Optimal Weight/Thickness

[navetsea]

I forgot to include the answer on my previous post(s)
my preference of thickness for something that is called "hide" is minimum 1.4mm, 1.6-1.8mm would be optimal
for something called "skin" is minimum 0.9mm

my arguments are:

1)the thicker the leather the blunter creasing marks on it, the thinner the sharper the creasing marks on it, sharp creasing mark would weaken the material and make it more prone to rip on the creasing, like how we rip a paper without tool, you fold it sharply, and tear it apart. beside blunt creasing marks looks much cooler on jacket sleeve.

2)wear spots like on elbows, the back of the collar, under side of the cuff, leather facing along the hem, would get a thin leather serious weak point, and need more attention in wearing while on thicker hide it would just create cool surface wear effect.

3)thicker leather is more maintenance free than thinner ones, since thicker leather can absorb more oil to remain pliable, while thinner leather will get dry faster and need more frequent conditioning.

4)thick leather retains it's own shape better, shoulder slope on thick jacket will stay in its shape even when the wearer don't have the mass to totally fill in, so it creates better/ stronger silhouette for weaklings like me, it also will flat out any unnecessary bulges you might have on your torso, so it can create a more ideal looking version of us, while thin pliable leather will accentuate your belly and moobs because it creases around them and even give it a glow too as an extra insult.

 

[ProteinNerd]

10lbs!?? Weak. I've been keeping it on the DL but my next jacket is 30oz 75lb blue whale hide. I pulled the beast out of the ocean myself. It's ok b/c I'm a marine biologist.
View attachment 110684

 

[zebedee]

I have found mid-weight goatskin to be the most generally useful thickness and it's very resilient even though it's lighter than steer or FQHH. I wouldn't necessarily want it in the winter, though, without heavy layering underneath. For colder weather, length is more important than thickness- I'd rather have a mid-weight Stockman than a full thickness cafe racer when it gets bitter.

 

[ton312]

Captain Ahab would be proud.

This is my next jacket:

Looking a little small

 

[Guppy]

My sense of weight is pretty distorted from the many very heavy jackets that I've grown accustomed to wearing. For me, I consider 4.0-5.0 oz to be "heavy" although just about everyone would call this "super heavy". 3-3.5 oz is "medium" to me. 2.5 oz feels like lightweight, and anything below that I probably wouldn't care to own.

It's not a quality thing, exactly, it's how it feels. I do think that generally speaking thicker is better -- not better quality, just better. It's stronger, tougher, wears better, drapes better, for MY preferences for MOST applications. I feel more secure wearing heavier jackets, particularly the ones that feel like armor.

But I don't need "armor" for every jacket. Thinner leather can be good quality stuff, it's just thinner, that's all.

Thickness is related to hardness and stiffness, but thick leather can be soft and flexible, particularly after it's been properly broken in. I actually have had a jacket that I felt was too stiff to be worth my time to break in -- a Branded cafe racer. It was as thick as anything I've ever handled, but just too darn stiff for me, and would have taken forever to break, so I moved it on.

I do think that heavier leather is harder to work with, so takes more skill to sew a heavier jacket to the same build quality as the same jacket pattern in a lighter weight pattern. That might be part of the perception of quality equation.

 

[JMax]

I forgot to include the answer on my previous post(s)
my preference of thickness for something that is called "hide" is minimum 1.4mm, 1.6-1.8mm would be optimal
for something called "skin" is minimum 0.9mm

my arguments are:

1)the thicker the leather the blunter creasing marks on it, the thinner the sharper the creasing marks on it, sharp creasing mark would weaken the material and make it more prone to rip on the creasing, like how we rip a paper without tool, you fold it sharply, and tear it apart. beside blunt creasing marks looks much cooler on jacket sleeve.

2)wear spots like on elbows, the back of the collar, under side of the cuff, leather facing along the hem, would get a thin leather serious weak point, and need more attention in wearing while on thicker hide it would just create cool surface wear effect.

3)thicker leather is more maintenance free than thinner ones, since thicker leather can absorb more oil to remain pliable, while thinner leather will get dry faster and need more frequent conditioning.

4)thick leather retains it's own shape better, shoulder slope on thick jacket will stay in its shape even when the wearer don't have the mass to totally fill in, so it creates better/ stronger silhouette for weaklings like me, it also will flat out any unnecessary bulges you might have on your torso, so it can create a more ideal looking version of us, while thin pliable leather will accentuate your belly and moobs because it creases around them and even give it a glow too as an extra insult.

