Talk:Leather/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

leather art picture

the leather art picture doesnt belong;as it is innapropriate. Could we perhaps find a better one thats lesshow do I put this; obscene? ~~unknown~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.14.63 (talk)

Leather production in developing countries

According to a documentary by Upside Télévision, leather production in developing countries as Bangladesh is much less regulated as in the developing world. Here, chrome, formic acid, mercury and dangerous solvents (which are even banned for use by tanneries in the developed world), are being used in a uncontrolled and even downright careless manner. As a result, environmental damage occurs and the health of both local factory workers and even the end consumer is negatively affected. Besides local use, the leather is also bought by huge Western companies and sold in the developed world.[1]

mention in article

Snake and crocodile leather

this doesn't seem correct -- snake and crocodile leather? I have heard them called snake skin and crocodile skin but never leather. Is anyone out there more certain? --rmhermen

according to the definition, leather is cured animal hide, which means the croc and snake skin are technically leathers...mike dill
The skin in its raw state is called skin (or hide if it is of larger animals) and leather refers to the processed/cured skin/hide. In the case of snake/crocodile even the cured skin is referred to as skins not leathers. It is just the language usage, no special reason. Technically leather should also be correct. -- Ma Siva Kumar
It depends on how you cure them. "Leather" has a technical meaning, which I'm only beginning to learn, and tried to hint at in the entry. -- Metahacker 23:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Need for information on usage

I believe a complete list of usages would be in order, if anybody is up to it? Bayerischermann 23:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

leather grades

I've seen a number of different leather grades promoted. "Grade A/B" at one place, Grades I-V at another. What do these mean and how do the grades interact with fullgrain vs. top-grain?

Some Peta assholes got into this page and put their opinions in there.


re: I think grade A/B or I-V is just sort of article with usage surface of leather for sort I-80% II-60% III 40% surface usage to doing shoes ( in POLAND)

The grading of leathers is a highly contentious issue as each tannery uses its own convention. Leather buyers also have their own convention so you can see this is a recipe for disaster. Generally speaking though Grade A or Grade 1 are the top grades and this can go all the way down to Grade 7 or Grade E. The last grades are usually referred to as pieces or reject. Unfortunately there are no industry standards for this : ( Plugflower 22:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Need clarification on the Suede Definition

The suede definition here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suede seems very different from the summary given on this page. Would be nice if they matched closer XD


Well, they're not actually conflicting; that page is just a subset of information here. It should probably just redirect here. -- Metahacker 20:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The link you have given talks about the uses of suede mainly. I have edited the piece on suede to give a little more detail on where the different suedes come from. Plugflower 22:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tensile Strength

I've been looking far a wide across the net for info on the tensile strength (Breaking strength or breaking point, depending on which term you know better)of leather. I haven't been able to find anything about this matter, and really am wondering. I know that leather is made differently and that various it's strength but I can't even find the tensile strength for one kind of leather.

Having some info this would be great.

Tensile strength is an important characteristic of most leather especially in shoe uppers and furniture. Equally important is perhaps tear strength. All the big shoe and automotive companies have specifications for tensile strength and tear strength of leather and there are a number of methods for measuring it. The strength will vary greatly with the thickness, type of leather, animal, breed, tannage and finishing processes. Tensile strength is typically in the range 2500 – 3500 lbs/in2, As with many leather physical characteristics, while strength is sometimes important for the end use, it often features in a specification as a guide to overall quality and leather making practices. ref: http://www.leatherusa.org/TEST-Tensile.htm rasp8 03:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarian leather

AdBusters claims the shoes that they sell use vegetarian leather. [1] Does anyone know about this, and could we have something mentioned about it in the article? -- LGagnon 02:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Vegetarian leather" is often just a term for pleather (fake leather). It is sometimes marketed as "vegetarian leather" to make it more appealing to vegetarians, who do not wear genuine leather. Lycanthrope777 02:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There are many kinds of vegetarians. A person who eats vegetarian for health reasons would not necessarily object to wearing leather. (or fur, for that matter). Bob Emmett (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep leather/suede separate

I vote to keep leather and suede separate. The suede article could grow into quite a treatise on the subject, and all we need to do is provide a wikilink to leather to let people gain the full benefit. - Richardcavell 13:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, keep them seperate --SnakeSeries 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that as suede is a type of leather it should be here. There are non-leather suede copies but they are just that..copies if you separate these then the title of the separate article should be FAKE suedes and you can link back the genuine leather suede here. Plugflower 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical information

I would like some information on the history of leather. /Yvwv 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nubuck

Can we have the a description of the process to produce "Nubuck" and a history of this term? It is briefly defined in Wiktionary.

