Leather Jackets: Post Pictures of the Best You've Seen/Owned?

[SirGrotius]



I have a question for you guys:


What makes jacket leather 'good' quality?

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Is it the thickness? The texture? The treatment? The hand feel? Is a leather good quality if it has that rubbery, meaty feel to it? Is it bad if it has that dry, smooth feel?

There are some designers that treat their lambskin so heavily that it ends up feeling almost like pleather in terms of hand feel, to the point to where it doesn't have that feeling of wet, fleshy silk when held loosely. At the same time there are entry-level brands like Schott who put out a naked cowhide leather that feels very substantial in that rubbery type of way that just feels like 'good quality' to hold.

I just feel like there are elements I'm not quite getting here in terms of gauging quality. 

I'm sure most don't want to hear it, but let's face it, if your leather is $400 it's not going to be as nice as $4000. Yes, there is a scale of diminishing returns as you price up, but that's part of the luxury equation.

 

[brad-t]

One of the things that struck me at the Saint Laurent boutique was that even though the jackets were not distressed in any way, the leather had "crinkling" in a lot of places that looked more like paper than like leather. I don't know that this is actually indicative of bad quality, but it looked cheap to me.

 

[wogbog]

I have the same problem I think Distorbiant. I can tell different leather jackets feel and look different but I couldn't say which feeling/look is indicative of better quality.

 

[RFX45]

It's hard to define. Some leather are meant to be sturdy and be able to take a beating like Schotts and others that are actually meant for riding while others like Ann D tends to be on the thinner and softer side to drape better but quality is still good, they don't use cheap ones Wilsons use.


Good quality leather jacket doesn't end with good leather used, build and construction also plays a part because whats the point of using the best leather available if the jacket falls apart?

 

[t3hg0suazn]

ok more seriously, I think it's all pretty subjective. quality of leather itself is probably mostly about thickness, grain, sheen but you can't just look at that on its own in any of these streetwear brands. the dye and extra treatments are a large part of the appeal, and that varies quite a bit based on intended aesthetic. I think the best gauge is really just to wear it and decide if you look/feel cool enough to not mind the price tag. I am also just making all this **** up.

 

[einstine]

Honestly, quality is simply personal preference.

 

[5354]

Well I can assure you that isn't true.

 

[Distorbiant]

I don't buy the "If you like it, it's good quality" argument. There has to be such a thing as objectively high quality leather. Otherwise the TOJ thread wouldn't have been masturbating to NZ lamb for so many years (and rightfully so).

I suppose artisanal fashion blurs the lines the most when the desired aesthetic of the leather takes precedence over pure quantifiable leather quality. I just can't help but feel that some of these designers are using finishes and processing as an excuse to use poor leather for their creations, simply because no one can tell what the true quality is--if that matters.

Here's a quote by Drew about a burberry leather:

I seriously bet that Burberry's own cost on that jacket is less than $50 (5 thin hides, some processing, a few zippers they order gazillions of, and some lining they also order a gazillion yards of, all made by children), maybe even quite lower depending on where it's made.

Perhaps one of our local designers like @Zamb can shed some light on this. His leathers have a reputation for quality by SFers who own them.

 

[LaymanX]

http://putthison.com/post/25094786416/how-to-examine-quality-in-leather-goods-part-i-i

I think the takeaway from this is that you want full grain leather as opposed to corrected grain, and you want unblemished hides without defects.

 

[Distorbiant]

@LaymanX with all due respect, most people here know what full grain leather is. This discussion of quality is framed within the context of leather used in mid to high-end leather jackets.

 

[futuresailors]

It's hard to define. Some leather are meant to be sturdy and be able to take a beating like Schotts and others that are actually meant for riding while others like Ann D tends to be on the thinner and softer side to drape better but quality is still good, they don't use cheap ones Wilsons use.


Good quality leather jacket doesn't end with good leather used, build and construction also plays a part because whats the point of using the best leather available if the jacket falls apart?

