Period / non-period Costs
- Starting a new thread - only to discuss cost side of period versus non-period archery rules.IMO, I really hate to make cost a factor. A bow is period or it is not period.If someone wants to shoot a really long traditional Japanese bow that is fine. but if they say that is what I want but I do not want to spend the money for it. Well then, pick something else to shoot.Now if the group decides to allow fiberglass for bows as long as they look period, that is fine. now the person that wants that Japanese bow can afford it.I do not shoot one of the cheep longbows because they are not as good. I spent more on mine because that is what I wanted (and my wife bought it for me for my birthday!). However, it has taken a set, it will not last another 10 years, I really hate to spend another $800 to get a new one, so i might consider the options.That being said, making it so that the bows are safer, last longer, cheaper, and they look and act the same, maybe we should consider allowing fiberglass. If fiberglass is allowed for one, it should be allowed for all. A fiberglass horsebow will last much longer than an all wood longbow. So what is good for one should be good for all, IMO.Our goal should be to educate, have fun, share, laugh, learn, and try to improve ourselves and help those around us improve if they want to.VincentiAnsteorra
- Note. I wrote "long bow" not "longbow". Perhaps I should have included a smiley. ;-) But, as you have said there is no starting date for "period", there is no pre-period. In any period contest I was running, it would be allowed.
Carolus <eulenhorst@...> wrote:
I think I would classify it in the flatbow category rather than the longbow (YMMV). Much of this depends on personal classification, though; I don't look at length alone as defining a longbow.
CarolusOn 11/1/2013 12:21 PM, John Edgerton wrote:That appears to be a copy of the Meare Heath bow. It is definitely pre-1600. It was found in England. And it is a long bow.For details goto: http://digitaldigging.net/features/meare-heath-bow/meare-heath-bow-reconstruction-01-introduction.html
From: Kevin Smith <kevinsmith5@...>
To: "SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com" <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2013 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Period / non-period Costs
Is have to see more but it LOOKS on first glance to be some type of Native American bow. Modoc maybe?
On Nov 1, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Guy Taylor <greenmanarrows@...> wrote:
I'm curious how you would class the bow in this picture:
It's very similar to the American Flatbow in design.
On 11/1/13, Kevin Smith <kevinsmith5@...> wrote:
> They are not. The style of bow commonly called a "longbow" by sporting goods
> stores in the US today was not developed until about 40 years ago. The limbs
> have a flat back and belly and the belly and the back are covered in a thin
> layer of fiberglass.
>> On Nov 1, 2013, at 1:15 PM, Joe Klovance <jklovanc@...> wrote:
>> The reason I said that was that someone commented that it can be difficult
>> to identify fiberglass backing because it can be made clear and look like
>> finishing. A bow has to pass all criteria to be accepted as period. Are
>> American Flatbows period? If they are not then they fail regardless of
>> what material they are made from.
>> To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
>> From: kevinsmith5@...
>> Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:58:00 -0400
>> Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Period / non-period Costs
>> It can't be a D profile bow and be fiberglass backed because a fiberglass
>> "backing" only works with a fiberglass belly. It the sheer between the
>> angles of the two layers that makes the bow resist bending. So what we're
>> really talking about is making American Flatbows be classified as longbows
>> because they only let the string touch the limbs at the nocks. If we do
>> that for a perceived cost convenience at this point, how long will it be
>> before we just give up on calling it period and go right back where we are
>> On Nov 1, 2013, at 12:51 PM, jwandht@... wrote: