Aniline Dyed A-2

[gramballard]

Diamond Dave and John Chapman experimented with a Horween horsehide a couple of years ago which was combination tanned: the peanut coloured one which was hand tinted to be either Russet or Seal in the finished jacket. I have a Bronco made by Dave in this material and it is largely impervious to water. The tint has worn in areas but it doesn't exhibit the drenching problem which some vegetable tanned, aniline dyed leathers seem prone to.

 

[stanier]

Maybe im the only one but I’m getting ever more confused as this thread progresses.

At this precise time I only have one A-2, an Eastman Star. In the recent past I’ve had a GW Dubow, a BK Aero / Arco as well as the Star, and I’ve had various in the past. I don’t recall any, and certainly not the current Star struggling with any rain, let alone a shower, and ending up with water induced freckles which is the impression I’m getting.

What is the symptom? Can we have pics please?

What’s the answer? And what’s the question again...?

 

[dmar836]

I'd like to see this too. I know oil-pull will sort of soak up the water rather than bead it but I have never noticed stains. Maybe not the best example.
I think we do want the paradox.

 

[stanier]

Now I’m even more confused. Reading the full article

http://www.carryology.com/insights/chrome-vs-vegetable-tanned-leather/

According to this 90% of the worlds leather produced today is chrome tanned, and it has a softer drape than vegetable tanned, and it is possible to tell the two apart by looking at the fibres / grain. So why are A-2’s reproduced made from vegetable if originally they were only made from chrome tanned? And my ELC has been soaked on several occasions and no stains I’m aware of.

 

[33-1729]

It's interesting that the original A-2 specification called for chrome tanned leather yet almost all high-end reproduction jackets are made of veg-tanned and aniline dyed hides. I think the issue has always been the starting point of the repro manufacturers trying to capture the spirit of products which are now relatively old with eventual wear and patina.

If we were to travel back in time and see rack after rack of box fresh A-2 jackets, chrome-tanned and pigment finished we might all be alarmed at how different they are in character to our idealised vision of what a great A-2 'should' be. They would have the characterless appearance of what we might deride as Mall Jackets yet that's in all probability exactly how they looked when new. It seems we as consumers want something which is in many ways a paradox: brand new but with character, luxurious in terms of material yet utilitarian.

A military leather jacket should be capable of withstanding a shower of rain. My sister works with tanneries all over the world as an accessories designer. She was extremely puzzled when I showed her a newly purchased A-2 made in a beautiful veg-tanned Shinki horsehide saying that it was a great material for furniture but precisely the wrong kind of leather for a jacket.

The original A-2 specification, 94-3040, signed May 9, 1931, didn't reference "chrome tanned leather" at all.

More information is at http://www.vintageleatherjackets.org/threads/spec-94-3040-jackets-flying-type-a-2.20139/

 

[gramballard]

From John Chapman, writing on the FL forum a couple of years back:

"All the documentation I have ever seen from government leather for garments has demanded that the leather be chrome tanned. It's fast, it's good with water, and the demand was that the leather be as pre-shrunk as possible, so that it would not shrink any farther with use and the weather."

 

[2BM2K]

The original A-2 specification, 94-3040, signed May 9, 1931, didn't reference "chrome tanned leather" at all.

Part of this spec is the drawing 30-1415 Flying Jacket Type A2. Which has not yet been found.
I suspect that this drawing will cross reference the leather spec. 9-77 (12015-B).

 

[Ole]

There is no doubt that tanning was chrome. Veg tan costs more and takes longer to produce. Plus seems chrome is more durable.

The question is whether the spec said aniline finish. My vote is against that as aniline cannot make solid color and they wanted solid color.

 

[Miles]

Chrome tanneries disappeared in the late 80s when environmental regulation stepped in. I agree that a reproduction should be Chromium. This is why LW has such bulletproof jackets. Yet, Stuart claims his Chromium is different, not using polyurethane coatings. I really want a Tea Core Leather Jacket, but one that’s more of a Jean jacket that can get that quick break in vintage patina. But I don’t think it’s right for an A2 even though the Real McCoys Russet Brown is super lovely looking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr H]

Interesting paper on chrome tanning here: http://www.leathersmithe.com/tanning-methods-and-the.html
Regardless of how Stuart states his hides are tanned, the presence of chromium (and it’s persistence in the environment) is the issue. Even if hexavalent chromium (which is particularly toxic) is avoided, other chromium salts can undergo further chemical transformations to become more problematic (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/chrome-free-leather/amp/).

 

[Miles]

Interesting paper on chrome tanning here: http://www.leathersmithe.com/tanning-methods-and-the.html
Regardless of how Stuart states his hides are tanned, the presence of chromium (and it’s persistence in the environment) is the issue. Even if hexavalent chromium (which is particularly toxic) is avoided, other chromium salts can undergo further chemical transformations to become more problematic (https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/chrome-free-leather/amp/).

Im not going to debate that Chromium is harmful for the environment however it is a natural substance found even in the human body. Sometimes I think the environmental companies take it too far or find ways to profit off of bulls*t statistics and science. I do my best not to leave a footprint on our Mother Earth. But I still prefer a military production jacket be Chromium.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr H]

Please don’t raise the ‘natural substance’ angle the oxidation state of the chromium is the issue here. The chromium in the body is predominantly chromium 3+ and an essential trace element. Higher oxidation states (chromium 4+ and particularly chromium 6+) are toxic or carcinogenic. It’s not bullshit science it’s basic chemistry...
FWIW, as I’ve posted here before, aniline is also a known carcinogen so these processes are rarely entirely benign.

 

[Miles]

Please don’t raise the ‘natural substance’ angle the oxidation state of the chromium is the issue here. The chromium in the body is predominantly chromium 3+ and an essential trace element. Higher oxidation states (chromium 4+ and particularly chromium 6+) are toxic or carcinogenic. It’s not bullshit science it’s basic chemistry...
FWIW, as I’ve posted here before, aniline is also a known carcinogen so these processes are rarely entirely benign.

Prove to me Chromium 4+ is carcinogenic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ole]

Perhaps more than 90% of the world's tanneries tan with chrome. And they follow environmental regulations.

Horsehide is scarce and niche marcket that's why tanneries who do it offer it in veg tan.

Veg tan is supposed to be natural. That's the advantage. So combination tan cannot be regarded as natural.

More on aniline here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniline

 

[Dr H]

Prove to me Chromium 4+ is carcinogenic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chromium(VI) is carcinogenic, evidence for the harm caused by chromium(IV) is split: one paper on inhalation shows no apparent harm to rats; another shows chronic symptoms on an unfortunate woman who ingested a pharmaceutical based on chromium(IV). On this evidence, at best, treat as harmful.

 

[Miles]

Chromium(VI) is carcinogenic, evidence for the harm caused by chromium(IV) is split: one paper on inhalation shows no apparent harm to rats; another shows chronic symptoms on an unfortunate woman who ingested a pharmaceutical based on chromium(IV). On this evidence, at best, treat as harmful.

So wait, a big Pharma company stepped in using Chromium in a pill? That makes a lot of sense. Often times Big Pharma is the result of tragic incurable symptoms such as Cancer and ALS. I think you should step back and reconsider what you are told to believe. Often times this includes turning off your TV. There is no direct evidence Chromium has a direct link to cancer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr H]

No...that’s not what I said. The individual ingested chromium picolinate (used as an ‘alternative remedy’). There is PLENTY of evidence for chromium(VI) and cancer. I’m out - I have rugby to watch (on my TV) and my own science to write up. Bye.

 

[Miles]

Triggered much?... “An individual”... hmmmm sounds like the Blue Man and colloidal silver. Which I have taken daily for 20 years and I’m still the same flesh tone. Sheesh... you say one thing that contradicts popular belief and people loose their minds... it doesn’t take a science book to know that 911 was an inside job. There I said it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr H]

Sorry...can’t find a yawning emoji on this site.

 

[Miles]

Exactly because we all know Chromium is better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk