I just picked up a nice looking B15 from the LBS the other day. While I was applying some proofide I looked it over and compared it to my other saddles. It looks to me like the leather is really thick, like my team pro and much thicker than my Wrights W3N.

I assumed the B15 was just a slightly wider B17, does anyone else notice it as having thicker leather? I have never seen a B17 in person to compare it too.

I was looking for a date code on the frame but can't seem to find one... any suggestions?

I can snap a comparison pic later if anyone is interested. Thanks!

That sure wasn't the case with the B15 that we got with a Schwinn Letour sometime around '75. It was much thinner leather than either a B17 or Brooks Pro models. Started distorting in shape after five years or so as well.

Mine appears to have been ridden, but there is no butt imprints in it. It is every bit as stiff as my Pro maybe thicker, in fact it looks like someone hit the top with a hammer to soften it. Looking at the leather on the bottom side I noticed this marking:

H B
A
U

Has anyone ever seen this?

I've got a 1970 B15, an 80's B17, and a new (6 month old) B17. The B15 appears to be thicker than the others. I'll try to take my calipers to work tomorrow and measure the B15 leather (it's on a bike I leave there for lunchtime rides). I can definitely say that the B15 is taking a lot more riding than the new B17 did to "conform" to my anatomy. I assumed it was because it was so old (NOS) when I got it 8 months ago, but I'm sure the leather thickness has something to do with it as well.

CMC

I've had a couple of B-15s, and the one I've kept is currently on my '03 C-Dale which is regularly ridden. These two had thicker rawhide then any Brooks in my collection, except the B5N, which is about the same. The Wrights W5N has the thinnest. You can see the B5N - W5N difference in the picture below.

Bob, it seems that our B15s are very similar. Here is a picture comparing it with my Brooks professional. So is thicker leather always considered a good thing, or isn't always?

The Professional is on top and the B15 is on bottom:




Here is that underside marking that I mentioned:

I believe B-15 had thicker leather than B-17 because it wasn't quite as good a quality leather. I will have to go measure my B-15s but I thought the were a little narrower than a B-17. Sort of a cross between a B-17 and a B-17N. Roger

That could very well be. My B15 measures 17cm at it's widest, it is noticeably much wider that my Wrights W3N.

I have owned, used and love most Brooks saddles including a B66 with springs, Brooks Pro, Brooks B17 Special, Brooks B17, Brooks B17 Narrow and a Brooks B15. I absolutely hated the B15! It was too wide for appearance sake and very uncomfortable.

I did not take the time to break in the B15 but none of my other Brooks offerings were all that uncomfortable right out of the box. But not the B15.

Anyway, the B15 was not for me but might be perfect for someone with a wider rear end.

sI have a late 60's Brooks that I still ride. It actually has an extra layer of leather under the top section of the seat. It is old so worn that I can not discern any model number on the seat. This seat never has soften up much. but I have tightened the nose adjustor once or twice in all the years.

Hey, you calling me fat!

I agree about the appearance of it. I like the look of my wrights much better, the B15 looks sort of dopey to my eyes.

The leather on my B15 measures 0.55cm thick on average, compared to 0.49 on the B17. The width of the old B15 is 147cm and the B17 is 155cm.

Even though I ride the B15 more often than any other saddle, I'm still not seeing any deflection or other sign of breaking in. It's not uncomfortable to ride though.

I agree, after riding it a bit it seems comfortable enough even without the butt prints.