Is leather stronger when laminated with an additional layer of leather?

[TonyRV2]

2 hours ago, bikermutt07 said:

In my experience a single layer of uncut non stitched leather will last a cow a lifetime.

This sounds udderly reasonable and eliminates all the bull.  

[HENDREFORGAN]

All good technical stuff and don't doubt a word of it . . but . . I'll take a more down to earth and practical point of view.

Yes - technically - punching holes in hide leaves an Achilles Heel but then again the thread you stitch the pieces with will be waxed and a hell of a lot of that gets pumped into the holes which, with the frictional heat of the process, will be absorbed by the hide.  That will prevent more ingress of water than into the hide itself.  Yes, old harness straps are often dry and the stitching and their holes broken but that isn't a fault of the system, it's a lack of maintenance instead.

Glue?  Sorry but I, possibly many others, used this when we were bumbling amateurs simply because we knew nothing else.  Industry stills uses the method today but, you pays you're money and make your chioce, how many cheaply made items have we all seen fall to pieces due to glue failing?  Give me a good quality thread, fresh needles and a block of beeswax and my stitching will be capable of outlasting any owner of my work.

So correctly stitched a laminate of two pieces will be stronger than one thick one . . but will it look right?  Will it convey the image of quality?  Not on some products.

 . . and sorry but it's sueded and not suede.  Yes, there are leathers with particular textured nature with open pores chosen to be sueded but suede is typically a definition of finish and not the hide itself.

[JLSleather]

15 minutes ago, HENDREFORGAN said:

sorry but it's sueded and not suede.  Yes, there are leathers with particular textured nature with open pores chosen to be sueded but suede is typically a definition of finish and not the hide itself.

I always get a 'kick' outta them folks debating to use "leather" or "suede".  Bazillion messages asking if holsters should be lined with suede.  TIP:  If you don't line your tooling leather holster, then the inside already IS "suede"

 

[Dwight]

1 minute ago, JLSleather said:

I always get a 'kick' outta them folks debating to use "leather" or "suede".  Bazillion messages asking if holsters should be lined with suede.  TIP:  If you don't line your tooling leather holster, then the inside already IS "suede"

 

I'd not be a bit surprised if you could not hear me giggling all the way from here.

You are ever so right, . . . and there are a whole passel of folks that want to argue with you, . . . so I'll get out of their way.

May God bless,

Dwight

[HENDREFORGAN]

1 minute ago, JLSleather said:

I always get a 'kick' outta them folks debating to use "leather" or "suede".  Bazillion messages asking if holsters should be lined with suede.  TIP:  If you don't line your tooling leather holster, then the inside already IS "suede"

 

  You've got a  point . . are people actually paying for something that nature provided us?  Very probably.  Suede to me was always cheap hides tarted up to look more expensive.

Nor should one forget that back in the days of shoe making when the lasts were not handed shoes and boots made for a working environment were made grain side inner so that the naturally sueded fibres could be kept heavily waxed to keep water out.  You know . . it still works to keep an old pair of Hush Puppies fresh?

[MADMAX22]

On 12/24/2016 at 0:59 PM, HENDREFORGAN said:

  You've got a  point . . are people actually paying for something that nature provided us?  Very probably.  Suede to me was always cheap hides tarted up to look more expensive.

Nor should one forget that back in the days of shoe making when the lasts were not handed shoes and boots made for a working environment were made grain side inner so that the naturally sueded fibres could be kept heavily waxed to keep water out.  You know . . it still works to keep an old pair of Hush Puppies fresh?

I believe the reason for this including the ability to hold waxes and what not was to hide damage/scrapes/scratches and such. With a roughout boot you can beat the snot out of it then go over the leather with a brush and the marks go away generally. 

Thought suede was a actual finish to the rough side that actually got rid of alot of the "roughness" of using the rough out (flesh side) of the leather. A sanding and milling process, correct me if I am wrong please.  

[HENDREFORGAN]

7 hours ago, MADMAX22 said:

I believe the reason for this including the ability to hold waxes and what not was to hide damage/scrapes/scratches and such. With a roughout boot you can beat the snot out of it then go over the leather with a brush and the marks go away generally. 

Thought suede was a actual finish to the rough side that actually got rid of alot of the "roughness" of using the rough out (flesh side) of the leather. A sanding and milling process, correct me if I am wrong please.  

Yes, having the rough side outermost and heavily waxing meant maintenance could be a lot rougher than similar polishing of the grain side.  Even today if I have to re-oil old leather to rejuvenate it I'll look to work "inside out" as, with usage, the patina on top grain can form a rather effective armoured surface.  Easier and quicker working from the other side.

Remember too that in the days when working mens shoes were grain side innermost that was also a comfort chioce . . very few could claim to earn enough to buy socks and shoes/boots were often worn with bare feet.

Along the lines of your reasoning the process of sueding is used on higher quality hides.  Today we see hides that have been buffed - corrected leather - where the original grain showed defects and the buffing produces a uniform standard.  Often applied to full grain leather but you can be sure some sectors of the leather industry will treat spilt leather the same to try and "tart them up" . . . which neatly brings me back to my earlier comment . . suede = cheap leather "tarted up".

[Rayban]

I'm surprised no one has replied to this.

I say yes, 2 layers equaling 1/4" thickness, will be stronger than one layer at 1/4". Think of plywood, same principle.

I've spoken to several old salt belt makers on this and we all seem to be on the same page.

When glued and stitched together, less stretching, more rigid...much much better than single ply.

[MADMAX22]

15 hours ago, Rayban said:

I'm surprised no one has replied to this.

I say yes, 2 layers equaling 1/4" thickness, will be stronger than one layer at 1/4". Think of plywood, same principle.

I've spoken to several old salt belt makers on this and we all seem to be on the same page.

When glued and stitched together, less stretching, more rigid...much much better than single ply.

Ray I think he started two threads at the same time. The other one got alot of discussion. 

Both threads now merged.

 

Edited February 4, 2017 by northmount
Merged threads