Original A-2 leathers comparison

[Anonymous]

I would like to discuss the differences of horsehide leathers between various original contracts.
How are the colors? the finish? the appearance? the feel? Are the leathers soft? supple? or are the stiff and hard?
Is the stiffness a result of them being dry? or not?

How do they compare?

I have seen a few originals but guess that others who have seen more and have more experience are in better positioned to talk.

Anyone?

 

[blackrat2]

I like you have only handled a handful of jackets.....the one i am currently in possession of (Knopf) is a nice grainy thick piece of leather that has aged really well.
I had a Perry depot re-dye in goat for a short while and in comparison that felt like half the weight of the HH Knopf.
I think generally the goat is supposed to age better, then you throw Spiewak into the bag and they seem to be very hit and miss.
Colour wise the Perry although a re-dye had almost gone back to its russett colour.
The Knopf colour wise very much like JC's jackets seems to change colour in any given light.....i will bow down to the more experienced on here of course.

 

[Anonymous]

thanks for your reply
yes thickness is important too

 

[Roughwear]

There is no simple answer to these questions. Original hh varied in thickness, grain and colour within contracts as well as across contracts from different makers. Poughkeepsie A2s are usually made of thinner hh, for example, whilst I own Sheeplined and Bronco A2s which significnatly thicker. Some are made from very supple leather, such as my near mint Perry, whilst others are stiffer even after conditioning. You might find this thread helpful in terms of colour.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11070

 

[grommet]

There is no simple answer to these questions. Original hh varied in thickness, grain and colour within contracts as well as across contracts from different makers. Poughkeepsie A2s are usually made of thinner hh, for example, whilst I own Sheeplined and Bronco A2s which significnatly thicker. Some are made from very supple leather, such as my near mint Perry, whilst others are stiffer even after conditioning. You might find this thread helpful in terms of colour.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11070

Thanks for the link. I somehow missed it when first posted.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Paul Sanders had an amazing collection at one time and I remember he had quit a few 27798s one time when I was at his place and they varied from light to very dark and the weight and grain also varied. That was a very large contract IIRC. No easy answer to this. Some of the early pre war jackets seamed to be a bit heavier in weight but even that isn't a sure bet. If you stay in the 2 3/4 - 3 oz range you should be close.

 

[dmar836]

Platon,
If this is research for hides I can give my opinion of old vs repro.
I am convinced now more than ever that the HH hides used in A-2 jackets appeared grainy and had character once they left the factory. Sure, they became broken in and form fitting BUT they were seldom a smooth finish that developed extensive grain only over time. It was explained to me that the tanning process isn't the same any more and that the fat content of leather is no longer what it used to be(call it modern productivity speed, growth hormones in feed, or most likely the chemicals or tanning process itself). There are original examples out there of relatively smooth finishes but the idea we see so much of taking a smooth repro and developing grain, whether by HWT or other time worn treatments, finishes, or even extensive wear, is often a lost cause. It helps with some jackets but often doesn't give the desired results. Start with a proper weight and grain of hide and the jacket will look nice - always.
JMO. Looking forward to seeing your creations,
Dave

 

[Anonymous]

yes this is a research for hides and I have no doubts that what you say about grainy when left the factory is correct