66' prototype has found a home

[Wade Phillips]

Grant - Sorry to report that I don't know anything about the whereabouts of the prototype Super Kodiak with the all phenolic riser that Fred is shown shooting. I've never seen it in person. Have only seen the photographs of it. It is a cool bow for sure and it is very noticeably different looking than the production 1967 Super Kodiak. Was really hoping that you might have that bow and could post some photographs of it for us. Who does have it?

[PAPALAPIN]

UH...maybe they disposed of it by camo painting it and selling it as a 66 camo Kodiak?

Man, can you imagine someone having "THAT" bow all these years and not knowing it...

[Wade Phillips]

Jack - The prototype 1967 Super Kodiak that Fred is pictured with is a lot dif1ferent than a 1966 Kodiak. Of course, Fred was shooting it, and it was left handed. Doubt that it got sold as a camo bow, considering Fred's normal handy work on the risers. Hopefully it has survived and maybe someday it will actually surface and we can get a better look at it. You just never know what will pop up next.

[PAPALAPIN]

Yeah Wade, I understand that Fred had a habit of giving thos bows to special friends and business associates.  No telling who got it, and where it ended up...but we can still dream.

[Grant Young]

Jack and Wade- When Bill Krenz was a VP for Bear in the 90s, he found a barrel in the warehouse containing several of Fred's old bows which he cleaned up and displayed in his office. He told me that he asked Frank Scott why they weren't in the museum and Mr. Scott told him, "Oh no...Fred didn't want his bows on display because of his alterations to the grips and shelves" of his personal bows. The catalogue cover '59 that Mr. Bear is holding standing by the big brown bear was one of these bows, I believe. That '67 prototype was in a lot of ads and photos at the time but I've never seen another like it. I have a few of those pics, courtesy of Bill that I'll share but I can't transfer them to photobucket for posting here. I would be a neat bow to have- or even check out closely, for sure. Wade, you'll probably find it one of these days and then we can learn more about it.  GY

[PAPALAPIN]

I expect that Fred had a brand new bow every year.

Musta been a tough job, but somebody had to do it.

[OldSkoolArcher]

Jack,
  What have you decided to do with this bow?

[sticknstring+]

Wow Jack! Great trade !!! I would love too see what the serial number says under that paint....hmm  EXP maybe? Congrats on adding that sweetheart to your wonderful collection! Greg

[mullet]

Congratulations, Jack! That is a great find. And I've learned a lot just by reading this thread.

[PAPALAPIN]

Philip

Personally I would not remove the rest of the Camo,  As it is it tells the story of this bow in that it sat hidden under camo paint for 44 years until Tom decided to see what was under the paint.  

It amazes me that someone could shoot this bow for that long and not realize there is a differennce between this now and a standard  '66.  The big difference in hand weight should have tipped them off to something.  Common sense should say that the layer of camo paint would not add that much weight.

When I acquired it, I dubbed it the "Troy Kodiak" after Tom Troy who discovered this jewel under the camo paint.  I hope Philip honors that name and continues to refer to as the Troy Kodiak.

I would do something to add some kind of finish where Tom reubbed a bit too much, but I would not remove any more of the camo.  However, philip is now the new custodian of this piece of Bear history so I guess it is his call.

Take care of her Philip.  It belongs in the collection of "Vintage Bears".

[SAM E. STEPHENS]

Very cool stuff guys

[vintage-bears]

Originally posted by PAPALAPIN:
Philip

Personally I would not remove the rest of the Camo,  As it is it tells the story of this bow in that it sat hidden under camo paint for 44 years until Tom decided to see what was under the paint.  

It amazes me that someone could shoot this bow for that long and not realize there is a differennce between this now and a standard  '66.  The big difference in hand weight should have tipped them off to something.  Common sense should say that the layer of camo paint would not add that much weight.

When I acquired it, I dubbed it the "Troy Kodiak" after Tom Troy who discovered this jewel under the camo paint.  I hope Philip honors that name and continues to refer to as the Troy Kodiak.

I would do something to add some kind of finish where Tom reubbed a bit too much, but I would not remove any more of the camo.  However, philip is now the new custodian of this piece of Bear history so I guess it is his call.

Take care of her Philip.  It belongs in the collection of "Vintage Bears".

Thanks very much Jack. I'm on the fence about the camo finish with this bow.
I am thinking about bringing the bow to it's ORIGINAL condition.

It's original condition was NOT camo! The camo came later. I'll explain.
 After thorough inspection, the bow has evidence of being finely sanded and varnished at Bear Archery just like a production model. It was clearly an  R+D bow.
Ofcoarse I could be wrong on this.
It is my theory that this bow was initially going to be a 67 Kodiak and Bear Archery decided to not make one at all for 1967.
The decision was made to wait and introduce the ALL NEW  67 1/2 Super Kodiak with the black phenolic riser.
This is my opinion of this bow.

Once all decisions were made at Bear Archery, this bow was sent back to the factory area with instructions to camouflage it, weigh it and serialize and send it off to bear dealers as a 1966 Kodiak.
I could be wrong but I am confident that's how this bow came to be.
The bow has found a home on the wall sitting between a 1966 Kodiak and a 67 1/2 Super Kodiak.
 It's like the missing link has been found........philip

[PAPALAPIN]

Your Call, Phil...you are the new custodiam.   Personally, if I had a vote, I'd leave it like it is.  You might want to get the opinions of serious collectors here to make up your mind.

Your "opinion" of how this bow came to be camopflaged might be right on.   Bear had a habit of puting camo paint on some bows whenb they had "Something to hide",  They routinely camoed blimished baws that were functionally solid. May have just had a discoloration or some slight defect that prevented them from being sold as a first line bow.  When they got an order for a camo model, and had none ready to go, they would take a first run bow and camo it for the sale.  I think the old catalogs adveetise the camo available at about a $10 extra charge.  Great marketing idea instead of selling blemished bows at a discount.  I am sure they did not want to sell these prototype bows as a one of a kinds so they camo painted them and passed them on.

The only one I know of that was sold without camo was the illusive "Red Kodiak"  which I sawsold on **** years back by the original owner that bought it from Papa Bear.  He wanted a new Kodiak in exactly 50# and there was none in the sales stock ready to go.  Papa Bear said "Hold on a minute, I think I have something"  He went in the back and came out with a Bow box containing the "Red Kodiak"

Anyway, that's the story the owner posted in the e8ay description.  I bid on that bow but it got too hight for me and as I recall it went for about a grand.  Anyone that has other info on the "Red Kodiak" or other prototypes should jump in and sher it here.

I'd also like to know theres opinions as to wehether Phil should strip it or leave it.  Keep in mind that if he strips it, he can't put it back, and in stripping he may mess up the under finish and have to do a full refinish, then it is not original

Just my thoughts.

[PAPALAPIN]

Actually Phil, I passed it on to you because I felt you would take appropriate care of it.  If I had thought you would strip it, it would still be on my wall.  I felt it would get more exposure on your wall rather than ine because no one ever seel mine, I don't make Dnton Hill or other trad gettoghers, and you are a more promanent collector than I am.

However, you are the new custodian.

[Mike Shaw]

This is JMO I would remove the camo and show the bow as it was meant to be. Just as Philip has stated the camo was put on to hide the fact that Bear was going to make a 67 model year and bailed at the last minute.

[vintage-bears]

Good morning my crazy Bear Collector friends.
Thank you all for commenting about the bow.
Really was very thoughtful of Jack to let me have it.

"To do or not to do", That is the question.

I'm not gonna do anything to the bow at this time. I'm gonna think about it a while.

