Wickett & Craig vs. Hermann Oak comparison!

[zaynexpetty]

Hello,

So, I've been wanting to SEE a good comparison between Hermann Oak and Wickett & Craig, there is a lot of people somewhat DESCRIBING the differences (or lack thereof), but I have not found anyone having actually documented it with photos/video. So, I received some swatches from W&C the other day, and decided I'd upload some pictures for reference. I have been only using Grade A Hermann Oak (yes, true Grade A). I was excited to hear that Wickett & Craig's tooling leather is lighter in color, and that they have no minimums straight from the tannery! 

 

I have to say, though; I am a little concerned with the flesh side quality of the swatch I received. The big thing I've taken away from HO's Grade A tooling leather is that the flesh side is always very tight and the fibers seem to be very short and consistent across the back. I was hoping that would be the case for Wickett & Craig's top grade leather, but the quality isn't quite the same for the flesh side. The flesh side of the W&C tooling swatch seems to be looser, the fibers seem to be a bit longer and inconsistent. Not a HUGE difference, but a difference, nonetheless. Now, I wrote the sales manager regarding the quality, assuming that the swatches that they used were just from scraps and aren't of their "Standard" or "Top grade" quality.

 

The response I received was this:

"The flesh will not be a problem Zayne. I'm sure it is just where they clicked the swatch?"
 

Im not exactly sure that means, but I'm assuming it has something to do with them cutting out the swatch with a press, and it just doesn't seem like thats what would have caused the flesh side to be the way that it is.

Anyway, have a look at the photos I uploaded. Again, I don't know for sure if the tooling swatch W&C sent me is factually top grade, but the sales manager didn't say that it was or wasn't when I asked him, hence the response. So, I'm assuming that the swatch I was sent IS their top grade, unless one of you can prove me wrong!

In one of the pictures, I included the flesh side of the "Oak Skirting" swatch I was sent with all the other swatches from W&C. The flesh side of this one really scares me. It reminds me of the first cheap side of leather I purchased from Tandy. I'm really hoping this isn't W&C's "Standard" quality.

Please prove me wrong!

 

P.S.- I am in no way trying to throw shade at Wickett & Craig, I actually do prefer the lighter color of their tooling leather compared to Hermann Oaks. I'm really just looking to provide some information and hopefully gain some insight in return.

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by zaynexpetty

[JLSleather]

I've never seen a piece from W/C that looked like that on the flesh side.  I'm assuming that in the interest of getting you a piece to see, they clicked off a piece which was not split (leveled).

But then, the A / B grade leather I get from HO looks nicer on the flesh side than your pic as well

Personally, I wouldn't have sent that piece to a potential customer as an example, but honestly I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Big Sioux Saddlery]

I will add to what Jeff said, that the HO looks spilt, and the W & C looks more like full thickness. In addition to that, the far right piece looks like it might have been cut from an area that will quite often have some loose flesh; flank or front pocket on the hide.  These areas are thinner than the rest of the hide, so when they go through the splitter to be leveled at the tannery, that specific area might still be thinner than the splitter is set, so it doesn't get cleaned off.  I use both HO and W & C, I've had less than stellar sides from both, but they are both good leathers and I wouldn't worry about what you're worried about:-)   And depends upon what you are making, but if doing strap work, it's not that hard to clean off some loose flesh by pulling the strap through the splitter. Sometimes there'll be a little in the shoulder area because of the run-off in weight there.  Ya just deal with it.

[zaynexpetty]

30 minutes ago, JLSleather said:

31 minutes ago, JLSleather said:

I've never seen a piece from W/C that looked like that on the flesh side.  I'm assuming that in the interest of getting you a piece to see, they clicked off a piece which was not split (leveled).

 

Well, thats good news! I don't think it was split, because it seems to be some of their "8-10 oz" which they then will split down for you.

The HO piece I have there is 4/5 oz so I'm assuming it was split, but it was just in my scraps and it might have been from a less than A grade quality part of the side I purchased. Still, I liked it better than the swatch WC sent. 

[zaynexpetty]

26 minutes ago, Big Sioux Saddlery said:

I will add to what Jeff said, that the HO looks spilt, and the W & C looks more like full thickness. In addition to that, the far right piece looks like it might have been cut from an area that will quite often have some loose flesh; flank or front pocket on the hide.  These areas are thinner than the rest of the hide, so when they go through the splitter to be leveled at the tannery, that specific area might still be thinner than the splitter is set, so it doesn't get cleaned off.  I use both HO and W & C, I've had less than stellar sides from both, but they are both good leathers and I wouldn't worry about what you're worried about:-)   And depends upon what you are making, but if doing strap work, it's not that hard to clean off some loose flesh by pulling the strap through the splitter. Sometimes there'll be a little in the shoulder area because of the run-off in weight there.  Ya just deal with it.

I do a lot of accessories like belts and wallets, so I like the flesh side to be as tidy as possible without much work (or any preferably). Thank you for the knowledge! I guess I didn't take into consideration that the swatches were most likely not split. Great point. I did get a response from the sales manager stating that the tooling swatch I received (i sent him a picture) might have been cut from the belly, but wouldn't it be a lot thinner (not 8-10 oz) if it was?

[JLSleather]

1 minute ago, zaynexpetty said:

wouldn't it be a lot thinner (not 8-10 oz) if it was?

No - not necessarily.  Belly leather certainly gets 10+ thick.

[zaynexpetty]

Just now, JLSleather said:

No - not necessarily.  Belly leather certainly gets 10+ thick.

Ahhh, okay. I still have a lot to learn about the different cuts and their attributes. I pretty much have just been ordering the highest quality sides in whatever oz I need and hope for the best.

[nrk]

not fair enough for the comparison based on such samples. it simply doesn't work that way.

you even didn't took a top side photos.. and a fleshy sides mostly appear on some shoulder/neck and the belly areas: both at HO and WC sides

both tanneries are very good.
one simply don't sale single sides, another does.

personally shifted from HO to WC - they welcome new customers, they do sale a single side. and the leather is perfect, even the flesh side.

[zaynexpetty]

27 minutes ago, nrk said:

not fair enough for the comparison based on such samples. it simply doesn't work that way.

you even didn't took a top side photos.. and a fleshy sides mostly appear on some shoulder/neck and the belly areas: both at HO and WC sides

both tanneries are very good.
one simply don't sale single sides, another does.

personally shifted from HO to WC - they welcome new customers, they do sale a single side. and the leather is perfect, even the flesh side.

I didn't take top side photos because my concern wasn't about the top side. Also, I stated that I liked the top side of the swatch they sent me, so that is kind of irrelevant.

Yes, I realize it was not a fair comparison (as the other two commenters already pointed out), because the swatch they sent me was most likely not split, whereas the Hermann Oak piece was.

Edited March 7, 2017 by zaynexpetty