Leather Quality and Properties

[patrickBOOTH]



Fred G. Unn, another option is to just spread wax polish on cordovan. It kind of kills the point of all those waxes and tallows added in tanning, but it should protect the horse's ass from water. It's up to you if wax is fine and dandy or just anathema. For what it's worth, Styleforum's macarthur (of the Mac Method fame) uses wax for that mirror shine of his.

My experience tells me wax polish makes it worse, the moisture literally gets caught between the wax and shelll. people who just brush and do minimal care tend to be the ones who don't have the welting and sporting issues.

 

[tifosi]

My experience tells me wax polish makes it worse, the moisture literally gets caught between the wax and shelll. people who just brush and do minimal care tend to be the ones who don't have the welting and sporting issues.

+1. None of my shells have ever spotted (permanently) or developed welts. I don't do anything to them except brush.

 

[traverscao]



Fred G. Unn, another option is to just spread wax polish on cordovan. It kind of kills the point of all those waxes and tallows added in tanning, but it should protect the horse's ass from water. It's up to you if wax is fine and dandy or just anathema. For what it's worth, Styleforum's macarthur (of the Mac Method fame) uses wax for that mirror shine of his.

Mc's shoes are all coated with acrylic.

 

[bespoken pa]

The bison/buffalo boots look like a work of art. Wow

 

[Munky]

I would say that they are work of art.Not just looking like it.

 

[traverscao]

I'd pay any money possible to get my hands to touch them, and would pay more to actually be able to walk in them.

@DWFII , what kind of finish are those Bison hides? Are they smooth as calf is, or rough texture?

 

[archetypal_yuppie]



I'd pay any money possible to get my hands to touch them, and would pay more to actually be able to walk in them. 

You're really good at negotiating.

 

[traverscao]

You're really good at negotiating.

I doubt that.

 

[HORNS]

Aha! I feel satisfied with this explanation - it's hard to argue against this histological proof:

https://lordpoint.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/shell-cordovan/

Hardly proof. With regard to shell cordovan and this article in particular, .I am not an historian but my good friend D.A. Saguto at Colonial Williamsburg is one of the foremost shoe historians in the world and a protege' of Ms. June Swann--perhaps the foremost shoe historian in the world.

When I read the article linked above, it didn't square with what I thought I knew about Cordoba and cordovan. I felt it was a bit speculative if not apocryphal and so passed it on to him.

Here is his response:

The Medieval cordovan was goatskin—not horse. In Cordoba, we suspect they developed a combination tannage (veg-tan and alum-tawing) that resulted is super nice leather, whence “Cordwainer”=worker in Cordovan, etc. Through the 17thc “Spanish leather” was snow white goatskin, again not horse. First mentions of equine leather I’ve read is 18thc, asshide in Garsault. In England (and colonial Am.) it was illegal to kill horses until post-1780—they needed them for transport. Of course the French ate horse, so they had more access to skins.

Best guess, horse shell Cordovan is early 1800s in origin, but I cannot say for sure. The first splitting machines were around 1820-30, and I’m pretty sure you have to split horse shells to level the thickness. I don’t recall seeing it advertised for boots and shoes until late 1800s.​

He suggested he would run it by other experts...such as June Swann...and get back to me.

DW, the article I linked talks about the use of leathers in general in Cordoba and their excellence - it does not say that the Cordoba leathers were just horse - so I'm confused as to what part did not sit well with you. Of course horses were of such value alive than dead, but what to do with a skin when one does die? Is your issue with the article just with the later advent of the splitting machine? If so, is it because prior technologies and skills weren't available to scrape the surrounding tissue from the shell layer?

As for the histological "proof", I can't imagine a more powerful observation of the tissue that makes up the shell layer than by looking at it under a microscope.

 

[traverscao]

DW, the article I linked talks about the use of leathers in general in Cordoba and their excellence - it does not say that the Cordoba leathers were just horse - so I'm confused as to what part did not sit well with you. Of course horses were of such value alive than dead, but what to do with a skin when one does die? Is your issue with the article just with the later advent of the splitting machine? If so, is it because prior technologies and skills weren't available to scrape the surrounding tissue from the shell layer?

As for the histological "proof", I can't imagine a more powerful observation of the tissue that makes up the shell layer than by looking at it under a microscope.

I would imagine, with the value of cavalry at the time being, the number of horses died of natural causes would be less than too little for skins.

 

[DWFII]

Well, again I'm not an historian but I have discussed this with Master Saguto and I helped write the history of Cordoba and cordovan that appears on the HCC website--follow the link to "What is a Cordwainer".

The thing that struck me as a bit apocryphal about the article was the notion that the original cordouan--the leather produced in Cordoba--was horse at all. Saguto and everything I have read or know about it suggests that it was always goat. Never horse and that horse tanning to any extent didn't come about until later. At least not in any quantity such that it would become renown enough to enter into the Traditions and become the precursor of the word "cordwainer" or "cordonnier" -- shoemaker.

Parenthetically your notion of what to do with the hides makes perfect sense until you realize the skin/hides of older animals have far less value as leather than those of younger animals.

And yes, the splitter...and the apparent need for a splitter to produce shell cordovan...makes a difference and underscores the unlikelihood of shell cordovan being the original cordovan from Cordoba Spain.

As for whether it is fascia or membrane or both...I dunno. I was always taught it was a membrane and not the skin of the animal. And so not technically true leather. But I've never looked at it under a microscope.

And to paraphrase..."I'm a shoemaker, Jim, not a veterinarian."

edited for punctuation and clarity

 

[traverscao]

Well, again I'm not an historian but I have discussed this with Master Saguto and I helped write the history of Cordoba and cordovan that appears on the HCC website--follow the link to "What is a Cordwainer".

The thing that struck me as a bit apocryphal about the article was the notion that the original cordovan--the leather produced in Cordoba--was horse at all. Saguto and everything I have read or know about it suggests that it was always goat. Never horse and that horse tanning to any extent didn't come about until later. At least not in any quantity such that it would become renown enough to enter into the Traditions and become the precursor of the word for shoemaker.

Parenthetically your notion of what to do with the hides makes perfect sense until you realize the skin/hides of older animals have far less value as leather than those of younger animals.

And yes, the splitter...and the apparent need for a splitter to produce shell cordovan...makes a difference and underscores the unlikelihood of shell cordovan being the original cordovan from Cordoba Spain.

As for whether it is fascia or membrane of both...I dunno. I was always taught it was a membrane and not the skin of the animal. And so not technically true leather. But I've never looked at it under a microscope.

And to paraphrase..."I'm a shoemaker, Jim, not a veterinarian."

It's primarily a membrane...

If we're talking about the 17th - early 20th century, shell cordovan would have likely not exist at all. We know, at the time, horses were so valuable and expensive, I heard from history class that killing horses would face serious criminal charges, and one could end up being locked away for a very long time, let alone having enough time to tan the hide, or the shell, for that matter.

We have to combine many factors here, economical and historical facts. Economically, it's easier and less troublesome to veg tanned some calf and make them reversed waxed calf. Historically, cavalry was still one of the prime military force, and horses of good quality MUST be summoned to the cavalries, or else being reserved for upper class noblemen. There's no way horses would be slain for hides and food that easily. The only instance I know was when the French were so heavily besieged, they HAD to kill horses for food, temporarily.

I hope you agree, DW.

 

[HORNS]

Since it's integral to the hide, hence the need to use a splitter in the first place to isolate the shell, I was always skeptical about it being either fascia or muscle because such tissue as fascia and muscle are so different from skin that you can easily delineate/tease them apart from adjacent tissue. From what I've seen, a splitter is not unlike a planer in woodworking - grinding off layers at a fixed thickness.

 

[DWFII]



From what I've seen, a splitter is not unlike a planer in woodworking - grinding off layers at a fixed thickness.

Except "grinding off" would damage the tissue...whatever it's called...from heat alone.

Leather splitters are invariably knives of some sort--sometimes continuous, sometimes just a stout blade between two rollers.

 

[HORNS]

From what I've seen, a splitter is not unlike a planer in woodworking - grinding off layers at a fixed thickness.

Except "grinding off" would damage the tissue...whatever it's called...from heat alone.

Leather splitters are invariably knives of some sort--sometimes continuous, sometimes just a stout blade between two rollers.

Interesting. I thought I saw a photo that had blades that twisted along a cylinder. Of course those are blades and not a "grit", so my use of the word "grinding" might not be accurate.