Trad Gang
Main Boards => Trad History/Collecting => Topic started by: Blackhawk on January 06, 2009, 05:09:00 PM
-
Tell me more about the Howatt Monterey. This particular one is in great shape...maybe a 9.2 of 10.
With the beefy riser, length, and white glass, I would normally have called this a target bow. It's marked 55# and is more like a hunting weight.
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/lwscott/dh-2-1.jpg)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/lwscott/dh-1.jpg)
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d108/lwscott/dh-3.jpg)
-
Lon,
Interesting story....The Monterey started out as a mid-range hunting bow, available only in 62" length and draw weights up to 75#. In the late '60s/early '70s it was reincarnated as a target bow with lengths up to 69". It was one of Howatt's top of the line target bows until it was discontinued around the time Martin bought the Howatt Plant in 1976. Yours is a very early 1974 model.
Mike
-
Thanks for input Mike...you da man. :thumbsup:
Do you know what type woods were used in these risers? Rosewood of some kind? :confused:
-
Various species of rosewood.
-
The Monterey is a great bow. Most were made in 62" but as Howattman said, some were longer, but rare. The 62" models are identical to the Howatt Hunters but made with various laminations of rosewood for the riser.
I have three 62" and one 66". Two of my 62" modles are 50#. One has black glass and one has dark green glass. (t is unusual that they made a 55# with white glass. It could have been a custom order for a stout guy that wanted a really heavy tournament bow. With the white glass, I doubt it would have been ordered for hunting.
At 55# and 69" I would say yours is really rare. How did you come by it?
Good find!!
-
Hi Jack,
Thanks for responding and hope all is well.
The bow was offered a few weeks ago in a classifieds from a fellow in eastern Oregon. I believe it was his dad's bow that was too heavy for him to use hunting.
I put the brace at 7.75" and shot some 540 grain 2018's Any recommendations for setting this bow up?
Was the 69" length not a standard for this bow?
-
Howattman is the one to ask about how to set up any Howatt bow. Maybe he will chime in here.
I can handle 55# with no problem for hunting or 3-D. Tournamnet shooting (NAA - NFAA) is a whole 'nother program. In 3-D you shoot one arrow at 30 targets...30 shots. NFAA you shoot 4 arrows at 28 targets...112 shots. NAA you shoot 5 arrows 6 rounds at three distances...108 shots.
Shooting a 55# bow for that many shots will flat out wear you out. Especiall 4 or six arrors at a time per target. Thats why most guys shot bows in the 30-40# range for tournaments. The main thing here is accuracy. With the right set of matched arrows, a light weight target bow is perfect.
3-D was designed to keep hunters in practice during the off season. For this reason, they want you to use your actual hunting equipmet to shoot the 3-D targets.
Shooting a 55# will result in a flatter trajectory, especially on the longer shots.
Back in the day when I shot NFAA and NAA, there were guys that could shoot perfect rounds with no sightss. Unfortunately, I was not one of them.
You have a very rare bow there. Appreciate it.
Best I can suggest is that if you are going to shoot 3-D, get away from the heavy arrows. A lighter arrow that is spined for 55# should really "ZIP" with a flat trajectory.
-
Originally posted by Blackhawk:
Hi Jack,
Thanks for responding and hope all is well.
The bow was offered a few weeks ago in a classifieds from a fellow in eastern Oregon. I believe it was his dad's bow that was too heavy and long for him to use hunting.
I can handle 55# very well, but when they get close to 60# and more, it's an effort. I have no doubt this hog is 60# or more.
I put the brace at 7.75" and shot some 540 grain 2018's, but did notice a bit of handshock. Any recommendations for setting this bow up?
Was the 69" length not a standard for this bow?
Lon,
Try running the brace height up to 8". That may help some.
69" was a standard offering for this model.
Mike
-
Thanks for the advice. The higher brace helped a little as did going to 2020 arrows. It's just too much pull for this ole fart.
-
That's Beautiful bow Lon, Nice find.
Trap
-
HOWATTMAN
You need to chime in here more ofter, I get a lot out of your posts. Always want to learn more about Howatt bows.
You add a lot here.
-
I'd like to learn more about them as well. They are gorgeous bows.
Trap
-
Bette than Bears.
Let's see what that comemnt will start.
-
Jack - In your post of February 11, 2009 08:10 AM, you stated...
"Bette than Bears."
"Let's see what that comemnt will start."
Jack - I assume the first word of you post was intended to be "Better" ???
You will have to explain the criteria that you used to make the comparison to make that statement?
