Submitted by Dan on 2/24/1999. ( firstname.lastname@example.org )
Does anyone have any strong feelings, good or bad, about either of these tanning methods? I have used both but I like the results I've gotten with the Lutan F better. I feel the hides end up softer and have more stretch with the Lutan F than with the Syn Tan. Am I doing something wrong with the Syn Tan? I like it because it is easy and fast and I've mounted several life size mammals and quite a few deer heads with the Syn Tan and I was very pleased. Of course I mounted these with the hides wet so I didn't have to deal with a stiff hide, but recently I've tanned some muskrat, mink, and coons with Syn Tan and they are a pain to get soft, even with a breaking tool. I follow all the same steps with the two methods and I'm careful not to over tan, so any ideas? Is it just the nature of the tan or can I do something to get a softer result? I hope Bruce will reply, I read his article about synthetic tans in a past issue of Breakthrough and he sold me on giving it a try. Thanks for any opinions, advice, or alternatives.
Return to Category Menu
This response submitted by Keith Daniels on 2/24/1999. ( email@example.com )
Dan, what syn tan are you using? My personal experience with, and that of other tanners I know, is that you will get a flatter, stiffer leather than you will with the Aluminums. To make up for this, some of the syn tans are used in volumes that really make me doubt if they are completely tanning the skin, which means you will get more stretch, plus more shrinkage. I would suggest you stick with the Aluminum tans on anything you plan to soften, but the syntans will work great on what you leave wet to mount. Keith
This response submitted by Bruce Rittel on 2/24/1999. ( firstname.lastname@example.org )
Are we talking about Syntans in general - or the specific syntan that we sell - the EZ-100? The reason I ask is because not all syntans are considered good tanning agents. EZ-100 however, is considered an excellent replacement tanning agent. When its called a replacement agent it means it tans by itself. I've used all of the above types tannages, and in comparing them, I feel that the EZ-100 tans an extremely soft flat skin with none of the shrinkage associated with using the Alums. It also has more body or thickness than a Lutan F skin, which is usually thinner, while the Alum skin obviously is thicker due to the slight shrinkage. If you have softness problems - keep in mind that it may also be the type of oil you use. Generally speaking, an oil that works good on an Alum or Lutan, doesnt neccessarily work well on the EZ-100. Maybe you need something to compare Alum and Lutan F to! Send a skin to Wildlife Gallery, Nancarrow Taxidermy, Bucks County Fur Products, or Gameland Fur Dressing - and compare their results to your!! They all use EZ-100 exclusively and have a lot of happy customers! If you need addresses or phone #s - e-mail me and I'll be happy to give them to you.
This response submitted by Dan on 2/26/1999. ( email@example.com )
Thanks for the insight. The syntan I've been using is Basyn-Tan D-L-E from VanDykes, the directions are identicle to the EZ 100 so I assumed they were the same product and I'd get the same result. I guess that was my first mistake. I also use Protal from VanDykes for my oil, it works fine with Lutan F but maybe not the best with the syntan. I think I'll try Rittel's EZ-100, any suggestions for the type of oil I should use? I have a few more little tanning projects planned, my boys keep outgrowing their coon skin hats! Thanks again for the help.
This response submitted by Keith Daniels on 2/26/1999. ( firstname.lastname@example.org )
Bruce mentioned Bucks Co. Fur, and I wanted to say they do a great job on sheep skins. I have been refering people to them for quite a few years, and when someone insists on sending sheep to me that's where we send it, unless it's recently been sheared.
I had another one to send, and had just recently received 3 back. Their list that came back with the skins said something about a new process, and I thought maybe these were E Z 100 skins, if so I was pretty impressed. Well, after a phone call, it turns out they did change to E Z 100 for their washable tan, but these were done as natural tan, which they say they haven't changed, so apparently they don't use E Z 100 exclusively.
Like I have said in a posting many moons ago, I personally have never used E Z 100, but know other tanners who have, along with other syn tans, and just haven't gotten the results on soft tan skins they were after. So I guess I will still stick to my opinion as stated before when it comes to the syn tans for your soft tan skins.
By the way, with B A S F's new distribution structure, you might see Lutan FN start to get a little cost prohibitive in the very near future, I know I'm already starting to look into alternatives as a possible replacement. Keith
This response submitted by The Fur Dresser on 3/2/1999. ( )
The skins you initially told us you are trying are extremely greasy.
If during your pickling and tanning of those skins you do not degrease
very well then you will come out with a hide you have a very hard if
not impossible time trying to soften.
I disagree with Bruce, the results I have had with EZ-100 did not
fare as well in final products as Lutan FN. The hides I tried, strictly
following Bruce's instructions, came out thinner, not as good a leather,
and the boil test showed lutan was much better.
The Fur Dresser
What are the instructions for using syn-tan on a cape that is to be mounted?
Return to Category Menu