Vernon White 20:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC) The process is simple, when we have tan leather (with chrome or wegetable) we just buffing this leather in buffing machine 2 times in side to side, with grainy paper. The leather must be tanned with waterproof oils.

There's an article about Nubuck, and I was wondering if it should be linked from here, or if it should just be merged into this article. (Edit: this was me, forgot to sign in) AlexDitto 21:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Types of Leather

The article states that most leather used is from cows but I'm pretty sure that I've read before that pig leather is as common/more common with cheaper goods. --JD79 13:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


The pig leather production is most cheaper but pig leather have only one layer and the thickness is from 1.5 to 1.7mm The cow leathers have 5layers and the thickness is from 3.2 to 4.0 mm in process of chrome tanning. We can split and use all of 2 layers of cow leathers. So cow leathers is better for use inthe top of the shues and pig leathers is good for filler of the shues. Sorry for My english, I just learning..... Greetings, Specialist of finishing leathers

According the latest FAO statistics cattle hide leather still way outweighs the amount of pig leather around and will do so for a very long time to come Plugflower 22:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this vary greatly by country? Is this a world-wide statistic, or one specific to a certain region? Indium 13:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How to clarify the surface print of the leather?

Elephant leather?

Is leather ever made from elephants? I would imagine it would be very tough.


My uncle had a jacket made of Rhino leather. I know it's not the same as elephant leather, but this stuff was so thick and tough that the coat could stand upright without support.


Elephant leather is made in tanneries - mainly in Africa. The hides have to be tanned in an approved tannery and under strict licence - as all elephants are protected by CITES. It is an extremely durable and thick leather. The hide can be split up to 12 times!!!! But it makes very nice leather. Plugflower 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How to define a real leather

How can one define real leather from synthetic

The way I tell real leather from synthetic is by the smell; real leather has a very distinctive odour. BlueValour 17:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition to smell, they often feel different. Fake leather often has a "plasticy" feel and usually does not have the same texture as real leather. Also, real leather often has the smooth side and a softer side (which feels like suede", while fake leather usually has two smooth sides. Lycanthrope777 20:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the term "Genuine Leather" is almost meaningless. For example, bonded leather is often marked as genuine leather, as it genuinely is made from leather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.116.135 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

checking of leather

How can one tell whether leather is real or synthetic?

Generally, synthetic laether is made of plastic, and will not get "wet" when water is put on it. Be warned that this may damage actual leather. Another missing factor is the smell; synthetic leather smells like plastic; leather smells like leather. If folks keep asking, I suppose a section on this could be put in the main article... - Metahacker 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember a simple test on whether the leather is real or synthetic. You need to cut a little strip of the material and burn it. The smell of real leather/skin is very distinctive.Alexei123 05:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the main article mentions "Nappa leather". Interestingly, Audi and Volkswagen cars also use some other material they call "Vienna leather". Some furniture manufacturers also mention the use of "Vienna leather". I could not find reliable information on what is it, is it "real", synthetic, or something else? Alexei123 05:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the symbol of leather?(at a shoe for example?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.209.215 (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of Greenpeace/PETA -Like Rant

Umm? Does this section really fit in as a wikipedia quality article?

This section has no place in this article; it is clearly intended as an opinion piece, and appears to have been dropped in entirely to push a point of view. Additionally, it is not *about* leather. A well-sourced paragraph on concerns that animal rights' groups have regarding the use of animals for leather production would be acceptible; this is way off base. -- Metahacker 00:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the "neutrality dispute" header, as it appears that our "PETA-person" has made no attempt to repost his opinions. If you feel it is still necessary, please feel free to re-add it to the page.

Deleted External redirect

I deleted the redirect to the peta website and left the "comments" by the poster. Alot of the text was actually comming from an external web site and not wikipedia.

Oh, I'd put that link in there as a citation/example of the arguments used. Do you think it disrupts the article? -- Metahacker 22:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Leather direct to a disambiguation page?

Trying to find the gay Leather subculture, I came across this page. This page also mentions people named leather. Shouldn't the "go" search for "Leather" come up with a disambiguation page that gives you these 3 alternatives and lets you choose for yourself? C4bl3Fl4m3 16:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Leather chemical potential

There is a growing debate on the potential of leather chemicals used in leather processing. For this definite answer for the exact leather production in various countries is required to be compiled and a universal recipe for different types of leather produced needs to be standardised. A marginal deviation of 10% can be allowed in the recipe.


R Kumaresan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.110.85.248 (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

It is not the scope of Wikipedia to present a "how-to" selection of content, please refer to Wikibooks for such like content. Wikipedia is the presentation of facts on a given topic. As to the content of a universal recipe for leather that would be contained in Wikibooks. A universal recipe does not exist. Plugflower (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Source of leather

Something I always wondered, and would be a good piece of info for the article if a reference could be found: Does most leather come from cattle used for other purposes (e.g. food), or are certain cattle raised for their hides? I imagine it's some combination of both... if so, what is the distribution? --Varco 06:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All commercial cattle hide leather is a by-product of the meat industry. No cattle hide leather is obtained from animals for the strict purposes of its leather. The reason for this is that to raise a bovid to maturation would cost quite a lot(12-18 months of food). The only return would be the leather which does not sell for a lot (bovine leather is very common). A single cattle hide goes for about £400-800 (good quality). The meat would be wortha lot more. The food for that animal for 12-18 months would be a lot more than that. If the animal was free run, i.e. no food is bought for it then the hide will bear the scars of a free range animal and the amount you get for the skin would be be 2-5 times less than you get for the meat. Plugflower 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Surely the cost of a single cattle hide is typically lower than £400 - 800! Maybe £40 -80? User:Con21|rasp8 08:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)]

800 pounds is $1600. You can buy an entire cow for that at auction. A hide would only be worth that much after processing. You can buy a commercially processed and treated South American hide for $400 or less. That's about 150-200 pounds. Or about $600 for a quality one (300 pounds). This is including the store owner's cut. It's even less wholesale. perfectblue 13:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your Miles out, a cow hide today if you knew where to purchase would be somewhere more in the region of USD$80-100 depending on the type, thats bovine of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scm5mrjn (talk • contribs) 15:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Water-proof leather??

My wrist watch is water proof but has a leather strap. After I examined it.. The strap says water-proof leather. Could somebody give details of the same (man-made material or hide processed to make it water-proof??). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.167.62.67 (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Truly waterproof leather is very difficult, if not impossible but water resistant and water repellent leather is quite common. Water resistance can be by various means. Hydrophobic materials can be impregnated into the leather, or such materials can be applied to the surfaces only. Resistance varies with the methods used and the type of leather. Resistance to water penetration is best if chemicals/oils are penetrated through the thickness of the leather and durability is best if the chemicals react with the leather or its tanning materials. Surface sprays are useful additions to penetrated treatments but used on their own, they are generally less effective. As well as water resistance and repellency, common treatments often reduce the water absorption, making wet leather much lighter. This is sometimes the main benefit e.g. in sporting goods. Repeated wetting, soiling, cleaning and abrasion will cause water resistance to diminish.rasp8 03:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, I just used a waxing agent on mine. The water can't penetrate the surface so the leather is water resistant enough to be storm proof. It's very effective and only needs re coating every couple of years. - perfectblue 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

In countries with harmonious multi-religious environments, leather vendors choose to announce the leather used in their products

Is there a WP:RS for this? Isn't this a requirement of labeling laws in many places or included because certain types of leather are less valuable/resistant than others (for example, pig skin gloves being much cheaper than cow hide).

perfectblue 13:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edibility?

