Once again you guys attack the messenger not the message..Rule #3 I do look both ways when crossing the street. About paint on tans. Most of you sell the idea that the only correct way to mount a deer is for the cape to be tanned into leather. What Im questioning is this. Hides are permeable things but I do not believe a paint on tan flows all the way through the hide. It will pool on the surface. So my feeling is that the hide is half tanned. Salt before pickle is not necessary, one word KROWTANN, next question please. If you just salt hide then paint on a tan is it leather? thats the $100 question. Salt does not set the hair if your capes slip you instantly say its bacteria or hide was in the back of the truck to long...mighty convient. Ive used Krowtan it works, Dp works, ez100 sure as hell works. I have a bottle of McKenzies which will also work. But then again plain borax works. My whole argument is this. If making leather produces the finest mount are you sure your tan is making leather or just buying enough time for hide to dry and set the hair? I just love the argument you tell everyone they need to tan the hide for a proper mount but is the tan your using a true tan? Next big question Ill start pushing is the shaving thin argument. Basic inteligents would dictate that shaving off a few mm of hide weekends it. Sure its has great stretch but when it fully dries and is hung on the wall enviromental humidity will stress it and a thin skin will crack before a think one. We can also jump into residual salt,acid burn etc.
Might be an argument for DP. So far all ive heard is alot of jawboneing about my way is the proper way
Return to Tanning Category Menu
Lots of experience (facts) and good science( chemistry )( facts) go a long way to settle the fraid nerves of the worried.
Some of the taxis on here have experimented on tanning specific to tanning.
For example, leaving skins and capes in solutions over extenced periods, abusing tanning receipes, and following receipies to a T. Also, a whole lot can be gleaned from visiting your old mounts, and those of others, taking some apart just to learn from it, and just playing within the different paradigms of tanning teck.
Also, organic things don't last, outcomes are not perfect. In 200 yrs perhaps folks will collect habitat bases and wonder what the subject looked like from the bird foot prints. amen.
Whatever works for you - great ! you are right , salt does not set the hair - better find out what does ! clue - has something to do with SALT . If your paint on tan is pooling up on the hide you are doing something WRONG - figure it out but dont go saying it's not a viable product and is'nt a tan . It sounds to me like you have all the right answers and there is nothing left to learn . too bad for you.
As Brad said, if it satisfies you, go for it, but because it DOES, doesn't make it right. I suppose you think that water applied to one side of a sponge won't go to another. Have you ever worn leather gloves? Does water get through them? Why wouldn't a SALTED hide with no moisture suck any liquid back into itself? If you don't think paint on hide will penetrate, what do you think DP is doing when you put it on?
Krotann must be an elixir for some of you and I had a guy ask me yesterday why I was so opposed to it. Nothing is farther from the truth, but I'm still not anywhere close to being convinced that it's an actual tan. If it looks like a pickle, smells like a pickle and has a pH like a pickle, then if mussbedapickle. In the early years of taxidermy, only a pickle was used, and if you ever see those mounts done with just a pickle, you'll know that in a few years, problems WILL appear in the form of cracks and splitting hides.
I recall Bill Yox saying one time that he didn't like he Autotanner because he didn't believe that you could take all the ingredients in a cake, throw them in the oven and turn it on, and expect to have a cake come out when the time had elapsed. Well, Krotann fits right there with me now. I'm not particularly a fan of the McKenzie tan (for other reasons, obviously) but in the time it takes to complete a Krotann job, I can have a deer mounted with the McKenzie tan method and I KNOW it's tanned as it's been pickled prior to the tan application. So until the test of time proves to me that this product ISN'T simply a fancy pickle, I'm just going to wait and see.
And before you push that shaving argument, lets go back to those gloves I spoke of. Which ones wear more comfortably? Those Mule Brand gloves with the working leather or those doeskin ones? Now tell me about those "silly mm's" and how they "weaken" the glove.
Bully for George!
Bowgull, pay attention to the post from George. The man has it right. Within the paragraph are all the answers and refutations to your problem. Salt DEhyrates, the chemicals contained in your water will be readily absorbed into your hides when a dehyrated hide is REhydrated. If this forum is unbelievable to you, then go and reinvent the wheel if you must. After you have made the same mistakes that the writers in this forum have ALREADY made, then come back and tell us how you made out.
This ain't rocket science. There are some basic rules for tanning that have been around for thousands of years. One of those venerable tenets is that a hide has to lose the majority of cellular water for the chemicals to have room to go "into" the hide. The pickle merely sets up the cells chemically (ions and cations) for the tan to attach to the cell structure. Basically.
I don't use Krowtann. Maybe you have had great results with it. If so, don't fix what ain't broke, but if you are going to skip salting, you will discover for yourself eventually what will happen to your hides.
As far as shaving thin, once again, read George's post. Thinning the last few millimeters of the leather has two purposes: 1. Softness, and 2. Suppleness (drape: how a skin will lay when held in the hand at any point of the skin)
Next Question.... :)
Are you sure Bill Yox said that about the cake and the oven and the Automatic Tanner and what not? Are you sure? All analogies break down linearly, but that one is flawed from the start.
Sounds more like your work than his.
Expositional statements about others often tell more about the speaker than the object of the statement. Why didn't you just say I'M IGNORANT I'M IGNORANT I'M IGNORANT instead of slandering Yox.
And the test of time on Krowtann might be better substituted by READING THE LABLE.
Or maybe my bottle is the only one with the ingredients on it.
Or maybe you don't actually know any actual names of any actual tanning agents.
Go sober up George!
Let me break this one up. First off, I dont get bowgull, and I wont need to argue with him. Its not a case of "my way or youre wrong" as its not MY way. I happen to be one of MANY who do indeed recognize that these are the right way regardless of who brought it up. He misses the whole point of my crossing the road analogy, perhaps one of you guys might explain it to him. Im not.
As for the quote from George...When Steve's auto tanner first came out, I did indeed say something to the effect of...I dont see how you can throw cake mix, water, eggs, frosting mix, sugar, etc, into an easy bake oven and walla, you get a two layered frosted cake. BUT, in that same breath I also said that I was sent a sample piece of tanned cape from one (sent by JohnC) and I had to admit that it looked and felt tanned to me. So, I then said I dont feel comfortable with that process based on what I know, but it seems to be working for many guys, and that I know Steve wouldnt rip anyone off. Look this up, its in the archives. So, George isnt drunk, Steve isnt a crook and Im no liar. And bowgull, well, hes on his own, as Im comfortable with my statement and theories. As Im sure he is with his, too.
George isn't drunk?
Here's where I would say your analogy is fatally flawed; My claim is not that you can put all the ingredients for a mounted deerhead in the tank and out will come a mounted deerhead.
I won't put words in your mouth, but your question may be (or have been) the same as George's; and that is about the pickle and tan in one step.
I would say that we (among others) have proven that pickling and tanning are not mutually exclusive, and there is no reason they can't be done at the same time. The critical factor is the funtional pH of the tanning agent. Some are way too high to work in an acidic environment strong enough to be termed a "pickle".
Others do fine, and some programmed chemical mixes begin low on the scale and end high. Best of both worlds.
Now if George really isn't drunk, what's his excuse?
(Sorry George, couldn't resist)
It wouldn't matter. Of all my flaws, lying isn't one of them. Even if I was drunk (and this Cherokee Indian hybrid -thats for Tenbears. LOL- knows it doesn't take much more than a strong cologne to do me in) I'd STILL tell the truth.
So don't take it personal. It wasn't meant to be slanderous of your Autotanner. Even you have to admit the product was quite "unconventional" at the time of its creation. I felt the same way about Glen Conley's STOP ROT, but I learned that conventional thinking ain't always right. And I HAVE read the ingredients on the label. You read them and tell me where I went wrong. And remember, many famous taxidermists eschewed the pickle by simply tanning from the get go.
And just why can't I throw the components of a shoulder mount in there and expect the finished product to come out? My customers do that to me all the time.
When you get your drawers out of a wad, just where did I EVER say that it was a tan and a pickle in one step? I stated that I thought it was a PICKLE PERIOD. Now, speaking of sobering up, I guess it's your turn. Apologies are graciously accepted, even if you did call me a liar.
Steve, George may well BE drunk, I dont know. Hes ok by me either way. I do hope you realize that the statement I originally made about your product, albeit my own opinion, was about three (four?) years ago, or when the product first came out, and I was asked about it. No need to explain it to me, you are doing fine with it from what I hear. All the best!
I didn't call you a liar pal. Drunk, senile, ignorant but not a liar, and I didn't ever think it.
I know you're way way WAY older than I am, and I usually can't remember what I had for breakfast.
Also, lying and saying something that is wrong are two different things. I think you believe what you say no matter how wrong you are.
You didn't say it was a tan and pickle in one step. You said it's a pickle. In so many words, the manufacturer says it's a tan and pickle in one step. You say "until the test of time proves that it's more than simply a fancy pickle."
My question was why not read the ingredients to see what it is.
The subtext being (as always) more important than the dialog, don't you feel any responsibility to be accurate in what you're saying?
It's entertaining to joust about the field once in a while, but let's get on the same field.
I do admit using a sledgehammer to swat at a fly on your forehead. I figured you weren't noticing the fly, and probably wouldn't notice a swatter either. If it seemed uncharitable, I do apologize for that.
I just love missspelling words in all caps. It's like shouting "I'M A DUMBASS!"
I didn't mean to get you fired up either and as Bill stated, your product was new and revolutionary. It seems to be standing the test of time quite well and that's all I'm saying here.
BUT AGAIN, I DID READ THE INGREDIENTS. Have you? The pH is 1.5. AND PLEASE, don't insult what little mentality I have left by saying that I should read the manufacturers label. In this industry we have Spray Tan, One-Hour Tan, and Dry Tan powder. An MSDS I'll believe, but we have yet to require truth in advertising in this industry.
I've had two calls today protesting my remarks or wanting to clear up my way of thinking about this product. Every day, INCLUDING TODAY, there are 2 or 3 new postings extolling the qualities of this product. It's obviously makeing the inventor lots of money and there are going to be enough examples long term very soon. I'm not doubting anything about it or how great it is. I use a product that's stood that test of time and it works great FOR ME, so I'm not going to change to prove a point, albeit the one that would make me admit wrong thinking. As much as a few of these pencilpeckers on here love me, I'm SURE they'll get around to telling me themselves in a couple years. LOL
If Bowgull wanted to stir the pot,he did. Let's not allow the ignorance of another to affect the Leaders of the industery (Steve&Bill).As Steve once told me , read the book by Hideamen. That is what I suggest to you, Bowgull.