971 bows, they all appear to have Black/White Glass riser overlays... to the far left is a 1969 Kodiak Special with Black/Whiter Glass riser overlays, which is stated in the chart. The three to the right are actually more black than the black ones. (I've never used overlay color to date bows either, but realize one must use something if the bows are otherwise identical.

Correction... Last paragraph should say to the far left is a Kodiak "Magnum"... rather than what I incorrectly typed Kodiak "Special"...

Guess my question now is, what was used to determine the overlay material for the chart on page 89?... Al's notes, the catalogs, the bows, a misprint, or do I just have 3 odd ducks in a row?

Sorry to be such a pain.

I guess we continue to muddle…

Page 21: I think the issue here is that I used Al Reader’s rule #3. “The first year for the “Coin” medallion (flush with the bow surface) was 1959. It was copper metal that year, 1960-61 was aluminum, 1962 pewter, 1963–70 brass, 1971–72 nickel silver.” When I built the tables, I added this under “Medallion” as one of the parameters in the tables. However, I do see you are correct that for dating 1971 bows, I should have included "Brass Standing Bear Coin" in the cell for “Medallion” too.

Page 27: Quoting myself, “A word of caution I heard from Al Reader himself is that none of this can be written in stone and using coin medallions alone for dating bows is futile.” So, even though I included a column in the tables for “Medallion” in an attempt to be helpful, it should not be a standalone characteristic for dating bows. The rest of the columns need to be employed. So dating bows using only coins should be considered unreliable for identification. One has to read the “Setting the Foundation Chapter” to understand that.

Page 28: Quoting myself, “In 1963, the year of the “doglegs,” a brass coin with a new stamping of a “rounded” Bear logo appeared in high end bows. Also in 1963, a “rounded” Bear aluminum coin begins to appear in the lower class bows like the Polar and Cub. This same aluminum coin reappears in Grizzly models in 1970 to 1972. Also in 1970 and 1971, a few nickel-silver coin medallions appear in top model bows. These coins are less prevalent and are nearly identical in appearance to the aluminum coin. As with all years, the application of these coins overlap in consecutive years, so precise dating to the year is impossible. That is, coins did not always change with a model change. Still as I wrote above, this is one diagnostic feature used in the process of bow dating.” Again, one has to read the “Setting the Foundation Chapter” to understand that. But I should have entered that in the cell for the table.

Still, presenting some discussion of Medallions is a bit helpful and that is why Al Reader, you, and I have constructed them (mine is on page 30). For the Nickel Silver coin, perhaps it should read “1963 to 1972.”

How else is a discussion of Medallions helpful? Well, here’s a quote from page 29:

“Then in late-1972 Bear Archery began to apply the “Button Medallion.” It was positioned high up in the handle and was raised above the surface of the bow. It came in both gold- and chrome-covered plastic. These replaced all coin medallions, and their use continued into the Gainesville production years until 1996 when many of the old models were reintroduced with the classic brass standing bear coin now called the Golden Bear medallion.

From 1998 to 2003, a new brass coin featuring a bust of Fred Bear was used. The image of Fred Bear’s face was surrounded by the words “Fred Bear Bowhunting Equipment Co.” This coin was referred to as the Freddy Kruger (often misspelled as such) coin by some, given the likeness of the Freddy Krueger horror movie character to the image of Fred Bear wearing his Fedora. This new logo was used until about 2003 when the company was under the North American Archery Group LLC.”

I certainly agree to the lack of reliability using serial numbers and I have never bothered with them once I found out that in the 1950s and early 1960s the serial numbers were started over every month making most years up to 1964 very difficult to identify. I covered this in “Setting the Foundation” on the bottom of page 26 and top of page 27. Even Al Reader’s interviews with Bear Archery employees revealed uncertainty regarding the serial number ranges. However, using serial number prefixes are a different subject and of course those are helpful.

Page89: If you look at the superscripts in the table for 1971-72, “a” applies only to 1971 only and “c” and “d” apply only to 1972 (pasted below). The reason you can't remember ever dating any of your pre- mid 1960's bows by using the location of the logos is that no such change occurred before or after 1972 specifically.

a. First year the stabilizer insert became standard equipment.

b. First digit in serial numbers from 1965 to 1969 indicated the last digit of that year.

c. ALL coins flush with wood until 1972. Late-1972 button medallion now used in both gold- and chrome-covered plastic.

d. In 1972 both silk-screen logos appear on the belly side of the limbs and

Regarding you assessment about Kodiak Magnum serial numbers and your assumption that the 1970 Magnums would have serial numbers below 11096 and that the 1972 Magnums would have serial numbers above 43884, I cannot concur with. If Pau Ferro was only used in Kodiak Hunters in 1970 and since their serial numbers range into the 20,000s I don’t think that is a good assumption. All you need to do is look at my Kodiak Hunter photo…

Top: KT36823 (1971), Shedua/Bubinga;

Middle: KT20260 (1970), Pau Ferro/Bubinga;

Bottom: KT24769 (1970), Pau Ferro/Bubinga

What I did try to provide with this reference manual was a fairly comprehensive review of ALL the production bow models (minus glass kids bows) but not inclusive of all the possible nuances and details. If I did that my 357 page book would have likely mushroomed to over 500 pages. As I warned on page 19, “There are several expert collectors out there that may fill in blanks more judiciously and present more detail about the chronological history and nuances of a particular bow model for which they have attained expertise and knowledge. However, most collectors have such knowledge and expertise with only a few Bear Archery bow models at best.” That’s where you come in Wade!

But here is what I do find a bit peculiar….I did an extensive google search and found a forum you posted on in Tradrag.com back in 2009.

http://www.tradrag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=2637

In that thread, it is apparent that you had a great epiphany re: coins and subjects like yellowing of the finish that makes a nickel silver coin look like brass. So I don’t think you are really…“confused”, Wade. I think you know better. Frankly, I wish I had seen this in my research for the book. Here are some of your quotes form that thread worth reading for ALL:

“After polishing all three, it is easy to see the coin in the bow is nickle silver” (not brass).

“Until Doc posted this thread, I didn't even realize that I probably have dozens of those Nickel Silver coins in these 1963 to 1968 Bear Bows that I have. Have always thought they were all just brass, as these newer nickle silver coins are not really the same color as the flat Bear coin in nickle. I'll have to get that coin display squared away here this evening after I pop that nickle silver coin out of that Kodiak Magnum with the shattered lower limb ....As many of know, I have never put much store in using coins to date bows and obviously have never paid close attention to the coins. Guess this exercise only substantiates again, just how ineffective coins are for use to date bows. If you want to date a Bear bow accurately, is wise to look at the riser shape or the form the bow was built on.” You even hand-corrected the dates for the Nickel-Silver coin with “1963-1972.”

