Quote Originally Posted by artificer View Post
I don't know that the two examples you show here are accurate. The first link definitely shows a more rustic sporran.

The fur isn't sheared, which leaves it 'bushy' looking. I tend to agree that the growling, open mouth is a bit OTT, but not indicative of badly done work. I also like a fur gusset, but that's personal preference.

In Rocky's link, the fur appears to be sheared, which lends a more tailored look. Also, the shape of the bag itself compliments the shape of the head (which is something I think lacks a bit in the first link).

In short, without detail shots, you can't really SAY that #1 is poor quality. You CAN argue about proportions, design aesthetic, and good taste.

I have one of the L and M sporrans. The fur is not sheared. The effect that you're seeing instead comes from the fact that the fur is only on the front panel of the sporran. The remainder of the sporran (gusset, etc.) is made of smooth leather. I think this style of construction works much better since American badger fur tends to be more flyaway. Another difference with American pelts is that the mask lacks the very distinct "badge" that the Scottish Badger variety has, a shame in my opinion.

I've seen examples of the Craigie sporrans in person. To me they are always too large and over-bondo'ed in the mask, making them very heavy and awkward to wear,. They also always look "unfinished" to my eye due to the fur gusset, which makes the fur stick out at crazy angles. The use of the legs/claws as tassles, to me, is an example of "more is not better." To me these things never really look like true sporrans, instead they resemble a sort of crudely-made reenactor pouch. Often this effect is intensified by the wearer's other accoutrements- neck daggers, leather knee-high "moccasins", blue facepaint, etc.

David