Vintage versus New... Brooks Proofide
 

I just happened to get all three of my tins of Brooks Proofide in one place this morning, so I took a couple photos to celebrate the occasion.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-s...oofide%2B2.JPG

The biggest tin, I don't know how old it is, I've had it since 1983 or so, having found it in the saddle bag of a Raleigh Sports that came into the bike shop as a trade-in. It's probably from about 1970. Printed on the edge are the words "MINIMUM NETT WEIGHT 2 OZS"

The little tin, I don't know how old that is either. It came with a ruined Brooks saddle I bought for the frame. I'd guess it's from about 2000. Printed on the edge are the words "MADE IN ENGLAND. MINIMUM NETT WEIGHT 2 OZS (56 GRAMMES)

The medium tin, I got it last year. It's probably from 2015. There is no printing on the edge, but you can see where it says "Net Weight 40g."

I can't check those weights; the first two are pretty well empty. But it's pretty bizarre, I think, that the biggest tin and the littlest were stated to contain the same amount.

Anyway, the point is, Brooks has evidently changed the recipe. Does anyone know why? Do they serve the same purpose? How is the new version better?

The instructions on the oldest tin, in case you can't read them, are as follows:
In contrast, the current instructions on Brooks' website are as follows:
I find it interesting that the new stuff is recommended for "breaking in" the saddle, while the old stuff was not. For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that this stuff should be used for "breaking in" a saddle.

I think the new formulation (medium tin in your picture) has citronella oil added to keep the tallow from going rancid.

Exactly.

How does proofide differ from dubbin? Looks the same to me.

As far as I know, it doesn't; but dubbin is a generic term, while Proofide is a brand name.

Wikipedia - Dubbin

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ubbin_Open.jpg

(Photo from Wikipedia)

Another brand-name alternative is Obenauf's, which appears to be beeswax and propolis suspended in oil. Propolis and beeswax are naturally found together, around the edges of the beehive, but when heated the wax melts at a much lower temperature than the propolis. I'm intrigued about how they make it.
http://www.obenaufs.com/Heavy-Duty-L...vy-duty-lp.htm

Hi RHm.

Here are two images of one of my WRIGHT'S saddles. It's the one I think is on its last legs. Note he split at the left rear rivet. What do you think? Imminent failure on a bump?

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7594/...c582f026_o.jpgIMG_3788 by Miele Man, on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7157/...1958a41a_o.jpgIMG_3791 by Miele Man, on Flickr

Also, here are three images of the DUBBIN that I use. The DUBBIN is actually white not the off colour due to the lighting I took the images under. IS this acceptable to you as a leather preservative?

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7617/...981f7529_o.jpgIMG_3785 by Miele Man, on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7063/...0e838f86_o.jpgIMG_3786 by Miele Man, on Flickr

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7061/...0a167b25_o.jpgIMG_3787 by Miele Man, on Flickr

Thanks again for starting this thread.

Cheers

I could be wrong but I was always under the impression that dubbin was more a mixture of greases and oils. But I haven't used it in about forty five years. Used to put it on my Dunham's of Maine hiking boots. Then I discovered Snoseal, and always used that on my lineman's boots, and Pivetta rock climbing boots. Didn't soften the toe and heel counters.
If it were my saddle, I don't think I'd use dubbin on a leather saddle. But only because I'm not sure what's in it.

I'm no expert, but I remember reading a rumor that the wide, hammered rivets on Brooks saddles started out with a company that would drill out the original rivets, make some changes, and then needed a larger rivet to replace the originals. Maybe you could try something similar to salvage this saddle - drill out that rivet, cut some of the leather in that location, maybe punch a small hole or something at the edge of the existing crack so it doesn't spread further, then re-rivet with a larger headed rivet?

I remember really liking the smell of that old stuff, RHM. Had a nice and distinctive odor to it. Sort of a salmon-orange color.
Love the old tin too and I think you're right, early seventies. Somewhere around I still have an old tin like that. Couldn't get it open last time I tried.

Simple, folks have gotten soft!

Heck, if you can break a horse without cream ya can break in a saddle!

I'm not entirely convinced saddles need to be "broken in" at all. I've got a couple of B17's with only a couple thousand miles on them that are feeling a bit too squishy these days. They felt fine when I first got them.

Harumph.

If we are talking about a Brooks Pro, I think it is your butt that gets "broken in". Well, on saddles with thinner leather, the leather does move and soften a bit.

