Ed, I have always said that these types of bows are excellent, that I myself am also excited about the design. I have also built such bows from a wide variety of woods.The design and principle behind it is just good.
But this design is not like the Holmegaard! The Holmegaard principle is also misnamed, because the Holmegaard principle, is that of a normal flat bow.
Callahan built a replica and drew conclusions from the replica. On the same basis (starting from the original find) other bow makers made replicas and came to different results. So that also other conclusions were drawn.
What makes the result of Callahan more correct than the results of the other researchers and bow makers???
That he worked with Tim Baker, who may have whispered design considerations to him?
That he slightly overemphasized the shoulders in the limbs and thus influenced the result?
He writes himself that his replica would not be 100% like the original, that it would be a bit thinner...
As a bow maker, you know yourself that a few chips in the wrong place decide whether the bow is a premium bow or firewood.
Holmegaard is and remains the wrong name for a bow with pronounced shoulders just as it is the wrong name for the Tiller principle with the long stiff lever ends.
The third volume of the TBB came on the market over 25 years ago. Callahan himself was in Denmark over 40 years ago. To date, there are many new results from other researchers who have also investigated with newer methods that challenge the older results.
Callahan principle would give E. Callahan more posthumous credit for his work than harping on false interpretations.
