ID'ing horsehide, other leathers

[Bebop]

Maybe I am missing the big picture here, but if horse can't be distinguished from cow, and the cow may be thicker than the horse, why the interest in spending more $$ to get the horse? Is it because the original A-2s were primarily made of horse?

I always thought the HH was smoother grained with a nicer finish, sort of like the finish I remember seeing on police motorcycle jackets. Maybe that is just the result from the method used in tanning the leather?

I have enjoyed this thread, but I'm not sure I understand everything I once thought I understood.

I could not agree more with you. Am I to understand that one can not tell the difference between horeshide and cowhide on a new Aero? Why not buy a cowhide and save a few $?

 

[nightandthecity]

Horsehide is a better leather - stronger, longer lasting, and naturally waterproof. So it does make sense to spend the extra.

 

[cheaterome]

INTERESTING

O.K. her is a little tale.

Back in about 99 I restored two vehicles for a fellow who owned one of the last leather tanneries in Wisconsin for 35 years . He used to supply allen- edmonds with all their leather .

One vehicle was a 1932 alfa-Romeo 6c ground up resto
and the other was a 1927 Bugatti type 35 B.

Anyway... I had just finished painting an G-1 as well with flying tigers livery and the guy took one look at the leather felt the "hand" of it and said to me "nope that is scorched or printed cowhide".

I just kinda looked at him in amazement because this was a higher end MFR.[huh]

Anyway, now that I think of it this would be a firestorm so I'm gonna go now.

Jerome

 

[jacketquest]

...
Anyway... I had just finished painting an G-1 as well with flying tigers livery and the guy took one look at the leather felt the "hand" of it and said to me "nope that is scorched or printed cowhide".

I just kinda looked at him in amazement because this was a higher end MFR.[huh]
...

I take it this was represented as a goatskin G-1? Do you recall if the pebbling was very regular or more random?

 

[Alan Eardley]

Reputable sellers

No reputable seller, ie Eastman, Aero, RMNZ, Gibson & Barnes, US Authentic, US Wings, etc, would risk their reputation selling something that was not as represented.

In fact, a few years ago one of the top UK repro jacket manufacturers came to believe that one of the other manufacturers was passing off cowhide A2s as horsehide. The local Trading Standards Office was notified and sent an inspector to the factory. As far as I know no action resulted.

Alan

 

[Alan Eardley]

Properties of horsehide

Horsehide is a better leather - stronger, longer lasting, and naturally waterproof. So it does make sense to spend the extra.

I believe it would be safer to say something to the effect that, 'Horsehide is often believed to be...etc.' or, 'Sometimes held to be...etc'. If people want to pay extra for horsehide, that's what matters.

In the UK horsehide was rarely used for protective clothing before the recent fashion for US repros. In fact it was regarded as inferior to cowhide for hard wear outdoor clothing in the 1970s when I worked for Belstaff.

I have seen examples of cowhide rocker jackets from the 1950s, gamekeepers' boots from the 1930s, military items from WW1 etc. that have seen heavy use and lasted well. Most boots and shoes are made from cow leather.

Just my observations.

Alan

 

[Alan Eardley]

Back to the thread...

We were originally trying to explain the difference between horsehide and cowhide. What I don't understand is why people who feel strngly about this issue seem to fall into two camps - those who believe you can always tell the difference and those who belive there is no apparent difference.

Common sense would suggest that some examples of the two types of leather are easily distinguishable while others are not. Here's a Powerpoint presentation:

On the left of the graph we have the commonly-agreed properties that some people claim distinguish the appearance of cow leather. Natural grain, course hair follicles, a certain stiffness etc.. On the right are the properties of horse leather. I am suggesting that if you took a sample of leathers of both types they would obey the properties of a normal distribution. On average, the horse leather would be smoother, have finer follicles and be more supple etc. but there would be some grainier, rougher, stiffer horse samples in the left hand tail of the distribution. Likewise for the cow leather, with smoother, finer and suppler examples in the right hand tail.

The most extreme (dare I say 'best'?) examples could be identfied with certainty. Some of the average examples could cause confusion, having some properties of their type but not others (e.g. suppleness but not fine follicles) or not showing them quite as strongly. The 'area of interest' is where the two distributions overlap. There, the samples would have properties so similar as to make them indistiguishable. In other words, they could be cow or horse.

This fits my own personal experience. Sometimes I feel confident in an identification, sometimes I would prefer to not to reach an opinion.

BTW, in this example, I have deliberately placed the means far apart so that the overlap is small - there are few samples in the 'don't know' category. Some people would make this area much greater.

School's out!

Alan

 

[greyhound68]

Ouch my head is hurting

 

[Swoosed]

Who cares? is it the extra $100 you pay for the horse? Horse is supposed to be the more "historically accurate" representation of hide offered in the repro world. I have jackets in all hides, goat, steer, cow, horse, lamb, sheepskin. It doesn't matter. Get what you like. It doesn't matter, REALY!!!

 

[Peacoat]

The last two posts say it all.

 

[Bebop]

For those of you that really don't care if the horsehide you bought really is horsehide, I have a wonderful bridge to sell you. Caveat Emptor.

 

[nightandthecity]

In fact, a few years ago one of the top UK repro jacket manufacturers came to believe that one of the other manufacturers was passing off cowhide A2s as horsehide. The local Trading Standards Office was notified and sent an inspector to the factory. As far as I know no action resulted.

Alan

I wondered if anyone was going to mention the great bitch-off between A---- and E----- over the leather used on someone’s Roughwear copy! I count both K and G as friends, but at times (like a great many people) I’ve felt like knocking their heads together.

 

[nightandthecity]

I believe it would be safer to say something to the effect that, 'Horsehide is often believed to be...etc.' or, 'Sometimes held to be...etc'. If people want to pay extra for horsehide, that's what matters.

In the UK horsehide was rarely used for protective clothing before the recent fashion for US repros. In fact it was regarded as inferior to cowhide for hard wear outdoor clothing in the 1970s when I worked for Belstaff.

I have seen examples of cowhide rocker jackets from the 1950s, gamekeepers' boots from the 1930s, military items from WW1 etc. that have seen heavy use and lasted well. Most boots and shoes are made from cow leather.

Just my observations.

Alan

Of course, almost everything that anyone says about anything should really be prefixed with some sort of qualification (….maybe, possibly, probably, etc!). So I’d agree that not everyone agrees on this.

However, I believe that the US Army did a series of tests between the wars in which horsehide beat cowhide on most counts (and if I remember rightly goatskin won hands down). I’m pretty sure this is why horse was selected for the A-2...unfortunately I can’t find the source at the moment to check.

Of course, controlled long term tests have never been done and probably couldn’t be done, but my own experience based on the hundreds of leather jackets I’ve handled over the years is that horsehide does seem to wear better than cow. I‘m also inclined to think that cow is more susceptible to red-rot as well. And yes, my experience tallies with the US Army tests: goatskin seems to wear better than either.

Yes, in Britain horsehide was rarely used pre-Eastman/Aero. Nor did we favour heavy hides for leather jackets until the mid-1950s. Most of the 1930s-40s era British leather jackets I’ve had have been made from (by US standards) fairly lightweight leathers. Labels never say what leather, but my feeling is that they are often calf, kid or lamb.

 

[Feraud]

For those of you that really don't care if the horsehide you bought really is horsehide, I have a wonderful bridge to sell you. Caveat Emptor.

I do not think that is anyone's attitude at all.
You might have to keep that bridge for a while. I hope you did not pay too much for it.

 

[greyhound68]

I have also heard but not confirmed that the reason the Army went to horsehide is that in the early 1930s there was a phased out of horse calvery and the Army had an excess of horses and so.... that is why they went with horsehide for the A2. A good story don't know if it is true but being in the Army it would make sense to use those assets for something useful.

 

[nightandthecity]

Cost was certainly a factor...again, if I remember correctly, goatskin tested best and horse second best, but goat was rejected because of cost.

Of course, the Navy, as befits the senior service, went with the best!

Having said all that, goatskin was used on some A2 contracts. Indeed, according to the repro manufacturers so was cow.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I have also heard but not confirmed that the reason the Army went to horsehide is that in the early 1930s there was a phased out of horse calvery and the Army had an excess of horses and so.... that is why they went with horsehide for the A2. A good story don't know if it is true but being in the Army it would make sense to use those assets for something useful.

I also heard that a lot more horses were used on farms before many farmers could afford a tractor. So this was also a big source of hides.
Seems nowadays cows are much more readily available though. So maybe my "horsehide" jacket was not originally worn by a horse? I don't mind, I like it anyway.

 

[Chewing Wax]

I believe cowhide is just as tough as horsehide. I know cows probably can take a three strand barbed wire fence better then any horse I've known. With the way leather can be manipulated, I don't see how suppleness can come into play. I have one horsehide that's as soft as can be and another that is incredibly stiff. I have one goatskin that's still breaking in after 20 years, and another that came virtually broken in out of the box. It has to be a grain analysis right? There can't be any DNA left after the tanning process can there?

 

[Alan Eardley]

Animal skins are, as it often says on the label, a natural material and subject to variation. The characteristics of a hide will vary according to the age of the animal, the breed of horse or cow or goat and the way it is treated in preparation. There is thick, stiff horsehide and there is thin, supple cowhide. There is smooth goatskin and rough horsehide. The variety of preparation techniques (like splitting, plating and fatting) only adds to this variety. Maybe that's what is so interesting about leather as a material.

My advice to someone looking to lay down serious money on a jacket for the first time is to go for top grain leather (whatever the animal) and pay attention to the way the garment is put together. Most jackets fail with age because the stitching fails, not the leather. If having a 'Horsehide' label and greater 'authenticity' or a higher theoretical specification is important enough to someone for them to pay an extra $100-$200 or whatever for it, then they should. It's their money.

Alan

 

[Alan Eardley]

DNA

It has to be a grain analysis right? There can't be any DNA left after the tanning process can there?

Grain is usually reckoned to be a good indicator if you know what to look for, but it can be manipulated very effectively in the tanning and currying process.

A few years ago I persuaded a forensic scientist where I work to try to recover some DNA samples from a couple of original A-2 jackets. She failed to get a good enough sample to analyse. We suspect this was for two reasons. One, the old tanning process used animal enzymes (usually soaking in urine) which adds unwanted DNA to the leather. Secondly, because every one who handles the item leaves some DNA on it. She would almost certainly have less trouble with a new jacket as artificial enzymes (no DNA) are used now and it won't have been handled as much.

She has since told me that her lab now uses a new process called PCR that is more sensitive at isolating corrupted DNA and just may work. If I can get another set of samples (you need to cut up the jacket) I may ask her to try again.

Alan