This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Textile ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile ArtsTemplate:WikiProject Textile ArtsTextile Arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
There appear to be inconsistent sources on a definition of Genuine Leather. While it is a common stamp on leather goods, it appears to be an ambiguous term. E.g.
business insider states:
Goods marked as genuine leather will be several layers of low-quality leather bonded together with glue and then painted to look uniform.
Genuine leather is often several layers of split leather bonded together.
which contradicts words also from the site:
Genuine Leather (also called Bicast) Finished split leather is often referred to as “Genuine” leather simply because it’s a marketing person’s strategy designed to fool customers.
It would appear that there's some desire to put 'genuine leather' as a synonym for
bicast leather, but that is not well supported by the sources on the page. Are there some other reliable sources?
Chumpiht 06:06, 06:20,
09:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The only source here that outright mentions bicast calls "genuine leather" a synonym for it. The others describe the process used for bicast leather without using the word, but since it's clearly identical in specification, it's clearly synonymous.
The fact is the label "genuine leather" is, as the sources describe, a case of using the best-sounding term they can legally get away with to label their product. Same thing with using "top grain" as a label. Technically full-grain leather is a subtype of top-grain leather with a less-processed surface (as opposed to corrected-grain leather) and could be labeled as top-grain, but since having the full-grain is considered to have market appeal, a producer wouldn't label such a piece with the broader category. Meanwhile, since mentioning that a piece has a corrected grain sounds less authentic and isn't as appealing to consumers, they use the broader category as it's technically correct without the off-putting term.
Going even broader, anything that uses a whole piece of leather as a base can be labeled as "genuine leather", but using that term for an item that can use the more specific labels mentioned above is poor marketing. So it's only used when no better term is available, that is, for bicast leather, which does (barely) count as being an actual leather-based material, as opposed to ground scraps mixed with a binder and extruded onto a cloth base, which is
bonded leather, or a wholly
artificial leather. (For all practical purposes, bonded leather is really an artificial leather that uses scrap genuine leather fibers as a filler, but I digress.)
With that all said, there's a reason I had structured the grades section the way I did when I rewrote it in the first place. There's a distinct conflict between the actual technical definitions of the types of leather used in consumer goods and the way they're labeled by producers to make them more sellable. Since NPOV demands that we are not here to act as a marketing outlet for leather makers, I decided to lean on the technical definitions, complete with putting full-grain as a sub-type of top-grain, and intentionally omitting the "genuine leather" label (not grade). Now, I can agree with at least mentioning it, as it is a commonly encountered term, but it is not a distinct type, which is why it doesn't deserve a distinct entry.
oknazevad (
talk)
14:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
None of these are particularly spectacular sources, and there's this ambiguity. Is 'bonded leather' always reconstituted, paper-like? (Plus coatings / backings.) Or would 'bonded' include layers of suede bonded together? Likewise, 'bicast' means coated suede. But do multiple layers of suede, bonded together then coated make 'bicast'? The sources and other articles appear unclear on this - there is no universal definition, as far as I can see. Are there other, superior sources than the ones here?
I agree, we need to give honest descriptions. This shouldn't be a puff-piece, especially in the case of this near-lowest 'grade'.
And re. grading, 'patent' isn't a grade per se, but instead describes leather with a shiny coating. What lies underneath is undefined.
The defining characteristic of bicast leather is that it's completely covered on at least one side with an impermeable coating, which in modern times is a polyurethane or vinyl, but retains the natural fibrous network of a hide. Whether the backing of a piece of bicast leather is from one hide or multiple glued together along the edges or in a stack doesn't change that. Conversely, by definition, bonded leather is made from shredded leather fibers that no longer have any of their original fiber network intact. There's actually some very good sources in the
bonded leather article that cover the many types of leather that could and probably should also be used here.
Patent leather belongs under bicast leather as it's just a specific type of it. In fact, the historic use of lacquer coatings (see
Seth Boyden) to make patent leather is partly what inspired modern plastic-coated bicast from what I can see. Conversely, there's no distinctive thing called "genuine leather", it's just a marketing term for bicast leather to obscure its composition.
Also, suede is a finished product. The underlying leather taken from the flesh-side of the hide used as a base for bicast leather is called a "split".
oknazevad (
talk)
00:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The
bonded leather sources are not consistent in their terminology, and aside from the gov't ones, would not pass
WP:RS. (
This one was quite good, but not enough detail.)
Currently I do not have a source which indicates that bicast leather is a canonical term for genuine leather.
The first one is a
self-published source and fails
WP:RS. Heck, although I cannot be certain because it lacks a date (another strike against it), it reads almost exactly like an earlier version of this article and I'm 90% certain that using it would be
WP:CIRCULAR.
The Google ngrams and trends are not helpful. Ngrams looks at all books in Google's library, including novels. Not useful for determining the prevalence of a bit of industry jargon. Trends is little more than a plain Google test. Useful for determining
WP:COMMONNAME for article titles, but that's not the question here.
