When I posted the sentences...
It reads 47# @26", look again.
77# @ 26" Kodiak is possible.
100# @ 27" Kodiak is on the wall here.
For clarity, I should have been more precise in my intended meaning in the last two sentences and said...
Yes, it is possible to have a Kodiak marked 77# @ 26".
I have a Kodiak marked 100# @ 27".
Please re-read the last sentence of the person who posted the question...
"What are the chances of a 77#@26" bow?"
My sentence...
"77# @ 26" Kodiak is possible."
This is a direct answer to that question, simply because it is possible... that a Kodiak could be marked 77# @ 26".
No way did I ever intend to imply that the bow in the auction may have been marked 77#. It was obviously marked 47#, I knew it, why else would I offer to bet a 56" Kodiak? ... and there were no takers, not even for a soda... Anyone who knows me, knows that I never bet unless it is a sure thing.
If I gave anyone the impression that I thought it might be marked 77#, I sincerely and truly apologize for my poor communication skills, limited vocabulary, tendency to reuse words, and very poor choice of words.
In the future, I will attempt to be much more precise.
Hoof - For the comparison you requested, this is as close as I could get to the weights in 1959 Kodiaks, 47# and 77#, These are 48# and 80# in 64" length, which will give you a size difference comparison but remember, 56" bows will of course have much thinner laminations. Also the 100# @ 27" marking is on a 68" 1954 Kodiak (II). It has the thickest limbs of any Kodiak that I have documented, although it is possible that some of the heavier 64" Kodiaks have thicker limbs.
80# at top, 48# at bottom...