Sometimes, just for the sake of aestetics, I'll make them look the same unbraced by heating and bending, and other times I just make the bow the way it grew.
They way I tiller and time the limbs relative to my holds on bow and string, it doesn't matter if the the limb's profiles are moderately different unstrung. In fact, building such oddly shaped bows so they too are every bit as perfectly balanced during the draw is what lets me know I'm on the right track with relative limb balance. One of the things I appreciate most about the method I employ is... the entire process, references and gauges used during construction are exactly the same whether the bow's limbs are identical or not, and the results are the same... a well tillered and harmonized bow. Handshock comes more from limbs that are not balanced relative to the shooter than from limbs that aren't identical in their side profiles.
In order for their limbs to be synchronized with each other and balanced relative to the archer's holds, some bows SHOULD be abnormal looking at brace and/or full draw. And to make them look like we WANT them to, instead of how they NEED to, isn't best .
This is why I strongly disagree with the popular notion that bows should look a certain way at brace, like slightly positive tiller for instance. That's betting a bow's performance on a guess and assumptions. Most of our staves and bows have disparities between the limbs, some we can see and some we can't, some that reveal themselves later in the draw, yet most folks tiller all their bows to the same profile at brace. Doesn't that seem odd?
IMO, they shouldn't be tillered to LOOK a certain way, they should be tillered to ACT a certain way, with ideal effects on the arrow and archer... and common sense says in order for them to ACT the same, in the end, many of them should end up looking quite different.