Why don't you start by using your criteria to compare the 1959 Kodiak to the comparable hunting bow in the 1959 Howatt line...
The ultimate judge of the 1959 comparison will probably be the conclusion of Trap's Happy Birthday 59 thread, where we will all be able to see how many 1959 bows by each bow maker were actually used 50 years after they were produced. Have any 1959 Howatt bows been posted on that thread yet?
Guess we will be able to call the bow on the Happy BD 59 thread with the most posted photographs, "Still better after 50 Years".
After you have finished the 1959 Kodiak vs Howatt comparison, I will compare some 1940s Howatts to 1940s Bear Grumleys...
Do you believe that the 1940s Howatt bows were better than the 1940s Bear Grumley bows ?
Jack - You knew I would not let this attempted miscarriage of justice pass without comment... You have to be smiling, knowing you are stirring the pot...
It will be interesting and fun to see a fair comparison by each specific year, that is if we can get an actual comparison rather than opinions and unsupported statements.
-
Rich - No dis-respect intended, but your general statements does not address any specific comparisons by year...
Which of the 1959 bows that you mentioned, do you consider better than the 1959 Bear Kodiak... ???
Show us photographs and tell us what makes that 1959 Bow better than a 1959 Kodiak...
-
Rich - Not much science involved if a person states that they believe the multi-colored traverse and parallel riser laminations in a Ben Pearson Palomino make it a better looking bow than a Kodiak of the same year, and that person also posts a photograph of both bows to support their belief.
If a person makes a comparison between bows, the facts should be fair and accurate.
Not much science involved in comparing photographs.
-
You guys make me :bigsmyl:
-
WADE
Sorry to be so late with this. Just noticed your challenge.
Well now we have the old addage "If ya cain't take the heat, git outta the kitchin" :knothead:
I openned my mouth, now I gotta justify it.
First off, everyone here knows that I can't spell, and am the worst at proofing. If you see a post with my avatar, and everthing is spelled correctly, with perfect grammer, you know it is a forgery.
As far as the '59 Bears vs 59 Howatts go, I was not into the sport at that time, and my comment was based on my personal experience in the late '60's. In 59 I was shooting a flat bow, hand made by the Cherokee Indians that I bought on vacation in Gatlinberg, TN. You know what I am talking about. My matched arrrows consisted of three cedar arrows, One 5/16 with a field point, one 11/32 with a target point, and one 5/16 with a target point. zThe bow was probably about 15#. So much for my knowledge of the proper balance of equipment in that year.
My response "Bette than Bears" was probably an unjustified statement, but I always though, back in the '60's that Howatts were better bows than Bears. I shot a '68 Bear Tamerlane in NFAA and NAA competition, and envied the guys with the Del Rey's,Palomars, etc. I bought my bride a Howatt Monterey, and was very impressed with it. I hunted with a '64 Kodiak, and later a '68 Super Kodiak. I thought the guys that had the Howatt hunting bows, had better bows than me. Personal opinion.
Now back then, I was "PO FOLK" and had really stretched my budget to get the Tamerlane. I was not affluent nough to turn around a buy a Howatt once I had invested about $175.00 in my Tamerlane, and $60.00 in my Super KOdiak. So I just stuck with the Bears and drooled over everyon elses Howatts.
As Rich stated "Better than this or that, is again purely personal choice". Can't tell ya how much drool I got on the pages of Archery Magazine staining the ads for the Jack Howard Gamemasters. Most teenagers of that time period were causing the pages of Playboy to get stiuck together with their excitement. Mine were Archery Magazine, TAM, Bow & Arrow, and later Bowhunter Magazines. I only ever saw one arcehry ad in Playboy (May 1978 ?) so it was not worth my time.
I have never pretended to hold the expertise of you, bowdoc, Rich, or anyone else on this forum. I put my two cents in and cross my fingers. I have been wrong a lot, and as a result, learned a lot.
When you pick up the 1960's record book of the top Tournament Archers, most were shooting VBears, Hoyts, and some Ben Pearsonsd (Sovereigns). Those were the common bows on the tournament lines. But you cannot discount the quality of the Damon Howatts, Bud Hitts, Dickie Roberts, and many others. Bears, Pearsons, Wings, and Hoyts were the big boys with the big names. However, those lesser know brands certainly made their mark on out sport.
IN MY OPINION...the Damon Howatt bows were prettier, better balanced, smoother shooting, more stable, and just all around finer bows than Bears.
Papa Bear did more for the Sport of archery than any man that ever lived. His hunting exploits, his support of top shooters like Frank Gandy, Gentleman Jim Pickering, and Owen Jefferies kept the Bear name out front on the tournament line. He was a Master Marketer.
