Author Topic: 1962-1963 Polar images wanted (Read 1994 times)

rb61 · « **on:** March 29, 2016, 12:23:00 AM »

I am really confused. If the trusted resource that I have been communicating with lately is correct, a whole lot of us are confused.

I would like to ask a few forum members to post pictures of their verified 1962 and 1963 Polars.

Thanks,

Ray

warpedarrow · « **Reply #1 on:** March 29, 2016, 06:47:00 AM »

I am not sure what you call verified. I compared this one to the catalogs and believe it is a 62

[/url] [/IMG]

[/url] [/IMG]

This is all that I have at the moment. Hope that it helps you, Ray.

mangonboat · « **Reply #2 on:** March 29, 2016, 10:14:00 PM »

1962 is completely different from 1963. Brad's is a 1962, sleek and straightforward, whereas 1963 was the first of the "big riser' Polars ( likewise 1963 Kodiak SPecial.)This is a nice 1962 lefty, 50#, I had the poor judgment to let go of.

rb61 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 01, 2016, 01:28:00 AM »

I just received my copy of Coppen's book-Bear Archery Traditional Bows. It along with the responses to my post here answered my question. If I understood him properly, someone was telling me that my 62 Polar was actually a 63. -see center bow.

Left is a 61 Polar and right is a 64 BearCat

Thanks

[/url] [/IMG]

warpedarrow · « **Reply #4 on:** April 01, 2016, 07:21:00 PM »

I like that wood in your 62. Makes mine look downright homely.

rb61 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 01, 2016, 09:50:00 PM »

Warpedarrow,

The Bearcat next to Polar is supposed to be the same kind of wood-Zebra. I stopped in at Rockler to look at wood samples and found a wide variety of grain like my Polar to grain like the Bearcat.

I don't know if there was any logic as to which piece of wood was selected for each bow or the bower simply grabbed the next one on the pile. I would guess that the higher end bows required more time in selection of wood.

warpedarrow · « **Reply #6 on:** April 02, 2016, 08:24:00 AM »

RB

I am sure that you are correct on the wood selection and I am willing to bet that the supervisors were instructed to pull any really nice wood out of the lower end model runs. Somebody was asleep when that unique piece of wood made it into a Polar riser. Or, maybe they just had a lot left over from the '61 Kodiak Specials and needed to use it up.

Polars, at least in my opinion, were not that much lower in grade than the KS for the 62 model year.

Blackhawk · « **Reply #7 on:** April 02, 2016, 03:13:00 PM »

Anyone notice how similar the '62 Polar and '62 KS are?

I believe that year's KS was 63" and 66", but what lengths were the '62 Polar?

Here's a '62 KS in brazillian rosewood with that cool robin egg-colored glass.

mangonboat · « **Reply #8 on:** April 02, 2016, 04:59:00 PM »

The 62 Polar came in two lengths, 66" and a womens model , 56" and draw weight was measured at 26" rather than 28. The grips on the 62 Polar and KS are my favorite grips on any bow. The 61 Polar has ice blue glass on the back...very cool-looking.Likewise the seafoam green glass on the '62 KS that also was used on the 62 Grizzly .

D.Sheppard · « **Reply #9 on:** April 02, 2016, 09:14:00 PM »

The odd/unique Zebrawood you are referring to is the grain turned 90 degrees. If you look at the face and back of the bow you will see the Zebrawood grain I think we are all used to seeing.

warpedarrow · « **Reply #10 on:** April 02, 2016, 09:18:00 PM »

Good observation Donald

D.Sheppard · « **Reply #11 on:** April 02, 2016, 09:19:00 PM »

These are both Zebrawood
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p115/shepu812/Zebrawood%20Bows/mini-bowpics015-1.jpg

D.Sheppard · « **Reply #12 on:** April 02, 2016, 09:22:00 PM »

Here is the front of the odd looking Zebbrawood bow
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p115/shepu812/Zebrawood%20Bows/mini-bowpics006-1.jpg

D.Sheppard · « **Reply #13 on:** April 02, 2016, 09:24:00 PM »

used to know how to post pics ...... :^(

D.Sheppard · « **Reply #14 on:** April 02, 2016, 09:26:00 PM »

Full riser pics

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p115/shepu812/Zebrawood%20Bows/mini-bowpics013-2.jpg

rb61 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 03, 2016, 06:48:00 PM »

D Sheppard,
You are correct. Here is a diagram that may help some members

[/url] [/IMG]

mangonboat · « **Reply #16 on:** April 13, 2016, 02:47:00 PM »

The Op mentioned the 1963 Polar. I don't own one but one has come around again on the big auction site, the 56" womens model designed for draw length to 26", this one is 40#@26". As you can see, it is quite diffferent in design from the 1962 model.

rb61 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 15, 2016, 10:38:00 PM »

mangonboat-
Thanks.

Wade Phillips · « **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2016, 08:53:00 AM »

Ray,

Yes, the angle at which lumber is cut from a log will make a dramatic difference in the appearance of the wood grain.

However, the zebrawood slab on the coin side of your 62 Polar looks to my aging eyes as though the grain is a little spalted.

As a lifelong amateur woodworker, have cut numerous slabs from logs for use as lumber. Over the years have noticed spalted areas on several logs, especially maple and hackberry cut in this area.

Obviously, have never cut any zebrawood here in Nebraska and know nothing about the probability of spalted zebrawood, but have seen some images on the internet...

Such as the interesting grain in this unique Spalted Zebrawood 7 String Guitar ...

rb61 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 21, 2016, 10:29:00 PM »

Spalted would be good for a collector, but don't the little fungi buggers weaken the wood somewhat?

News:

Author Topic: 1962-1963 Polar images wanted (Read 1994 times)

Users currently browsing this topic: