http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ ... 24966.html
In it were a few quotes arguing about the DANGERS of Pecards. Here are a few choice words:
Jeff Shrader wrote:Here is a reply that I received from a museum tech with the National Park Service museum system on this same topic a few weeks ago:
Dear Jeff,
Ahh Pecard’s, the much beloved leather dressing of military memorabilia
aficionados everywhere. Why it is so popular is beyond me, but I digress.
(And despite what Pecard’s will tell you, the Smithsonian does not use
their product anymore.)
First off, let me say leather is a really hard item to conserve by nature.
So many factors contribute to the characteristics of the final product,
from what sort of animal, how long it was dead, its age at death, the skill
of the skinner and tanner, the processes and chemicals used in the tanning,
to the finishing, the use, the duration of use, care or lack of, age, and
more prior to your acquiring the item. There are no real hard and fast
rules. Most conservators now agree preventive conservation in the form of
storage and support is most important, even in objects showing severe
issues.
In general, leather likes it around 65 degrees or so, and prefers the
humidity between 45%-65%, depending on a number of factors; including mixed
composition such as metal components. It is best to clean leather by
brushing it toughly with a soft, natural bristle brush and use a screened
vacuum to remove the dust and debris so it is not redeposited. The object
then should be fully supported with UNbuffered materials, to keep the
leather from becoming stiff in an awkward position. Leather likes it dark,
especially dyed or painted items. Hands off is preferred, because even
super clean, dry hands can leave oils.
Any good conservator will tell you that the code of ethics followed
dictates that no object receives any treatment that is not fully
reversible. Obviously, dressings of any kind are not. Dressings are just
that, dressings, and research has shown they do not actually restore the
leather in any way. Now lubricating leather can affect (in the short term)
the brittleness and therefore may be used sparingly if desired, but do not
use a petroleum based product such as Pecard’s. Pure lanolin is really the
only thing conservators will recommend. (You can buy lanolin quite easily,
be sure it’s pure). Dressings are only surface deep, and may for a short
time appear to stop problems such as the dreaded red rot, but in actuality
are only making things worse as the petroleum will actually contribute to
the disintegration of the fibrous tissues.
Cheers,
Sarah
(Red emphasis is mine)
For full disclosure, I should also come clean and confess that in my early days of collecting, I was a BIG advocate of leather dressing and Pecard's in particular. It was only after going through the museum conservation classes and seeing examples in collections of artifacts damaged or destroyed by misguided (though well-intentioned) tinkering that I realized the error of my ways.
JS
Having treated over half of my Indy gear collection in Pecards, this is naturally getting me quite concerned. As I was reading the thread, I thought to myself, "Well, it can't be all that bad! I've had some of my jackets for 2 years now, and they look great!" Then, as if on cue, I came upon this response:Jeff Shrader wrote: [The Smithsonian's use of Pecards] has been asserted [on the U.S. Militaria Forum] and in other places, but is absolutely no longer the case. It is true that some of the best museums have used leather dressings in the past, and a few still continue this practice. I even know of one very well-respected collector who has been known to slop used motor on painted leather flight jackets claiming a "better result than Pecards". I'm sure the resulting greasy leather rags were indeed soft, and he is very happy with his results.
I am also sure that some conscientious collectors have used Pecards and other leather treatments sparingly over the years, and are pleased with the results. There are also plenty of people who will take original Civil War belt buckles and shine them on a buffing wheel, and they are also pleased with the results.
ASSUMING that you do not mind turning light brown leather into very dark brown leather, and further assuming that the leather object you are 'treating' will never, ever come in contact with any other artifacts - wait - one more - assuming also that there is no brass or metal as a part of the object that will react with the Pecards to form verdigris... no, sorry, I can't think of one good reason to ever get that substance anywhere near an artifact that has any kind of value.
