Your position on patina

The idea for this thread came to me after picking up a circa 1960s-70s Lesco cafe racer that has clearly seen some use. As you can see, it's got lots of wear and marks and a little damage -- what we like to call "character" or "patina."

For many of us who wear/collect leather jackets, patina is a desirable characteristic. How do you define patina and what makes it a nice attribute in a jacket? How does patina contribute to either the beauty or ugliness in a jacket? Is patina more desirable in a certain type of leather jacket as opposed to another (flight vs. moto vs. other)? Do you hope to achieve a certain amount of patina in your own jackets? At what point is there too much patina to make the jacket unwearable for you?

Photos are welcome to illustrate your viewpoints (so this doesn't get too philosophical).

popcorn.gif

I support the proper use of the word PATINA and believe in enforcing proper usage with whatever force is neccessary on this forum.

I'm into it when it occurs naturally over time.

Same with old Volkswagens.

All I know is that I don't want my jacket to look like this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-La...50-1956-Only-Columbia-Rin-Tanaka/142496056656

That's damage, not patina...

It's a good question.
Time-worn patina can add significantly to a jacket's character & visual appeal.
This however, is NOT to be confused (as is sadly so often the case) with a dirty, old jacket.

What's the difference? IS there a reasonable way to define it, or is it purely in the eye of the beholder...?

According to Wiki

Patina (/ˈpætɪnə/ or /pəˈtiːnə/) is a thin layer that variously forms on the surface of copper, bronze and similar metals (tarnish produced by oxidation or other chemical processes), or certain stones, [1] and wooden furniture (sheen produced by age, wear, and polishing), or any similar acquired change of a surface through age and exposure.

Additionally, leather aficionados use the term to describe the ageing of high quality leather. The patina on leather goods are unique to the type of leather and frequency of use and exposure.

Patinas can provide a protective covering to materials that would otherwise be damaged by corrosion or weathering. They may also be aesthetically appealing.

So by patina do you mean a build up of “stuff” or the wear off of the leather surface or both?

When I think of it, I guess I think more of the wear off of the original surface but as illustrated above, while it generally makes the jacket look better there definitely is a point where it’s too much and you should get a new jacket lol

I love well aged, weathered, patinaed leather jackets.

I love brand new, clean leather jackets.

I do not love relatively new, clean leather jackets with a few random scratches. In other words, I do not love the early phase of the patina process. Once the jacket has widespread aging, the individual scratches disappear into the overall patina and add to the beauty of the jacket. However, before the jacket has that widespread aging, individual scratches can stick out against the canvas of otherwise fresh, clean leather. I feel the same way about denim . . . new jeans with a single stain look dirty, whereas jeans covered with stains can look vintage/patinaed.

Notwithstanding my love of well patinated leather jackets, I do not wear any of my jackets sufficiently frequently to properly develop the weathered/patinaed look. Rather, because of a variety of circumstances (e.g., climate, number of jackets), I wear most of my jackets only a few times a year at most. At this pace, it will take me 20+ years to develop meaningful patina on any of my leather jackets.

Some have suggested that I focus on one leather jacket, and wear the hell out of it, to the exclusion of my other jackets. The problem with this approach is that I love variety (don’t tell my wife I said that). I love wearing different jackets and mixing things up. I cannot wear the same jacket day in and day out. I applaud those who do, but it doesn’t work for me.

I have the same problem with jeans. I don’t buy raw denim jeans because I dislike the look of raw, un-distressed denim and, given the number of different jeans I regularly wear, it would take me 10+ years to weather an individual pair of raw denim jeans to a desirable level. Therefore, I buy pre-distressed jeans (blasphemy to some, but best suited for my circumstances).

I will ultimately buy a couple of vintage leather jackets in order to obtain the patina I cannot generate on my own. I just haven’t found the right jacket yet. Until then, I am relegated to generally un-patinaed repro leather jackets. Fortunately, in contrast to raw denim, I really love clean leather, so I am fine spending 20 years weathering my own jackets.

i like dramatic patina-ed or "patina"-ed jacket on other people black and white photos.

for my own I rather like the look of well worn but well maintained look.

Agreed with the above. Patina is a slow process of removing a topcoat that removes the outer most layer in stages to reveal the layer underneath. Patina is not damage. Patina is not wrinkles and creases. Patina is wearing off the outermost layer in segments where such wear occurs naturally. Can't be satisfactorily faked, has to be earned. Fake patina reeks of fake patina.

dan_t said:

It's a good question.
Time-worn patina can add significantly to a jacket's character & visual appeal.
This however, is NOT to be confused (as is sadly so often the case) with a dirty, old jacket.

What's the difference? IS there a reasonable way to define it, or is it purely in the eye of the beholder...?

Click to expand...

Well said, the word patina has become so cliqued, with over use that it's lost it's true value. Just look at any advert for a modern classic car, I guarantee you will see, somewhere in the write up: "Lovely patina." For that read total rust bucket.
And for leather jackets it seems the same, when you read, lovely patina, just beware, unless you actually like the kind of jacket that Monitor posted.

Patina is very good. Terrible if it's not real. That biker jacket is great. The price is silly.

Would the "tea core" process be considered artificial patina?

tmitchell59 said:

Would the "tea core" process be considered artificial patina?

Click to expand...

I'd say no. It still requires genuine wear. Sandpaper is artificial. Tea core is just patina on steroids.

Loosely I would define patina as "worn in, not worn out". Good patina is acquired through years of use without abuse. As, for tea core I would call it a finish, that happens to "age" quickly.

Lots of good replies to this thread thus far. It seems there is a general consensus that legitimate "patina" is something a jacket earns over time. It's not faked and doesn't come through deliberate premeditated abuse.

Unacceptable patina may mean the jacket has reached a stage where it's in danger of being damaged simply by being worn (flaking leather or weak stitching, for example).

I personally wouldn't want to distress a jacket to create an illusion of patina or aging. To me, the best kind of patina comes only through repeated wearing, when a jacket is subjected to various conditions and use over time. Patina shows a jacket has had a life filled with experiences. It tells its story through every scar, scuff and blemish.

But some may disagree.

Let me present the example of my vintage Lesco cafe racer again with additional photos. Do you consider this an example of an acceptable level of patina? Is it just a dirty jacket that didn't receive proper care? Something in between? (I have no idea what the spots are on the back, by the way. Oil splatter?)

Of course, there are no right/wrong answers, just individual viewpoints.

Another question for consideration: does patina carry more weight when it's on a motorcycle jacket as opposed to, say, a flight jacket? Does patina make a moto jacket more "badass" or give it more street cred?

I’d guess the spots are oil and tarmac picked up by the rear tire from a bike with no rear guard.

Monitor said:

All I know is that I don't want my jacket to look like this:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-La...50-1956-Only-Columbia-Rin-Tanaka/142496056656

That's damage, not patina...

Click to expand...

I actually like the look of the one Monitor posted! If it wasn't for the damage in the collar, I'd definitely wear it...or at least frame it on the wall if it was a Buco or a Langlitz.
But maybe one person's "patina" is another person's damage?
Personally, I draw the line at holes in the collar...and any kind of mold or cigarette smells.
A while back I was tempted by this one, just because it had such amazing "patina."

This is nice patina. Not so sure about the Lesco, it has a look. Probably not something I would wear.