Can’t have the moobs showing...heavy leather it must always be!!

Moobs...classic.

 

[Harris HTM]

Sorry, but I refuse to wear any jacket with thickness less than 3.5oz, with exception of horween cxl 3oz horsehide.
Any thing less than 5 lbs(Aero size 38-40) I wouldn't even call a LEATHER jacket.

Keep in mind that most of aero's designs are repros of jackets of the first half of the previous century which were produced in leathers lighter than the 3oz cxl! I tend to agree with you though, depending on fit.

 

[Seb Lucas]

I forgot to include the answer on my previous post(s)
my preference of thickness for something that is called "hide" is minimum 1.4mm, 1.6-1.8mm would be optimal
for something called "skin" is minimum 0.9mm

my arguments are:

1)the thicker the leather the blunter creasing marks on it, the thinner the sharper the creasing marks on it, sharp creasing mark would weaken the material and make it more prone to rip on the creasing, like how we rip a paper without tool, you fold it sharply, and tear it apart. beside blunt creasing marks looks much cooler on jacket sleeve.

2)wear spots like on elbows, the back of the collar, under side of the cuff, leather facing along the hem, would get a thin leather serious weak point, and need more attention in wearing while on thicker hide it would just create cool surface wear effect.

3)thicker leather is more maintenance free than thinner ones, since thicker leather can absorb more oil to remain pliable, while thinner leather will get dry faster and need more frequent conditioning.

4)thick leather retains it's own shape better, shoulder slope on thick jacket will stay in its shape even when the wearer don't have the mass to totally fill in, so it creates better/ stronger silhouette for weaklings like me, it also will flat out any unnecessary bulges you might have on your torso, so it can create a more ideal looking version of us, while thin pliable leather will accentuate your belly and moobs because it creases around them and even give it a glow too as an extra insult.

The above arguments seem like common sense but I think are incorrect on each count. As said earlier the proprieties of a hide matter more than the thickness. I have owned a couple of 3.5oz hides that tore and wore through in less than 10 years. I had 2.2 oz goat hide jacket for 20 years that never got any wear no matter how abused it was. As to the absorbing oil argument - no hide properly tanned needs any conditioning for about 25 years anyway. Poorly tanned hides deteriorate faster and that can happen to a thick hide too.

As pointed out earlier kangaroo is generally 2.2 oz thick and is the strongest, most resilient of leathers and won't tear or wear. Same pretty much for goat. These hides are abrasion and tear resistant because of their intrinsic tensile strength. And they rarely need conditioning. But ultimately if a hide is properly tanned and processed, even steer hide will not fold into a crease or tear through normal wear even if it only 2oz thick. My Brooks cafe racer is over 40 years old, it is very thin and has held up perfectly.

 

[navetsea]

I wonder do you wear your jacket in the sun alot, living in the tropics and practically wearing my jacket daily I don't buy the mantra no need conditioning before 25yrs, the back of my jacket shoulder seems pretty dry and eager to get conditioned every now and then. Sure perhaps I can leave it be and get more wear and patina, but I rather like well worn and maintained look, so I lightly condition mine every few months on my goat, and sheep, and at least once a year on my cow. I don't know properly tanned means for the end user like us, as long as the leather doesn't rot then it is properly tanned in my opinion, when a thick leather turns out weak then it must be a split leather instead of full or top grain.

goatskin is stretchy so of course it doesn't tear easy, sheepskin or shaved cow hide of the same thickness would tear under the same situation I guess.

 

[Milesdeathescape]

I’ve been reading all your comments in Bevis and Butthead voices... huhuh all leather rips. Whose got a bong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HoosierDaddy]

I wonder do you wear your jacket in the sun alot, living in the tropics and practically wearing my jacket daily I don't buy the mantra no need conditioning before 25yrs, the back of my jacket shoulder seems pretty dry and eager to get conditioned every now and then. Sure perhaps I can leave it be and get more wear and patina, but I rather like well worn and maintained look, so I lightly condition mine every few months on my goat, and sheep, and at least once a year on my cow. I don't know properly tanned means for the end user like us, as long as the leather doesn't rot then it is properly tanned in my opinion, when a thick leather turns out weak then it must be a split leather instead of full or top grain.

goatskin is stretchy so of course it doesn't tear easy, sheepskin or shaved cow hide of the same thickness would tear under the same situation I guess.

