Putting a Grozer bow in a museum?

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:31 am

A friend of mine is working on a museum exhibition on archery these days. There will be some replica longbows and flatbows in it, but some horn bows should also be represented. He has been having a look at Grozers bows, and want to buy the one that in detail is closest to an original ancient bow.

Perhaps you would share your opinions on which type of the Grozer Extra III is the best replica bow that could represent the hornbow technology in this exhibition?

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:29 am

His Magyar type is close in outward appearance to many Central Asian bows of the Mongolian empire period, save that he uses hemp for binding at the joints, which is not authentic. Sinew was used in the originals.

Botondbow · Post by **Botondbow** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:36 am

He also uses sinew (majority of times) for authentic binding at the joints.
Please see the links:
http://www.grozerarchery.com/magyar/htm ... x3/j/7.htm
http://www.grozerarchery.com/magyar/htm ... x3/j/2.htm
http://www.grozerarchery.com/magyar/htm ... x3/j/3.htm

That's why I suggest to purchase this type!

jkekoni · Post by **jkekoni** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:42 am

If that is sinew, why is the color different from the sinew backing?
( The are possible reasons, but i find them not likely.)

I have done sinew binding and it is the same color than backing, just the "lines" will go horisontal instead of vertical.

However I would assume that he would also make one bound with sinew if asked (with extra price?). I would assume binding with hemp is used only to save sinew, it does not make the process any more complicate etc. It may also be more durable.

I do not comment about historicality of the bow. There are other people in the board that know more about the subject.

Botondbow · Post by **Botondbow** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:15 am

Frankly, I have no clue why the colors of sinew are different! I?ve also done sinew binding several times (see and scroll down my web: http://www.botondbow.com/kompozit-ijaim ) and there is no color difference at all.

Any way, according to Grozer?s webpage (text) the binding is sinew and I think he would not request any extra money for sinew binding but he should be asked!

Finally, I would also state (it?s my opinion) not only the sinew binding of Magyar bows is authentic other materials such as hemp is also authentic!

jbl · Post by **jbl** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:14 pm

Could the difference in color be the glue or dye he uses?

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:09 pm

I respect Grozer work and his archery aktivity , but - seriously - no one from his bows wasnt "close" to historical originals... If somone from his bows was shown in seriouz museum... joke .
/Anyway i see in some Russian and another museums worst jokes , but our knowledge is every year higher ./

ginni · Post by **ginni** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:43 pm

Dusan, i dont agree.
I hate to minimize the work of the guy, his bows can be slow or can have hand-shock, but when is about looking, his bows looks good. He made some fully fiberglass bows, turkish, indopersian which maybe dont shoot well, but looks perfect. I would like to have some in my museum.

Botondbow · Post by **Botondbow** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:28 pm

Dusan wrote:I respect Grozer work and his archery aktivity , but - seriously - no one from his bows wasnt "close" to historical originals... If somone from his bows was shown in seriouz museum... joke .
/Anyway i see in some Russian and another museums worst jokes , but our knowledge is every year higher ./

First of all, I have to clearly state that I do not have any connection especially business interest with Mr Grozer; however the Dusan?s quote is very general.
I do not want to argue about the non-Hungarian Groser?s bow but being a Hungarian bow fun I would like point out some thought.
My special interest is the origin, the shape (feature) and characteristic of ancient Hungarian (HUN) horn bows from 9th to 12th century.

I?ve studied several essays of excavations focusing on bow bone plates from the graves. Unfortunately, only bone plates remained (many pieces) in the graves but the plates? positions are measured and noted.

http://botondbow.u.yuku.com/photos/view/pid/787886

http://botondbow.u.yuku.com/photos/view/pid/787974

http://botondbow.u.yuku.com/photos/view/pid/787975

It is also right that so many question marks still exist today; however the general shape of HUN bow is agreed which is quite in line with Groser?s Magyar bow shape.

http://869789182725854870-a-botondbow-c ... edirects=0

http://869789182725854870-a-botondbow-c ... edirects=0

So I would really appreciate if you Dusan explain us how you can come to the final conclusion that the Grozer?s Hungarian bows are not close to historical originals (what?s wrong) and please share your knowledge what is the original HUN bow characteristic (size, form).

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 9:36 pm

Ginni, i have in this forum bad image- like all time criticize man. Cause this i cant write very big article why i think what i say about Grozer bows. I understand you and other guys who like Grozer bows look. Because you dont jump ito the hornbowmaking like me /this is no prise, but sigh

/I dont know detail all Hungary bowmking history.
I dont know who starts in Hungary this tipical mistakes in replikas construction- but all bowmakers in Hungary have same construction sick and this problems you can see evan in new hornbowmakers /what i can say from some i see/.!
I see Botondbow site and his good work. He was very talented. But evan in his hornbows you can see this polyester mistakes. I mean that Grozer was starter of this enormous construction sick. Maybe this is big Grozer personality influence...who know ?

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:34 pm

Thanks for the comments, guys! This is in line with my own thoughts that the Magyar model might be a good representative.

If Dusan has a better bow to offer at the same sum of money, I would be very interested...

- this is of course also a question of funds, where there is not unlimited rescources to gather original artefacts.

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Thu Nov 18, 2010 11:43 pm

ou , mi friend, you must start vith this very importent fact- money problem !

All is clear. I hope you give your Turkish hornbow like givt for museum. Vith every mi skepticizm about your bow , i think that your bow is better performer than Grozers...

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:01 am

Hehe

It's the ever-returning problem.

At least my bow did shoot 274 meters - with a draw of only 22 inches

It will live the rest of it's days hanging on the wall as a reminder of what not to do...

Dusan · Post by **Dusan** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:12 am

Congratulation. Better than i think

. Like i say, more than Grozer...

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:37 am

I like the Grozer bow on the link and I also like Botond's bows. Nice job. I would like to make some comments on the Grozer bow in the link.

Because of the angle at the base of the siyah plates, getting that angle is pretty well known. Those plates generally have cross hatching on their bases which demonstrates they are part of the core and had the sinew backing extend up on to them. Bows from Central Asia of the period have round cross section bends at the siyah. This may not be the most efficient shape but this is what was done. Stephen has posted two Mongol bows with this detail, I have posted two Mongol bows with this detail and Andrew and I posted two Hun derived bow from the Silk Road with this detail. I also think the siyah should follow the cross section of Stephen's Mongol bow, as a pattern. The shape is very traditional, like the shape of a violin scroll.

Horn seemed the wrong material until the discovery of the Miran bows which have horn siyah plates so this looks to be traditional but who knows how common.

By the shape of grip plates it can be seen that the grip is straight but the limbs are thrown forward at the transition to the limbs. How much would be a matter of taste. Paintings from the period show bows shaped like the Grozer link but others from graves have the siyahs being closer to parallel; to my thinking more like an unused Qing/Manchu bow.

I would think that rather than close windings of sinew the originals had a more skin like oblique winding which could help stabilize the bow as well as keeping it together, say in the manner of the Yanghai Scythian bows, also the Miran bows. This skin would be from nock to nock covering the entire bow.

Then the entire bow would be covered in birchbark. I know as a bow maker that there is a great pride in the complexity of this construction but historically a bow is covered in bark for this period.

A bow is best displayed when strung but it does not seem advisable to do this to a hornbow. One such item in the Bows and arrows museum in Korea has become badly misshaped from being left strung in a case. At any rate a display bow should not be strung and shot because those who do so mostly do not know what they are doing and will soon break a hornbow.

So a display prop is indicated and this might cost much less than a real but fragile hornbow, a despicable "wallhanger".