The FTC document is not a law, but a guideline for best practices, and has no enforceability; it's actually described in one of the sources at
bonded leather in an article that makes its scope clear. The tariff descriptions use the synonym "laminated leather".
But the fundamental point is that the sources already added to this article (by you, I might add), and at the
bicast leather article, use both terms when describing identical products, including statements that they are synonyms. There's no reason to list them separately.
oknazevad (
talk)
14:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Perhaps enforceability of a law and it's jurisdiction isn't an issue when it comes to identifying
WP:RS. If it's a government agency, then that's a pretty reliable source. I agree, we need to avoid
wp:circular, but is there clear evidence that that's the case here? Google ngram etc. are useful for identifying
WP:NATURAL, so perhaps it's unfair to disregard. Glad we're agreed that RS important, and yep, the sources I previously cited were mediocre. The tariff doc refer to
"patent leather and patent laminated leather"; there appears to be no reference to "laminated leather" other than in the context of "patent", as far as could be seen, and certainly no mention of 'bicast'. But to conclude that similarity of terms means that 'bicast' is canonical is
WP:SYNTH at best, and just plain wrong at worst, so unless some evidence is cited that gives precedence to 'bicast', I suggest reversion.
Chumpiht 20:34, 23:08, 23:14 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Many missing terms
There are loads of leather terms that could do with defining on this page
Aniline is covered in the full-grain entry; "aniline leather" really refers to the type of dye used (see
aniline dye) and is basically a shortened way of saying aniline-dyed full grain leather. Some of these terms are just simple combinations of adjective with "leather" and don't really need a separate mention, but a glossary of leather terms may be helpful for some parts.
oknazevad (
talk)
13:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:AGF, but that was a poor insertion, and worthy of reversion - definitely not a case of ownership. I would have removed it as well. I'm not sure that any kind of glossary is really necessary - certainly as per oknazevad, most of the terms are not really a glossary in any case. Perhaps draft up your proposal either in your own draft, or on the talk here?
Chaheel Riens (
talk)
12:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Exactly what I was going to say. It was incomplete and should have been drafted elsewhere first, otherwise it clogs the edit history. And it's not really the right format for this article. As I said in my edit summary, a glossary format belongs in a separate glossary article.
oknazevad (
talk)
12:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"Genuine Leather" should be changed from two bullets to one bullet
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There isn't anything about leather types so I prepared a section for it and the In modern cultures doesn't cover much such as leather bags, harnesses, and it is big in a blog post for
I think it might be helpful to add something about the types of leather
such as
full grain leather
top grain leather
suede
patent leather
etc
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Textile ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile ArtsTemplate:WikiProject Textile ArtsTextile Arts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
There appear to be inconsistent sources on a definition of Genuine Leather. While it is a common stamp on leather goods, it appears to be an ambiguous term. E.g.
business insider states:
Goods marked as genuine leather will be several layers of low-quality leather bonded together with glue and then painted to look uniform.
Genuine leather is often several layers of split leather bonded together.
which contradicts words also from the site:
Genuine Leather (also called Bicast) Finished split leather is often referred to as “Genuine” leather simply because it’s a marketing person’s strategy designed to fool customers.
It would appear that there's some desire to put 'genuine leather' as a synonym for
bicast leather, but that is not well supported by the sources on the page. Are there some other reliable sources?
Chumpiht 06:06, 06:20,
09:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The only source here that outright mentions bicast calls "genuine leather" a synonym for it. The others describe the process used for bicast leather without using the word, but since it's clearly identical in specification, it's clearly synonymous.
The fact is the label "genuine leather" is, as the sources describe, a case of using the best-sounding term they can legally get away with to label their product. Same thing with using "top grain" as a label. Technically full-grain leather is a subtype of top-grain leather with a less-processed surface (as opposed to corrected-grain leather) and could be labeled as top-grain, but since having the full-grain is considered to have market appeal, a producer wouldn't label such a piece with the broader category. Meanwhile, since mentioning that a piece has a corrected grain sounds less authentic and isn't as appealing to consumers, they use the broader category as it's technically correct without the off-putting term.
Going even broader, anything that uses a whole piece of leather as a base can be labeled as "genuine leather", but using that term for an item that can use the more specific labels mentioned above is poor marketing. So it's only used when no better term is available, that is, for bicast leather, which does (barely) count as being an actual leather-based material, as opposed to ground scraps mixed with a binder and extruded onto a cloth base, which is
bonded leather, or a wholly
artificial leather. (For all practical purposes, bonded leather is really an artificial leather that uses scrap genuine leather fibers as a filler, but I digress.)
