Sources for buff leather

[Oregon Bill]

Many pieces of military kit, both British and American, in the 19th century called for "buff leather." This appears to be whit or natural color, fairly heavy (6-8 ounces?) and with a soft or split finish on both sides.
Does anyone have more accurate specs for this stuff, and better, a good source for it?

Here is an example (the strap on the bullet pouch):

http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/very-rare-1841-rifleman-s-pouch-and-peace-flask-w-1-c-0422f5045f

[GunClick Rick]

Frontier era trade goods
Cosmos Mn 320-877-7297

They do not have a website ask for Adam tell him Rick in Ca. sent ya...They may have what you need,i know they have buff.

[ChuckBurrows]

Buff Leather
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.
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 unsalable, 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.

"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.

"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"]

"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 away as being later belt modified.

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

check with the 17th/18th re-enactors for suppliers........

[Dalton Masterson]

So is it basically a veg tan split??? I have a split I mistakenly ordered years ago, and while it will make some gear, its just plain ugly...
DM

[cavsgt]

  Buff was available from Siegel(?) in California years past.  We bought it when working on Last of the Mohicans for slings,belts and sabertaches.  It is not a split but has a roughed finish and is kind of a yellow colod.

[G.W. Strong]

I have several  friends who work for major arms and armour museums in England. We have discussed Buff leather at lenght over the years. This is because medieval armour used buff leather for internal strapping whenver possible. Here is what I have learned from a couple of them. (The comments below are slightly edited because they were taken out of context)

(Armour restoration expert)
The biggest difference between an historically finished buff leather and even the best oil tanned leathers available today is the breaking process. Most leather is tumbled in gigantic drums much like a clothes dryer. Dyes and packing load (oil, wax whatever) is beaten into the fibre while it is broken down by mechanical action. True buff is broken in two directions only over a beam. The piece is drawn back and forth over the beam by teams of men on either side, while the load is daubed on as it draws into the fibre. The grain side is worked down over the beam so was quickly scoured off. Once this happens the piece is turned over to continue the process on the other side.

(Royal Armouries Conservator)
The Royal Armouries Conservation Dept used/uses a bandsmans buff bought in the late 80's from a military outfitters. This is a very different material to the Bandsmans buff produced by Clayton of Chesterfield. (http://www.claytonleather.com/) It has the odd quality of being sold by weight and not square footage. I havn't been able to find anything like the original bandsmans buff for years and suspect that some form of whale oil was used in its manufacture.
Claytons seem to make two types of buff leather. One an oil tanned buff is a light yellow and doesn't seem to work well in taking dye, stretches teribly and causes steel/iron to rust (probably hyroscopic hopefully) The other is a Bandsmans buff made I think made for the Ministry of Defense. This is what I have used for internal leathers and buff coats when making armours.



I hope this helps somewhat...

[GunClick Rick]

http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/pp-classifieds/showproduct.php/product/7256