twooldhills

In 2009 I blessed with the opportunity to obtain a Hill bow from the early fiberglass production period. This is not the truly antique Hill period, pre-war, when he was doing all wood bows with silk thread wrapping for reinforcement, but more a very early version of the bows as they are still being made today. I was approached by the owner, who wanted help selling it. I frankly wasn't sure of the value but told him that if I could afford it I'd certainly like to buy it myself. I discussed some of the prices for really vintage Hills with documented provenance and what older glass Hills sold for. I offered him a price between, and advised that I would be glad to try to get more for him, which I assumed is what I would be doing. To my surprise, and great pleasure, he told me that he wanted to bow to go to someone who understood it and appreciated it more than he wanted to just sell it to the highest bidder, and accepted my offer. Then came the wait...

I had a scheduled trip to Florida and had to leave on that. While I was gone Ann told me a bow had arrived. Now I was really anxious to get home! Getting this bow would be an event in itself, but one of the emails I received while I was gone turned out to be the owner of another early glass Hill! He, too, seeking information. It turned out that his bow was an almost identical twin of mine! How likely is that?

Unfortunately I arrived home too late and too tired to do anything but collapse. However, the next day was another story. I've now had a chance to gather my wits and deal with this new bow and put together its background and that of the other bow like it. I'm going to try to present all of this kind of as it came to me, using the emails to present the information. I not only learned a bit more about Hill bows but had the opportunity shoot a really vintage example. I'm going to start with the posts that introduced me to my bow, "Golden Eagle", then my introduction to "Little Fawn".

Here is the information that I received about the bow via emails from the owner:

>>Hopefully you can be of some help? I aquired a Howard Hill "Golden Eagle" longbow from an uncle of mine who passed away. I sent photos of it to the Howard Hill Company and they had told me it is an original that was made sometime in the 50's. I am not a collector so it is just sitting in the basement collecting dust. I do value archery equipment and believe this bow could use a better home than my basement.

>>>I had contacted the Howard Hill company in the past and from what they told me there may be more than meets the eye with this bow. They said it was built by Hill and explained to me how he named his bows by seeing an animal and just naming the bow he was building at the time. So that may be where the Golden Eagle name came from, but another Hill expert told me it wasn’t made by Hill and asked me to send it to him so he could look at it, but I really felt uncomfortable just sending this bow to some guy. The Uncle I got the bow from was Bernie Muscha, he had made bows and was pretty popular, so I've heard around archery circles, and may have even had connections with Hill. I was mostly interested in the beginning about trying to find the point of origin of this bow and get the story on it, Like you said there is no way of knowing for sure. I trust your judgement, and if for some odd reason this thing does turn out to be more than what it is then at least its in the hands of someone who will know what to do with it and appreciate it.

OK... there you have the background of this bow. Now for what you've really been waiting for, some bow pix:

The bow and sock. (The knife, one I made year ago, was on the table from opening the tube, so it got included)	The shelf is bordered by a stiff leather tab that is noticably higher than the shelf itself, forming a distinct lip holding the arrow in. Note the writing on the sock.
Signature and yellow glass on belly...
Thin green glass on back. Note the visible weave. This is fairly common to glass bows of this vintage. At one time I thought it might be roving, but I no longer think so. I think that this early glass was thinner or more flexible than today's, though. It follows the top curvature of the outer bamboo lam and would have had to be at least flexible enought to do that. The bamboo nodes have been sanded down, but the piece wasn not ground flat, as is most common today.	Riser appears to be maple or possibly myrtle. Typical deep grip that Howard liked.
Upper tip is elongated for easy stringing with a bow stringer. Again, note the visible glass weave.	Bottom tip is stubby.
Strung, nice curve... This was taken after my shooting session and the string has stretched, leaving about a 5" brace height, which will be corrected when I twist the stretched string up and serve it.	Bow is 69 1/2" nock to nock, 71 1/4" overall. Note the relfex to the unstrung limb.
This marking turned out to be not magic marker, but black paint, and came right off with steel wool.	Here you can see the lams. The back and front lams are heavier, but there are four all together. Nodes are ground off of the belly lam but are still just detectable on the back.

Now, here is the post I sent to the Howard Hill email list today, right after shooting the bow:

I just came in from shooting a Howard Hill bow that I really think was made by him. There is even a possibility that it might have been his own. I'll be writing much much more on this story, but right now I'm just vibrating and had to share. Please bear in mind that this is surmise, speculation based on the background information on the two bows and personal belief... no museum acceptable provenance. However, the information has come my way that at least opens this possibility. (Note: I later learned that the bow was built by Howard, in the early to mid-60's and was used by him.)

