"I saw that. someone really wanted that Kodiak."

Close inspection of the photos of that bow, the serial number especially, suggested that was the third  MSW 64" made in 1959. A rare beauty, but I'm not THAT sentimental.

This is one that got away from me this morning but is now a confirmed sighting.

1959 overlays, very slender grip that never saw a leather wrap, coin location drilled but coin missing. I-beam could be bubinga, could be rosewood, cant tell from the avilable photos.One slab appears to be rosewood, the other looks like it could be rosewood, could be purpleheart, 64", 58?#, SN EXP B
 

The multiple maple laminations suggest 4 thin lams in the limbs, but no photos of the limbs from the side.




The seller says he picked it up at an auction in Janesville, WI, for re-sale , very dirty and the only bow there. No other info or history.

So jealous of all your bowsbyou guys have lol. The 59 kodiak is one I haven't owned yet. Can't bring myself to pay that kind of money. (In other words my wife would kill me). Someday it will happen though.cool bows

Welll....
Mangonboat I can provide some better pictures now.
       

I think both slabs are Rosewood and the Ibeam is purpleheart.  the poundage is 38#.  And yes the grip is small and thin

Neat bow!!!!!!!

Good on you, Bruce! She cleaned up nicely! It'd be fun to know the story behind that one.

Thanks
Once I finish cleaning it up I will start a new thread with several pictures.  One thing occurred to me, the serial number "EXP-B" implies there is at least a probability of there being a bow  "EXP-A"...

Bruce -

Great photographs of a very interestingly inscribed 1959 Kodiak.

Remember seeing at least one EXP inscribed 1959 kodiak about 20 years ago, but at the time did not understand the reason it was marked EXP.

With purpleheart SW, would guess the bow did not precede the initial 64" maple SW production, which some might assume. Would guess the bow was produced much later in the production and marked EXP for a non standard production reason.

The bow also has the three lamination riser overlays, clearly indicating that it was produced much later in the production cycle the the initial bows which had much more ornate/elaborate tip & riser overlays.

Your images show that the bow has two thin maple maple laminations on the back and belly and 4 thin maple limb laminations at the tip. This is twice the usual number of one lamination on the back and belly for a total of two at the tip. The 4 laminations exceeds the usual 2 and sometimes 3 laminations in the 18# to 80# 1959 Kodiaks here at the Arsenal.

As I have posted in the past, even lamination variations was a reason to designate a bow EXP.

mangonboat -

The story behind the EXP inscription may not be as fun or interesting as some may have envisioned.

The whole story may simply be a change in the thickness and number of limb laminations.

--------------------

experimental..prototype bow?

Wade, I lean in favor of your thinking..this bow probably was a mid-production experiment with different laminations, although that very slim grip makes me think it was an early -run experiment.

I have had bows marked EXP but looked every bit like a factor production bow.Only difference on one Grizzly I had was a piece of masking tape with the name of a glue written on it.A former employee of the bow dept. told me it was probably a new glue they were trying out,hence the EXP marking.Nothing visible to the naked eye otherwise.If not for the masking tape on the bow you never would have known.
 I also have a 1956 Kodiak that is marked EXP.The bow has a compass mounted in the grip like a 1954 KII or Compass Kodiak and I have seen other post '54 Bear bows with what appear to be factory inlaid compasses in them so I don't think the compass was experimental in 1956.To this day I wonder why the bow is marked EXP.
Strange things going on at Bear back then.

Brock -

Some less than the most serious collectors, incorrectly (and likely unknowingly), use the terms experimental and prototype interchangeably.

There is a distinct difference in the meaning of these two words, especially for the most serious collectors.

Prototype - the original model of something.

Experimental - an item made to discover, test or demonstrate something.

The meaning of these terms becomes even more blurred for the average person when they see Bear bows that are obviously a prototype, but are marked EXP. It is also important to note that some obvious vintage Bear prototypes are not marked.

Although I have seen many vintage Bear bows that were undoubtedly prototype bows, not sure that I have ever seen a vintage Bear bow marked "Prototype" or "Proto".