So, to put any controversy to rest, let me restate my comment.
In my humble, uneducated, ignorant, and probably disrespected opinion.
"HOWATT BOWS WERE BETTER THAN BEARS"
Even spelled "better" right this time...getting better.
OK, "a;drgj" Had to spell something wrong or it might have been mistaken for a "forgorery"
-
(http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l101/GUNSMITHAMMO/Smileys/RollingSmiley.gif)
You da man Jack! :thumbsup:
-
Jack – Thank you so much for your well thought out, straight forward, concise, humorous, and very well written post.
You stated…
“my comment was based on my personal experience in the late '60's.”
Had those words been incorporated into your original statement to make a sentence with a specific date, something like this….
“HOWATTS WERE BETTER THAN BEARS DURING THE MID 1960'S, ON… IN MY OPINION...the Damon Howatt bows were prettier, better balanced, smoother shooting, more stable, and just all around finer bows than Bears DURING THAT ERA.”
You certainly would not have gotten a rise out of me… because I would have agreed with you…
I have been trying to get someone to specifically state the years of bows that they were comparing. I can’t thank you enough for doing just that.
If you had said that 1940s Howatts were better than the 1940s Bear Grumley bows, I would have totally and completely disagreed with you, and posted photographs to prove the point beyond any doubt. Howatt’s 1940s bows that I have owned and seen, are crude when compared to 1940s Bear Grumleys.
I don’t’ know enough about 1950s Howatt bows to have an opinion as to how they stack up against Bear’s early 1950s static Kodiaks, then Bear’s early working recurves of the mid 1950s, then Bear’s 1959-60 Kodiaks.
In my opinion, the 1953 St. Charles Thunderbird was a better looking and better performing bow than Bear’s 1953 Static Kodiak. See Jack, - I am a realist, interested in facts, not just another “Blind Bear Hound”.
Jack – if anyone can make a claim for 1959 bows as eloquently as you did for the late 1960s bows, I’m certain everyone will believe the 1959 Howatt was better than the 1959 Kodiak…
I’m looking forward to someone posting facts and photographs to substantiate that a 1959 Howatt was better than the 1959 Kodiak….
If such facts and photographs are not posted, what are we to believe… ???
-
I have two 53 thunderbirds and they were ahead of there time for sure
the howatts of the late 50s were great bows I think a tad better in the craftsmanship
From what I have seen they started to beat bear in the speed department in about 65 with both companys running head to head in the early 60's
howatt has ate bear for breakfast since 69 those last great super k's were something else. But after 69 the hunter ownwed the super k in every way even today it is five times the bow as a bear
So here how I see it the 40's were bear all the way.
The fifty's while we all love the 59 57 and 56 bears, howatt and bear tied in the preformance department
howatt smashed bear in the looks department except for the 59
I call 1960 a tie
1961 howatt
1962 bear
1963 howatt
1964 howatt
1965 howatt
1966 howatt
1967 bear
1968 bear
1969 bear
1970-Present Howatt
but I think wing kicked their hiney once in a while
-
WADE
My comment was meant to get a rise out of someone, not necessarily you, but someone.
Look at what those three little words kicked off. That's how we get discussions going here that lead to more information dissiminated. There is not one of us here that knows it all...'specially not me. Collectively, we have a wealth of knowledge that needs to be borught out for eveyone's benifit.
Rhat tyee stated above may only be his opinion, but it certainly brings out a discussion that will lead to a better understanding of our sport. I am curious to see how the rest of us feel about his ranking of the Bear vs Howatts during what I call the "Golden Decade of traditional archery". Again, in my opinion, there is no other time period that made the headway for quality bows than the '60's. Unfortunately, after that, the compound emerged and it was downhill for all of the manufacturers. Look what happened to Bear, Wing, Hoyt, Pearson, and others. I'm sure the wheelie bow shooters were thrilled with the '70's, but not me.
I thank God that Jack Howard never got the notion to come out with a compound.
Although Fred Bear, Ben Pearson, Damon Howatt and Earl Hoyt were definitely competitors, I consider their companies more of a group of collaborators in the persuit of the development of archery as a sport, forall of their commercial bnifit. A collaboration from which we all benifited.
They were the keepers of the flame during that time period. That torch has now been passed on to us, and we must keep it buringing to insure that the newbies coming in with us now will carry on the tradition to future generations.
I see no "arguments" here. Only stimulating conversations from which we all gain knowledge.
Wade, thank you for your disitation.