The bow came to me marked "60 29" in very ugly magic marker. No string. It's in good shape, obviously old. Thin green glass with visible weaving on the back, yellow glass on the belly. Has four lams of bamboo. The front lam is way thicker than the other three and still has, if you look very carefully, raised nodes and a visible surface arc. It's apparent that this lam was not machine processed, but scraped or sanded down to the finish they wanted. It's a full 70" long, maybe a bit more. The old canvas and leather sock is marked "Howard Hill" in the leather, as I've seen before, but is also marked in black stencil ink on the flap "King 72".... possibly designating a model before the Big Five? My best guess on age is circa 1952/53.

First thing to do was make a string. I enjoy making strings but man, I suck at it! Took me three tries to get the right length. I strung it up and went through the stretch it (the bow, not the string) and let it rest, then stretch it more and let it rest again routine for a bow that hasn't been shot for a long time. I took an hour to get it to full draw. It showed up as 50@28 on the scale (Yay!!! Not 60!!!) and 43@25. This means a couple of things... first, it is, barely shootable by me (!) and second, since it obviously lost only 7 pounds for 3" of short draw, the original power curve was tillered to come in early and settle down some toward the end. This is consistant with the reflexed limbs and means that for my short draw, I should still get a goodly portion of the bow's built in power and speed.

So, OK, no serving or nock yet (I never serve till the string has stretched overnight) but I slipped a piece of masking tape on, grabbed some arrows and went shooting!
Started in the driveway... Whew! That is a heavy draw for me... I took five shots, using my old 1916 arrows. It was obvious I need to stretch the muscles and warm them up to draw this bow, but I still kept all five shots in the red at 12 yds. the arrows seemed a bit heavy, so I grabbed some 1816's and took both sets out to the back.
First target was my deer at 13 yds.... I decided to try the 1816's. First two were about 2" right of the kill zone, but correct elevation. OK, spine a bit light but I can adjust. I pulled those two and went back... five straight in the zone! However, they did show definite light spine kick.

Second effort... moved over to the bear from 18 yds. and to the 1916 arrows. What's this? Two shots in the neck, well centered but high. Hmm... OK maybe these arrows aren't as heavy for the bow as I thought, once I'm warmed up. I pulled those two and stared over.... five straight in the kill zone. This is fun!

Third effort... out to 30 yards, my ultimate test... ooops... pride goeth before a couple of arrows in the dirt! It took me two five arrow rounds to find myself at 30, but I finally put five arrows in the bear's body... all below the kill zone, but not bad. By this time, the string had stretched a good 1 1/2", making for a way low brace height, and I had noted that two of the arrows were ok on the masking tape, while the other three were clearly too tight. Time to go in...

Well, not really, let's try a couple of "in the brush" animal shots... Howard would... So it went to the back under the trees and bushes and took two at my javelina... a nickle and a kill zone. Then three at my coyote... all good shots and together, but all a little high. First two in the neck and third just above the zone.

This bow is something else, and shooting it is an indescribable feeling. I told Ann that while I hadn't planned to go, I might have to take this bow to the Safari.

What's next? Well, influenced by that 60 on the riser, I made my strings 14 strand... no need... I'll make another 12 strand and it will fit my nocks better. I'll carefully sand or steel wool off the magic marker marks and refinish just the riser, leaving everything else as is.

... and here are the shooting pix.. This isn't great shooting, by any means, but remember, this is with a new, untried bow, a bit too heavy for me, no nock point, no tuning to speak of and a stretching string (is that enough excuses?):

13 yds with 1816's	18 yds with 1916's
30 yds with 1916's... obviously this needs work...	about 14 yds... these were nice, pleasing shots...
18 yds

Yesterday afternoon I made up a new 12 strand string and left it stretching overnight. Today I served it, nocked it properly and put it on, giving the bow a brace of 6" I'm really pleased with it; it may be the best string I've made yet. The brace could maybe be a bit higher but I'll try this for awhile. Might be fine with my short draw. I had picked up a set of new 1916's, beautifully fletched, a couple of years ago and still had them. I put 100 gr. tips on six of them and went shooting. Whee! Much better results... really promising. At 20 yards, holding all shots in the kill zone on my bear was pretty easy. I had a couple of three arrow 3" groups. At 30 yds. I still dropped several low before getting the feel of it but finished up with a flight that had four out of six arrows in the zone. I can tell this bow is heavy for me, my shoulder hurts a bit, but I'm really working on trying to get my back to come more into the picture again. Overall, what a thrill to shoot.