Leave it alone with %20 of the camouflage gone already or remove the rest of the Camouflage and expose what Fred Bear and Bear Archery had in mind to do in 1967.
Initially, I personally would have not removed so much camo to take a peek. Perhaps behind the strike plate. It's OK though. Everything happens for a reason. This bow wanted to be SEEN and get a breath of fresh air.
Either way, the bow is what it is, camo or no camo. I like it very much and it's becoming one of my favorites in the collection.

Thanks for all your input.......Philip

[vintage-bears]

Jack.
I went back in this topic to look at the pics you have posted earlier and if you click on the picture it brings you to your Photobucket album. I don't know if that should be like that. Check it out. Does'nt seem right to me.

Anyway, here is what she looks like still.
(Jacks pics) I copied them because my camera sucks.

       
       


I think she is gonna look great between these bows. That's another proto 66 Kodiak in the middle. We can clearly see the direction Fred was taking with his bow designs.
 
   

Pretty extensive removal of the camo paint just to "take a peek" would'nt you say.
This is how I recieved the bow.

If the camo on this bow was not so extensively removed, I would'nt even consider it.

Regarding the HISTORY of the bow.
History cannot be changed........ only told.
This bow has been ALTERED before Jack and I recieved it. Extensively I might add.
I am not the most knowledgable or have a large collection as others but with respect,
You would be hard pressed to find a more passionate individual regarding Bear's history.

This bow and I'm sure there are others like it out there........ "is what it is".
This cannot be changed.

Someone also mentioned VALUE. The value is in it's beauty. Bows are only wood, glue and glass. But the sum total is magnificent!
That's what I value. Just me.......

Naturally, it should always be described as ONCE being painted over by Bear Archery to hide it's experimental construction. If I do bring it's ORIGINAL appearance back, I think it would be way cool to display it with a Bear Archery tag stating it's "Camo" past. Maybe a picture on the tag in it's "camo" days.

I so appreciate how you guy's continue to keep Fred Bear and his magical bows alive and well.
Someday and hopefully far from now, we'll be gone and a NEW bunch of collectors will have these "talks" and be as passionate about these VERY BOWS..........Philip

[d. ward]

holy crap Phil I know that one well beleave me I shot the snot out of that bow praticeing to arrow a fat bear in Quebec while hunting with Tommy using that bow and writeing an article about yes you guessed it hunting with vintage-bears.I will say this about that bow.It shoots every bit as good as it looks and the person I got that bow from told me it was a salemans sample and never really hit the market.Geezus I thought I never see that one again.........I love you man thanks for the trip  down old bow menory lane Phil bd

[PAPALAPIN]

OK Don. Strip it or leave it alone.

JIM...It was not on the block.  I did not so much sell it as transfer custody of it.  Phil and I were actually talking about my Bear B riser and this one came into the conversation.  My interest was not so much in making a "winfall profit" on it as much as it was to see that it was in good hands, but I did recoup my investment on it.  Again, if I had thought Phil was gonna strip it, it would still be on my wall.

Just for the record.  After my investment and shippin'/insurance to Phil, I am up about $38 on it.

[Missaukee]

Often Historians have to lose something to gain information. If you want to learn about ancient cultures, you have to disturb burial sites. I don't own a factory camo bow, but I would like to, and I would not strip. However, by stripping this bow a very cool, possibly one of a kind bow was discovered. The info has been gained, other than what model it might be called. One could say that stripping all the factory camo bows could reveal a lot more. But, the only point would be if it were to be documented in a book. I don't see that happening, as many collectors are reluctant to share knowledge and end up taking it to their grave. I am not referring to Al Reader of course, as he was very generous with knowledge.

In the end, I see it as a bow that has had its factory camo ruined. I believe if I owned it I would strip it. I don't see any significance in the camo other than the fact that it was there, we know that. The significance is what was under the camo, that is the true spirit of the bow. I would however object to lowering the shelf, I think that should only be done to bows with holes or other damage! Good Luck with your decision.