Article on Leather Treatment

[bobcam1]

There is an excellent article on the pros and cons of leather treatment in the June 2008 issue of Military Trader.

Cheers,
Bob.

[Military]

Bob,

would you be so kind as to provide us with a scan of this?

[bobcam1]

Ouch!....I'd love to, but I don't have the issue any longer, sorry.....but the issue is available as a digital download at:

http://www.fwmagazines.com/product/1335/150

Bob.

[bobcam1]

Found it!

Bob.

[Paul R.]

Hummmm. Very interesting Mr. Wadzinski is a VP for Picards paste, and Mr. Dorsey sells the crap. Sure sounds like a sales job for the product to me. Hummm no independent reasearch here. Never fear Picards to the rescue.

[bobcam1]

Hummmm. Very interesting Mr. Wadzinski is a VP for Picards paste, and Mr. Dorsey sells the crap. Sure sounds like a sales job for the product to me. Hummm no independent reasearch here. Never fear Picards to the rescue.

Take the time to read the article again, for differing points of view on treatment.

It deals with some valuable information and presents some important facts that everybody who has leather in their collections should know, especially the explanations for some of the varied forms of degradation that afflict leather and metal.

If all you came away with, is that the guy's a shill for his own product, (which one certainly doesn't have to be a detective to deduce) then you let your "discovery" of this fact, divert you from the huge number of valuable points made in the article.

I found it especially interesting that Mr. Dorsey fears for the leather items in collections around the world, due to the self-described "conservators" in museums, they become like lemmings, blindly following the advice of a few people who told them that no safe conservation technique is available.

Once they anoint themselves with their "conservator" and "curator" titles, it seems that they acquire the type of closed-minded and ignorant attitude that will doom some priceless artifacts in collections around the globe.

It's a shame.....

[blinky]

Actually the issue is that no one is sure of the long term effects of treatments like Pecards to artifacts vs. the known long term effects of basic conservation. Treatments like Pecards can't be reversed, so if 100 years an item treated with Pecards begins to rapidly decay there would be no way to stop it. All organic materials are subject to "oxidation" and decay and there is no way around it. Given enough time everything organic will be lost.

"I found it especially interesting that Mr. Dorsey fears for the leather items in collections around the world, due to the self-described "conservators" in museums, they become like lemmings, blindly following the advice of a few people who told them that no safe conservation technique is available."

I found it especially interesting a person who sells a certain product he uses without really knowing the long term effects of the product with irreversable effects considers himself a conservator.

Bob, there are conservator and curators who do know a bit more about conservation of artifacts than a salesman or an "expert" on some miltiary forum. The approach you take is very insulting as are your comments. I actually know of no conservator or curator who has annointed him or herself with that title, if generally comes with years of studying and hard work as well as extensive hands on experience and not just theory. I own a camera and can point and click off a pretty decent picture......therefore I annoint myself a professional cameraman. Based on all this, from what I've seen of network TV you guys don't have a clue what you're doing. Why carry around a 40 pound camera when you can get the same results with a little $200 sony that only weighs a pound at the most?

What's kind of funny about this is that conservators spend a large amount of their time trying to reverse the effects of conservation treatments done years ago by well meaning but mistaken individuals like your Pecards salesman.

So, in the end, if you are really trying to preserve history and not just playing lip service, which patch seems best?

[bobcam1]

Actually the issue is that no one is sure of the long term effects of treatments like Pecards to artifacts vs. the known long term effects of basic conservation. Treatments like Pecards can't be reversed, so if 100 years an item treated with Pecards begins to rapidly decay there would be no way to stop it. All organic materials are subject to "oxidation" and decay and there is no way around it. Given enough time everything organic will be lost.

I couldn't agree more.....Except to say that there MAY be ways around it, there just haven't been enough comprehensive studies on the subject, as of yet. The words in your first sentence are absolutely true. "...the issue is that NO one is sure of the long term effects of treatments like Pecards to artifacts vs. the known long term effects of basic conservation."

I found it especially interesting a person who sells a certain product he uses without really knowing the long term effects of the product with irreversable effects considers himself a conservator.

I can't quite agree fully with this one. I can't take Mr. Mosley seriously as a conservator, either.....Although I agree with the fact that part of the article was a blatant pitch, there have been over 45 years of use of some leather treatments, on leather, without apparent ill effects, so the term "long-term" is subjective.....

Bob, there are conservator and curators who do know a bit more about conservation of artifacts than a salesman or an "expert" on some miltiary forum.

Once more, I agree completely.

The approach you take is very insulting as are your comments. I actually know of no conservator or curator who has anointed him or herself with that title, if generally comes with years of studying and hard work as well as extensive hands on experience and not just theory.

I don't agree that my approach is insulting, but I'll certainly hope that my comments insulted those people who take it upon themselves to presume that they are professional conservators, without benefit of the years of study and hard work that you spoke of. I personally know three, here in NYC, that have indeed claimed the title and don't have the experience or the knowledge to back it up. In addition, I've spoken to two on various forums, who have made claims of expertise that have proven to be false. It's the charlatans that I condemn, not the hard-working people who know their stuff.

I own a camera and can point and click off a pretty decent picture......therefore I anoint myself a professional cameraman.

This kinda reinforces the point I made about the bogus "conservators".....

What's kind of funny about this is that conservators spend a large amount of their time trying to reverse the effects of conservation treatments done years ago by well meaning but mistaken individuals like your Pecards salesman.

Once again, we're on the same page, as long as we're referring to REAL conservators.

So, in the end, if you are really trying to preserve history and not just playing lip service, which patch seems best?

The only lip service I was paying was the sharing of an article that had some valuable points about the various forms of leather degradation that I felt should be shared with other forum members. The treatment parts were in the "take it or leave it" category, since it's all conjecture and opinion, anyway.

Based on all this, from what I've seen of network TV you guys don't have a clue what you're doing. Why carry around a 40 pound camera when you can get the same results with a little $200 sony that only weighs a pound at the most?

Just for accuracy's sake, there isn't a $200.00 camera made that can produce the same image that a $60,000 broadcast camera can. That statement may not be true in five or ten years, but not right now....
I think the talented people who shot shows like "Planet Earth" and other magnificent pieces of television would take offense at the comment that they don't know what they're doing. I don't work for any network, and am confident in my abilities, so I wasn't offended at all....))

Cheers,
Bob.

[jacquesf]

Bob.

Very informative article. Thanx for posting it. After reading the article I still I have just two questions. Should one treat leather or not? Secondly, What is the best leather treatment to use other than Pecard antique leather care? Jacques

[bobcam1]

Bob.

Very informative article. Thanx for posting it. After reading the article I still I have just two questions. Should one treat leather or not? Secondly, What is the best leather treatment to use other than Pecard antique leather care? Jacques

Jacques,
I'm glad you found the article useful. My intention in presenting it was to provide some basic informative facts about leather degradation, and what steps MIGHT be taken against it. I still think that it's up to the individual as to whether or not treatment should be used. There are treatment methods that have been successful (up until now) after having been applied over 35 to 40 years ago.

As for the "best leather treatment", I think that's a matter of opinion and/or individual testing success.

I have a leather jacket that was suffering from dry rot when I applied a paste made from mixture of 60% neats-foot oil and 40% anhydrous lanolin. It was made by melting the lanolin in a double boiler and mixing in the pure neats-foot oil. I was given the tip by an elderly gentleman saddler who had been using the mixture for almost 50 years. I patted the mixture onto the jacket, using a soft cotton T-shirt.

The jacket made a remarkable recovery. It started out flaky and powdery, and became very soft and supple, again. I have never reapplied the mixture since I did it originally in 1970, and the jacket is still fine today.

That's not to say that in another 40 or 50 years that it may not suffer ill effects, but for 39 years, it has been fine, which is why I refer to the phrase "long-term" as subjective.

Each of us has to decide whether or not treating a piece that may last one's own lifetime is worth the effort, or whether they want the item to continue to be enjoyed by generations to come. The jury is still out on whether some forms of treatment will accommodate the latter.

NO ONE knows for sure.

Cheers,
Bob.

[Stahlhelm]

It's really very ironic, isn't it? We've split the atom, sent people to the moon, and cured diseases that once killed millions, but...we still don't quite know what to do with old leather.

Chris

[Stinch]

Bob

I had all but given up looking for that issue back in June when you posted the thread. Thanks for taking the time to post it. BTW, I found a piece of leather inside a U-Boat and treated it for a year after it had been submerged in salt water for 50 years. It is still soft and flexible. The article helps us to make the right decision depending on the circumstance.

Rich