(Note: I subsequently learned from someone who knows and visits Jerry Hill, Howard's nephew, that Howard did build the bow for himself and used it for awhile. Jerry said he remembers Howard shooting this bow. I was also sent a video of Howard using a bow that sure looks just like this one, but isn't distinct enough for positive identification.)

Shortly after I obtained Golden Eagle, I received an email asking for my help in authenticating another early Hill bow, which appears to be nearly an identical twin to Golden Eagle. Here's the email info and pix I got on that:

>>>Good Morning:

I wonder if you could please help me? We first met Howard Hill by invitation at a hunting camp in the mountains above Beaver, Utah, in the early 1950's. After the supper he fixed for Mom, Dad, and me we sat around the fire and the grownups swapped hunting stories (I was only about 11-12 at the time). Mr. Hill was kind enough to write a sentiment and autograph it for me . . . I still have it.

A few years later a gentleman from Hollywood showed up on Mom's doorstep with a longbow in hand. Seems he regularly read her column "Outdoor Wife" in Archery Magazine. He remembered the article in which Mom related the meeting with Mr. Hill, and asked if she would accept the bow given to him personally by Mr. Hill. He explained that he and Howard had become friends while making Mr. Hills movies, but that the bow would probably mean more to her than him..

Would you have time to review the attached photos and volunteer an opinion about the authenticity of the bow. Thanks for any opinion you can offer.<<<

>>>I forgot one important bit of info in my e-mail yesterday with all the pics for identification. The gentleman who gave the bow to Mom said that it was one of Mr. Hill's personal bows. I can find no production markings on it anywhere that would indicate otherwise.

>>>Craig e-mailed me confirming that he had heard of "Little Fawn". That plus his statement that Hill never put production marks on his personal bows is what has me believing I have one.<<<
<<<

Shelf is very similar to Golden Eagle, no strike plate, but it looks to me as if there was one at one time... note what appears to be a circular glue stain on the shelf.	Note the glass grain. This appears to be slightly later manufactured glass, with a linear construction rather than roving, and that the glass is flat, not applied over a curved bamboo surface. This makes me think it may be a bit later than Golden Eagle.


Appears to be an old linen string... Is that neat, or what?

Comments: What a wonderful opportunity to see and compare two bows of this vintage. I've seen, and had the opportunity to buy, much older ones, but passed because of the price and the fact that I wouldn't be willing to shoot them. Shows what a wonderful thing the introduction of glass was to those of us who like old bows.

I was asked to provide some thoughts, comments and measurements comparing old Hills to modern day Hills and Hill style bows. Specifically, the inquiry was as to whether I thought that the experience of shooting modern Hill styles was similar to that of shooting these bows "back in the day". The original inquiry was supplemented with follow up questions in response to my comments, which became quite lengthy. I am adding these comments to this page as they may be of interest to those pursuing information about old Hills.

"Over the years there has been a lot of evolution in bow terminology. "Longbow" is a good example. Today it means any long (and not so long) bow that may or may not be and RD bow, etc. One does not seem to hear the term "American flat bow" much anymore either.

This got me thinking about Howard Hill (HH) style bows. That term is used a lot, but I'm wondering if the term is applied as it was in the time of use by HH.

So, my question (finally [Smile]

). What were the technical aspects of an HH bow as used and shot by Howard? Length, width, riser config, shelf style, Degree of centershot? How were his bows designed in comparison to what we call an HH bow today?

--------------------
monterey

"I have one of Howard's own bows and comparing it to today's Hills, it's very similar but not exactly the same. I'll catalog the differences and what I think about them, but please remember this is based on a one original bow sample and the comments are just my thoughts... no old quotes to offer to back them up. My bow is from the mid-60's, so rather late in Howard's life.

First, mine, and I suspect almost all of Howard's, is long, 70". 66" and 68" are most common today. This makes sense to me because Howard was a real tall guy, though he did shoot with a shortened draw, allegedly because of difficulty in getting good shafts at 30" plus.

He preferred a shorter riser to provide a longer working limb. The riser on my bow is 15". This is close to what Craig uses today, mostly 15 1/2" but going a bit longer for extra long bows like 70", which he will build. There are no power lams, which makes sense to me because if you're trying to maximize the length of the working limb, pl.'s would tend to work against that. I'm not really aware of any real old longbows that used pl.'s.