In the case of the EXP 1959 Kodiak, using the facts offered in my earlier post clearly prove that it is not a prototype.

mangonboat -

I agree with your suggestion that the bow was likely made later in the thin grip run. However, it is important to note that a thick grip could be easily sanded or routed down to be a thin grip at the factory.

The purpleheart SW likely places the EXP 1959 after the initial run of 64" maple SW bows of approximately 1,000.

John -

I believe in years past that we had a thread that pictured Kodiaks with a factory compass in the handle from each year from 1953 to 1959. I personally have a total of 15 different Kodiaks in the collection with factory compasses in the handle from 1953, 1954, 1954-1/2, 1958, 1959. Would not be surprised to learn of others.

In addition to a change in glue being responsible for designating a bow as EXP, other significant factors such as change in supplier or makeup of glass fibers, change in temperature, pressure, or cycle time in the press (plus countless other variations), could have been responsible for an EXP designation.

Like many factories, lots of variables did change over the course of an entire production year. To me, Bear seems like a typical small factory environment of the era.

Don't really think "Strange things were going on at Bear back then" as you suggest. They were simply trying to make money by producing archery tackle as opposed to documenting every detail of every bow in anticipation that 50 or 60 years later a group of anal retentive collectors might not have sufficient investigative skills to be able to figure out every detail of every bow produced by Bear in that era.

Wade Thank you for the insight and observations.  I was also leaning towards this being an "experimental" bow made closer to the 1960 model run... The lack of the leather grip.  I also have a 64" 1960, when I put them together on a flat surface both have almost identical form.  The grip is thinner on the 59.   And the limb tips of the 59 are slightly more relaxed.
I can agree with your statements about "small factory" experiments... for several years I held a position of "product development" in a small outdoor furniture factory.  True I built "prototypes" of Ideas, Which never made it into a production run. I know of at least one home where my "prototype" bar stool is still being used. Other times those prototypes became the "first" run of a production run. Some times Management or the purchasing agent would bring me a none standard wood type and request a production piece be made from the "new" lumber... Sometimes this experimenting process was done for no other reason than to review the machine-ability of the lumber sample.  Sometimes a production model was modified slightly because the change would reduce production costs,(a few cents doesn't seem like much until you compound that savings by thousands of pieces produced). Part of my job involved reviewing production processes with the intent to change machining in order to make a process more efficient, or turn out a better product.  Sometimes it was deemed, if the customer(or end user) would not be able to discern a noticeable difference between an "experimental" from production piece, the experimental piece went out for sale with as part of the normal production run.  In small factories anything is possible.
I kept pretty good notes and made drawing of my ideas and thoughts... When I left the employ of that company they never asked for my journals, nor did I volunteer to leave said journals behind.  So for all intensive purposes some of the reasoning for a particular process has been lost from that company's record.  And my memory gets worse as the years pass.

Wade, Very interesting list, lets keep it going, I have 59 Kodiak, #BA117 60" 60# MSW, no coin/ gold lettering. Thank you

Charles -

Saw the auction for your BA117. Looks like nicely figured rosewood with the dark lines in both slabs. Thought you got it for a reasonable price.

Entered the data on the first post of this thread.

Wade,
Thank you. I have had several other PHWs but had to wait a while for a chance at a MSW. Im honored to be on the list. Im always interested in looking for consecutive serial numbers to show up. Thanks for all the work you have put in for identification and reference. My daughter who is 10 sits down with me and we discuss the different years and identifying traits of all the different years etc. based on alot of your posts. She will be thrilled to see our bow on the list.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pack animal:
Thanks
Once I finish cleaning it up I will start a new thread with several pictures.  One thing occurred to me, the serial number "EXP-B" implies there is at least a probability of there being a bow  "EXP-A"...

Bruce - Happened to see this thread and re-read parts of it. When I say your post above, my thoughts were what if "B" designated an experiment with glue, e.g., "Bohning" just to grab a name, and there never was an "A"...  but maybe there was an "E" e.g., Eicholtz. We may never know the actual meaning of the "B" on your interesting 59 Kodiak.