To restore or not onold Bear bows

[ishi1archer]

Hey Gang I have some Bear bows that are in fair condition but not great. Is it better to restore them or leave them alone as far as value goes? Most of them are in shootable condition. I just restored a 671/2 K-mag and it looks great. Makes me want do more!

Life member United Bowhunters of PA.

[missagain]

i would  restore them and shoot the mess out of them.i just did my 71 super kodiak and glad i did ..makes me think i have a new toy.

[Blackhawk]

I think restoring a bow depends on one's intended use of the bow as well as it rarity.  Bear made millions of bows (as many as 350,000 some years) and bows like a 67 KM is not a Mona Lisa.  (As a matter of fact, they even restored that old lady didn't they?)

If a bow is in decent and original conditon... and can be shot, I would leave it that way.  

However, if it's a rare one, but looks like someone dragged it behind a truck a few miles on a gravel road, I'm sending it to Don or Rich for a facelift.

When we Bear fans are long gone, most of our collections will be put on some classifieds and not in a museum.  

Besides, Fred made the bows to shoot, and it's more fun to shoot one that looks good.

[reddogge]

Just remember, chances are you are not the original owner of these old bows, maybe not the second, third or fourth owner.  You become a temporary caretaker of it until it gets passed on.  Yes, they are yours to do with what you want but some will get passed down to an appreciative owner and added to his collection.

So treat them with respect, try to retain the original finish if possible but if the finish is compromised for hunting restore it as professionally as you can.  You don't want your old Bear looking like your old uncle with a bad toupe'.

[Whip]

I'm pretty new at this Bear stuff, but would like to learn more.  What kind of things should be looked at Jim when considering whether a bow is a better candidate for the wall or a restore?  I assume if the bow has some type of documented history that make it unique in some way that would sure be a case for keeping it original.  What are some other things to look into?

[Bjorn]

Like Blackhawk said, and as a general rule........if you are taking it into the woods to hunt, and the original finish is shot(looks like a lizard or worn off)-get it redone.
If it is headed for a peg in the cave and the odd 3D, leave it alone.

[d. ward]

if a bow is 80% good original condition I'd say lieve it as is and enjoy.However restored bows do not loose value fact is I've restored several thousand bear bows and have never ever lost a dime.Fact is I just seen a 1959 Kodiak I restored sell for over $1,000.00 I saw Gary buy an original condition 36# for 186.00 go figure weird huh ? bd

[macclare]

Speaking as a long time collector, I do not want restored bows in my collection. I have bought a few over the years that the finish was shot so I restored them for shooting only realizing they would be worth far less than original. By restoring you could lose hundreds in some cases. We are lucky to have people like Rich and bow doc to help us out in these decisions.

[ishi1archer]

Thanks for the advice. As far as the 67 1/2 K-mag, it was a basket case when I got it. the finish was gone, the dacals were gone and the limbs were twisted. Now it's a great looking shooter. Scott

[Whip]

How about holes in the limbs and riser?  Would that make it a candidate for redoing it versus just leaving as is?  These are pics from a '60 Kodiak that if it weren't for the holes is in fairly nice original shape.  Would a collecter look at a bow like this?

 

 

[d. ward]

myself I hardly ever get mint condition bows in to work on 99% of them I see are fairly beat and or someones going to use it out in the eliments and it needs sealed more then restored.Prime canidate would be Whip's 1960 at the very least I'd fill the holes.If to much moisture were to get into the riser wood it may split bd

[Whip]

Great, that's exactly what I was thinking, but I sure would feel stupid if I had done something only to find out later I had detracted from the value of a bow and didn't bother to ask first.
Thanks!

[stagetek]

I guess I don't understand why a bow restored to it's original look loses value. People restore old cars all the time, and it increases value. Who wants a rusty old car ? Same thing with bows. Why have a scratched up, beat up, dull finish ? Restore it to it's original look, and show it off.

[Cool Arrow]

A restored car will never be worth the same as one that spent it's entire life pampered and the original tires still clean. Of course I'll never understand how any one can keep a bow in pristine (mint) condition.
  Larry

[ishi1archer]

Thanks gang for all the input. I understand the point of preserving as many original bows as possible. I only hunt with bows that have already seen some abuse. I don't mind a few filled holes on a hunting bow. As far as the resto. part goes I've been restoring antique  furniture for a living for the past 25 yrs. You guys are all great. I wish we could get together to share our collections Thanks Scott

[DLM]

Thanks for the opinions on this subject. I've wanted to ask the same thing for awhile. I've thought it was best to leave them in original condition if not damaged.  Dennis

[TRAP]

I'm honored to have these two in my collection and they've both been refinnished.  The 59 was destined for the trash heap before Doc worked his magic and I'm not sure what the 60 looked like before refinnishing because I bought it that way.  That being said, neither of them carried any real "historical significance" and I plan to hunt with them for the rest of my life.  Because they've been refinnished, they'll likely still be "hunting" when I'm long gone.
 
 

Trap

[ishi1archer]

Nice looking bows! Doc has the magic touch! Thanks for sharing Them

[macclare]

I agree with all comments.

[d. ward]

I'll have to get the name changed on all my products that say bowdoc's archery restorations dang bd