(Aside: I like a 66" bow but have a very short 25" draw, so I build with a longer riser and, of late, with power lams, since I'm looking for a shorter working limb to gain some speed. Opposite problem, so opposite solution.)

Howard did not use tip inserts or overlays. I've been told by people who knew him that he was death on anything that added tip weight. Craig today does use a tip insert, apparently less out of concern for tip stiffness than to prolong tip life by protecting from string loop wear. Hills tend to be quite long lasting, not being much subject to limb twist and having a deep core that stands up well to general knocking around. Craig has commented that Howard did experience tip string wear on some of his bows that he shot a lot, but he would just shorten and renock them, not being much concerned about the increased weight.

Howard preferred to have all of the lams united full length so that they would work together. The belly glass comes up the fades, but none of the lams do. Today, unless asked or, as on the current Robin Hood Special Edition, Craig builds with one lam up the fades. This usually provides a better look, accenting the riser contrast, but also adds strength. Today's commercial bowyer is faced with liability issues that weren't much of a concern in Howard's day, though I've never heard of a bow built Howard's way breaking. I build most of mine that way, but I build light weights so it is not as much of a concern.

The width of Howard's bow is pretty much the same as today. Core depth is obviously related to the draw weight being built for.

Probably the most notable difference is that Howard's bow is heavily reflexed, or pre-stressed, about 1 1/4". Craig will build in either reflex or string follow on request, but the majority seem to be relatively straight. On the reflexed or string follow bows built by Craig that I have had or seen any reflex or string follow seems to be less pronounced, in the area of 1/2" to 5/8". Again, just my thoughts, but I suspect Howard may have wanted the bit of extra speed this would provide as he was way down in draw weight by this time. My bow is 50@28.

Another obvious difference is in the back contour. Today's bows are flat on the back. Howard's is noticeably curved. Obviously, the bamboo backing was sanded, the notes are not detectable, but it was not ground flat. The glass is clearly woven, with the fibers visible. I don't know anything about the early glass, but I'm guessing it may have been a bit less stiff than today's. This detectable weaving is common to the glass bows of that era. The layup must have involved a semi-pliable pressure spreading layer to mate the glass surface to the curved boo back lam.

The riser on Howard's bow, and on many older Hills I've had or seen, is very deep, uncomfortably so for many shooters. Again, just my thoughts, but I think this may have started out because Howard's hands were so large and just been copied a lot.

One of the most interesting features of my bow is that Howard apparently shot it off the wood shelf, with a very stiff and fairly high leather tab sticking up out of the riser wrap. There is no soft backplate and arrow wear indicates there never was. I shoot many of my bows off the wood and have never noted any problem other than perhaps noise if you don't have the string nock set just right.

Hope that provides some food for thought. I'm sure we'll hear from others. I know there are folks with a number of old Hills and they can offer observations based on a wider sample.

Overall, I'd have to say that looking at my bow rack, which contains Howard's bow, a number of Craig's and my attempts, there isn't all that much difference. If you're shooting a modern Hill, I think you're getting pretty much the old Hill experience, perhaps more so than with any other style of bow that's popular today.

--------------------
Dick in Seattle

"Dick, thanks so much for your response! I was hoping you would pick up on this thread. [thumbsup]

A few more questions. I'm not real clear on your comment about the 1 1/4" Is it back set by that much? And, if so, is it a straight line back set or a curve? It seemed like you were saying it had 1 1/4" of string follow. Was that what you meant?

Regarding limb width, is there a tyical width to his limbs? How about arrow shelf? Could not have been cut too deep or he would have fallen straight into the wheel bow trap! [Smile]

At least that would follow if your shop sign is correct!

Do you think Byron Ferfuson's bows pretty much follow the hill design? Seems as though I've seen a pic of one that showed clearly that there was no lam on the face of the riser.

Thanks for all your comments.

--------------------
monterey

"Monterey... you got me to thinking about this and I realized that many folks, including me, are pretty careless with our terms. So, I went to the books, i.e. I googled archery terms and came up with a number of lists of archery terms defined, from which I gleaned the following:

- Backset -- A longbow design where unbraced limbs angle backward,

- String follow, also known as 'set' -- a term used by bowyers to describe the amount a bow stays curved after it's unbraced (unstrung).

