Old buff robe, very thick, very fluffy???

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
Hartung	Old buff robe, very thick, very fluffy???	Lead	[-]
Posts: 593 (05/14/09 12:00 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None Hi, I had a discussion today were I was told that there are very old buff robes ( 100 years) in American museums that would be very thick (1/6"-1/5"), very fluffy (like buckskin) and that, when dropped to the ground would "fall like velvet". The reason for that discussion was the argument that in former days, tanners were able to braintan buff robes that were much ticker than today's robes (papery thin) and that the knowledge of how to properly braintan a thick buff robe to a buckskin like softness is lost. I would very much like to have your opinion about that matter as I don't have the possibility to see those robes in the museums. Any comments are welcome. Thanks a lot!
inwabo	Hmmm	#1	[-]
Posts: 456 (05/19/09 7:02 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hartung, I disagree with the statement. Buffalo hides are simply not of the same fine structure as deer. They are coarser fibered and will not be as fluffy as buckskin, at least side by side, new for new. Buff hides do age and soften with use, and maybe after 100 years they get a bit fluffier, but I doubt it would be comparable to buckskin. If it were so, then much clothing would have been made from buff hides, and we know that is not the case, excepting footwear. I think we have a few tanners today that are of comparable skill to the old tanners. Most that I know agree that buff are just differet from deer. They don't try to tan them thick, either! Patrick Patrick Metaphors be with you.
Hartung		#2	[-]
Posts: 604 (05/19/09 8:40 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Patrick, thanks for taking the time to answer. There are not many people around here lately. After all that I've been reading on the web, mainly on Matt's site, I'm of the same opinion as you. That is, the robes are scraped very thin and than brained/oiled. BUT, if a person that I had one the phone tells me that she has seen 1/5" thick buff robes in museums fall like velvet, what can I say? Nothing! I don't have the possibility to go and see those robes. That's the problem. For the same reason I can't argue against another of her arguments that is: older tanners new how to properly "tan" thick robes, newer tanners don't and that's why they scrap them so thin. I'm in a very uncomfortable position because I suppose that she is wrong but I can't prove it because I can't get my hand on such an old robe.
inwabo		#3	[-]
Posts: 457 (05/19/09 9:26 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hartung, PM sent. Patrick Metaphors be with you.
sandhillcowboy1		#4	[-]
Posts: 1245 (05/19/09 10:35 AM) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Good thread and good discussion. I have not been able to examine enough in museums to provide any kind of qualified opinion here. I did see one in a museum recently that was pretty thick and very soft like buckskin. I assumed it was a modern tanned one due to the fact they had it out for you to touch and feel. It was white and not smoked so I assumed it was brain tanned but couldn't verify that either. I will see if I can get more info on it. If it was braintan it was the thickest and softest I have seen. I agree with a lot of what Inwabo said in his post. Rick
inwabo		#5	[-]
Posts: 458 (05/19/09 2:47 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Rick, Without having seen it, it is hard to say for sure, but: It sounds more like an alum tawed hide, especially if it was out for touching. Braintanned ones that I have seen you can see the fiber structure quite distinctly, and the ones I have seen weren't white...but they were also smoked. With that said, I am also not an authority on the subject:-). Patrick Patrick Metaphors be with you.
Hartung		#6	[-]
Posts: 605 (05/19/09 11:20 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Rick, thanks a lot for your comment. I'd be very interested of course to know if it's some kind of native tan or other. If it's native tan, would it be possible to get into contact with the tanner? I'm afraid however that it's alum tan or similar. It's very risky to put any unsmoked brain tanned hide (white) out for people to touch. It would probably get dirty very fast form fingerprints….
sandhillcowboy1		#7	[-]
Posts: 1246 (05/20/09 4:53 AM) Administrator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	From the location of the museum I would guess the tanner may have been Larry Belitz if it was braintanned. I have his video on braintanning buff. I am sure they had a sign that said braintanned, but of course that could still mean an imitation braintan. I will check it out next time I am up that way and let you know what I find out. Maybe I can get some pics. Rick
YTBM		#8	[-]
Posts: 907 (05/20/09 6:30 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Yes, like Rick said, just because it was in a museum doesn't mean it was old. A lot of what is on display is new replicas, especially if people are allowed to handle it and drop it on the floor! Then of course there are the artifakes that are sold as being old originals. "The world needs both perfume-makers and tanners; happy is he who is born to be a perfume-maker, woe is he who is born to be a tanner."
Hartung		#9	[-]
Posts: 607 (05/20/09 7:29 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Rick, thanks for your intervention. I just googled for Larry Belitz and found the following quote on Matt's site, concerning Larrys video: "I wished it had […] explained why the hide doesn't need to be thinned (the answer, according to Larry, is that in the old days they only tanned robes out of smallish (6 ft X 6 ft), naturally thin hides, that didn't need to be thinned)." That statement implies that thicker hides (from older buffs) are thinned. Anyway, it would be more than interesting to know if Larry Belitz brain tans thicker robes such as 1/5" (green hide or tanned?) which in any way is very thick. And in any case much thicker than the "papery thin" hides recommended by Wes Houseler. Billy, that person works part time for another museum and apparently "takes care" of the leather artefacts of this museum. So I have to assume that she knows what she says when qualifying leather as old … although … o' man, I'm in a very uncomfortable position and I hate it …. But thanks for commenting. I'm pleased to see that you are still on paleoplanet. Haven't seen you for quite some time …

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Old buff robe, very thick, very fluffy???

Old buff robe, very thick, very fluffy???

Quick Reply