Tyee, Wing kicked their hiney while it was Wing. When AMF and Head Ski came in, it nose dived. Of course that was also about the time that Kidde and Victor Comptometer took over Bear. Another nosedive. Now it is Escalade. The last nail in Bear's Ccoffin.
-
Tim, You make the following comments.
"The fifty's while we all love the 59 57 and 56 bears, howatt and bear tied in the preformance department"
and,
"howatt smashed bear in the looks department except for the 59"
and then,
"I call 1960 a tie
1961 howatt
1962 bear
1963 howatt
1964 howatt
1965 howatt
1966 howatt
1967 bear
1968 bear
1969 bear
1970-Present Howatt"
I'd like to know what you are basing your opinions on. Have you shot all of those bows enough to make those kind of comparisons?
I havent even seen pictures of 50s and early 60s Howatts. I'd like to see them all but dont even know where to look for that info.
Hopefully someone will come along and show us a Howatt collection that includes all of the models you mention.
This is starting to sound a little like the threads you read on Stickbow about Black Widows vs. everything else
Interesting, Trap
-
It's all personal opinion.
In my opinion...there are Jack Howards, and then there are "OTHER BOWS"
-
Tim - Thanks so much for your post and detailed comparison, especially your comment...
"The fifty's..., howatt and bear tied in the preformance department howatt smashed bear in the looks department except for the 59."
My objective is to get guys to compare apples to apples. It is unfair to make blanket statement for entire product lines encompassing all time, based on experience and knowledge of only a slice of that time.
Trap - Photographs and advertisements of the Howatt bows are in the the archery periodicals and catalogs of the era. Having a complete set of every national and regional publication might not be a bow collector's forte, but is an invaluable historical reference. Until a comprehensive book is written, the documents of the era are the best reference.
Jack - I'm glad you wrote those three little words. Similar comments were made previously but no one stepped up to back up or clarify their assertions about Howatt and the specific years. Discussion is great. Getting to the actual facts should be all of our objectives.
It is interesting that for 1959, Fred’s catalog ad stated “Bear Kodiak King of Hunting Bows – World’s Top Trophy Taker”.
Who will question that the 1959 Bear Kodiak was truly the King of Hunting Bows for that year… ???
-
Opinions on performance can be of real value when they are based on experience, in which case they knda become an assessment. I'd like to hear from someone that's had real experience with both Bears and Howatts through the ages. I think the info would be valuable.
Beauty of course, is in the eyes of the beholder and is strickly opinion. It would be dificult to argue against the beauty of a Howard bow, but I guess someone could if they truly thought all of that rosewood was something less than beautiful. I think they are real "lookers" as are many of the Howatts.
Trap
-
"BEAUTY IS IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER"
And I would love to be holdin' my Jack Howard Gamemaster JET. :notworthy:
-
Anyone that has a 62" Monterey in the 45 - 50# range and would be interested in selling it, please PM me.
How about it PAPALAPIN?
Thanks,
Dave
-
Interesting thread. I would think the "measure" of the best bow/s of any year would be to get a hold of examples of them today (not repaired or refinished). How have they held up over the years? How do they shoot today (put them through a chrono)? How much did they cost when originally purchased? etc...
What old bows (models/makes) have been more likely to develop cracks/stress lines etc than others? Which ones shoot the "best" today. Which ones have proved to be most durable over the years?
Just my thoughts... :)
-
DAVE
You want it with black glass or green glass?
-
My experience with archery started around 1967, I have spent time both shooting and admiring bows from different manufacturers since then. I have owned several Bears old and newer, into the late 70's era and have owned two early Wings, some Brownings and several Damon Howatts.
Most of my bows have been hunting weight bows and got used a lot.
With all that preamble spilled I will say this, Bears seemed in general to be well made and stable bows with many of them in my mind beautiful to look at.
The two Jack Howards I had the pleasure to shoot performed great and were gorgeous. But expensive and did not fit my hand well.
In my experience the Damon Howatts were in a league of their own as far as being beautiful to look at, well made/durable and above all else out performed most anything across the board. To this day you can walk in and buy a Hunter off the shelf and it will outperform all but a handfull of custom bows costing two or three times the price.
I truly love them all, but if you told me Bill you can have just one bow to hunt with the rest of your life(God Forbid) and they were all laid out on a table in front of me I would pick myself up a 60's- 70's Hunter and feel very happy.
JMHO
-
BILL
You chose an appropriate on line name.
You are a true Traditional "Renaissance Man".
Must be something about guys that started in 1967. That's when I really got into it, although I had been playing around with plinking since about '59, I started competitive NFAA and NAA in '67.