From there, I began to look for an alternative, and then found Obenaufs. However, if there was an abundance of naysayers for Pecards, Obenaufs had virtually no criticisms at all, which in and of itself was suspicious.
I began to ponder about the effectiveness of leather dressings alone. Not Pecards, not Obeanufs, not Kiwi, just leather dressings in general. The results really have started to get me worried, as I began to find websites that ended with .gov which discouraged the use of leather dressings in any leather materials:
-The Library of Congress, Preservation http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/leather.htmlLeather dressings were at one time thought to be useful in extending the life of leather bindings. Experience has shown, however, that its benefit is primarily cosmetic and that the use of leather dressing by someone without professional expertise, does more harm than good.
-U.S. National Park Service, 'Conserve O Gram' http://www.nps.gov/history/museum/publi ... /09-01.pdfThe dressings are usually applied in an attempt to slow deterioration, improve the appearance of the leather, and perhaps restore some of its former strength and flexibility. Although the actual outcome usually does not meet these goals, the applicator often has the feeling that he or she is doing something to preserve the historic material...
...The effect of dressings on leather permanence has been studied, and almost invariably the researchers conclude that the dressing has no preservative effect...
...The British Leather Manufacturers Research Association (BLMRA) included degreased leather in their long-term study and found that the absence of grease did not make the leather more prone to decay...
...Conservators are learning how complex leather is. Its preservation depends upon a clear understanding of a great number of factors. The need for relubrication of an object, or for increasing its fat content, can only be established by making numerous calculations involving the animal origin of the leather, its process of manufacture, present chemical and physical condition, and future use. The scientific research of Stambolov and colleagues of the Central Research Laboratory for Art and Science in Amsterdam (1984) has stressed the need for careful monitoring of a leather’s existing fat content to establish the need for dressing. “Dressings should not be applied haphazardly, but the solution’s fat contents should be calculated and matched to the gram weight (by percentage) of the leather,”...
...In practice, the dressing of leather is also a largely irreversible procedure because of the deep penetration of the foreign ingredients and the movement of soluble components within the leather. The dressing can also impede future conservation treatments... One of the major problems with commercial dressings is that people apply them for their immediate results without awareness of their
long-term effects:
Oils and Fats can:
-become increasingly acidic
-form unstable surface spews
-oxidize and stiffen
-discolor and stain
-wick into adjoining materials
-leave a sticky surface
-encourage biological deterioration
Wax additives can:
-block surface porosity
-discolor and collect dust
-change the surface appearance
-impede further treatment
-encourage biological deterioration
-Abbey Newsletter, Feb 1990 http://cool.conservation-us.org/byorg/a ... 4-121.htmlThe practice of applying oils, greases, waxes and other substances to leather hooks in an effort to preserve them appears to be derived from traditional practices rather than 20th century research. None of the serious investigations of leather dressing has shown a preservative effect. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence, albeit unsystematic and anecdotal, for specific destructive effects that appear later on, like bloom and mold--effects that have not been observed systematically because of the time lag, lack of previous treatment records, and the large numbers of leathers and dressings involved...
...It is true that tanneries add fats to leather as part of the manufacturing process, and that some conservators use dressings on leather artifacts, but these people have controlled conditions, analytical facilities, special training, and good documentation of previous work...
...The question then arises, "Why is dressing such a common practice, even among people whose judgement is widely respected?" There is no good answer to that. Established habits and practices are hard to change, and long-term effects are easy even for conservators to overlook or disbelieve, especially if the immediate effect of a treatment is personally gratifying, as the effect of leather dressing is. Soluble nylon, for example, was used in conservation for many years after its dreadful characteristics were documented from every angle in the professional literature...
...We should also not justify the use of dressing by its long history of use. Traditional practices varied all over the map, and were even less effective at preserving things than folk medicine was at preserving people. Even the British Museum Leather Dressing, which is perhaps the best known, has appeared in several variations; and in the British Museum's own long-term study of durability of bookbinding leather, there seemed to be no difference in durability between the degreased leathers and those that had been dressed.
I know I'm coming off as the crazy guy standing on the street corner yelling "The end is nigh," especially after my last thread on Pecards, but I'm really getting worried about this. If expert leather conservators and paid research professionals are all warning against using dressings (going as far back as the 60's), then shouldn't we consider this?
What I basically got from this is that unless you're an expert, you probably shouldn't be messing with the stuff. And I'm not trying to point any fingers or make anyone feel bad here, but the common arguments often used in favor of leather dressings seem to have been addressed by the sites listed above. I'm not trying to be patronizing, as frankly, I consider myself just starting to learn about this, but the following is what I believe the reasoning to some of the more common arguments would be:
Statement: I've used it for ages, it works and it makes the leather softer!
Response: It's a psychological effect. You feel better thinking you're doing good to the jacket. It makes the jacket softer, but in the long run, it's actually deteriorating your leather at a faster rate than an undressed leather item.
Statement: X leather dressing company has been around since...
Response: "Established habits and practices are hard to change, and long-term effects are easy even for conservators to overlook or disbelieve," not to forget that research has been conducted since the early part of the 20th century already discouraging the use of leather dressing.
Statement: Leather dressings only use what was already in the leather to begin with. It replenishes it!
Response: Electricity was in a battery to begin with. Recharging a battery just replenishes it. However, we know that unless it is under the exact, right conditions, even recharging a battery can be hazardous.
Statement: X person who made X leather goods for the movie endorses it, so it can't be bad.
Response: Which would you rather trust? The review of a tape recorder from a famous singer who claims the tape recorder he uses best captures songs, or reviews from a panel of experts who spend all day reviewing and analyzing the tape recorder, audio transmissions, frequencies, etc?
Question: Leather dressings are bad?
Response: Not under the correct circumstances. It just needs to be the right conditions, which usually require exacting and professional measurements and calculations, not just winging it.
...