Thing is..Climate can have a lot to do with a jacket drying out and needing some conditioning sooner than normal. Some leathers have a dyed through or harder/crisper surface finish that may not take conditioner lotions well where some others will soak it up. Aeros CXL Horween tanning process includes fats and oils that are somewhat uniquely incorporated within the leather...so conditioner is most often not needed for years.

 

[red devil]

However, I do get a perverse joy from surprising people when I hand them my jacket and they realize it's about ten pounds heavier than they thought.

This can quite fun indeed lol

 

[red devil]

Tough enough?

That is probably the ugliest crocodile jacket I have ever seen, and I have seen some horrors!

Not sure how tough crocodile really is.

 

[dudewuttheheck]

Perhaps you are paying for better construction? Maybe better detailing? Perhaps a better quality leather (e.g., grain, correction, tanning)?

Would you pay more for a 3 oz leather jacket with palpably better construction and detailing, as compared to a 4 oz leather jacket with obviously lessor quality construction?

Let me try a (likely inapposite) analogy: Would you pay more money for a two carat D / FL / Excellent diamond, as compared to a five carat N / I1 / Fair diamond? The five carat diamond is more than twice the size, but . . .

I find it very funny that this post went completely ignored...

 

[Hh121]

That is probably the ugliest crocodile jacket I have ever seen, and I have seen some horrors!

Not sure how tough crocodile really is.

Sorry for putting that picture, it is kind of disgusting.....

 

[ton312]

I find it very funny that this post went completely ignored...

Perhaps because these things (better construction?,better detailing? Perhaps a better quality leather (e.g., grain, correction, tanning) are also subject to the same set of opinion based responses, with the exception of corrective grain which is in fact indicative of an inferior hide. Point being the original question was whether a heavier hide is seen as more valuable, the construction/detail argument raises the same question but changes the criteria. We've all debated those characteristics over and over again to the same outcome based on the makers we prefer. This weight question is a bit more maker agnostic as almost every single one offers a middle to light weight leather.

 

[red devil]

Perhaps because these things (better construction?,better detailing? Perhaps a better quality leather (e.g., grain, correction, tanning) are also subject to the same set of opinion based responses, with the exception of corrective grain which is in fact indicative of an inferior hide. Point being the original question was whether a heavier hide is seen as more valuable, the construction/detail argument raises the same question but changes the criteria. We've all debated those characteristics over and over again to the same outcome based on the makers we prefer. This weight question is a bit more maker agnostic as almost every single one offers a middle to light weight leather.

I would have to add that the diamond comparison does not work either

Edit: that was already described as not pertinent, my mistake

 

[red devil]

Sorry for putting that picture, it is kind of disgusting.....

No worries, it did fit the thread

 

[Monitor]

@ton312

Signed.

I wanted to say something but as I was typing a reply, I realized I would be repeating myself over and over again.

In short, what precisely is it that we consider better stitching & construction to be? Perfectly aligned stitches and decorative detailing - or - double stitch rows with one being hidden, like Vanson and Aero do? As far as I'm concerned, that's also the definition of better construction. Better as in, my jacket won't fall apart. That pretty stuff don't mean much to me.

So yeah, I'd always pay more for a heavier leather jacket with the most basic, but properly done stitching than a lighter one. Otherwise, you can have a jacket made out of a garbage bag that's quite nicely stitched. Like Buco did in Japan. XD

And besides, this thread is about leather thickness and since that's what leather jacket is comprised entirely of, that's what I care most about.

As for the diamond comparison... I don't think I've never even seen an actual diamond in my life. But I'd say that any diamond that's used in tools is infinitely superior to the one used in jewelry, which ever classification those might be.

As all jewelry is infinitely useless.

 

[OceanBreeze]

The first thing to keep in mind is this: High quality jackets may be made of thick, medium, or thin leather. Poor quality jackets are usually made out of very thin leather. So in some ways this is a case of the classic logic problem where a->b but that doesn't mean b->a

Poor quality jackets are nearly always made out of a thin, poor quality leather. I mean I'm sure there are bad quality jackets that are made of thick quality leather, but it's rare.

The other thing is that "thin" on a quality leather jacket usually means 2-2.5oz whereas poor quality jackets may be significantly less than that.

All things considered your original statement was correct that the more abuse you subject it it and the colder your climate, the heavier the leather you want. In LA 3oz leather is about perfect unless you ride.

All other things being equal, what is your optimal thickness/weight for a leather jacket? Why?