“I know Al Reader did put some store in the coins in Bear bows.

First, let me say, that there isn't anyone who ever collected Bear Archery tackle that I respected more or admired more than Al. He was the best. Al and I were friends for over 25 years and many times one of us learned something and shared it with the other that was not known by either of us before. Like many of us here, Al and I both considered ourselves to be students of Bear Bows and realized that there is always much to be learned.

As my Dad frequently said, "What really counts is what you learn after you think you have learned it all."

I'm going to quote Al here in an article that he wrote that was originally printed in Traditional Bowhunter, Oct/Nov 1997...

“Also in 1970 and 1971 a few nickel silver coin medallions appear in top model bows. These are scattered and are identical in appearance to the aluminum. As with "all years" these coins all overlap, so precise dating could be difficult. - Al Reader, Oct/Nov 1997 Traditional Bowhunter”

Many people look at Al's photograph of coins in the article and accept the dates on the coins as Gospel...

They neglect to read and try to understand Al's text...

“As with "all years" these coins all overlap, so precise dating could be difficult.” …Incidentally, I wrote that on Page 28 in my book.

Hi Cousekiller, The option to print hard cover books would have cost me $250 more. I was already broke and even thought I would have gotten 10 complimentary copies, I would need to sell them off at $50 each to revcover the expense. I would like to have one too but who wants to pay $50 for a book? Thanks for asking though, Noble!

Wade,

When I looked at my original manuscript the overlay colors in the table for the Kodiak Magnum are marked as WHITE/BLACK for the years 1970 and 1971-72. I had lots of issues with fonts given the all-caps format. It caused the table to be too wide for the 6X9 format of the page. My page design editor made many sloppy mistakes in copy and pasting things like table entries and photo labels. It was intense and excruciating trying to fix all of them but I did little to review what they had done with the tables. I was pretty focused on text and photo label issues. Those are obviously cut and paste errors and I wish I could have caught them. Imagine that, a 357-page book with some errors. Sad but I knew there would be some unfortunate issues. Anyone who write a book will discover that.

However, on page 83 I wrote: “In 1971–72, the Kodiak Mag. riser was constructed of Shedua and African bubinga wood but retained the Arctic grey glass backing. The handle was decorated with white and black glass overlays, and the bow featured white limb tip glass overlays” So, at least the text was correct. Maybe that can be fixed in the second edition?… not that I will do it. Go for it Wade!

Holy Left-handed Bear Bows Batman!!!! No wonder I can't find any. You've got them all!!! LOL!!!!!!

Can't wait to get your new book.

Will get one for sure. Can not wait to see the details. Thank you for investing your time into this worth while project, with real research

Hi Bill,

You should be able to find some. You will be happy to know that I only have about 50 bows in my current collection right now (small potaotes). I bought and sold about another 100 or so...so they are out there just waiting for you. Bid..Bid..Bid!!!

Thank you, Stickbow. Hope it is somewhat helpful to you. In those cases where it is not so clear, please ask me to clarify. I will do my best.

"The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."

? Albert Einstein

Wade,

Can you help me out with a bow ID? It is a 60" Bear Super Kodiak. It is a two-tone model made of Hard-Rock Maple impregnated with Futurewood and faced/backed with black fiberglass over the limb cores which are Fascor-treated. It carries balck and white glass handle overlays. Serial# KZ8173. It has a Canadian patent on the lower limb. What year do you think this is?

Jorge,

Thanks so much for your detailed response. I feel so bad that I am asking these crazy questions about bows that I don't really collect seriously. But then if I did collect them seriously, I should already know the answers. Guess it is good that everyone understands what happened and what the accurate information really is to use that you are providing in this forum.

I just can't imagine what you have gone through, having others change your original manuscript before printing and then you having to go back through the edited manuscript and try to find all of their changes and correct their mistakes in a 357 page book. I feel so fortunate that in all of my books, I did all of the writing, editing and made all of the changes after proof reading. I still had a heck of a time making sure that every change from every proof read was made and consistent with everything else. Unless a person has written a book, they can not really appreciate how difficult it can be for someone not in that business, especially if the author is the editor, proof reader and publisher. God bless you for all of your tireless work, nobody appreciates it more than I do.

Your response helps greatly, with making the changes for the WHITE/BLACK for the years 1970 and 1971-72. I made those changes in red ink to match the dozens of notations that I have already made. I write in all of my newer books, people don't even think of hijacking my books if they are laying around if the books are all marked up. The notes not only serve as corrections, but also help to spark my fading memory.

Guess I still have the question about all three Magnums in the photograph having the Flush, Brass Standing Bear Coin, and the table on page 89 stating Nickel-Silver Standing Bear for the 1971-72 bows. Are these inconsistencies the same issue with the formatting changes not being caught...?

Seriously Jorge? Is this a quiz for Wade? You KNOW what year it is! Super K's are easy! Here's one for you. Ever strip down a 72 for refinish and find a silkscreen on the BACKSIDE of the upper limb under factory applied black paint? ;) Hmmmm...

How about a factory camo Kodiak with a 6***** ser. no. And under the paint the riser is solid black Phenolic with no stripes?

Jorge -

I like your Albert Einstein quote and frequently used it in my business presentations during the 1980s and 1990s... "The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know."

Also used other variations such as...

The more you know, the more you realize you know nothing. – Socrates

My favorite related to this topic is the most humbling of all for me, and one my guiding principles...

"Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects." Will Rogers.

In addition to Albert Einstein and Will Rogers, Mark Twain is my other favorite of the great wits of that era.

Jorge -

As I stated earlier, I only collect Bear Bows from the 1930s to the mid 1960s, so not sure I could be of much help to you identifying any model bow that was first introduced in 1967 like a Super Kodiak.

My late father was truly a wise man, (only wish I took after him). He tied to teach us kids some basic principles of life. He always told us...

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and know the difference."

Frankly, I don't know anything about Super Kodiaks other than I have a few 1967-1/2, 1968 & 1969.

However, I might just have an image of your bow in question that is a little different image than the one you posted above.

That image appears on page 117 of the most complete Bear Bow Reference Book to date, "Bear Archery Traditional Bows" and is labeled 1971-72 Super Kodiak with Nickel Silver Coin". The wood grain and lack of insert bushing appear the same to these aged eyes through old tri-focals that need to be replaced...

