Sporran straps

[Dirka Skene]

Duh! What do you think we have those for? They're of no practical use. Perfect sporran belt!

[Bob C]

I use a strap from one of my wife's old purses with my black day sporran.

[Hamish]

That is a perfect solution and, let's face it, anything is better than having a metallic chain constantly rubbing against your expensive woollen kilt. Over the years, I have seen examples of horrendous wear-and-tear done to good kilts - one, I remember, was so bad that the aprons had to be completely replaced by the original kiltmaker.

Chain straps on day sporrans are a fairly recent innovation, and one which should be stamped out again! Not so many years ago, chains were worn only on dress sporrans which, being worn much less frequently, were unlikely to cause the damage that daily wear will surely do in time. When buying a new sporran, I insist on having a plain leather strap rather than the chain strap which seems to come by default thesedays.

[Nanook]

That is a perfect solution and, let's face it, anything is better than having a metallic chain constantly rubbing against your expensive woollen kilt.

The acute problem is less, I think, the use of metal in chains but the use of cheaper grade chains. A well designed chain should not have any edges to catch fibres and should be quite smooth. Leather, and especially the "buff" rear, by contrast is less than slick. Relatively smooth leather belts are used to polish (sharpen) knife edges. In theory, at least, it seems a properly made chain should rub less than a belt.
So what can wrong with chains for daily use? The problem is really abrasion from having a sporran (held on by whatever means). Its the same effect that wears out the seat of our finest woolen pants, the edges of the cuffs of coats and shirts and in overcoats the edges of hand pockets (used to warm one's hands). The key to the claimed effectiveness of a sporran strap in showing less wear I would suspect is more derived from its restricted movement (less swing, tighter) than from the use of leather. Regimental straps are, in fact, made of a rough woven (to imitate from a distance buff leather) but very rugged thermoplastic polymer: Courlene. Its the tassels (and, in the case of horse hair, long hair) that swing. Even for ceremonial use one uses straps since the whole sporran must sometimes (often) be moved to the hip.
Chains are typically a bit looser and the sporran is let to swing a bit. It allows, I think, for more freedom of movement as well as centered placement. That's the advantage in a formal setting. Great for standing with a glass in hand or sitting but not the ideal for "marching".

[cavscout]

Leather, and especially the "buff" rear, by contrast is less than slick. Relatively smooth leather belts are used to polish (sharpen) knife edges. In theory, at least, it seems a properly made chain should rub less than a belt.

I very seldom see belts with a "buff" back side. As I understand this term it implies an almost suede texture. The leather I us for belts and straps are slicked on the back so you will not feel any "buff" texture.

[Nanook]

I very seldom see belts with a "buff" back side.

And many belts are even lined but the standard issue "buff" ceremonial belts, slings and sporran straps are today made (woven) of ( polyethylene) "Courlene". I think Ikea bags might be made of a similar polymer :-)
--- as an aside, I don't quite understand the problems to make white courlene but the belts are priced very dearly (for plastic).

As I understand this term it implies an almost suede texture.

http://www.jarnaginco.com/leather%20...ns%20index.htm

Buff this leather original name was "losh" or "lash. I have seen it spelled both ways. Buff-leather for belts and Military purposes was not buffalo. This mistake is found in many different books even ones printed during the period. This leather was tanned from cow hides. These hide may have been ones with bacterial damage or skin defects since the grain surface would be removed during the tanning process.



The leather was subjected to a long lime and then sanded with a pumice stone or split by machine after they were invented. The oldest way is the sanding process, and was called buffing by tanners. So is the leather named for the sanding process or the color, since buff color is a yellowish gold color? If I find the answer I will post it on this page.



From reading records we know that buff leather could only be tanned during the spring and fall. This is due to the liming process that requires mild weather. This was a difficult and time consuming tanning process. After the Mexican war when the amount buff ordered fell off dramatically and when the army wanted more in the later 1850's tanner were not interested. This is the reason that the army switched to waxed leather in 1858. In a letter from G. Bomford Bt Col. of April 17, 1828 states that: As this kind of leather (buff) is unsaleable, except for the public service. This shows that tanner were not willing to stock buff leather due to lack of sales to any other individuals beyond the Ordnance Dept.



Buff leather according to the Ordnance Dept. should be of a firm consistency, and should not be Spongy.



Buff leather is found in three forms.

1. “Natural or buff”: this is when no whiteners have been added to change the color from the color given by the oils during the tanning process. That was the thought about natural buff but I found that it was stained in order to give its distinctive yellow. This was done in order to give a more pleasant color to the leather. This may be the reason that it was said that it was impossible to get buff all in the same color.
2. “Whitened buff”: buff leather with whiteners added in order to give a much lighter color. This color was not originally a pure white but tended to be in the range of a yellowish white or what we would call an antique white. Originally "whitened buff" was whitened with "Paris Whitening" this was a white chalk. [ I have add this term for clarity. The army referred "whitened buff" as buff. For more information on these two terms check out page 261 in Paul D. Johnson's book on "Civil War Cartridge Boxes of the Union Infantryman"]
3. “Blackened Buff”: This buff leather dyed black. This leather was also stained in order to give it a yellow color as can be seen on the back. I did see on buff belt that was a blackened buff belt to begin with but the blackening was removed and plates changed in order to make it look like an earlier belt but the yellow color gave it way as being later belt modified.

The leather I us for belts and straps are slicked on the back so you will not feel any "buff" texture.

The question is: Would not the straps with hooks contribute no less abrasive wear than chains?