With that all said, there's a reason I had structured the grades section the way I did when I rewrote it in the first place. There's a distinct conflict between the actual technical definitions of the types of leather used in consumer goods and the way they're labeled by producers to make them more sellable. Since NPOV demands that we are not here to act as a marketing outlet for leather makers, I decided to lean on the technical definitions, complete with putting full-grain as a sub-type of top-grain, and intentionally omitting the "genuine leather" label (not grade). Now, I can agree with at least mentioning it, as it is a commonly encountered term, but it is not a distinct type, which is why it doesn't deserve a distinct entry.
oknazevad (
talk)
14:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)reply
None of these are particularly spectacular sources, and there's this ambiguity. Is 'bonded leather' always reconstituted, paper-like? (Plus coatings / backings.) Or would 'bonded' include layers of suede bonded together? Likewise, 'bicast' means coated suede. But do multiple layers of suede, bonded together then coated make 'bicast'? The sources and other articles appear unclear on this - there is no universal definition, as far as I can see. Are there other, superior sources than the ones here?
I agree, we need to give honest descriptions. This shouldn't be a puff-piece, especially in the case of this near-lowest 'grade'.
And re. grading, 'patent' isn't a grade per se, but instead describes leather with a shiny coating. What lies underneath is undefined.
The defining characteristic of bicast leather is that it's completely covered on at least one side with an impermeable coating, which in modern times is a polyurethane or vinyl, but retains the natural fibrous network of a hide. Whether the backing of a piece of bicast leather is from one hide or multiple glued together along the edges or in a stack doesn't change that. Conversely, by definition, bonded leather is made from shredded leather fibers that no longer have any of their original fiber network intact. There's actually some very good sources in the
bonded leather article that cover the many types of leather that could and probably should also be used here.
Patent leather belongs under bicast leather as it's just a specific type of it. In fact, the historic use of lacquer coatings (see
Seth Boyden) to make patent leather is partly what inspired modern plastic-coated bicast from what I can see. Conversely, there's no distinctive thing called "genuine leather", it's just a marketing term for bicast leather to obscure its composition.
Also, suede is a finished product. The underlying leather taken from the flesh-side of the hide used as a base for bicast leather is called a "split".
oknazevad (
talk)
00:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The
bonded leather sources are not consistent in their terminology, and aside from the gov't ones, would not pass
WP:RS. (
This one was quite good, but not enough detail.)
Currently I do not have a source which indicates that bicast leather is a canonical term for genuine leather.
The first one is a
self-published source and fails
WP:RS. Heck, although I cannot be certain because it lacks a date (another strike against it), it reads almost exactly like an earlier version of this article and I'm 90% certain that using it would be
WP:CIRCULAR.
The Google ngrams and trends are not helpful. Ngrams looks at all books in Google's library, including novels. Not useful for determining the prevalence of a bit of industry jargon. Trends is little more than a plain Google test. Useful for determining
WP:COMMONNAME for article titles, but that's not the question here.
The FTC document is not a law, but a guideline for best practices, and has no enforceability; it's actually described in one of the sources at
bonded leather in an article that makes its scope clear. The tariff descriptions use the synonym "laminated leather".
But the fundamental point is that the sources already added to this article (by you, I might add), and at the
bicast leather article, use both terms when describing identical products, including statements that they are synonyms. There's no reason to list them separately.
oknazevad (
talk)
14:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Perhaps enforceability of a law and it's jurisdiction isn't an issue when it comes to identifying
WP:RS. If it's a government agency, then that's a pretty reliable source. I agree, we need to avoid
wp:circular, but is there clear evidence that that's the case here? Google ngram etc. are useful for identifying
WP:NATURAL, so perhaps it's unfair to disregard. Glad we're agreed that RS important, and yep, the sources I previously cited were mediocre. The tariff doc refer to
"patent leather and patent laminated leather"; there appears to be no reference to "laminated leather" other than in the context of "patent", as far as could be seen, and certainly no mention of 'bicast'. But to conclude that similarity of terms means that 'bicast' is canonical is
WP:SYNTH at best, and just plain wrong at worst, so unless some evidence is cited that gives precedence to 'bicast', I suggest reversion.
Chumpiht 20:34, 23:08, 23:14 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Many missing terms
There are loads of leather terms that could do with defining on this page
Aniline is covered in the full-grain entry; "aniline leather" really refers to the type of dye used (see
aniline dye) and is basically a shortened way of saying aniline-dyed full grain leather. Some of these terms are just simple combinations of adjective with "leather" and don't really need a separate mention, but a glossary of leather terms may be helpful for some parts.
oknazevad (
talk)
13:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:AGF, but that was a poor insertion, and worthy of reversion - definitely not a case of ownership. I would have removed it as well. I'm not sure that any kind of glossary is really necessary - certainly as per oknazevad, most of the terms are not really a glossary in any case. Perhaps draft up your proposal either in your own draft, or on the talk here?
Chaheel Riens (
talk)
12:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Exactly what I was going to say. It was incomplete and should have been drafted elsewhere first, otherwise it clogs the edit history. And it's not really the right format for this article. As I said in my edit summary, a glossary format belongs in a separate glossary article.
oknazevad (
talk)
12:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
"Genuine Leather" should be changed from two bullets to one bullet
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There isn't anything about leather types so I prepared a section for it and the In modern cultures doesn't cover much such as leather bags, harnesses, and it is big in a blog post for
I think it might be helpful to add something about the types of leather
such as
full grain leather
top grain leather
suede
patent leather
etc