This sort of thing makes me furious...

[Atterbury Dodd]

All material is limited because we only use real original items which are difficult to get.

It seems this watch strap company enjoys cutting up WWII military leather gear, including an occasional m1916 holster possibly worth over $50.00 to make their watch straps.

http://www.mwrforum.net/forums/showthread.php?p=134494

Never did understand why people couldn't just make their own history without defacing truly interesting and historic items. What do you think? I don't get it. The jacket or holster means more to me in one piece.

 

[Alex]

I totally agree.

 

[HepKitty]

Not that my opinion really matters but that's a really stupid thing to do

 

[Derek WC]

That's what's wrong with people. It seems as if nobody (With the exception of the Loungers) gives a rip of the historical value of things!

 

[J.J. Gittes]

I don't even know what to say.... that is insane. All for watch straps?!

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Doesn't it just make you sick? It's like people who gut old radios and televisions for fish tanks and cabinets. Also, there's a site that gives instruction on how to turn old rotary dial phones into clocks and planters. This stinkin' world.

 

[Spitfire]

What a totally odd thing to do!

 

[Edward]

In this vein, I have also seen a website that had original Parker 51 fountain pens that had been cut up and converted into ballpoints. It does seem a dreadful waste. That said, I suppose I wouldn't have an especial problem with it if the jackets the leather was from were otherwise gone to the point of being unrestorable.

 

[Spitfire]

You are right Edward, if we talk about using material, that's no longer in use as it should be used. Or could be used.
But the whole concept seems stupid. "Hey I've got this cheap watch, but the strap is made of a british revolver holster....like wow!"

 

[Shangas]

I best not say too much here or I'm liable to be violently sick. But I've seen countless examples of this and it makes me nauseaus every time.

 

[Talbot]

Strange. Not like they have stopped making leather.

I'm calling bullfish on this one.

 

[scottyrocks]

Strange. Not like they have stopped making leather.

I'm calling bullfish on this one.

No, people do this. There was a thread here a while back that involved vintage clothes being, um, 'modified' into some sort of 'cutting edge fashion' piece (my quotes). The whole concept is nauseating. Vintage is history and should be valued for what it is.

 

[Dudleydoright]

I hear what people are saying BUT, we are not talking about an item in this instance that is incredibly rare or something we would all want to own is it ? They made millions of them !

Is it better that a few holsters are cut up to make watchstraps people want or that they sit in a crate going mouldy or get dumped because everyone who complains about this 'vandalism' doesn't want to part with $50 to keep one 'safe' ?

I've seen worse, lots worse ...... people defacing Coastal Command Irvins by removing the hood and adding some crappy modern collar, zippers being removed from garments to be re-used in other ones. Flight jackets having their original owner added badges removed or original jackets having modern repro badges added. I mean, should people stop using new old stock bootlaces in their boots because eventually the laces will break and be thrown away, just because they are a vintage item ? Should everyone stop wearing their vintage clothing because it is just speeding up the time 'til it decays and is gone ? Nah. It is a question of degree rather than a blanket principle for everything vintage IMVHO.

I don't think the holster thing is quite worth buying a return ticket on the outrage bus for just yet ;-) But then , apparently, I court controversy

Dave

 

[martinsantos]

Make me sick, too. And saw a lot of similar procedures.

From radio cabinets converted in shelves for bottles, the radio itself throwed away (I rescued a GE 7 tube this way). To a fine spring camera by Voigtlander turned on a "decorative piece" - painted in white. Old 78s records turned like a cup to get flowers.

Maybe I'm just sentimental, but I think we can't destroy something that survived 70, 80 years. Each thing has its own story much longer than ours.

 

[Dudleydoright]

So we must, by your account, keep EVERYTHING that is over 70 or 80 years old then ? But in order for future generations to have things that are 70 or 80 years old we must therefore preserve everything today so that it can become 70 or 80 years old

Is this just for things you personally value or are we talking buildings too ? Trees ? Where does it stop ? I'm not unsentimental myself (hard to believe I know;-) ) but who decides what and why ?