Sb im sure there are lots of 1 of a kind bows , employee made bows and experimental bows made by bear over the years. The average collector is trying to id and collect bows that are common for specific years and some not as common transition bows. This book is excellent reference for 99% of bear collectors and Jorge has done a wonderful job . I'm sure this book will become the main reference book for bear collectors now and in the future . Thank you again Jorge for making your book available to all of us that collect bear bows

Yes the book is great for it's intended use! A time saver even for me that is now forgetting even the simple differences I USED to know! I was just pointing out a couple of weirdos I've run across. Jorge and I already had a discussion on the unlimited oddballs out there ! Too many variations and one offs to even worry about when generalizing.

Jorge -

Somehow I missed your most lengthy response above, your first of 29-Jan-16, that addressed the coins, so please disregard my comments about coins that were posted after your lengthy response.

Al & I always had different ideas about coins. He put store in them, I disregarded them.

My thoughts are the same with leather grips, it is simply another decorative item that can be changed at any time.

The only thing I was ever concerned with was using the absolute fewest, and most basic identifying characteristics to use for identification.

I understand how there could be a need to expand a minimum characteristic list if collecting more bows from additional years.

Thanks so much for your thoughts about the 1971 Magnum serial numbers. I'm sure you must be correct.

Wade... No stabilizer bushing. 1970 with silver coin. Coins arn't the gospel, but seeing as how that one is silver I'm guessing very LATE 1970 production. OR .. It may even be an aluminum coin...just a random grab from the parts bin! That was one of the oops I found in the book. Wrong dates under the bow pictured. But the text and tables for identification kinda straighten that out.

OR..... Very early 71 BEFORE they got around to the bushings? Or they missed one! Or it was ordered without one! Kinda like to know which side of the upper limb the silkscreen is on,on that particular bow. I do know some 71 's....leftovers I presume.... Were resilkscreened on the belly side and the one on the back was covered. Found a few of those during refinish work! Lots of strange stuff out there. Those are the ones that interest me the most these days!

Lots of crazies huh Steve? Remember the 77 Grizzly of Ben Lee's? We will not talk about the other part of that story ;-) I have kicked that bow out of the house twice already, and it has come back each time from a different trade or sale. I guess I am stuck with it. It was in NH for not even a week before I got it back in trade and then in NJ for like 7 months before I bought it back. Do you recall the oddball characteristics?

SB -

Thank you so much for your input about using the stabilizer bushing (or lack of such) for ID of the Super Kodiak. Although I have a few 1970s bows laying around, I don't really collect them. Even though I have read and heard about the 70 no bushing to 71 bushing standardization. I don't collect those bows, so never bothered to check dozens of bows to determine if there was any merit to applying the words to the actual bows known to be in existence.

Guess I have become an eccentric old fart as my memory has started to fail me as of late.

The real problem with collecting bows is that most of us never have a chance to see dozens or hundreds of bows from the same model and year to actually determine what difference actually exist.

That is one of many reasons that Jorge's book is so great for anyone interested in collecting Bear Bows at any level, it gives everyone an opportunity to compare their bows to what is shown and described in the book.

Steve, Sorry it took me awhile to get back to you. I was too busy snickering and chuckling all night. :) The point behind the posting of that Super Kodiak was that there is some variation in coins making them unrerlaible as a standalone bow dating characteristic. What is an obvious 1970 Super K doing witht hat coin in the riser? Of course you already knew that.

On page 116 (bottom) I wrote: "It should be noted that using coins/medallions for dating bows is not an absolute rule with Bear bows, as sometimes the plant would just throw medallions in a bin and the bow maker would reach in and grab medallions, which may have been from a year or two earlier."

Steve, I forgot to respond on this one:

"Ever strip down a 72 for refinish and find a silkscreen on the BACKSIDE of the upper limb under factory applied black paint?"

Wild...I can only specualte that bow was made very late in the 1971 season or very early in the 1972 season (Factory production year ran from Sept. to Sept.) as the factory was transitioning with their decision to change the logo position.

While the Bear Supper Grizzly was introduced in the 1973 Bear catalog, I once owned a Bear Super Grizzly with a Canadian patent which I can only speculate was made in late-1972, proboably between Sept. and Dec. 1972. By 1973, all Bear bows carried the US patent logo on the lower limb face.

Gents, I just went and gave this whole thread a good once-over. One thing I have learned to appreciate in life is when folks are straightforward and constructive with any criticisms. I accept those. All I can do is to humbly admit to some typos, mistakes and omissions. Sometimes these erros leave you shaking your head and asking yourself how that could have happened when I know the related facts.

More importantly, and what I appreciate most, is that when we're all pushin' up daisies in the cemetary our youth will have access to the knowledge many of us have amassed.

I hear my new theme song playing again...

Sung to the tune "My Way" (Elvis Presley version):

Mistakes, I made a few

But then again, too few to mention

I did the best I could and saw it through for Bear Archery Nation

I planned each chapter as best I could

Al Readers knowledge…it gave me wood

And more, much more than this I did it my way…LOL!

Not the Elvis version! ;-) Sinatra

Fellow archers: I pasted an image here containing corrections to some errors in the book following this discussion thread. Most deal with issues around the use of Nickel-Silver coins in some high end bow models. Keep in mind I tried to generalize in the tables. The only error that really haunts me is the data for overlay color in the Kodiak magnum table for 1970 and 1971-72. These errors were commited by Page Design editors and I did not catch all of those. I suggest you print this out, cut it to 6"X9" size and slide it under the inside front cover for your reference.

Apologies for any confusion these errors may have caused.

Thanks again for compiling this book. I am really enjoying it.

Just this morning, I confirmed the year of a bow that was for sale. I wasn't familiar with the year variations of this model, but your book identified it perfectly!

Thanks!

CD

Thanks for the update Jorge

You're welcome Gents!

Will be ordering as well. Nice work Jorge!

Jorge,

Because it is far easier to use this forum to post photographs, I am going to post some photographs in a few posts about Kodiak Specials and your table on page 224...

1955 Kodiak Special - shown at 64" & 68". It was also made in 60", I have owned a few, and see several others. The one in my collection has a very low 1955 serial number and water transfer decals.

Color of glass is stated as "Aqua" for the 1955 & 1956, the color is actually grey as seen in this image... Three on left are 1955 Kodiak Specials, 68", 64" 60", and one on right is a 1959 Kodiak Special with the standard Black/Black tip overlays. The 60" 1955 has what appears to be greenish glass, but it is simply the discoloration of the finish. This is a common mistake in misidentifying the color glass for this bow as many are discolored.

