I know there may be some bias in this group :)  I am considering buying a Macomber 32" loom.  I've also looked at the Schacht 36" Standard loom (which is only slightly bigger but doesn't fold?).  

Are there other looms that people would generally recommend looking for when comparison shopping when considering the Macomber 32"?  I recognize that the recommendation here may just be go with the Macomber but does anyone think there are other looms that are similar that would be in the running ?

Footprint is a bit of an issue which is why I am looking at the 32" vs 40".  This will go in my living room.  

 

 

Comments

Sun, 10/20/2013 - 20:29

Dawn McCarthy

Have you looked at the mighty wolf?  It folds

Dawn

bewove.com

Mon, 10/21/2013 - 19:01

sequel (not verified)

The Schacht standard folds enough to get it through a door or to save space when the loom is not in use as does the full size Macomber.  The Schacht standard floor loom is more stable and IMO easier to thread the the Mighty Wolf because both the breast beam and the back beam are easily removable.  The Mighty Wolf is hard to fold without help unless you have very, very long arms.  My decision when I had to make it, had more to do with the height of the looms.  The Macomber is a very nice loom, but the Schacht standard, low castle fit my space where a taller loom would not.  The low castle loom takes up less space visually as well. 

Mon, 10/21/2013 - 22:36

mrdubyah (not verified)

Harrisville Designs also has a 32" model that you can often find available at a good price used.  It also folds, but is much more lightly built that the Macomber.  As you suspected, we Macomber fans think there's no need for comparison as nothing else comes close!  ;-)

Tue, 10/22/2013 - 13:19

Dena (not verified)

I had a Gilmore that I felt was comparable to my Macombers.  I also expect the older Norwood floor models (not the X construction portables) would be comparable since they are similar in design to the Gilmores. 

Two more thoughts though...when I switched from doing production on my Gilmore (a loom which I adored) to doing production on my Macomber, my time increased by 25% (probably not an important factor for you right now, but for me it was).  The flip side of it is that your first loom doesn't have to be the perfect one.  There is always the possibility of selling it and purchasing a different one later, when you have more experience and a better sense of what you want. 

And yes, I am biased.  I would go with the Macomber!

Tue, 10/22/2013 - 13:26

pammersw

So you are saving you were faster on the Gilmore when you first switched to the Macomber?  Have you gotten any faster on the Macomber since then?

(I, too, am considering my first loom, and I would like to be fast enough on it that production weaving is viable.)

Tue, 10/22/2013 - 13:36

Dena (not verified)

No.  I was faster on the Macomber than on the Gilmore.  Immediately.  That's why I switched over and eventually sold the Gilmore after weaving hard production on it for ten years.
Tue, 10/22/2013 - 15:30

mneligh

I also used a Gilmore and a Norwood before getting a Macomber.  I also prefer the Macomber.  In addition to having more features (an unfair comparison), I found that it was easier for me to dress, and the ergonomics were just right for me.  I can't speak for production weavers like Dena, but for someone that only does a few unique pieces for each warp,  this is very important.

I'm much faster putting a warp on the Macomber than my Baby Wolf, for example, even though it's roughly twice the width.  If you remove the factor of sectional vs conventional warping, the difference in threading speeds extremely favors the Macomber over other looms.

On the other hand, I have friends that have used the Macomber say it is "brutal".  (They say the same about my cars and horses and favorite spinning wheel).  You can give the cloth beam too hard a crank and hear your warp go ping ping ping into disaster.  When weaving light fabrics I have to remember to restrain my beat.  It is unquestionably more noisy than many other looms.

If you can, try before you buy.

Tue, 10/22/2013 - 15:52

tommye scanlin

I have a Macomber again after many years, even though I "gave up" fabric weaving in 1988 and began my tapestry weaving journey.  I soon after sold the 12 shaft, 72" wide Macomber I had at the time.  

Even though I was using tapestry looms in my own work, I continued to use Macombers with my students at the university where I taught.  And those looms are still in service with the weaving classes there--I bought the first ones for the school in 1972 and others have been added through the years.

During the years since I moved to tapestry, however, I've kept small floor looms around because I like to weave scarves, rugs, etc. for friends and our own use here at the house.  I've gone through two Kessenich looms, a Baby Wolf, and a small Mac, and a small 24 shaft AVL, and none of those compare to a larger Macomber for ease and simplicity of use, in my opinion.  Since I've used jack looms almost exclusively, I haven't had any desire to have a counterbalance (although I've used those) or countermarch (not used those).  I did have experiences in graduate school with Gilmore and Leclerc Nilus, in addition to the Macombers.  I liked the Gilmore and not the Nilus because of various issues.  Still I prefer the Macomber. And I prefer to have at least 8 shafts because of some of the types of weaves I like to do. 

I was without a floor loom of my own for about a year, but kept wanting/needing to have access to a floor loom to satisify my desires to be able to weave a scarf for someone, if I wanted to.  So, about a year ago, I bought a 6-shaft 40" Macomber from a friend and added two more shafts, purchased from Macomber.  The loom sits unused for most of the year (haven't had a warp on it since last Dec.) but it's ready, willing and able to do whatever I want it to, whenever I'm ready to do it.

Now with all of that said, I will say that the Macomber looks like a piece of equipment and not a piece of furniture.  The shafts are metal frames and the loom is a straight-forward tool.  I've heard that some people prefer the look of other looms, ones that have more wood and less metal, perhaps.  That being said, the original question came from someone who said her living room would be the location of the loom.  So, one of her considerations might be how the equipment fits into her space and pleases not only the end use desired, to be a weaving tool, but also the eye.  Several of the other looms mentioned might serve the function of both quite well.

Thanks for reading, if you have!  As you can see, I love my Macomber each and every time I make the the time to use it.

Tommye

Wed, 10/23/2013 - 00:07

pammersw

My boyfriend says it will be in the living room, and so we will be able to talk while I weave. I will do more weaving that way because I like to be around others,  not shut up somewhere.  But it is a casual living room.  We built a boat there this summer.  ;) 

(Not the OP but also looking for my first loom purchase. )

Sun, 09/21/2014 - 01:22

igelheim (not verified)

I have been looking at moving up to a new loom from a 36" old Norwood ( Ihave been weaving about three years now, I bought the 40 year old loom used) and want to move up to a 45" inch. I have narrowed it down to either a LeClerc Nilus or an AVL. Pros and cons please, I really can't make up my mind! The LeClerc has a weighted beater and a look I like, the AVL has the side tie up ( I have replaced both knees , and am a "woman of a certain age" -but I look amazing! ;->)

 

Sun, 09/21/2014 - 02:46

DebD (not verified)

You probably want to move this question to a different group as you posted it in a Macomber group.  I'd suggest you start your own thread too, so it can get more visibility.

Mon, 09/22/2014 - 00:24

Michael White

Are doing just find so I will sit back and read.

Michael