a lot of leather

Hi Nock,

I'm not suggesting the average frontiersman/settler/farmer would have tried to bundle deerskins to sell in quantity, because he would not take enough hides to do so.  Rather, he would trade them to outposts/traders/merchants who in turn would gather enough to bundle and transport/sell back east.  However, deerskins were worth more than many other hides for most of our period because of the demand in England, so they would have been seen as something that were always in demand and got you more in trade than other skins.  There was never much "cash money" on the frontier and buckskins were always in demand for trade/barter.

I'm not saying summer skins were or were not considered more desirable by the market, because I don't know one way or another.  However, if they were considered more valuable, I highly doubt it was because summer skins "gave leather that was more soft and pliable."  Honestly, to me that just doesn't make sense at all.  The thickness of an adult deer's hide did not change noticeably from summer to winter.  Softness and suppleness of a skin comes from only two main things: 1. The age and sex of the deer and most importantly 2. How well the skin was curried after tanning.  The deer's Coat changed significantly in adding more and thicker hair in winter, but not the skin and I think therein lies the answer why summer skins may have been considered more desirable, if so.  It would have been much easier to "de-hair" a summer hide with the thinner coat.  

The problem I see with summer skins is they would require more careful handling and probably quicker treatment, so they wouldn't rot as quickly in the summer heat, before being traded or sold as dried/untanned skins or even partially treated skins.  

As to the bark tanned skins with some clumps of hair on some pouches you have seen on the ALR.  I don't understand that either.  If a hide is properly tanned with the hair on, most of the hair will remain on the leather for some time, until it wears off over many months/years.  In the period, that was seen as another way of "weather proofing" or at least keeping the leather from being soaked through as quickly in rain and snow.  Period British Military Knapsacks were made from "Hair On" goat skin for that reason.  I don't know if this is the reason some folks on ALR use skins with clumps of hair, but I suspect they may be doing it as a way to artificially "age" a pouch, as some prefer to do on their leather gear and guns.  I know some people like artificial aging, but to me that is silly and about as "non-authentic" as you can get.  

Gus

Spence's quote from the Pennsylvania Gazette can lead to so many other conversations, at least for those of us who keep finding 10 things we don't know for every 1 thing we learn, and 3 things we forgot.
What is the difference between a "check shirt," and a calico that makes the "check shirt" so much more valued?
This is only one of a few things there of interest....

A little trivia won't hurt you....

I did an inventory of the types of leather used in the collection of shot pouches in Madison Grant's book, The Kentucky Rifle Hunting Pouch. I'm sure most of them were 19th-century examples. Not all the pouches had the type of leather mentioned, but these are the ones which did:

Cowhide -- 28
Calfskin -- 26
Pigskin -- 4
Calfskin with hair on -- 3
Bearskin -- 1
Sheepskin -- 1
Buffalo -- 1
Buckskin --1 (Indian)
Moose -- 1 (Indian)
Beaver -- 1 (the famous Medina pouch)

In my database I find a very few 18th-century pouches mentioned with their material:

1765 otter
1767 calf with hair
1772 old sheepskin
1775 blue plush

For what it's worth.

Spence

That "trivia" isn't trivial, and, is worth quite a bit.
Thank you.

Nock,

As noted above, I don't know.  I did find the following on Wiki - for what that is worth:


Newfoundland

Newfoundland and Labrador and the Gulf of St. Lawrence were the first regions to experience large scale sealing. Migratory fishermen began the hunting from as early as the 1500s. Large-scale commercial seal hunting became an annual event starting in 1723 and expanded rapidly near the turn of the 18th century. Initially, the method used was to ensnare the migrating seals in nets anchored to shore installations, known as the 'landsman seal fishery'. The hunt was mainly for the procurement of seal meat as a form of sustenance for the settlements in the area, rather than for commercial gain.[19]



From the early 18th century English hunters began to range further afield – 1723 marked the first time that hunters armed with firearms ventured forth in boats to increase their haul. This soon became a sophisticated commercial operation; the seals were transported back to England, where the seal's meat, fur, and oil were sold separately. From 1749, the import of seal oil to England was being recorded annually, and was used as lighting oil, for cooking, in the manufacture of soap and for the treating of leather.[19]

Gus

Nock,

Never had seal meat, though I would not turn it down.  Maybe the way to eat the meat of the body would be to jerk it?  That and smoking seems to cover a load of things to make them at least somewhat palatable.  Grin.  For example, the only way I would willingly eat Carp again would be if it was well smoked. 

I don't have any experience using seal skin leather.  I wonder if they thought a mammal that lived mostly in the sea might therefore make the leather more waterproof?  Just speculation on my part, though.

Gus