As you can see the tip overlays on the 1955 KS bows are also Black/White, not Brown/White as stated in the page 224 table. This is true for both the 1955 and 1956 Kodiak Specials.

Jorge -

1957 & 1958 Kodiak Specials in table on page 224 are both listed with Overlay Color as Brown/White Tips. The colors are actually Red/Brown/White, like the 1959 Kodiak Tip colors. Shown are 1957 & 1958 Kodiak Specials each in all five lengths, 62", 64",66", 68" 70"..

Here is the 1957 Kodiak Special tip photograph to go with post above...

Jorge -

More KS corrections...

1958 Kodiak Riser does not have "Two Tone Swirl" as shown in table on page 224. Top image on page 218 is incorrect, it is a 1957 Kodiak Special. This is what all 5 different length Kodiak Special risers look like 62", 24", 66", 68", 70...

only wish I had a 24" 1958 Kodiak Special.

Above text should read 62", 64", 66", 68", 70"...

Jorge -

The image at the top of page 219 is a 1959 Kodiak Special, and a very early production one as it has the unique black underlays at the tips. This is a feature deserving of mention.

The 1960 Kodiak Special is not shown. Unfortunate that the editor elected to shown two images of the 1961 Kodiak Special Riser and non of the 1960 Kodiak Special.

Most of the discrepancies I found will be of no issue to the seasoned collector. Might somewhat confuse a newby... but the tables at the end of each model will get them in the ballpark! Good point on the old finish changing the perceived color of the glass Wade..... that's thrown a few people off. That thick finish on the riser,once yellowed with age,will also make a silver coin look like brass! Still a great book Jorge! I like having all this info in one place for once . The margins on the pages and the extra blank pages at the back are already filling up with notes! Like I've mentioned....a lot of little things I knew are getting foggy with age !

Jorge and Wade the biggest confusion that I have on dating a certain model is the 1955 to 1957 grizzly . Here are some that I have 1. 1955 black glass ,decals ,4 inch wood on belly side of tips .serial number ge 2. 1955 brown glass decals ,4 inch wood on belly side of tips .serial number gg 3. ? Black glass, silk screen, 4 inch wood on belly side of tips .serial number gl 4. ? Black glass ,silk screen,no wood on belly tips but limb tips are same as the 1955 .serial number gv 5. ? Black glass ,silk screen,no wood on belly tips but limb tips are black and white overlays much different than the others .serial number gx

The grizzly identification page and Jorge's book differ on these years

No wood on tip bellys, black glass is a 57. I've never seen a 55 or 56 that didn 't have black glass! ...55, decals wood tip underlays. 56 silkscreens wood tip underlays. Which actually is static tip reinforcement. The 57 uses a wedge in between the limb cores for reinforcement instead of the wood layers.

Thanks Steven. I do have a 1955 with brown glass same as the kodiaks I have seen others also

You know after reading all this its a wonder anyone would undertake writing this type of book. I was hoping this effort would clarify things but as its going quite the opposite is happening.

Gary,

Attempting to describe 40+ bow models over the span of 66 years with the many variable changes set the bar awfully high (maybe way too high). My personal collecting interest are in Bear Archery hunting recurves spanning 1965 through the 1980s. I never put much attention to target bows of the 50s and 60s.

I found out just last night that that some of the photos donated to me for the book came already mislabeled by the donors. I took them as gospel...can't do that with Bear bows.

But...I will say that generally the TABLES will still be very helpful since there are 7 columns that if employed TOGETHER will take you home.

I will be publishing an update Errata on a website yet to be constructed for me by the publisher, so the information will be there for all to download and learn. That URL will be posted on all the forums and on social media (Facebook).

Most importantly, Gary: I think this experience may have opened a new era of the availability of Bear bow knowledge for enthusiasts and collectors who were formerly helpless and confused, and would have remained so without it. Are we all to die with our knowledge or try to pass it on? This will be improved and made available over time. Now, think about that.

Oh, I forgot one point...

On this thread and over on Tradgang, I am responding to some of Wade's questions and was floored that these were apparently new factoids to a collector like Wade. Two examples:

1) 1972: both logos first appear on the belly side of the limbs

2) "Type" designations for bows differentiate unique configurations with or among years.

Of course Wade specializes in bows from 1930s to early 1960s so these were never an issue. Bottom line: we all have something to contribute. Imagine how many interested folks reading these posts will now know some of these little helpful factoids?

Cousekiller,

Re: "I do have a 1955 with brown glass same as the kodiaks I have seen others also."

Like Steve, I've never seen a '55 or '56 Grizzly that didn't have black glass either. But you have one. Another example of the variation in configurations never reported in catalogs much like the 1967 1/2 zebrawood Kodiak Hunter I own.

Quoting Al Reader: "Sometimes two or three variations of a model would be made in one year, usually changes in material or color. The 52" Kodiak magnum was made for 17 years, yet I have 23 different variations of the bow!"

This leaves us having to generalize and go with the standard.

I give you tons of credit Jorge I wouldn't or couldn't do what you have. By the way enjoy the southpaw '67 K Hunter.

Thanks much, Gary. I so love the look of that 67 1/2 K Hunter you just sold me...I had to have it!

PS - I would welcome your input to fix some issues you may find in that Errata...It's looking more and more like we'll continue to muddle for along time...

Guys:

I have never had so much good news to report in one day...

1. Are we not lucky we have Wade still kicking around to share the fountain of knowledge on these old bows? Yes we are! I will have some work to do on that Kodiak Special chapter, and a few others, but thanks to Wade (and others here) this will be preserved in print soon...that's right....

2. Spoke to my publications Coordinator today. I am happy to report that I can submit all of my errata information (once re-formatted) to the publisher for updating the actual text, photos and tables in the actual book for the next run of THIS first edition. Ain't technology great?

Imposed space limitations will prevent much more than editing text, table entries, replacing photos and editing photo labels (can't add more stuff if it adds a new page but can sneek maybe a paragraph here and there to fill a page that is partially blank).

So, if you all have any other suggestions, please let me know. Remember that I may have to generalize a bit. I plan on submitting all edits to date by this coming Monday, whcih means I'll be hard at it all weekend long. Future changes wil be possible as things come up. But, I'd like to settle them sooner so people get the best product for their dollar.

Wade, are you willing to consider submitting fade-out to fade-out riser photos (similar to the rest of the photos in the book) but showing the correct images for the bows you pointed out for my buiding Errata? If that sounds doable, I in turn would give you full credit for each photo. Same offer goes to all others.

