The Armour Archive

For historical leather working:

When you see a term like "white leather", "red leather", etc... what does it mean?

It's not a paint or dye color reference.

edited to try to clarify the question I'm asking.

Your question is confusing.

Fire Stryker wrote:For historical leather working, when you see a term like "white leather", "red leather", etc... I know it's not a color reference, what are the terms and what do they mean?

They are colors. Paint was used, as were various dyes to color leather.

Plus, tanning methods can lead to different colors as well, "in" the leather.

I think I'm looking more for the description of the tanning process rather than a paint color.

Fire Stryker wrote:I think I'm looking more for the description of the tanning process rather than a paint color.

I think you are likely right but I am not well versed on leather tanning. Even today we have terms like golden oak sides which are not a finished color. Oak tanning is a crust leather that still needs to be stuffed (dyed/oiled).

Hi James,

my question stems from a saddlers ordinance that discusses the use of "white" leather. experience has taught me that this is not a color issue, but might refer to the type of hide, goat, deer, etc... and or the tanning process.

I'll do a little more digging on my end.

Thanks all.

Jenn

Jenn, one more possibility (though perhaps thin) - could it mean simply natural, or undyed?

Fire Stryker wrote:Hi James,

my question stems from a saddlers ordinance that discusses the use of "white" leather. experience has taught me that this is not a color issue, but might refer to the type of hide, goat, deer, etc... and or the tanning process.

I'll do a little more digging on my end.

Thanks all.

Jenn

mmm. I don't know the answers to your question, but I can offer something that may be able to help you find them.

Alum tanning was used in period, and produces a white leather. Whether this is what is referenced, I simply don't know.

I was wondering if it referred to buff vs. vegetable tanned vs. oak/bark tanning...

Glen K wrote:I was wondering if it referred to buff vs. vegetable tanned vs. oak/bark tanning...

What distinction are you making between Vegetable tanned and oak/bark tanned ?

Fire Stryker wrote:Hi James,

my question stems from a saddlers ordinance that discusses the use of "white" leather. experience has taught me that this is not a color issue, but might refer to the type of hide, goat, deer, etc... and or the tanning process.

I'll do a little more digging on my end.

Thanks all.

Jenn

Hi!

White leather is tawed, that is preserved with alum. It isn't truly tanned per se, as the preservative is prone to washing out. "Red" leather might be "morocco" tanned which has a reddish tinge due to the tannin extracted from sumac. Not many oak and chestnut trees in southern Spain and north Africa.

I'd have to see the context of the reference to look into it any further. I'm scanning an old tanning science text soon so I'd be happy to pursue the question.

Cheers!

White and Red leathers usually refer to the type of leather, as well as the tanning process.

White leathers were almost always goatskin, kidskin, or deerskin, and were Alumn tawed, as Kel points out, while 'red' leathers are the heavier cow and horse-hides.

I can't remember how pigskin classes.

And this in turn makes perfect sense, because, while a heavier hide can be tawed by hand, it is much, MUCH more work than various barktans are to perform. The hungarians also tawed cow, sheep, and horse, if surviving early-modern things done by peasants way out behind God's back can be trusted.

I find the "wash-out" problem to be relatively overstated: veg-tans also wash out, as my wife and her bathtub can vouch after having set some tooling leather in the tub too long when I got distracted...