Beginner Working With Thicker Layers Of Leather And Inverse Pricking Iron

[DavidL]

If you use portmanteau on the front side then your hole would look like this \ with reg iron like this /. If you use the same iron on face side of both pieces of leather (stitching 2 together) then you would have an X, even then a regular awl can be used and the stitches in this case look a bit more like it was machine stitched (consistency) creating a slightly less pronounced slant - this way is non traditional but it works if you need to stitch through a solid amount of leather and don't own a portmanteau and a regular iron of the same size.

Whether or not is possible to stitch through 1 to 2 cm of leather without an inverse iron is hard to say as I never stitched anything that thick. Only reference I have is of a hermes Birkin bag's top line of stitching that I "think" is hand stitched and is unknown if they use an inverse and a regular iron.

The thread on top is .8mm at 7spi

middle stitch is .6mm at 7spi

using the iron on both sides, just to show that there are different ways of doing the same thing.

Edited December 4, 2014 by DavidL

[naz]

I see, I got what you mean DavidL. thank you for the photos!

one last thing, you said

If you use portmanteau on the front side then your hole would look like this \

but when I use my 'regular' vergez iron, my stitches on the face look like \ , have you made a wrong spell there?

here is the photo, and I used regular vergez iron 10 here

Edited December 4, 2014 by naz

[DavidL]

I was referring to the mark that it makes on the leather. The portmanteau stitch would look like ///// where the mark of the iron would look like this \\\\ and the opposite is true with the regular iron.

Hope that helps.

[naz]

ok got it now. Thank you!

[kevinp]

Just because you don't want to do something a certain way is no reason to say those of us that do this are "odd".

I use them on both sides of the leather and stitches on both sides then look good. There is NOTHING WRONG with doing it this way and people shouldn't be discouraged from trying it by callings them "odd" if they do.

Didn't call you odd said the method was odd,

[25b]

Same thing.

I've read in here hundreds of times that there's no ONE right way to do something and saying we're doing something "oddly" just because we're not using a tool the way YOU approve of isn't right.

[kevinp]

Wow, I just said it was odd that's all, Odd over here means something is strange or unexpected nothing more. If you want to do it that way and it works thats your choice.

[kidinsky]

i think it´s really not a bad idea to try this method.

Personally i prefer punching the leather with the pricking iron all the way through.

when i just started leather crafting, i realized that if the leather if very thick or if you need to punch through several layers of leather, the holes will be really big if you punch all the way through instead of using awl.

so this method has come cross my mind, but i have never tried becuae i ddin´t know there´s inversed pricking iron existed.

but recently i found out that, Blanchard do sell inversed pricking iron.

i think this is short cut to achieve perfect stitch on both side of the leather, although i haven´t tried it myself, but theoretically it should work. but you need to make sure when punching from the other side, it´s perfectly mirrored so the holes will meet in the middle.

Of course, if you mark the hole with pricking iron on one side and then switch to an awl will achieve the same result, and i believe this is a more tradtional way of doing it., but i also believe it requires more practice. on the other hand, this is a better way to show off your craftsmanship.

[naz]

thanks kidinsky, i usually like to follow the traditional craft and trying to work the leathers it w an awl now, excited to try about the portmentau though..

25b, I dont understand why the subject has to come to 'you' and 'us' as we are talking about different approaches here under different methods, I believe expressing an opinion about any technique should not be a cause to trouble

[25b]

"Odd" has a negative connotation to it and I don't think there's any reason to belittle others' methods just because someone else doesn't feel like doing it the same way. I'm not call other people's ways "odd" for doing it their way. I don't think my method (which is also used by other people as stated here) should be called "odd" or any other adjective with a negative meaning to it.

I don't understand the need to put labels like that on the way some people choose to do things. If someone is compelled to do that in order to bring themselves up or reassure themselves that their way is "better" or something, then I truly feel sorry for that person.

Edited December 5, 2014 by 25b