kiltie
Member
Re: steerhide revelations impact on viability of high end re
...human skin? AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!
I started reading this thread the day it opened and was a little confused at the original post. The argument for cow is not new to me, but is the Eastman book the only thing being cited in this thread, in terms of "new evidence". Sorry that I'm coming to the game a little late, but I can't see where the numbers are coming from.
I don't especially care the hide from which a jacket is made, beyond personal preference ( and certainly authenticity goes a LONG way in that personal preference, where many are concerned ), but out of a zillion jackets made during the war years, how many were DNA tested in recent years? Across how many makers and contracts? By what impetus ( hmmm... that, of all the jackets I've seen, THAT one looks like cow...) ?
Anecdotal evidence, like the folks working in the factories some years after the fact: they're making a variety of different pieces of gear from a variety of different critters. They were just like the "uninitiated" of today - they didn't know one jacket from another.
Also, would it be safe to assume that all pre-war jackets are made of horse? No duress, for the most part, there...
Again, I'm not terribly wrapped up in the whole thing. I certainly know about trends in culture and hobbies, and I've always found it plenty reasonable to believe that somebody was doing what they had to do for supplies ( hells - look at Aero today. No, on second thought, don't. What a mess for those poor folks...). But what is everybody looking at RIGHT NOW that's different?
I can't score an Eastman book right this particular second, but everything is being stated with a good deal of confidence. Is there another thread? The book thread alludes to some evidence... Somebody TELL MEEEEeeeeeeeeeee.........
Chandler said:Why has "leather" become synonymous with cow or steerhide? Leather is all-encompasing to any hide that is tanned for garment use -- goat, horse, deer, sheep. Let's not perpetuate an odd distinction with the word.
...human skin? AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!
I started reading this thread the day it opened and was a little confused at the original post. The argument for cow is not new to me, but is the Eastman book the only thing being cited in this thread, in terms of "new evidence". Sorry that I'm coming to the game a little late, but I can't see where the numbers are coming from.
I don't especially care the hide from which a jacket is made, beyond personal preference ( and certainly authenticity goes a LONG way in that personal preference, where many are concerned ), but out of a zillion jackets made during the war years, how many were DNA tested in recent years? Across how many makers and contracts? By what impetus ( hmmm... that, of all the jackets I've seen, THAT one looks like cow...) ?
Anecdotal evidence, like the folks working in the factories some years after the fact: they're making a variety of different pieces of gear from a variety of different critters. They were just like the "uninitiated" of today - they didn't know one jacket from another.
Also, would it be safe to assume that all pre-war jackets are made of horse? No duress, for the most part, there...
Again, I'm not terribly wrapped up in the whole thing. I certainly know about trends in culture and hobbies, and I've always found it plenty reasonable to believe that somebody was doing what they had to do for supplies ( hells - look at Aero today. No, on second thought, don't. What a mess for those poor folks...). But what is everybody looking at RIGHT NOW that's different?
I can't score an Eastman book right this particular second, but everything is being stated with a good deal of confidence. Is there another thread? The book thread alludes to some evidence... Somebody TELL MEEEEeeeeeeeeeee.........