Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
Creagdhubh is right... The sporran on ebay looks like a muskrat sporran that has seen better days.
I wasn't arguing that is might not be muskrat, but I was contesting the facts that:
a) it didn't need a wash
b) looked good.



I wonder if it actually WAS intended as a full mask originally, or if it isn't a "Frankenstein" amalgam of two previous sporrans. The visible stitch work on the top-back is either the WORST repair job I've ever seen* or is a poor attempt at making a full mask out of two previously demolished bags.

* When is it easier to punch NEW holes in leather than to re-thread through the original holes??? Although, I guess if the original took that much damage it would explain the rather nappy appearance of our small furry friend

The other thing that sets off a few alarm bells to me is the fact that the front seems so 'battle-damaged' while the back appears pristine (apart from the rogue stitch-work).

I'm by no-means the authoritative expert in historic Highland wear, but from many years in design and shopping for classic/antique furniture, the WILD difference between faces sets off alarms, as does the shoddy stitch work.

I know fur is far more delicate than leather, but for something to be THAT badly abused on the front, I'd expect to see a touch of wear on the back. Either light scraping from the chain, or wear to the bottom trim from being bounced back and forth across the legs... something. Maybe I'm wrong here, and if I am, I'd love to be corrected. It just seems fishy to me.