Deflex bow (equipment) - A form of bow in which the entire length of the handle and arms curve toward the archer

Reflex bow (equipment) - A form of bow in which the entire length of the handle and arms curve away from the archer

I did not find "pre-stress" defined anywhere

OK… with those definitions up front, a few comments…

Obviously, for our purposes, we are concerned with Hill style longbows. Recurves and R/D bows are another whole school and I won't argue terminology with them (though my own definition of R/D are shy recurves, or "recurves in drag").

Some time ago, I used the term string follow to refer to a laminated Hill style bow while talking with JD Berry. He kind of took me to task about the careless way bow styles were referred to nowadays and explained that in the old days, "set" or "string follow" were terms used only to refer to wood bows. Laminated bows with the same quality built in were "backset". Laminated bows with the opposite condition built in were "pre-stressed". However, per the definitions above, in more current terminology they would be called "deflexed" or "reflexed". However, at least in my own opinion, under no circumstances on a Hill style bow would they change direction once they set out on their course, as an R/D or D/R bow does.

In general discussions today, it seems the term string follow is used very generally to refer to laminated bows as well as wood bows, though set would logically be a term more common to self bow builders, where it can be a condition that can occur, rather than a feature designed in.

Now, in my own carelessness, I have generally referred to all Hill style bows, whether reflexed or deflexed by design and layup, as "straight longbows", meaning that the limb orientation does not change direction. I guess this has become my way of keeping Hill styles differentiated from R/D's. I, and, I think, most other folks, also generally refer to any Hill style with back set as having string follow. (Sorry, JD.)

Get's confusing, doesn't it?

Getting back to Howard's bow, where we started, it is strongly relfexed, or, in JD's terms, pre-stressed.

I've heard the term pre-stressed used quite a bit in reference to a lot of bows, including recurves and R/D's, to indicate that the draw weight is loaded to the beginning of the draw. The RATE of increase in draw weight per inch then tapers down. This is a speed feature, and one of the reasons I can't shoot most modern recurves, which tend to be heavily pre-stressed to get the speeds everyone seems to demand today. The extra load that I'm pulling from the beginning of the draw (see the power curve charts on any modern bow) means that by the time I get to full draw, I've actually drawn more accumulated weight than I would with the same bow without pre-stress, regardless of the draw weight at the end of the stated draw. In effect, the pre-stress acts as if the draw had been lengthened, as compared to a bow that has an even progression inch by inch from beginning of draw to end.

So, again returning to Howard's bow, it is pre-stressed by 1 1/4", i.e. if you put the bow on a table, back down, the tips are on the table, the riser is 1 1/4" off of the table. I build some of my bows with fairly extreme string follow (or deflex) of 1 1/2" and if I put the bow on a table, belly down, the riser is 1 1/2" off of the table.

The line of the limbs on Howard's bow is a smooth curve, carried through the riser. I have a form that lays up this way but with only 1" of reflex. Until I started using power lams, it was kind of a bear to build to, because I had to make a riser with a curved back to match the form. Now, I calculate the gap between the form and a straight riser and fill said gap with the power lams… much easier!

Just to confuse you further, here is a picture of my dual form… both sides are curved. It builds a reflexed Hill style one one surface and a deflexed Hill style on the other. Of course, if I go to a forward riser design, each side reverses!

Sorry to ramble on so long, but it helped me get my own thoughts in order. I hope it helped more than it confused, though I'm sure it did a bit of the latter...

--------------------
Dick in Seattle

"Dick,

Great info! Certainly not rambling to those that are very interested in the subject. I really like the HH style bow and hope to build one someday. With that said, you never actually addressed the dimensions of a HH bow (aside from length that is). Could you fill us in on limb width, taper and etc.

"OK... since you're not tired yet, here's more...

First, Monterey, you asked about Ferguson's bows. I've never seen one so can't comment.

NY Arrow, you wanted more measurements. Here they come:

Width at shoulder: 1 3/16"
Width at tip: 15/32"
Depth of riser: 2 1/8"
Width of riser (includes leather wrap): 1 7/16"
Limb thickness at fades: .535
Limb thickness at nocks: .350

You should be aware that all of the Hill info accumulated and posted on the old Howard Hill Longbowmen site is still available on my site:

www.dickwightman.com

If you go there and click on the Howard Hill link you can review all the file titles, one of which is "Two Vintage Hills". There you will find extensive information and pictures on both my bow and another of the same vintage.

--------------------
Dick in Seattle

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I tried to keep the above to the pertinent questions and answers, deleting a number of posts in the thread that were along the lines of "Thanks for posting that..."

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________