Well here are my three tins...though the middle one is plastic, so maybe I should call it a "tic". Two are the same as the OP's.

http://i63.tinypic.com/35a93dt.jpg

From left to right: Mid '80s, late '90s, and current?

http://i66.tinypic.com/5jsbwy.jpg

I never liked the one on the left. It never really was absorbed by the leather. It just sat there. The middle is my favorite. The one on the right gets absorbed too fast.

I've read that the squishier B17s and the recent recommendation of Proofide as a break-in accelerant are both due to Selle Royal catering to newbie Brooks riders. It sure rings true to me, even if it isn't. ;)

I made the mistake of using Snoseal on two pairs of really nice Allen Edmonds boots. I was going to do one, figured I'd do 'em both at the same time. Totally darkened the leather and made it feel oil soaked and clammy. What had been the most soft and supple leather I've ever felt on a shoe became the same as combat boots that were soaked in diesel.

I also used that stuff on my B-17- but it didn't have that dramatic of effect on that.

That is what people say! But since I've been recovering saddles I've learned that if I use the same leather on a B.72, and on a B.17 Standard, and on a Professional, and on a B.17 Narrow, the B.72 will be very soft, the B.17 Standard also pretty soft, the Professional a lot harder, and the Narrow very hard indeed. The width, not the thickness of the leather, determines the hardness.

So we confirm, that they have changed their recipe over the years.

I think I read that as well. But I may have made it up myself and posted it, and then you read it there. I do believe it, for sure.

That's really interesting data! The B17 Narrow is my favorite Brooks shape so far, and had assumed that Brooks has been using thinner leather on the B17 Standard specifically for those aforementioned newbies. I will correct my mental model. :)

While we're at it, do you suppose the width (and resulting flexibility) is why B72s are notorious for cracking around the nose?

Possibly! But I hadn't noticed that that's where B.72's always fail. Truth be told, I have a strong dislike of B.72's which makes me a very poor judge of their strengths and weaknesses. I think this is because I habitually ride with my hands far below the saddle, and the B.72 is designed for much more upright posture. Which I can't stand.

Shhhhh......... don't tell anyone, but I've been using Giles Berthoud leather dressing on my Brooks Pros, Imperial and my Berthoud Galibier saddles for some time now and it has worked really nice.
Even hit the bottoms (sparingly, and just once so far) with no problems.
The French stuff looks a bit yellower in color than the new Proofide, but does not have any discernable odor to it...
Been wondering though, where all this stuff cones from. I doubt if Brooks or Berthoud owns proprietary plants to produce these things. I think it's most likely contracted out......

:)

Shortly after buying my '64 Armstrong 3-speed, I decided it needed something more "respectable" than the mattress saddle on it. A visit to Sheldon Brown indicated that the comparable Raleigh would have come with a B72 or B66, so I did more research and found some stories about older B72s cracking through the leather at the nose. Undaunted, I found a good deal on one and bought it. But like you, I rarely found myself in the mood to ride a bike so upright, and the frame is a smidgen too small for me, so I don't have much data to add either way.

I really should just find another home for that bike.

curious that Brooks recommend using Proofide on a new saddle
because on another section they say it is not necessary.

BROOKS ENGLAND LTD. | FAQS | SADDLE_MAINTENANCE

Obenhaufs is a fine leather preservative but like it does tend to darken leather but so do most that actually penetrate dried hide. I have used many different products over the years on hiking boots and other leather products and it is hands down the best. Brooks saddles are funny beasts, for example I found the "broken in" b17 model to be the hardest rock of a brooks I have ever sat on. It also soaked up obenhaufs like crazy due to whatever process they used to age it. Leather does need some type of preservative if used actively but a little goes a long way.

Two things combine to give a saddle its stiffness - shape and material.

For sure, shape affects the compliance of the saddle. But for a given shape, thicker is stiffer. This is a simple fact of mechanical engineering.


I also have a tin of Proofide with the orange lid. My tin is from about 1973. When comparing new to old, you have to consider storage conditions and evaporative losses of the solvents over the several intervening decades.

Oh man. Yeah, I would never use Snoseal on anything but work or climbing boots. Which is what it was intended for.
I used to be able to Snoseal my 18 inch tall Westco lineman's boots and the next day stand in ankle deep water, with no wet feet.
I didn't stand in ankle deep water often but calf deep snow?...very often.

*sigh*