Is leather edible? theres lots of stories of starving people eating thier own boots, is it true and is there any nutritional value in leather? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OktoberSunset (talk • contribs) 17:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Raw hide and skin is edible and is eaten in many countries. The most common and obvious is bacon and crackling. Cattle hide is eaten in some West African countries. Leather itself is technically edible, but I would imagine it wouldn't taste very nice and coul be hazardous if certain chemicals are ingested. As to the practice of it. I think occasions have occurred where leather is eaten but it isn't commonplace.Plugflower (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Enzyme originators

I have deleted the addition "Vasudeo Zambare and his team have done ample of work on dehairing protease. Vasudeo Zambare is one of the inventor of this work and the team has filled patent application in Indian, German and United States Patent Offices." As this was seemingly added for personal gain (contravening Wiki's rules) and is not verifiable. If Mr Zambare can add the information in a neutral manner in accordance with Wikipedia's rules, I will stop deleting it.Plugflower (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Amount of leather vs amount of meat.

There's one thing that I've always wanted to know: do we discard a lot of animal hides that would make viable leather?

We kill a lot of animals for meat, and I'm wondering whether wearing more leather would be the most efficient, ecological option... Prof Wrong (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


I can't answer this but I've wrestled with a similar question. On the one hand, it's completely true that if we're killing cows anyway, it would be wasteful not to use the leather (in the spirit of using every part of the buffalo). BUT, on the other hand, buying more leather (higher demand) raises the price of leather, thereby raising the total value of a dead cow. Economically speaking, if the value of dead cows goes up, more cows will be killed. So, in theory, buying leather causes more cows to be killed "for beef" (or, more pertinent ecologically, causes more cows to be raised). I don't know how this plays out in reality, and I'm certainly not suggesting we throw out all our cow hides. I'm just saying... it's not simple... what is? Duckducksquid (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Putrescible

The first line of this article states: "The tanning process converts the putrescible skin into a durable, long-lasting and versatile natural material for various uses". Do we really need to use the word putrescible? This sounds unnecessarily erudite. The object of this article is to educate; I don't feel that we need to alienate new visitors with extra vocabulary. Any thoughts on this? --96.42.27.164 (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that "Putrescible" should stay. A web search shows dozens of website that use this description for leather. An online defintion says: "Solid waste that contains organic matter capable of being decomposed by microorganisms and of such a character and proportion as to cause obnoxious odors and to be capable of attracting or providing food for birds or animals." Since the article states that leather is a by-product, it fits this definition. Since Wiki can serve to educate, I don't see using a word with more than one or two syllables as being contrary to that goal. Bob98133 (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bob in that it may be quite hard to find a word to replace it. But, putrescible could be changed into something like "The tanning process converts the raw skin (which can be broken down by bacteria) into a durable, ..."Plugflower (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Recoloring

I think some mention should be made of the ability to change the color of finished leather. I have done some internetsearching and found retail kits (of chemicals and application tools) and forum discussions suggesting Acetone or Alcohol followed by dyes. But me being unknowledgable does not feel bold. 79.76.249.17 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, recoloring of finished leather is definitely possible with technical advancements. The first question you have to answer when recoloring leather is: Whether the finish is a protein finish or a resin finish. Probably you are aware that there are a whole lot of other finishes as well but these two are the most common.Another thing is to consider whether there is finish at all in the first place. This question must have been the first one but I deliberately put it here. If there is no finish (like the suede leather) it is very difficult or even impossible to recolor, unless you put back into the drum for redyeing. If it is a resin finish it would be possibel to wipe the color off with some solvents (like Acetone or Buty-Acetate, as you have mentioned), but then after recoloring you would have to spray it with lacquer. A range of lacquers for leather finishing are available with companies like Clariant, Lanxess, Stahl, etc. But if the finish is a protien one (also called aniline finish) it is difficult to remove the finish. The only alternative is to scrap of the finish with sand paper, and then refinish it. Well, refinishing for a aniline finish requires a lot of skill. For an analogy I will say this: The Reisn finish is like a paint, You can remove it with a solvent, the protein finish is like a varnish polish. You cannot remove the varnish unless you scrap the surface. The protein in the protein finish reacts with the surface of the leather. NaveedAhmed217 (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)NaveedAhmed217

Factual Inaccuracies

As a ex-lecturer of the British School of Leather of leather technology and now a leather consultant for the leather industry I have restored some of the neutrality of this thread to distinguish between the fur and leather industries - very distinct industries - and the leather industry would be a little peeved if they were lumped with the fur industry - they are governed separately. I have also corrected the forms of leather to be a little more scientifically factual. If it needs simplifying I dont mind someone changing it - just dont rubbish the facts. I have updated the leather process into current thinking and I will expand the operation stubs when I get a chance. Also corrected the mistake that many people make in confusing an operation and a process. A process consists of operations so therefore an activity, e.g the tanning process cannot be part of the leather process--->tanning operation yes...

I will bulk up the leather section with lots of leather information as soon as I get a chance. I am also about to answer a lot of the discussion points below...Plugflower 21:32, 20 February 2007

added to a few stubs

I filled out a few stubs under leather technique. Please feel free to modify language. Crafters out there are welcome to add more technique. I know a lot more could be said under leather carving.

Weird

I've got a leather chair that i generally sit in while watching t.v., and i just recently noticed that the leather interferes with my remote control. If i hold my remote within about 3 inches of the chair the infrared beam doesnt reach the television. Any thoughts would be great.

That is really weird. I'm inclined to believe that it's not anything to do with the material of your chair but perhaps the color. If the infrared signal from your remote is not strong enough to be registered by your TV then it may be relying on reflection from multiple surfaces around your room, the ceiling, the carpet, the walls... anything that is remotely reflective will backscatter the infrared signal. The TV may respond to the infrared "glow" of your room when it may not respond to your remote on its own. If the chair is highly non-reflective (dark color or heavily textured) then by placing the remote too close to it, you might be preventing the infrared backscatter from, say, half of the room. Just a theory. C. Rout

Cowhide?

I know there is a page on cowhide but it is not all that great, I'm not even sure what the difference between the two is. Is there a place for it on this page? Maybe comparing strengths and usages? O905049 (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd ph in lead

It seems to me that the 2nd ph in the lead, which talks about fur and leather and whether they are considered byproducts, should not be in the lead since this is an economic distinction, not a characteristic of leather. I think it should be replaced with a ph that better summarizes the subject. Bob98133 (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bridle / Harness / Latigo Leather

Hey, I'm searching online for the differences between these three types of leather, commonly used in belts, accessories, etc. This article mentions nothing about them, nor is there (quickly/easily) accessible information on Google. Any chance some endeavoring expert/writer can give us an answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betterth (talk • contribs) 11:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitions

I'm not happy with the definition of 'full grain' and 'top grain' leather. In my career full grain was certainly applied to split leather e.g upholstery and shoe upper. In my experience full grain meant only that the grain surface was not 'corrected' in any way. I.e. Not buffed. 'Top Grain' as a type of leather had no currency in my time in the industry. It may have in some places but it's certainly not universal. rasp8 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Human Leather?

Should this article mention leather made from human skin? Semi-Lobster (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bicast leather unsupported claims

The description of bycast leather on this page makes some assertions that lack references and contradict the Bicast_leather page and its references. They also contradict common experience (well, mine at least). I'm specifically talking about the claim that "Most of the bycast used today is very strong and durable product. The result is a slightly stiffer product that is cheaper than top grain leather but has a much more consistent texture and is easier to clean and maintain."

I don't believe these statements are accurate (well, it does have a consistent texture, until it falls apart). It might be better not to make a value/quality judgement at all - the technical description of a split leather with a pu coating, making it a cheap form of leather is fine without making claims for its durability etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenspedia (talk • contribs) 12:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Average yield of leather from a typical cow

Could it be incorporated into the article the average leather yield from a typical cow. Please forgive my ignorance about the rules if I have violated any. I am rather new, and it will only happen once.

Thx, Mcx8xu (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Vegetable Tanned Leather

The last sentence in this section: "Vegetable tanned leathers present unique, recognisable and natural characteristics while respecting the environment, thanks to the heritage of expert craftsman and the use of old traditional recipes, new technologies and natural tannins." seems biased to me; it's been cited from the 'Genuine Italian Vegetable-Tanned Leather Consortium' but sounds like a sentence from a sales brochure. Would anyone mind if I deleted the sentence? I think the section reads fine without it. - Crispy (not signed in at work) 66.92.61.35 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Water resistance

There doesn't seem to be any mention of water resistance, not in the sense of waterproofness to leakage, but rather resistance to permanent damage from water exposure. I know from sad experience that many cowhide gloves soaked in water will harden and crack when dried out, whereas deerskin and goatskin are claimed to remain flexible after being soaked and dried. Pigskin is said to be better than cowskin in this regard, but with room for improvement. Could somebody more knowledgable than I share their knowledge on this useful topic? Reify-tech (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Slow decay of leather?

