luminosity: great question and I've often thought of this myself. I am a newbie to
Coach.
I've read some very detailed articles about the leather, and what I concluded was that
the leather Coach used years ago was far superior to it's current leather (there may be exceptions
at the very high end of the price range).
My preliminary conclusion is that the term glovetanned leather is a marketing term and doesn't
really identify the characteristics of the leather. Just like Dooney (and others) use the term
pebbled leather, which could be the original, thick, Dooney all weather leather that was
full grain leather that was then shrunk to get the pebbling and made even thicker.
Today, lots of pebbled leather isn't full grain and the pebbling is an embossed texture.
That makes it lighter in weight, doesn't make it bad, but it's not the same thing and
each has it's pros and cons. So what does pebbled leather really mean?
Back to glovetanned leather from Coach. I think that the term is used for different leathers
in terms of quality and thickness. I think the top surface is buffed for smoothness. Different
amounts of pebbling may be added by embossing the leather. So, some glovetanned leathers
may be really thick and high quality, while others may not be as high quality.
Leather 'quality' is affected by the leather itself (what animal it comes from, how thick the piece is,
where on the animal it came from, and how many natural defects it has). It is also affected by
the tanning process and the chemicals used. And the dyeing process and the chemicals used.
And then the quality is affected by whether an piece of leather is full grain, top grain, suede,
etc. The full grain is the thickest and contains the entire depth of all the layers. The top grain
is thinner and doesn't contain as many layers of the leather. Suede is just the underside of the leather.
And some 'leather' is made up of scraps that are molded together (it has names, but I think of it
as like baloney). Manufacturers can save money by 'slicing' the leather and using various layers
separately. Rather than using an entire piece of leather as full grain, a manufacturer can split it
and use some of it as top grain and some as suede.
Add to the mix that the surface of the leather can be buffed, for smoothness, or embossed for
texture (pebbled, exotic, etc.) And thinner layers can be coated (patent, for example) for looks
or function (stain and water resistance, durability).
What is good and what is bad is often in the eye of the consumer. If you like it and it works for you
(looks, function, price) does it matter if it's not the thickest, best, full grain leather, tanned and dyed
using the most premium processes? I've concluded that as long as I know what I'm getting,
or at least don't think I'm getting something better than it really is), that it's ok for me to
make the trade-offs for looks, function, price, variety.
Technically, I believe, that Dooney Floentine leather is superior to what Coach calls
glovetanned leather. I could be wrong. Dooney Florentine leather is full grain, tanned and dyed
using high end processes, I believe. (Dyeing process may vary for some lighter colors). The surfaces of the leather are not buffed or altered. They may show natural striations, pebbling and defects in the leather. (so each piece of leather may not be the very top quality), and the thickness may also vary (because naturally leather thickness varies).
I don't know if Coach glovetanned leather is full grain or top grain. But I believe the surface is
buffed for smoothness and the pebbling is an embossed texture. That makes the finished
piece more uniform. I also don't know about the tanning and dyeing process Coach uses
on glovetanned leather. The leather used on Coach original handbags was full grain.
The smoothness might have come from selecting highest quality pieces or from buffing.
I don't know.
So you can see.... the more I think I know, the more questions I have.
And if you prefer the look and feel of Coach glovetanned leather to the
Dooney Florentine leather (which varies more), then who is to say which is 'better'?
