It said the funeral homez will be the ones doing the excision, probably not much of a stretch to assume they have a certification to transport and handle skin.
After looking at the pictures on the site and in news articles. It actually looks like a piece of art! I don’t think anybody would ever know that it was tattooed skin without telling them. This may be something better than the urn with ashes thing.
https://savemyink.com/Home/PreservedTattoos
The link above is their gallery. The “Hunter” piece is actually kind of touching if you read the story behind it. This company might be on to something but its definitely going to take some thinking.
Except for the whole “metal” thing I would consider it. My Dad had a tat he got, and partly did himself, during the war. Great story behind it and a great memory of him sharing the story. I don’t know that I would have preserved it -------- but I would have at least considered it.
Actually, I swear I remember reading an account of a Nazi officer who did just this. Either way, fuck no.
It looks pretty obvious to me. Especially the ones that are obviously from older folks - skin is wrinkled and loose. I was curious enough to look, but too horrified to go through the whole gallery.
Yeah, touching. “Hey kid, sorry you lost your Dad so young and all. Here’s a slice of his skin to cheer you up. See? Somebody stuck a bunch of needles in it to draw a picture. It’s about you!”
Give the poor child a photograph of his Dad showing the tattoo. This is just grisly.
Yep, it was Ilse Koch, same woman who did the lampshades of human skin.
Makes me think of The Thirty-Year-Old Tattoo.
No, no, no. no, no, and no.
No.
Just no.
I’d do the diamond thing, really, I’d do anything other than liquify in a sealed box, but the tree option is the best.
Yeah, it was Ilse Koch, the lady I mentioned in the OP.
[Quote=PeasantSlayer69]
I read about this somewhere else where a person said they would just prefer a picture of the tattoo, id rather have the real thing, makes me wonder what family really means to a person! If they want you to do it, do it dammit!
[/QUOTE]
They’re dead, they wouldn’t care or know if you actually did it. It has nothing to do with whether or not you value your family.
Don’t they suggest that you ASK the person you’re leaving it to first? Cuz if a relative of mine did this, I’d be mega-offended.
I didn’t see it suggested on the site. I mean, I’m sure you’re notified prior to it arriving and such. I can’t think of any family member of mine that would even consider doing it - and if they did it would be a joke and they wouldn’t have expected me to keep it. Noooo thanks.
And if they wanted you to jump off bridge, would you do that, too?
And it’s not “metal”, it’s clingy and sentimental, like Victorian hair jewelry, in addition to being completely devoid of any sense of history.
Tan me hide when I’m dead, Fred…So i tanned his hide when he died, Clyde…and that’s it hangin’ on the shed!
Remember this Australian ditty?
Even as someone who has tattoos, and whose spouse has tattoos: hell no. That is ghoulish as fuck. :eek:
I’m surprised, despite being one of them, that the majority of my tattooed friends are opposed to this. The Nazi thing does cast a huge shadow.
For me it’s not about the Nazis, it’s because my tattoos are mine. My organs, including my untattooed skin, I’m happy to donate after my death, because I didn’t make them. My mom did, from recycled materials she got from dead plants and animals. I just kept growing them because there was no option to not do so. I’m happy to pass them along to those who can reuse them after I’m done with them.
But my tattoos, those are mine. I thought of them, I designed them, and I paid money to have someone put them on me. I made them manifest, from inspiration to execution. They belong to me. People may admire them, but they may not have them. They may be the only things in my life that are only mine, and I’d like them to stay that way after my death.
Hair jewelry doesn’t bother me – generally giving someone a lock of hair is a very old tradition. You don’t even have to be dead to do so, since we cut our hair all the time. And generally the best wigs have been made of real human hair – no thinks anything of that.
Skin, however, is a living organ. It would be like giving someone a piece of your pancreas after you die. Not as an organ donor, but just to hang on your wall as a decoration.
Seems to me that, once you make the decision to give someone your skin, you’re simultaneously coming to terms with the fact that one day your skin will be sold at a garage sale or dropped off outside a Goodwill.
I guess none of you have ever read Roald Dahl’s short story “Skin,” eh? Cree-py!
That is what I am thinking but there are most tasteful displays than a pike. Mummies are charming and always a conversation starter. We have the technology to preserve whole heads. Lots of consumer grade taxidermy is gauche but many of the most accomplished taxidermy artists could make a display from a loved one at least as good as any you will see at a high-end sporting goods store. They could create anything from a warrior to a meditative pose.
However, preserving tattoos is just gross. Those things shouldn’t exist on a living person let alone preserved for anyone to be remembered by. If you want posthumous notoriety, go for complete mummification like good old Speedy Atkins who got to travel and do much more after death than he did when he was alive.