I'd say it's more along these lines. In general, the evenness of the grain and size of the hides are factors, but the purpose of the jacket has a lot to do with what qualities of the leather will be considered quality. If you're getting a leather jacket for durability, the thickness and stiffness of the leather as well as the seam construction (open vs closed, single vs double stitched, etc) would probably be at the top of the list for what makes a quality jacket. When you get into the aesthetic side of things, the physical quality of the leather used can vary to suit the garment's structural needs, because at this point, leather is just a material, and there aren't huge debates about how the thickness of cotton determines a cotton jacket's quality.

For example:

The leather on this is literally paper-thin, like a 40 lb stock, and it's treated to be kind of waxy. But it's designed to emulate a nylon anorak, which would normally made of a fairly thin material, which is itself usually somewhat slick with a sheen. So, even though the leather itself isn't thick or tough, I'd still give it the "quality" stamp of approval. It's well constructed and finished (the stitches are straight and even, etc) and the leather's physical qualities were consciously chosen to support the jacket's aesthetic.

 

[LaymanX]

@LaymanX with all due respect, most people here know what full grain leather is. This discussion of quality is framed within the context of leather used in mid to high-end leather jackets.

Ah.. roger. I think once you get past the basic requirement of full grain unblemished leather, it becomes subjective no?

Some people would consider the buttery soft lambskin from ToJ or SLP to be the epitome of quality while others would prefer a hard wearing horse hide. Both could potentially be considered high end leather but share very little in thickness, stiffness, hand feel characteristics.

edit: Futuresailors said it way better than me. lol

 

[Distorbiant]

@futuresailors Good point. It's amusing how we fashion hobbyists get very specific about leather but not so much with other fabrics. God forbid we enter a cotton-quality arms race. When you treat leather just like another fabric, the desired standards become far less prioritized.

@LaymanX What if full grain leather isn't necessary? What if split grain can achieve the visual effect in a jacket like the one futuresailors posted? Which brings us back to drew's claim that the Burberry leather, something that costs thousands, only costs them $50 to produce. Can we really say that, if a leather jacket is only costing a brand $50-$100 to produce and selling for $2k-$3k, that it's "good" quality, even if it achieves the intended aesthetic?

Then again, this might go back to the whole cotton/fabric point again. I just can't help but feel there should be some sort of preexisting value to the leather itself.

 

[stevent]

Regarding leather quality vs cotton etc I'm pretty sure a good amount of people care about all fabrics. Good portion of MC stuff would say which mill the fabric is from or what cotton it's made from. Or selvedge denim you get details on fabric as well. Most MC footwear also has very clear sources for leather and other components. Baller sw&d footwear as well. There is also which part of the cow section is used which could cause great differences in final product (like the meermins using same museum leather as john lobb but using lots of sections that john lobb discarded thus resulting in poor creasing in areas that normally shouldn't be creased)

Leather jackets might be harder to gauge unless you see it in person. And as future sailors and others have mentioned it also depends on how the jacket is intended to be designed / used. The 5 zip I just got has nice thicker leather but it's not amazing. Smells slightly chemically, and leather at stitch points on front zips is already quite wrinkled. But it feels perfect for the jacket weight wise and drapes as it's intended. And given drew only has 5 zips I put it in my head that it's probably nicer than it actually is. I have a N. Hollywood bomber that has thinner calf but is a much nicer leather than the MMM in both feel and wear. I haven't worn it enough though as it's been too hot so no idea how it will age. Sold my TOJ bomber since i preferred a more matte leather and calf over lamb for a bomber. All quality pieces but very different leathers. Also factor in pricing, TOJ is a steal at retail price, MMM definitely not. And N. Hollywood was priced quite high though in line with other Japanese brands

 

[SirGrotius]



@futuresailors
 What if full grain leather isn't necessary? What if split grain can achieve the visual effect in a jacket like the one futuresailors posted? Which brings us back to drew's claim that the Burberry leather, something that costs thousands, only costs them $50 to produce. Can we really say that, if a leather jacket is only costing a brand $50-$100 to produce and selling for $2k-$3k, that it's "good" quality, even if it achieves the intended aesthetic?

Curious about this claim about the Burberry leather; I missed that. Is this referencing the Brit line or any Burberry leather, because I've noticed quite a difference between Prorsum and Brit, but the latter is not $2K (rather $800). On a similar note, what does $50 to produce mean...the whole jacket, just the leather itself, etc.