Some folks will be added to the acknowledgements in the Dedication. Thanks go to the following for input so far....

Wade Phillips Gary Shoenberger Steve (SB) Noble Sinclair Dan Worden Jan Gritzbach(in Czeck Republic)

I appreciate the opportunity to work with you finest of archers in making this book the best it can be for future arrow slingers. This information should be available to all and NOT die with us.

Thanks to all!

Jorge -

You received some encouraging news about being able to make changes.

I will get the photographs to you that you need, hopefully they will meet your minimum standards for quality. Do you want them to be labeled on the image?

I haven't bothered to confuse you with the numerous odd ball and experimental Bear bows that I have as you would need another 357 pages to show them.

Regarding my question about a definition of "Types", I was really looking for a clear cut specific list of measurable or definitive requirements, as to what features qualifies a bow for a designation as to type, e.g.,

Eligible for a separate Type Classification if 2 or more are met... 1) Measurable change in Riser shape by 1" or more (1963 K Mag) 2) Measurable change in length of glass by 1" or more (1963 K Mag) 3) Change in orientation of colors of glass on riser (1969 K Mag) 4) Change in riser wood type (1969 K Mag) 5) Change in tip over colors (1969 K Mag)

Just using the 1963 and 1969 Kodiak Mags above as examples from your book.

The reason I asked, is everyone should know the specific requirements so any additional bows that qualify for that designation should be mentioned as every serious collector likes to know what was made so they can decide if they want to add that item to their collection.

Seems that differences in the 1969 K Mag are not really that significant when compared to differences of the 1963. Of course, each collector has their own ideas, that includes me who has 4 variations of the 1963 Dogleg Magnum. Collectors are crazy.

? Jorge -

Just want to finish up on the Kodiak Special tables on pages 224 & 225...

1961 Kodiak Special is listed as Lime/Lime for the glass on page 224

1962 Kodiak Special is listed as Lime/Lime for the glass on page 224

The 1961 Catalog lists the color as “soft tinted green Bearglas”

The color of the glass is very different for the 1961 & 1962 Kodiak Special. I don't think the specific color is listed in the 1962 catalog for that bow.

However, the 1962 Kodiak Special glass is almost, if not the exact color as the 1963 Dogleg Grizzly bows that I have, which is listed in the 1963 Bear Catalog as "Aqua". I have three of each of these bows, all are in mint condition and their original color is nearly identical to what is shown in the 1963 Bear Catalog page 21. You correctly list the 1963 Grizzly as Aqua.

Regarding the actual color of the 1961 Kodiak Special, I asked the Antique Archery Arsenal & Museum Resident Art History Major to describe the 61 color (no suggestions from me) and she said "light olive green". Her command of the descriptions of every slight variation of the full color spectrum is unequaled in the Northern Hemisphere.

This is just a suggestion, in case you can’t come up with a more accurate color name than Bear’s “soft tinted green Bearglas”

Wade,

Thanks for agreeing to provide the photographs needed and for helping me improve the book. Can you send me digital images via email? I have gotten really paranoid re: mis-labeled photos recently so…yes, please do label them for me. I can email you my recently completed, revised 2 ½ page errata to ensure all the photos are covered if you desire as it’s now up-to-date.

Regarding a definition of "Types", looks like your more detailed approach would be more exacting so I think you should consider drafting a definition for others to contemplate & comment on if you don’t mind.

…And now for Jorge’s super-epiphany of the day:

“One man cannot write a book like this. It takes a committee of crazy collectors to do it right!”

PS - Wade…I was crazy long before I started collecting bows…why else would I attempt this madness?

Jorge -

Thanks for the offer, but don't think I want to be responsible for creating the criteria for what qualifies for a different "Type".

You see, I don't really believe in using vague, non-descriptive words such as "Type I", "Type II", "Type III". In asking the question, I wanted to understand if you had a specific criteria first, and if not let you work through the exercise of creating one, so everyone could understand the validity of a “Type”.

I have always believed in providing an accurate description of an item and giving the item a descriptive name so a collector at any level of experience or inexperience can understand the unique features from the item’s name.

e.g., If an inexperienced collector has a 63 Bear Magnum in his hand, he may not know exactly what a Type I, Type II or Type III is. However if those three bows were named to describe them, such as using the measurement from the shelf to the start of the glass on the upper limb, he might know them as…

> 4” Dogleg (the present non-descriptive Type I) (>, is “greater than” symbol) 3” Dogleg (the present non-descriptive Type II) 1-1/4” Dogleg (the present non-descriptive Type III)

Using these names, anyone can accurately describe any of the three bows to any collector or non-collector by using a simple measurable feature of the bow. Of course there are slight variations in the measurements, but getting the closest stated measurement is that bow.

Using accurate descriptions in naming collectible objects is not a revolutionary idea, but one that seems to evade many collectible items, especially bows.

Looks like the the three lines ran into one... so will list again so the three descriptions can be easily seen...

> 4” Dogleg (the present non-descriptive Type I) (>, is “greater than” symbol)

3” Dogleg (the present non-descriptive Type II)

1-1/4” Dogleg (the present non-descriptive Type III)

Jorge -

I heard Al Reader say many times, what is printed on page Page 35, "Those Pesky Serial Numbers"... "...back in the 1950s and early 1960s, serial numbers were started over every month for every model."

I always had my doubts about this actually being true and found indisputable evidence that the statement is false for 4 years in the early 1950s.

Then wanting more evidence for the later 1950s, and being one who has to see the evidence, after Al's death, I finally figured out a way to determine if this statement was correct.

My findings conclusively proved that the serial numbers were not started over every month for every model. That may have been true for some brief periods, but not for the 1950's and early 1960s.

I would suggest that sentence be edited in some manner, now that you are aware that it is not factual.

Jorge -

You are on the ball with the revised 2 ½ page errata to ensure all the photos are covered. Yes, please email it to me. Have a few more things to add if they are on you updated list it will save my arthritic fingers from more abuse.

Mine arrived yesterday. Did a quick look and loved it. Wow, a lot of info. Friday I will be able to spend the day reading it. Now I'm just waiting on the book on all other catalog items over the years, like quivers, knife sets, cutmaster, difference of Bear arrows over the years. Someone smarter than me has to tackle that one. But, I'm ready for the equipment book.

Doubleeagle,

Expect short, generalized chapters that go right to the point. I attempted to cover ALL production bows over 66 years so mostly cover the standards.

