INFO: Trad Archery for Bowhunters



Author Topic: I thought Polar's were supposed to be economical  (Read 486 times)

Offline Tom I.

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 258
I thought Polar's were supposed to be economical
« on: May 12, 2009, 05:49:00 PM »
290314479704

Anyone here get this one?  Pretty bow that I thought would good for about $150-$175.....
Tom I.

Offline ckruse

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 728
Re: I thought Polar's were supposed to be economical
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2009, 05:52:00 PM »
That's a 62 in the less common ladies version (63" length, weighed at 24"). I sold a set right handed for a good chunk of change a couple of years ago. It all depends on who wants it! CKruse
"The lack of machinery puts you closer to the act- an act that is ethical, good, right, and correct."- CKruse

Offline jcar315

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 3843
Re: I thought Polar's were supposed to be economical
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2009, 07:17:00 PM »
Tom, There are times when bows on **** just go for WAY more than I think they will. In my case I chalk it up to my lack of knowledge. I watch alot of bows and I too am drawn to the LH ones. You just never know what someone else is thinking.
Proud Dad to two awesome Kids and a very passionate pig hunter.

Right handed but left eye dominant.

Proud to be a Native TEXAN!!!!!

"TGMM  Family of the Bow"

Offline richbat

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 301
Re: I thought Polar's were supposed to be economical
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2009, 07:16:00 AM »
heck,i just traded a real nice 1955 polar to bwhntr11 over on archerytalk,for some leather goods.it was 62'' or 64'' at 48# the bow was bought off mike shaw on here.probably would have got a nice price for it on that other site,but try and steer clear of it.rich in pa.
Richard Battistoni

Users currently browsing this topic:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
 

Contact Us | Trad Gang.com © | User Agreement

Copyright 2003 thru 2024 ~ Trad Gang.com ©