[MR] Fwd: Re: [RN] FYI: Leather Terminology

[David Chessler]

------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:12:10 AM EDT
From: "Jay Rudin" <rudin at ev1.net>
To: "RapierNet - Fencing in the SCA" <sca-rapier at lists.ansteorra.org>
Subject: Re: [RN] FYI: Leather Terminology

Dore asked:

>  So, was it a buff coat because it was buffed
or because it was typically buff color?

Neither.  In fact, both of those usages came well after "buff coat", and 
all three came from the leather.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a buff is a buffalo or wild ox 
(not an American bison).  The first usage shown is from 1552.  Soon after, 
there is reference to buff leather, with the first usage shown in 1580. 
This originally meant buffalo leather, but came to mean heavy leather that 
was oiled with a characteristic fuzzy surface and a dull yellow-whitish 
color.

Then "buff" came to mean military attire made of buff, as in Shakespeare's 
*Comedy of Errors*, IV, ii, "But is in a suite of buffe which rested him" 
(1590).  The phrase "buff coat" is documented to 1632.

But the color adjective means having a color similar to buff leather, and 
is documented to 1762.  The verb "to buff" means to impart the velvety 
surface of buff leather, and is documented to 1885.

>  My guess is the latter but I can't prove that and after a decade
> or two of that usage people in period probably did not know either.

Often true, but since they left written records, the usage of (at least) 
written English is researchable.

Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin

_______________________________________________
Sca-rapier mailing list
Sca-rapier at lists.ansteorra.org
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/sca-rapier-ansteorra.org