Since this controversy broke in Military Trader a few issues ago, I have talked to a number of friends and acquaintances who are currently employed in the museum field as curators, conservators, and registrars. I asked them all one question: "would you recommend using Pecards or any other similar leather treatment on artifacts?" Their first response was always laughter, followed by horror stories about items in the museum collection that are a mess and require constant attention due to what one curator called "Pecard bloom", a white waxy substance that rises to the surface of the leather like oil still leaking from the USS Arizona. Items so treated in the past can never be put in displays where they will come in contact with other artifacts (especially cloth) because they will stain the other items. They are also a constant source of irritation as over time they stain, discolor, and contaminate whatever display material or storage system they are in contact with.
Now the Pecards people and their devotees will say "well, if you've got those kind of problems you're just not doing it right." Really? Sorry, I personally am not interested in chemotherapy for my collection. If just a tad will (best case scenario) create the false illusion of a cure, but too much will absolutely ruin the item and potentially everything else it comes in contact with - no thanks.
I have no financial gain to make by posting this here. Quite the contrary - I catch tons of flak whenever I speak this heresy, and would rather avoid offending people if possible. I have shied away from controversial subjects on this forum because I am here to make friends and not alienate people. This one is too important not to speak out, though. I know that if you are already devoted to this stuff, nothing I can say and no parade of wrecked artifacts will likely change your mind. It is a religion, and those who worship at the sinister webbed feet of that collection-wrecking (though cute) little red and black duck have way too much invested to turn back. I do not wish to upset or insult them. My only hope is that a new collector will read this and make the decision to preserve his collection by storing it properly and not doing harm to it by engaging in non-reversible courses of action such as impregnating leather artifacts with oily substances.
OK, so I guess I do have something to gain here. If more people will abstain from using these products (or putting swords and rifles on buffing wheels, spraying lacquer on painted helmets, using brasso on Confederate buckles, etc.), there will be more good militaria in good condition available to buy and sell in the years to come.
I have purchased a number of collections over the past few years, and have seen up-close and personal the long term results of this stuff. The best, most valuable, expensive, and nicely preserved collections that I have seen and / or purchased all have one thing in common: NONE of them used any sort of treatment on their leather material AT ALL.
...followed by this...jagjetta wrote: The owner said [a "P14 frog"] looked "fresh and soft" when he was done. After about 12 years, you can see the dry white "chalk" in all the cracks. That is the chalky bloom that emerges from leather that has been treated. It doesn't go away. You can't brush it out. More treatment "hides" it, but even the most oblivious will probably recognize the downward spiral that this creates.
And this perhaps is the most interesting post:Minnvol wrote:I will add my name as a FORMER staunch pecard's fan. 20 years ago, I thought it was the best. Then, over time, the "bloom" came out, and some former VERY nice artifacts soon became "pretty good" artifacts. I don't like having to periodically retreat an item to make it look almost as good as it did when I first got it. I also feel weird when it comes time to sell something, and I have to tell the buyer, "you should get some pecard's to treat this periodically" so they won't feel screwed a few months down the line.
Now, I'm not taking sides, but reading the above really made me stop and think.jagjetta wrote:We all want to feel that we are "preserving" something. And as long as it looks good in our life time, we feel we did just that. Nothing wrong with that. There are no governing "rules" that collectors have to follow. If folks like leather that feels soft and oily today, that is their own business. The fact is, though, many dealers and collectors are refusing to pay full value for leather that has been 'treated'. That is the only 'fact' of the matter that I can point to with certainty.
The same thing happened in the daguerreotype world in the 1980s. Up until then, people believed that thiourea solutions could literally erase the tarnish of time. Then, a few scientists and museum curators (Grant Romer and Susan Barger come to mind) said, "HALT! The tarnish you are removing is also taking microscopic levels of the image." Furthermore, they demonstrated that images that were "washed" (as folks called it then), began to show a brown hue after several years. They proposed the NEW wonder drug of cleaning daguerreotypes with electrolysis. That was all the rage through the 1990s.
Then, further studied produced some caution...etching was occurring at the ATOMIC level! "HALT!" went up the cry a second time. Now, the photo-history world says, "no treatment is the best treatment."
Food for thought?
SLAP!Thats for blasphemy. 
