Author Topic: "Second String" woods?  (Read 41864 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Justin Snyder

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,794
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #45 on: January 14, 2008, 10:56:49 pm »
Eddie, I know what you mean.  Those around here that get to much water seem to grow fast and are low density. 
Ryan, I have gotten some osage that was crap and bad performing also.  It was the lightest osage I have ever seen. Justin
Everything happens for a reason, sometimes the reason is you made a bad decision.


SW Utah

Offline Badger

  • Member
  • Posts: 8,124
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #46 on: January 14, 2008, 11:19:00 pm »
Thats funny, I have never had good luck with mulberry, I know a lot of guys have. I just can't seem to make a decent from it for some reason. Steve

Offline mullet

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 22,911
  • Eddie Parker
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #47 on: January 14, 2008, 11:35:45 pm »
   Steve,If you want a good ,dense, Character stave, I'll send you one.
Lakeland, Florida
 If you have to pull the trigger, is it really archery?

duffontap

  • Guest
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #48 on: January 15, 2008, 12:09:59 am »

The problem with your theory is that mulberry has the same basic characteristics as Osage, but it is still considered second string or alternative bow wood.  If it were just characteristics, a lot of other woods (mulberry) would not have been overlooked.  I think the concept of 1st string woods was created by people who had never even tried most of the woods we use today because they had a plethora of Osage and yew.

I've been wrong before Justin.  Have you read any of the classical archery literature yet?  It's very interesting and sheds a lot of light on discussions like these. 

"Mulberry, Sassafras, bois d'arc, souther cedar, black locust, black walnut and slippery elm, are valuable woods, in the order named, for making bows..."  Maurice Thompson, The Witchery of Archery 1878

"Osage orange, mulberry, locust, black walnut with the sap wood, red cedar, juniper, tan oak, apple wood, ash, eucalyptus, lancewood, washaba, palma brava, elm, birch, and bamboo are among the many woods from which bows have been made."  Saxton Pope, Hunting with the Bow and Arrow

        J. D.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2008, 12:27:01 am by J. D. Duff »

Offline Justin Snyder

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,794
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #49 on: January 15, 2008, 05:11:59 pm »
I've been wrong before Justin.  Have you read any of the classical archery literature yet?  It's very interesting and sheds a lot of light on discussions like these. 

"Mulberry, Sassafras, bois d'arc, souther cedar, black locust, black walnut and slippery elm, are valuable woods, in the order named, for making bows..."  Maurice Thompson, The Witchery of Archery 1878

"Osage orange, mulberry, locust, black walnut with the sap wood, red cedar, juniper, tan oak, apple wood, ash, eucalyptus, lancewood, washaba, palma brava, elm, birch, and bamboo are among the many woods from which bows have been made."  Saxton Pope, Hunting with the Bow and Arrow

        J. D.
Yes, I have JD.  Other woods are often mentioned.  They are mentioned as "woods from which bows have been made."  Or other suitable woods, or woods to use if you cannot get osage or yew. That is exactly what this thread is about. Nobody said they werent ever mentioned, just wondering what makes them secondary.  Justin
Everything happens for a reason, sometimes the reason is you made a bad decision.


SW Utah

duffontap

  • Guest
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #50 on: January 15, 2008, 05:25:11 pm »
Justin,

Just read the quotes again.  Mulberry was considered the BEST domestic bow wood (better than Osage) by THE #1 AUTHORITY on bows in America until Saxton Pope.  Saxton Pope listed Mulberry next to Osage offering no preference for Osage.  Your statement that Mulberry was overlooked gave me the impression that you were ignorant--not just stubborn.   :)  You also said 'I think the concept of 1st string woods was created by people who had never even tried most of the woods we use today because they had a plethora of Osage and yew.'  Unless Saxton Pope and Maurice Thompson misrepresented the facts, your speculation is bankrupt.  Man up and admit when your wrong.

         J. D.

Offline Justin Snyder

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,794
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #51 on: January 15, 2008, 06:33:47 pm »
OOP's Im wrong everyone, JD said so.  I guess I missunderstood, I was refering to the coloring books my wife got me for Christmas.  But one did have a picture of a Native American with a bow.  Sorry, Simpleton
Everything happens for a reason, sometimes the reason is you made a bad decision.