I guess we all think alike. You just uncovered my plans for another book: "Bear Archery Collectibles: Why we collect them." Í've already started an image file of things like buckles, cutmasters, tumblers, T-shirts, license plates, hats, patches, bumper stickers, vendor window decals etc. Not sure I'll go through with it. It will be a harrowing experience.

Jorge -

Got the revisions and have made a few notes. Will email back after going through it a second time.

Just went over the Grizzly table with these notations...

Page 49, 1949-50 Glass Color is listed as "Blonde", this bow had the woven glass back that varies a lot in color from Red to Orange like. Probably the best words to describe it would be "Woven Guess the woven glass is not mentioned in the text on pages 49-50-51 and the 49-50 photograph shows the belly side of the bow. Have not checked the other 1949-50 bows for this.

Actual "Blonde" is not shown for the 1951 & 1952 Grizzly.

Page 49, 1952 Glass color is listed as Blond/Tan. It was actually the same color on both sides, "Blonde".

Page 50, 1953 glass color is listed as Reddish/Tan. The glass is actually the same on both sides and most accurately described as "Rust".

Page 50, 1954 Glass color... would make the same changes as 1953 glass color changes

Jorge -

Big Blooper above, as some text was deleted...

1949-50 Grizzly Glass Color should be "Woven Reddish"

I see the 1950 Kodiak is listed as "Reddish", that glass too is woven.

Jorge -

Page 47 top photograph listed as 1953 Grizzly. Looks more like the woven glass back on it of a 1949-50 as it appears the numerous thin layers of woven material are faintly visible in the small image. The small rectangular decal is the clue that will tell us the year as they would be different pat applied for vs 2 patents. Just judging from the location of the decal, it looks like a 1950.

Wade, Thanks for these early Grizzly model updates. Images for 1950s bows were challenging to find.

OK, looks like the main issues in the book are primarily with some of these early-to-mid 1950s bow photos. I went through my archive of donated images last night and sure enough these were mis-labeled images. Still trying to figure out the discrepancies in glass color and pin-point the sources, although I will note that in some cases it's really a judgement call (e.g., "Reddish" vs. "Rust" vs. "Red/Orange") that won't change the end result.

Fortunately, about 95%+ of the book is still solid and I don't think the vast majority of enthusiasts are big 1950s Bear bow fans (some collectors may take exception to that!) but the book will not be "complete" without including them accurately.

As a student from the "Al Reader school" it is a bit of a shock to find out some of his assertions proved incorrect (e.g., Rule #3, serial number changes) but I am still among his biggest fans and he certainly steepended our learning curve!

Jorge if you need pictures of a certain year and model to compare tell us what you need to see and I'm sure many of us can email you pictures. Thanks Noble

Thanks, Cousekiller. Let's see what Wade's photos look like. If afterwards, if I have questions I will add a comment here about photos I might need. Meanwhile some other thoughts:

1. Some things to check re: coverage of aluminum lamination bows in the book:

On page 26 in Chapter 2 I wrote: "The Grizzly, Kodiak, and Polar straight bow all featured an aluminum limb lamination from 1949 to 1951. We will cover this item in the bow model chapters to follow which contained this aluminum laminate."

All aluminum laminate bows were covered as follows:

Grizzly - Chapter 3: pg. 46 and in table (pg. 50); On pg. 46 I wrote: "The Grizzly’s aluminum lamination (and the Bear Kodiak’s)was located in the inner lamination, surrounded by layers of maple and glass, whereas on the Bear Polar, the aluminum was laid both under a layer of maple and glass and on the outside lamination. In 1949, the Grizzly had three decals applied: the “Running Bear” decal, the “Pat. Applied For” decal, and a third decal contained specifications for the bow (serial number, length, poundage). Then, later in 1949 and into 1950 the specifications were marked on the riser, below the grip."

Kodiak - Chapter 4: pg. 62 and in table (pg.71): On pg. 62 I wrote: "The early Kodiaks were static recurves made of single shelf maple risers with a leather grip,an aluminum lamination and are marked by a reddish bidirectional (1950) or blonde unidirectional (1951) fiberglass backing and lemonwood laminate on the face of the bow. In mid-1951, the aluminum lamination was abandoned. The early change in glass is useful to differentiate between 1950 and later models. Actually, in 1951 variations on the Kodiak included models with aluminum and bidirectional glass, aluminum with unidirectional glass, and aluminum-free with unidirectional glass. By 1952, Kodiaks featured blonde unidirectional glass on back and face. In 1953, reddish unidirectional glass is applied."

Polar - Chapter 21: pg. 193-94 and the table (pg. 204): On pg. 193, I wrote: "The early Polars were straight bows made of single shelf maple risers with a leather grip, an aluminum lamination and are marked by a reddish bidirectional (1950) or blonde unidirectional (1951) fiberglass backing. The Polar aluminum laminations were exposed (not covered with any wood lamination) on the belly side. In mid-1951, the aluminum lamination was abandoned. The early change in glass is useful to differentiate between 1950 and later models. Actually, as with the Kodiaks in 1951, variations included models with aluminum and bidirectional glass, aluminum with unidirectional glass, and aluminum-free with unidirectional glass. By 1952, Polars featured blonde unidirectional glass on back and face." _____________________

2. "Type" designations: Given a definition such as "A designation assigned to a bow model intended to recognize multiple (unique) configurations of a bow model within or among years”, I think it is useful to have a simple short-hand designation such as bow "Type" as described in my book for ease of communication. For example: If someone tells me they bought a '69 Kodiak Hunter, I might ask them "which type?" If they say the one with the black and white handle overlays, I know it's a Type I. If I ask someone which verison of the woody Bear TD handle they have and they answer a "Type II" I instantly know. _____________________

3. Standards: In the book I attempted to cover standard bow configurations. But we have discussed much other configurations from coins to glass color, etc. As an example, concerning the nickel-silver coins, while we now know that these coins were used less prevelantly from 1963-72 in high end bows andf that Brass was the "standard", at what point do we start to recognize these nickel-silver coins in the text and tables? How prevalent does it have to be to be something othjer than an oddball? But, I still intend to include changes for nickel-silver coins and the 1955 Grizly with BROWN glass color in the table so users might not remain confused.

I want to SEE a '55 Grizzly with brown glass!

SB - Me too!!! Like you I want to see a '55 Grizzly with brown glass!!!

Lots of variations in the color density in the 1950s Bear Bows. Some are nearly translucent.

Jorge you might not want to add my fluke bow in the book since I have only seen 2 and nobody else has seen one , I think it should be considered an oddball bow

But from what I have seen all 51 1/2 grizzly and kodiak have orange glass. I'm sure the 55 grizzly is an oddball . Here is a 51.5 grizzly with the change in material decal and the orange glass

Here is a picture of 49 , 50 , 51 , 51.5 and 52 grizzly this is a different 51.5 grizzly than the first pic , this one is missing the decal but I could see where it was

The grizzly pics above show the 51.5 with the orange glass. Here is a pic of kodiak 50 , 51 , 51.5 and 52 , the 51.5 kodiak has the same orange glass

Here is a picture of the 1955 grizzly with brown glass . First bow is a 55 kodiak then 55 grizzly , 56 grizzly , 57 grizzly

Coueskiller -

Your image shows the glass color, but does not show the riser of the brown 1955 Grizzly...

I have seen several 1950s Bear Bows that have the incorrect water transfer decal or silk screen logo... a decal or logo does not always identify a bow correctly...

Frankly put, the above image does not illustrate conclusive proof that the bow is actually a 1955 Grizzly.

If you want to show a photograph of a 1955 Grizzly Brown Glass, you must show the riser as well as the glass color.

Correct Wade. I've seen that goof up ! Let's see the riser.

Bought the 55 on eBay spring 2015 , another one came up last summer that I missed. The first one I didn't realize it was brown till package arrived. The second one last summer I could tell from the pics that it was brown. here is the 55 next to a 56 grizzly

I'm sure what happened is they ran out of black glass for a few days and just used kodiak glass. I have heard rumor of other brown 55s might be 25 or more out there maybe more

Which is which? They both look black in that photo ... but all I have is an I -phone . Wouldn't 't surprise me on a momentary glass shortage though. You should see some of the things I've found under the camo paint on 61's! One had two different colors of glass on the belly! But that year I think they were using up all the leftovers in the Grizzly. That's why the only way they came was camo painted ! I'd love to find a brown one.... gotta be pretty scarce. First I've seen . The one has tip overlays and the other dosn't?

Both have tip overlays. Brown one on the left. 56 on the right

Coueskiller & Jorge -

Lots of non-standard, odd duck glass colors on various 1950s models Bear bows, including reversed colors back to belly.

Personally owning several odd duck colored 1950s Bear Bows for many years, I've wrestled with this dilemma of legitimacy for decades.

Conclusion : Odd duck colors are not worthy of mention in a listing of standard production bows, to do so only puts the odd ducks on equal footing with standard production bows, which is not correct.

A list that contains some odd duck colors, is obviously an inaccurate and incomplete list if it does not contain all odd duck colors in existence.

Colors being defined as standard Bear Colors… Not color variations that exist only because the intensity or amount of the coloring pigments in the glass varies dramatically, which is the case for many 1950s bows.

Bear used the 1955 Kodiak form to make many odd duck colored 1955 Kodiaks. I presently own 4 such odd duck colored 1955 Kodiaks.

The image shows two 1955 Kodiaks, a standard production Brown Glass and an odd duck Red Glass singed by Charlie Kroll. The Red Glass is actually far more intense than this image appears.

I would never suggest that this Red Glass 1955 Kodiak be listed on any list of Standard Production Kodiaks…

Jorge I totally agree with wade the brown glass 55 grizzly is just an odd duck. Wade I would like to ask your opinion on 1951 1/2 grizzly and kodiak. I don't think this is an odd duck as I have 3 of them. In 1951 when they dropped the aluminum in the grizzly and the kodiak the bows came with a sticker that mentioned the change. The big difference is they used a glass color that is very different than the 1951 bows and the 1952 bows. The glass color is more of a solid orange color . I believe this glass color was used for several months and many people mistake these for 1952 bows .

Wade: Thanks for the sage & well explained advice. Agreed. I'll dispense with the odd ducks. Thanks Cousekiller for that concurrence too.

Coueskiller -

I would guess this color variation in the 1952 Kodiaks (K6 light, K4 dark)is what you are referencing...

Guys -

I am pleased that we concur about the significance of the odd duck colors and their illegitimacy to be placed on a list of standard production bows.

I know it would me my wildest dream to think that having agreement about the importance of coins, overlay colors or configurations, tip colors, logo placements, or even dating of model years, could be as easy.

Coueskiller -

The 4" long Bear sticker on the early 1952 Bear bows about the Fiberglass Backing and Facing, identifies the bow as an early production 1952.

My first, of a very short list of criteria, for a bow to be eligible to be classified as a different year, or half year, is it has to be built on a different form.

I have in hand right now two 1952 K4s, one with the 4" long sticker and one without. Their serial numbers are separated by 173 numbers so we could speculate that time wise, they produced pretty close together.

Although one has taken a very slight set, they are otherwise the same with the exception of draw weight, slight color varations, and one is RH and the other LH.

Do you have any 1952 Kodiaks that were built on different forms?

Jorge -

Have taken dozens of photographs, and sorry but these seems to be about as good as I can do. There is plenty of room for you to crop off the text at the bottom and add your text so it will be consistent with the other images in your book...

Jorge -

Here is a 1960 Kodiak Special in 62", the rarest length of that year.

Jorge -

This is a 1960 Kodiak Special Deluxe

Jorge -

This is one of my favorite Crystalight bows, - 100% Factory Original Kodiak Special Deluxe with Factory Original Leather Grip.

Although Al always liked to talk about leather grips being or not being on specific year bows, I have always considered those references to leather grips to be a total and complete waste of time. There are much more efficient ways to identify Bear bows.

You probably shouldn't use this image in your book, but thought I would post it for fun.

Jorge -

A 1953 Grizzly, damaged strike plate could be replaced if you want a little nicer image.

Jorge -

Let me know if these images are OK and/or if you need any others. I'm going outside to shovel some snow... again...

Coueskiller -

Just want to follow up a little more about the early 1952 bows with 4" long Bear stickers.

As I stated earlier... "My first, of a very short list of criteria, for a bow to be eligible to be classified as a different year, or half year, is it has to be built on a different form."

Keeping that in mind I want to bring up the 1963 Kodiak Magnum, with the designations Type I, II & III.

The three Magnums are noticeably different, even though they were built on the same shape form (can't say the exact same form as I have no proof of that for sure, although it certainly appears so to the eyes of this neophyte).

If we accept the obvious measurable difference of three 1963 Kodiak Magnums as the benchmark to be used to designate a "Type" designation, how could we justify a different sticker and glass color intensity change be used for something as radical as a separate 1/2 year designation?

Or if we accept the 1/2 designation, should the 63 Magnums be designated as 63, 63-1/3, 63-2/3.