The OP was about some holsters. I've said above that given numbers made, desirability and scale of the 'crime', holster ain't such a big deal. We can't save everything. We need to make sure we save the rare things over the common or we'll lose some of the rare saving the common.......... How many of the folk on here bitching the holster desicration actually would pay the $50 to own one ?

I'm not trying to be a troll, just have an alternate view / Devil's Advocate debate on a very relevant topic. I get tired of someone posting something and everyone agreeing like sheep without demonstrating why and seeing all dissenting views jumped on.


There's certainly a lot more things we should all be getting furious about out there .......... if this were all that made someone furious then they really don't know just how lucky they are !
Dave

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Yeah...I agree with the sheep. It is a shame...and totally unnecessary.
HD

 

[martinsantos]

Dave,

If everybody would agree about everything, this world would be extremely boring! I personally enjoy a lot talking and discussing - specially between friends and tons of coffee.

I just assevered that we can't destroy an object just because it is old. Why we could destroy something that could represent a moment of history and so on?

We can get easily tons of old photographs from 10s or 20s. Nobody knows who are there, probably everybody died. Just images. Would you put them on fire? They show a moment and, sincerely, I always see photos as something with kind of a magic - a very short moment "iced" in silver. I wouldn't burn them. I don't think I have the right to do that.

Day-by-day objects tell a lot about their era. An extremelly intersting museum here in São Paulo tries to show the life of italian immigrants in the turn of the century by their daily objects.

Let's take first one of your examples: buildings. For some the deco buildings are kitsch, ugly (I love hem). Moment to throw them away? I wouldn't. They represent materially a whole school of architeture, with its own prize. I really deplore that so many fine examples were destructed in my city to construct those buildings of glass (by the way, an engineer friend told me that these new buildings are constructed thinking about the demolition day).

Personally I try to save everything that interests me. I can't save the world - but a few things I can!

Just my 2 cents about...

So we must, by your account, keep EVERYTHING that is over 70 or 80 years old then ? But in order for future generations to have things that are 70 or 80 years old we must therefore preserve everything today so that it can become 70 or 80 years old

Is this just for things you personally value or are we talking buildings too ? Trees ? Where does it stop ? I'm not unsentimental myself (hard to believe I know;-) ) but who decides what and why ?

The OP was about some holsters. I've said above that given numbers made, desirability and scale of the 'crime', holster ain't such a big deal. We can't save everything. We need to make sure we save the rare things over the common or we'll lose some of the rare saving the common.......... How many of the folk on here bitching the holster desicration actually would pay the $50 to own one ?

I'm not trying to be a troll, just have an alternate view / Devil's Advocate debate on a very relevant topic. I get tired of someone posting something and everyone agreeing like sheep without demonstrating why and seeing all dissenting views jumped on.

Dave

 

[scottyrocks]

So we must, by your account, keep EVERYTHING that is over 70 or 80 years old then ? But in order for future generations to have things that are 70 or 80 years old we must therefore preserve everything today so that it can become 70 or 80 years old

No, not really. But if something survives, even relatively intact, why destroy it? Besides, most stuff today barely survives 70 to 80 days, let alone years.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Geesh, crafting rears its ugly head again.

 

[ScionPI2005]

Doesn't it just make you sick? It's like people who gut old radios and televisions for fish tanks and cabinets. Also, there's a site that gives instruction on how to turn old rotary dial phones into clocks and planters. This stinkin' world.

On a similar note, I was trying to show a friend of mine vintage advertisements for a Zenith Cobramatic phonograph I have. We were looking on Google, and I ran across photos of a phonograph like the one I have that had been converted into a computer, with the with the turntable for the record turned into a DVD drive. I was shocked, and while I thought it looked intriguing, I immediately hoped they hadn't gutted a working radio and phonograph to create the computer. If a vintage appliance works, it should be preserved. If it doesn't, then parts can be salvaged and modifications done. Reminds me of the old Macintosh computers people have turned into fishtanks.