[Archers] New Bow Classification (Period)

[Siegfried]

> Just for general discussion, here are some thoughts.  By definition my fancy
> modern longbow could be classed as a period bow.  It is 1/8 inch off
> centercut and the core is of wood.

Would it?  Think carefully; however I don't QUITE remember your bow exactly.

However, is it similar to this one in style/construction?
http://www.3riversarchery.com/Product.asp?c=8&s=16&p=0&i=20931X

If so, then no, it doesn't pass.  Realize that the phrasing used was 'a 
wood core, allowing a single backing and/or belly lamination'.

That means that a modern laminate style longbow, as per that link, does 
not qualify.  It must be a stick, with an allowed backing and/or belly lam.

>  Laminations of wood I would allow
> since many of the best bow woods tend to be somewhat expensive such as yew
> and Osage.

True, hence why a single lamination, on either (or both) sides of the 
bow was allowed.  It is also allowed in any material, partially from the 
aspect of allowing substitutions (ie, fiberglass as a substitution for 
period horn).  Also from a slight conceed to allowing things to be a bit 
easier.  A bow with a single thin fiberglass lamination, shoots 
nominally like one with a single horn lamination.  From 10ft away it can 
be impossible to tell the difference visually.  Yet the fiberglass bows 
can be much simpler to obtain.

Similarly would fall things such as the woodbows.com bows, which have a 
linen cloth backing.

> I would further state that a period bow should replicate some
> existing historical bow.  Here is where is would get tricky;
> [snip]
> I would stick with a definition that requires a period bow to be true to a
> historical type.

This gets really tricky to my mind.  Trying to implement that, 
specifically, would make suddenly every marshal need to be a scholar on 
all types of period bows, from all cultures, during the 16th century 
back to pre-history.  And having folks get in arguments on the shooting 
line about the fact that in fact that is a period bow, and the marshal 
saying that it isn't.

Nope, don't like it.

Hence why the wording was brought up the way that it currently was.  The 
main driving force here, is to get more people shooting bows that look 
period, that look primitive, and to encourage, and call out, those that do.

Whether it is a Mongolian Recurve, ELB, Roman Composite Recurve, or a 
Native American Flatbow.

(And yes, before it is asked, by the very vague way that the SCA rules 
are written, Native Americans are 'SCA-Period', as they were known in 
the 16th century to the courts of Europe, and in fact visited.  AND, I 
know at least 1 person in the SCA with a Native American Persona)

>  Perhaps if
> our period category became a source of pride for archers who are trying to
> reproduce historical equipment.  Their target accomplishments would then be
> ancillary to the interest and pride in their equipment.

I agree.  At the same time though, I (and some other marshals), don't 
want it to become SO exclusive that noone is shooting in that category 
because there are only 2-3 bows that meet the category in Atlantia :)

At that point, it has defeated the purpose of encouraging folks to move 
more period, because they had to jump from what they had to extremely 
period.

Also note, this can always be changed in the future, and I expect this 
category, over the next (bear with me) decade+ to end up 
changing/growing/etc.

Thanks for the comments ...
NEXT!

Siegfried