The article says "Leather biodegrades slowly; it takes 25–40 years to decompose.[citation needed]However, vinyl and petro-chemical derived materials will take 500 or more years to break down and return to the earth.[citation needed]" These statements will be removed if reliable sources are not provided. I have seen leather handles, gloves, and straps rot to powder in 5 or 10 years if they were left in a damp location, such as a cellar floor or a farm outbuilding. The "vinyl and petro-chemical derived materials " apparently refers to plastic alternatives to leather. Some plastics might take centuries to break down, but I have observed plastic exposed to the elements to degrade into small, brittle fragments in just a few years, by which timed they are similar to rotted plant or wood fiber. Again, reliable sources are required for statements subject to reasonable challenges. Edison (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"I have observed plastic exposed to the elements " is first of all clear OR, secondly it's vague and on-specific. Plastics like PLA are deliberately quick to break down (and they're neither vinyls nor petrochemical derived). Others aren't UV stabilised (for cost) and break down quickly. However as a broad statement within the scope of this article, the statement as it stands is entirely reasonable: the specific plastics used as alternatives to leather are pretty persistent in the environment. For another thing, there's a big difference between lifetime as a functional and useful product (which may be short) and persistence time as a noticeable nuisance (which tends to be far in excess). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Without a reliable source, the statements are not verified. I have challenged them, and they will be removed unless references are provided. Not all plastics persist for over 500 years. Some likely will. We should not publish a generalization like that. The "original research" criticism is a peculiar one, since I am not adding content to the article, but am questioning an unreferenced broad generalization in the article. The burden of proof is on those who want statements such as these in the article. Edison (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of WP:V is to improve articles, not to make them worse. It is trivially easy to source (as indeed is desired) the claims that most plastics are environmentally persistent. I am saddened that you are so unwilling to do so, but prefer to "improve" articles (as you see it) by using mis-using policy to worsen them instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Please take another look at your last sentence; it makes little sense. What is "using mis-using policy?" But I think I understand your concern. Why is it a good thing to leave unreferenced and questionable claims in an article? References for the times for various types of leather to break down and for various plastics to break down under various conditions would be better than unref'd assertions. I found online tables of "how long things take to decompose" which lack any empirical and reliable sources, and they seem inadequate, even if issued without attributed authorship by some park service site or municipal waste management organization. It clearly depends on conditions, such as exposure to UV rays, oxygen level, and microbial environment. If treated with sufficiently toxic chemicals, and with conditions not conducive to rot, leather might last longer than the given span. [2] says leather shoes could take 1000 years to decompose. Other dubious sites parrot each other and say leather decomposes in 40 or 50 years. Various online sites of dubious reliability say that plastic bags decompose in 10 to 20 years but plastic bottles last 400 years. "Decompose" is not generally given an operational definition. The text as in the article seems to have a POV value judgment that leather is not as bad for the environment as plastic because it decomposes faster. Edison (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Leather is hide that is chemically processed to retard decomposition, so it is not surprising that leather items from 300 CE are commonly found in graves near the Mediterranean by archeologists: [3]. These are not cases like findings of leather in glaciers 4000 years old where the cold interferes with normal biological activity. Archeologists have found leather goods 2500 years old in Scythian graves in Eurasia:[4]. Maybe the leather was so fragile as to be "decomposed" by ordinary standards. Leather shoes were found in a 17th century shipwreck. One of these 1686 shoes was described by a conservator to be in "excellent but friable condition" so far as the remaining portion was concerned. Archeologists have dug up shoes dumped in Boston privies in the 17th century. Numerous cavalry boots and belts of leather from the 1870's were excavated at the Little Big Horn battle site in 1984. Despite the surviving leather artifacts, clearly lots had in fact decomposed, leaving only the metal fittings. Leather before the middle of the 19th century was tanned with vegetable processes or brains. Modern leather with mineral or chemical tanning might be even more resistant to decay. Data from forensic studies would also be informative: when bodies are exhumed from direct burials, how many years do the shoes remain intact? .In an experimental study at Overton Downs, modern leather was buried to study its decomposition, and "..32 years of burial have resulted in very little deterioration of the samples...". The last book, "Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives" edited by William D. Haglund and Marcella H. Sorg says(p395) that archeological long term preservation of leather happens at relatively dry sites with under 50% relative humidity and low oxygen sites, and says "Waterlogged leather is generally in good condition after many centuries of burial." I recommend that the text of the article include this ref as to the favorable and unfavorable conditions for leather preservation, and that comparable refs be found for the deterioration of plastic substitutes for leather, such as straps, belts, shoes, wallets, or clothing. if the article is to contain value judgements as to the environmental consequences of using leather versus plastic. Such a comparison seems POV laden and outside the scope of the article, unless pollution from tanneries is weighed against pollution from plastic peoduction, and recycling of plastic is factored in. . I am not impressed by websites listing decomposition times without any reference to scientific investigations. Leather does not have a little timer in it which causes it to decompose at 50 years. It could happen quicker or much, much slower depending on conditions. Edison (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
" Soil Analysis in Forensic Taphonomy: Chemical and Biological Effects of ..." edited by Mark Tibbett and David O. Carter says (pp 170-171): "Modern tanned leather is highly resistant to decay." They note the survival of leather boots remaining recognizable in WW1 battlefield burials after a century, when other nonmetal artifacts had decayed. As for plastics, a book on "Green plastics" says (p53) that some polyolefins basically do not degrade, while more recently biodegradable plastics have been introduced which break down after use via the action of moisture, daylight, heat or biological activity. Environmentally, there is the issue of whether the chemicals in the plastic are harmful even after it has degraded to powder in the soil. Clearly leather and plastic are not interchangeable in many uses. Edison (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
brighthub.com has a list of breakdown times by types of plastic. Edison (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Leather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Top-grain definition

