Leather

[HitMan009]

With all the different leathers out there, I was wondering what are the inherent properties of each and the postive/negative aspects. For example, cordovan leather properties are that there are no pores and the leather is relatively thick compared to say calfskin. Cordovan I understand is naturally waterproof and extremely good with wear. Can someone tell me the properties or deerskin, calfskin, lambskin, ostrich, alligator, etc. There are too many for me to name.

 

[alchimiste]

The main property of alligator is that it is for farmers (is ostrich for farmers too?).
Alligator and ostrich look quite different from calf, I guess that the #1 reason for buying them.

Mathieu

 

[RIDER]

You asked... actually, sorry...found a link that would be better for those that are interested; 140000 words... http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/LAP_LEO...._i.html

 

[Jill]

Is this question about leather, as it pertains to shoes/boots? Because the most desireable attributes of shoe leather wouldn't work too well on gloves, for instance, and vice-versa.

 

[bengal-stripe]

You asked... http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/LAP_LEO...._i.html

After looking at that text, I can appreciate the use of paragraphs.

 

[HitMan009]

Well, it seems if I ask for an inch, I get a feet. Quite difficult to read though....

 

[JLibourel]

I just printed out that gargantuan piece on leather in the link Ron gave. It seems like everything you could wish to know about leather and then some. My one concern is that it comes from the classic 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Is there a possibility that it just might be a bit dated? I should imagine that there has been some technological progress in tanning procedures, etc., in the past 94 years.

 

[RIDER]

I should imagine that there has been some technological progress in tanning procedures, etc., in the past 94 years

Well, companies like Johnston & Murphy and Cole Haan have revolutionized the industry by convincing customers that cardboard and plastic are better alternatives to leather, so I guess so...but the traditional methods are still in place at the better-end.

 

[kitonbrioni]

For shoes/boots:

alligator: very delicate--especially the large scales
lizard: delicate
anteater: delicate
kangaroo: very durable
elephant: extremely durable
ostrich: very durable
stingray: extremely durable
elk/deer/etc: durable

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I just printed out that gargantuan piece on leather in the link Ron gave. It seems like everything you could wish to know about leather and then some. My one concern is that it comes from the classic 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Is there a possibility that it just might be a bit dated? I should imagine that there has been some technological progress in tanning procedures, etc., in the past 94 years.

As anyone who has seen "Born Rich" can tell you, they dumbed down the EB to make more money from poor people. All the articles were better in the old days. At least in the opinion of Cody Franchetti, the Italian textile heir/clotheshorse/obnoxious snob.

 

[JLibourel]

A lot of people have felt the EB reached its apogee with the 11th (1911) edition--corresponding to the fortunes of the British Empire, perhaps? My second wife had a set of the 11th edition that she cherished. Of course, it went with her when we broke up--one of the very few things I regretted about seeing the last of that vicious devil.

 

[Teacher]

A lot of people have felt the EB reached its apogee with the 11th (1911) edition--corresponding to the fortunes of the British Empire, perhaps?

Perhaps, but that would be purely coincidental; by this time, Britannica was American owned and operated. Its full operation would be in America a short time thereafter. Sorry to hear about your second wife...her Britannica, I mean.

 

[JLibourel]

Thanks for the sympathy about the encyclopedia, Teacher. You haven't been in these fora too long, but you definitely impress me as one of the good guys. I don't recollect ever having consulted her 11th edition Britiannica in the relatively short time we were together, but it was a nice thing to have. I have no idea what ever happened to my second wife, BTW. I ran into her mother a couple of years after our divorce had become final, and her mother informed me she had vanished about the time our divorce was finalized. Her family had not heard from her since. Her mother seemed very insouciant about the whole business. The presumption was that her daughter was simply "doing a number," not that there was any suspicion of foul play. I could easily understand. She was such a great, powerful, vicious brute of a woman she was scarcely more likely to be stuffed in a car trunk and abducted by a fiend than, say, Stone Cold Steve Austin would be.

 

[Teacher]

Thank you very much for the compliment, JL. Are you serious about your ex-wife? I feel a little bad about making light of her absense...not, I can see, that there's any love lost between you.

 

[JLibourel]

No need for any apologies, my paedagogical friend. Yeah, I am totally serious about my second wife's disappearance. (Not that I ever wanted to see her again.

Her mother was so nonchalant about the matter it was evident that she was not worried about her daughter's fate--her daughter was evidently just being her charming self by having cut off all ties to her family. To clarify matters, the woman was 6' 1 1/2" tall and had a great strapping build. She had been an NCAA women's basketball star. She also had an extremely combative personality. Thus, she would have been a most unlikely candidate to have fallen victim to a sexual predator or anything of that sort. Anyway, I probably shouldn't overload a clothing forum with reminiscences of my sordid past.