That bow looks outstanding Darren! I've got a Half Breed with a visible riser too but the gloss finish really sets it off.

As to Miller Old Tom's I just swapped for a beauty myself. 63@28 - stringfollow. Shoots as fast as all my reflexed Hill styles (barring a Schulz American Longbow) and as gentle in the hand as a split bamboo. A VERY enjoyable bow to shoot!

I'll try to get some pics up this weekend.

QuoteOriginally posted by ArrowPlane:
My goodness, the shine on Ralph's bow is amazing!  Totally gorgeous.  Look at the way it reflects the surface of the table...  Is that a special-order high gloss finish, or the standard David puts on all his bows?

I was struggling over whether to order an actual Hill or a Northern Mist, and the Hill won out, so I was thinking Mist next, but after seeing these, my next might have to be a Miller.  That wait time is killer, but it seems to come with good reason.

Lovely bows, both.

I think David Miller puts a gloss finish on all his bows. I am not the original owner of the Old Tom, but my Expedition came with a gloss finish. I think gloss is "old school". A satin finish is a lot easier to do, and most bowyers offer satin as standard. With Miller I think gloss is standard.
Expedition

Sage

Miller uses clear coat car bumper paint for his finish. He says use carnuba car wax on ocassion. If you want to dull it, he said just leave a light coat and don't buff it off until you are done hunting. Neat idea.  I have a Split bamboo and its a very pretty finish.

Really nice pics Ralphie!

QuoteOriginally posted by Overspined:
Miller uses clear coat car bumper paint for his finish. He says use carnuba car wax on ocassion. If you want to dull it, he said just leave a light coat and don't buff it off until you are done hunting. Neat idea.  I have a Split bamboo and its a very pretty finish.

I was told, (again, I am not the Sage's original owner), or heard somewhere, that Miller uses spar varnish. Someone mentioned my Sage had 7 coats of it. Don't know for sure.
I wish I had a Split Bamboo !!
Thanks Ross ! you have accumulated quite a harem !

I remember when Ross got his first Hill bow, it's become a passion.

Craig uses fullerplast for his finish.  I found a really nice wax a few years ago that is used on guitars. It protects against UV rays and repels water.  I'll post the name later.

Dave is now offering carbon backing on his Expeditions, they should be real performers.

What is the wait time for a miller? I keep hearing everyone mention the wait time.

Realistically 2 years. A year and a half is the best case scenario.
Right now, (I hear), he is taking no new orders.
Contact him via his website

S.C. Hunter,

I think Dave's wait time is 12 to 14 months.

Bob.

Thanks guys!

The Miller "Expedition" that I just sold   :(  had a high gloss finish.  It looked fantastic and I was the second owner.  When I mailed the bow yesterday it looked just as good as it did when I received it.  The high gloss really makes the grain in the myrtle riser "pop".  I'm not sure what finish David used though.  

David advertises that he finishes his "Sage" model with five coats of spar varnish, which was "Howard's favorite".  From the photo on his website and the pics I've seen of Ralph's "Sage" it creates a gorgeous finish.  

Now onto the wait time for a new Miller bow.  I contacted David prior to Kalamazoo because I didn't see his name on the vendor list.  He told me that he is at least 14 months behind on builds and wasn't taking any new orders at the show.  He really wants (and needs) to catch up.  Like Ralph said two years wouldn't be unlikely if he took an order today.  That said I will tell you that the wait is worth it.  You will know it the minute you see the bow and if that doesn't impress you shoot it for five minutes and you'll definitely know why you waited and why you dropped the cash.  His bows are that good in my opinion.

I'm VERY surprised to hear that David is offering carbon    on his "Expedition" model.  To my knowledge he hasn't offered it on any other model he builds.  I find it strange that he would choose the concave/convex bow to try the carbon thing.  I'm not sure what the gain will be in performance.  It will increase cost for sure.  Now I haven't owned a Hill-style bow with carbon, but I did own an Ekin Hill "Badger" with it.  Did it increase performance?  I don't know.  Is it worth the higher price?  I don't know that either.  Carbon isn't for me, bu to each his own as they say.  I wonder why he's doing this.  Does Howard Hill Archery build a lot of bows with carbon.  We see them on occasion, but it doesn't appear that it's a frequent request.  Well Howard was always experimenting, so David and the other bowyers should too I guess.  

What I do know is that when I place an order with David it will be a bow with just old school materials.  Problem is I can't decide on which model or what materials to use in the build.  So many things I would like to try.  


Good luck to those who are considering a Miller (or other maker).  However if you add carbon to your longbow it's "OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!!!"    



Just kidding folks.  The beauty of a custom bow is do as you wish.  It's your bow and that's that.