The definitions given in the article are not consistent with the definitions used by major academic and global organisations. They are certainly not consistent with the Standards Organisations like ASTM, ISO, BS, IULTCS, ICT. Can I suggest the wording reflects the statement from this wording frm Leather Research Laboratory, which echoes the wording from oher global sources. I feel this is important as I have started to see many online traders using the wikipedia wording and this is perpetuating false information:

"Full Grain leather is defined by Leather Industries of America (LIA) and the American leather manufacturing industry that it represents as...The grain split of a hide from which nothing has been removed except the hair and associated epidermis. The above definition is consistent with the official definition promulgated by the American Standard Test Methods (ASTM), International Council of Tanners (ICT), the International Union of Leather Technologists and Chemists Societies (IULTCS), and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) which is as follows...Leather bearing the original grain surface as exposed by removal of the epidermis and with none of the surface removed by buffing, snuffing or splitting. Top Grain leather is the same as full grain leather."

Plugsly (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Needs info on history

I came here looking for something on the history. I don't know anything (hence coming to look), but I think the article could be improved with some historical background. 2602:306:8010:E2F0:D95:B168:4666:D7FF (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The definition of leather - disambiguation

The definition of leather on this page is being misused. BS 2780, the standard that currently governs the definition of leather used in the leather industry as "a material largely intact (that originates from an animal) that has been tanned to be imputrescible." The other BS standard BS EN 15987:2015 adds that the finish thickness cannot be more than 0.15 mm. ISO 15115 a standard that is about to be published will add international support to the British Standard (which already has global use).

Any decent dictionary also defines leather as a material that has an animal origin. Talking about "synthetic leather" or "alternative leather" or "faux leather" or "cultured leather" are by definition incorrect and should not be used on a page where people are trying to seek clarity.

I suggest that all use of the word leather outside of the definition of internationally recognised definitions should be avoided.