Coueskiller -

This is an image of five 1952 Kodiaks, in order from top to bottom, K6, K4, K4, K4, K2. The one in the center is Left Hand and has the 4" sticker. Although we can see some slight difference in glass, there is perhaps one that stands out more than the others as being different.

I probably shouldn't have shown the brown glass 1952 Kodiak as I certainly don't want Jorge to put yet another entry on his tables and confuse even more collectors. However the image may provide some pause for thoughts about the wisdom to create the mentioned 1/2 year classification.

It doesn't seem logical to designate a 4" Sticker bow as a 1951-1/2 as we have always known 1951 as Alum Lam Belly with Unidirectional Glass Back. Likewise a 1952 has always been Unidirectional Glass on Back & Belly.

"1952 w/ 4" Sticker" would be an accurate, easily understood description.

I think it is important that we have a very broad discussion about classifications so all collectors who are interested can contribute input and we can come up with a consistent set of guidelines.

Several years ago I had such a discussion with several other collectors who were active at that time.

Missed getting the photo on above post...

Perhaps, a better image of the colors of the above 1952 Kodiaks...

Yes I understand looks like they used several glass colors in 1952. I have read in a few places that in mid 1951 the aluminum was not used any more in the kodiak's and the grizzly because of breakage. Just made sense that since the catalog showed aluminum and they weren't using aluminum they would instal a sticker to inform customers of the change. Also in Jorge's book it says 55 to 57 grizzlies are the same other than change from decals to silk screens in mid 1955 is this true. Did the 56 grizzly also have the 4 inches of wood on the belly side tips or is that just a 55 after they started using the silk screens.

Coueskiller -

Although Jorge’s book very correctly states 1955 could have either decal or silk screen…

…the serious collectors of 1950s Bear Bows who I know well, have for many years categorized the 1955 and 1956 Bear Bows that are otherwise the same, as being different as follows…

1955 Water Transfer Decals

1956 Silk Screens

We all know this simplification is not 100 percent accurate all the time, but us anal retentive collectors have a need to separate bows into separate groups by years, and this has proven to be the simplest method to understand. I only have these two 1955-1957 Grizzly bows

1955 Black Glass with Water Transfer Decals and Underlays

1957 Black Glass with Silk Screens and Dark Wedge in maple lams for added tip strength

Have never knowingly seen a Black Glass with Decals and tip wedges nor a Black Glass with Silk Screens and Underlays. If you get an extra of either, let me know. Logically either might exist. Have heard (but have no image) one report of the existence of Black Glass with Water Transfer Decals and Dark Wedge in maple lams for added tip strength.

Coueskiller -

Yes, I agree that it would make sense, the catalog showed the aluminum lam, and when they stopped using aluminum lams, that they would install a sticker to inform customers of the change.

To my thought process, the text of the 4” 1952 Bear sticker sounds more like a real sales pitch than as you say “a sticker to inform customers of the change”. For his time, Fred was not only a first class innovator, but a masterful marketer. The change to unidirectional glass on both the back and belly, gave him to chance to sell to new prospects as well as re-sell to alum lam owners. The sticker was his hands on sales tool when any bow was in any dealer’s display.

Now let’s think about using the suggested designation 51-1/2...

When the alum lam on the belly was replaced with a fiberglass lam it may have been Aug 1951.

Now, should that bow be designated as a 51-8/12? (8/12 to reflect the month August).

Then in order to have consistency, every other bow should have the option to be designated in exactly the same manner, 53-0/12, 54-7/12, 55-3/12, referencing whatever variation and whatever date that it is determined to be, either the first day of manufacture of that variation, or the date of actual manufacturer of that individual bow?

I’ll just bet that Jorge doesn’t want to go through that exercise, knowing that he will be changing dates for the rest of his life whenever anyone discovers some previously unfound data.

Referring to the bow as "1952 w/ 4 inch Sticker" sounds like a self explanatory description as opposed to something most collectors have never heard of 1951-1/2.

Guess I am thinking of bows with easy to understand descriptions like...

1959 Kodiak Maple Sight Window

1959 Kodiak Purple Heart Sight Window

1959 Kodiak Bubinga Sight Window

1959 Kodiak Rosewood Sight Window

Guess I like easy to understand descriptions rather than designations like Type I, Type II, Type III, or 1951-1/2. I might be too old to learn new things.

Wade, thanks for these excellent photos! Still need a replacement photo for top of page 74 labeled "A 1960 Kodiak Deluxe." Thanks for the extra info. and photographic examples you posted recently here. Very educational.

Anyone have a Temujin photo I could use for top of Chapter 27 by chance?

Jorge -

Sorry I missed the Kodiak Deluxe. Will try to get a better image for you, perhaps tomorrow.

You are more than welcome for the information and images posted yesterday. Glad to be able to help.

A few more thought, or ramblings, regarding the 1/2 year discussions... Perhaps there are no Kodiak bows more eligible for a separate 1/2 year classification than the 1957 White Glass Kodiaks. Over the years I have engaged in an endless number of conversations explaining why it is so simple and so correct to reference this bow as a 1957 White Glass, rather than a 1958 Indented Belly or what other 1958 name anyone wanted to use.

I can not tell you how pleased I was to see your table to very correctly list the 1957 Kodiak Glass color as "Dark Brown or White".

I'm even more pleased that I did not have to engage in that nearly always lengthy discussion again.

For those bows that transition from one production year to the next, the fastest thing, and perhaps the easiest thing, to do is slap a 1/2 year designation on them... I have even done that in my mind, mostly as a quick note to myself to find a better label someday.

But after many years of putting off the thought process of coming up with a couple of better labels, I'm still mentally using the 1/2 year designation when I look at those Kodiaks.

Sorry to report that I have no Temujin to use for a photograph for Chapter 27. (actually I am happy I don't any Temujin)

In turning the pages to look up the Temujin on page 247, I passed the Tamerlane Table on page 235 and noticed the Serial # Prefix column for 1964 as 4B (69").

I don't really collect Tamerlane bows, but have a few. The 66" 1964 has serial number is 29AL91.

More importantly the table lists "Overylay Color" as Black. The 1964 riser overlays and tip overlays are brown/white/brown. The brown is dark brown.

Also have a 1966 Tamerlane, 6D668, 66", 35#, with a maple riser and light & dark grain wood caps and heel. It also has brown/white/brown riser overlays, and solid brown tip overlays.

This bow was inscribed by my old friend Floyd, "Fred Bear Always said 'Good Hunting', Me To, Floyd Eccleston 1996". The wood caps and heel look much different the maple riser bow at the bottom of page 234 with the dark high-density caps.