Carbon is lighter and stronger than glass which makes for lighter limbs which will make a faster bow. I have a carbon backed Expedition. I just got it last week and haven't had the time to compare it to my glass backed Expedition but will hopefully be doing that this weekend.

carbon in the limbs is no different a bow build philosophy than glass in the limbs.  

there's nothing about these AFL (american flat longbow) bows that's "period correct" in terms of limb construction.  

they all came about out of a necessity and borne through a design process.  

if you think that carbon in an AFL is heresy, wait 'til you see an AFL with ceramic limbs.  :D  

think i'm kidding?     :eek:    

QuoteOriginally posted by JohnI:
Carbon is lighter and stronger than glass which makes for lighter limbs which will make a faster bow. ...

that's not the reason i might want carbon in the limbs - it's about environmental temperature and stress stability.  

that's why earl hoyt was using it way back when - not at all about adding cast - and i got that scoop direct from the horse's mouth.

he used carbon primarily for his target bows.  he didn't think, as i do, it was a viable benefit for a hunting bow.

JohnI, I understand the performance "potential" given the physical properties of carbon vs. glass vs. wood/bamboo limbs only.  Clearly carbon is all you say it is compared to fiberglass.  I just have a very hard time believing that the use of carbon will increase performance to the point where it can be measured by the shooter's perception.  If you shoot through a chronograph an increase in speed may be detectable.  However, just assuming that carbon ups the ante doesn't justify it's use in my mind.  

For me adding carbon to the tried and true design of the American Semi-longbow detracts from its historical significance without significant leaps and bounds in performance.  But I shoot carbon arrows out of my Hills (for now, wood soon), so what do I know?  All of my Semi-longbows sport fiberglass back and belly as well. I'm sure I would get lambasted for that in some circles.  Just know that I'm not lambasting the use of carbon in the bow.  I just wonder if it's really worth it in the end.  

Let us know how your comparison goes.  Are your two Expeditions of comparable specifications?  I'm hoping we can get some apples to apples comparison here.  Also do you have a chronograph to validate any perceived increase in performance?

Best of luck with the new (and old) Expedition.  You're a lucky guy to have two of them.  I want another one really bad.

To each their own I think the carbon is a good idea. I used to have Bill Matlock bows with carbon backs as well as Jack Harrison bows with carbon and both were exceptional performers due to the carbon. I believe Bill used to say you could get at least the performance of a bow 5 pounds heavier than what you were shooting. This may not be a big deal but everything done to these bows since the self bow has been about added performance. I am sure putting fiberglass on the back of a bow was considered radcal at one time. My other Expedition is 6 pounds heavier than my other new one at this point I will just be eyeballing I am not going to fool with the chronograph in the lousy weather. In any event I have several Miller bows any they are all exceptional ì enjoy the all wood ones as well as the backed bows. Variety is the spice of life.

I talked at great length with Dave at the Kalamazoo show about his bows.  Disregarding any of the arguments about carbon verses glass he is now using carbon out of shear necessity,  as the woven pliable fiber glass that he has used in the past on the back is no longer in production and his supply is depleted, he is now using the flexible woven carbon.  Understand that the backing on the back has to flex over the raised nodes on the back.  The current production glass is not flexible enough and it's strains only run longitudinally so it will separate along those longitudinally strains if bent to the degree when applied over raised nodes, where as the older out of production woven glass is not only flexible it is woven so it would not separate.  Thus the new carbon will add one added improvement and that is longitudinal stability.

If you want to argue about the use of carbon maybe you should talk with Howard about why he started using glass on the backs of his bows in the first place.  If you want a longbow constructed using concave, convex shaped Bamboo laminations you are going to have to settle for either NO glass like Howard's pre-glass bows or Carbon on the back.  

Now having said that I am sure that if you can come up with some of the out of production woven glass Dave would be more that happy to use it.

Please understand there are lots of great bowyers out there making lots of great longbows, but the MAIN REASON that anyone buys a Dave Miller longbow is, that as far as I know, he is the only one constructing the longbows the same way that Howard did.

I do not mean to upset anyone with this post, nor is it aimed at anyone but we can all debate issues or changes in building materials or designs and for sure that is good but to a degree,  please lets not nit pick.  Sometimes it is not more important to post questions, thoughts, facts, and insights rather that opinions.  

One last thought adding carbon it is not exactly like adding TRAINING WHEELS.

I agree with John I that carbon is a good idea, simply because it is a design addition/change from a noted bowyer.

My Expedition is a much harder shooting, flatter shooting bow than either the Old Tom or the Sage. Comparing them, is IMHO, foolish. They are too different.

Custom bows today, for the most part, are considered different or better, based on the wood combinations used. Value is often more on beauty, than performance.