SW Utah

Offline tom sawyer

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,466
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #52 on: January 15, 2008, 06:39:57 pm »
Don't forget, Thompson and Pope were talking about ELB designs only.  They weren't enlightened as to the utility of other designs.  Aware of them, but not impressed.  In that case, I can see why a lighter mass wood like mulberry might be considered as top-notch.  Making a long ELB out of osage, doesn't really make the most out of that wood.

Play nice fellas.  You get sand in my eyes and I'm telling the teacher.
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

Offline tom sawyer

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,466
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #53 on: January 15, 2008, 06:44:52 pm »
I think the idea of "second string" woods has been around for a long time, and has changed as new designs became favored.  Personally I think you can make a bow out of just about any wood, as long as you design it right.  Didn't Baker make a bow out of pine?  It really depends on what limitations you put on your definition of "bow".
Lennie
Hannibal, MO

duffontap

  • Guest
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #54 on: January 15, 2008, 06:48:05 pm »
Hey Justin,

You will recall that I wrote you an email not long ago to tell you that you were 'dead right' and I was 'dead wrong' on the subject of bow length.  I am human and quite used to being wrong.  I am also concerned about the truth of the matter, however.  When we talk about history on this board, speculation is clearly welcome but when your speculation is contradicted by the two most influential books on the subject of American bowyery (up to the time of the TBB), I just expect you, myself and others to defer the what has been documented rather than what we imagine to be the case.  We are dealing with question of our archery heritage, we should desire to know the truth and honor it. 

               J. D.

Offline DanaM

  • Member
  • Posts: 9,211
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #55 on: January 15, 2008, 07:22:51 pm »
Ho boy, someone opened a can worms here. I still think what I said early applies best. Use what ya have and if it will fling a
arrow with enough force to kill the critter than its good bow wood. J.D. as for Pope and Thompson they were prejudiced in thier views
its apparrent that anything other than a ELB was inferior, that theory has been proven wrong many times sense. Thier work is valuable but outdated at this
point in history. I admire what they did for archery but thier views are so far out of date that to me they are irrelevant to a great extent.
They wrote about what they knew best and were quite biased in their opinions, when ya get right down to it I think they were snobbish to say the least.
 Use what is available and make the best bow ya can, seems to me this is what the NA's did for thousands of years.
"Prosperity is a way of living and thinking, and not just money or things. Poverty is a way of living and thinking, and not just a lack of money or things."

Manistique, MI

Offline Dane

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,870
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #56 on: January 15, 2008, 07:59:21 pm »
I do recall, JD, that you admitted yourself at one point that you have "English Disease."

Dane
Greenfield, Western Massachusetts

Offline Justin Snyder

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 13,794
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #57 on: January 15, 2008, 08:17:56 pm »
Use what is available and make the best bow ya can, seems to me this is what the NA's did for thousands of years.
Yes, there were no second string bow woods then.  If it put food on the fire, it was first rate.  Justin
Everything happens for a reason, sometimes the reason is you made a bad decision.


SW Utah

Offline DanaM

  • Member
  • Posts: 9,211
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #58 on: January 15, 2008, 08:36:16 pm »
So simple a caveman can understand it eh ;D
"Prosperity is a way of living and thinking, and not just money or things. Poverty is a way of living and thinking, and not just a lack of money or things."

Manistique, MI

Offline Badger

  • Member
  • Posts: 8,124
Re: "Second String" woods?
« Reply #59 on: January 15, 2008, 08:36:47 pm »
       I think most of us agree that from a mere performance standpoint there is not best wood, just best specimens when used in the proper design. if a bowyer had his own business and his main concern was not breaking bows he might say hickory was the best bow wood. I have tried every wood I can get my hands on and tried real hard to prove that osage didn't have anything on other good woods, after a while the qualities of osage were just undeniable. I can take a heat gun and bend it like no other wood I know in just a matter of minutes. It is relatively easy to work and run a ring on with a spokeshave or rasp or drawknife. Very flexable and you can just bend the living hell out of it. The only draw back to osage is that it is a very heavy wood and easy to overbuild which will slow a bow down a lot and give off some tooth jarring handshock, but thats just up to the bowyer to design it right. Steve