Plugsly (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The internationally recognized definitions are the fact that hundreds, thousands even, of reliable sources use such compound terms as "articlficial leather" or "synthetic leather", because the English language does not treat words in isolation but as part of context, and the inclusion of adjectives that define these materials as not being actual leather invalidates any and all of your claims. And decent dictionary or grammar text wow tell you that. In short, that's not how the language works, and there is no misuse at all. In short, you're wrong, and have been reverted. oknazevad (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I would challenge you to name one major dictionary that defines leather as any material that you happen to put a descriptive adjective in front of. The use of a descriptor in front of any word that you want to mislead people about is confusing and is not how English works. There have been many court cases that have shown that almond milk, for example, is not legal.
My claim of misuse is because the mainstream attempt to try and have some prominent web presence where the term can help mislead consumers is in breach of the page policy - it is against the neutrality of the article and the edit I made gives a much more neutral description of the context that is trying to be related by the paragraph. A user who is confused by what is real leather, and what are substitutes, would have been misled by previous descriptions. I am sorry I have to keep reverting this until arbitration, which I know will go in favour of a neutral unbiased terminology.Plugsly (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not here to worry about misleading customers because you can't be bothered to do a five second Google Books search for the term "artificial leather". That's the name of the product. You may not like it, but it is established fact. Do not remove the term from this article again, please. Doing such would violate WP:POINT, and could lead to being blocked. oknazevad (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The point of this Talk page is to discuss edits - my mistake was acting before the complete discussion about my edits. I apologise. I will, however, not accept the concept that Wikipedia is not after clear definitions, and by inference, they do not worry about misleading customers. Wikipedia is all about having an accurate representation of the verifiable facts. The word artificial leather is misleading to consumers (is not verifiable as accepted terminology) and is a biased attempt to market on the back of an established word. Wiktionary doesn't even have an entry for artificial leather, so I completely disagree with you that it is established as accepted terminology. My Google books search do not produce anything definitive. Maybe a few entries of people who are trying to get traction with their own terminology agenda. So, we will do this the Wikipedia way. Users will be able to comment here and we will see where the consensus goes. Users will be commenting about whether:

  1. The entry about alternatives should contain the misuse of the word leather
  2. The entry about alternatives contains statements like commercial production (Modern Meadows Zoa is not commercial it is in R&D and the links out to low-quality references verify that it is NOT commercially available - hence misleading)
  3. The entry about alternatives should contain a more neutral statement of what the distinction is between genuine leather and alternatives are
  4. Maybe there could even be a neutral paragraph about the discussion of the term leather
  5. Whether the suppliers of Naugahyde should be able to use Wikipedia to promote their product (this doesn't appear neutral)Plugsly (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The sentence: "Many artificial leather substitutes have been developed..." has ambiguity, namely that artificial leather substitutes imply a substitute for "artificial leather" At the very least: "Many substitutes for leather, artificial in nature, have been developed..." could be suggested. Plugsly (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Im going to ask a blunt question: do you have some sort of connection to the leather making industry? Because your only edits have been to this article or it's talk page, and in all cases have been in relation to terminology of the industry. Because I cannot call edits that label common terms like "artificial leather" as misleading seriously when they're are hundreds of easily found examples of the term in daily use, even within the industry. Your characterization of the book sources as being "non-definitive" and "agenda driven" is dishonest and frankly seems to be projection. I just cannot take your attempts to use Wikipedia to right what you think is wrong in direct violation of policy as worth the time to even respond. oknazevad (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Full disclosure: As per WP:COI I can declare no conflicts of interest and can categorically state that I am not a paid editor. Now back to the discussion, "hundreds of easily found examples of the term in daily use", this is like saying there are hundreds of daily examples of people, incorrectly, calling a photocopier a Xerox machine. This does not make their terminology correct. Maybe a few more examples: "Fedexed" parcels, and "Hoovered" carpets. No-one should be advocating that these words are accepted without correction or even worse be placed into the dictionary or encyclopedia as legitimate usage. The book results I obtained when I looked up, as per your suggestion, "alternative leather" in Google Books - came back as very biased "agenda-driven" books so I do feel that they are one side of the balanced article - however, I am advocating in the spirit of WP:NPV that these are balanced by, first of all technical accuracy of definitions, and secondly a leather industry standpoint on this subject. I feel the starting position should be technical accuracy and then they can lead out into the alternative viewpoints. Plugsly (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

"Genuine leather" redirects here but has no definition on the page, and is not discussed.

Should this be rectified? Oathed (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

If it was, there's no reason why it shouldn't point here - it's a simple enough concept. Although I'd be more interested in what linked to it, and whether those were appropriate links. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Hazaribagh neighborhood of Dhaka poisoning staff, local villagers and planet
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leather/Archive_1&oldid=1159857915"