Stupid question, I realize - but watching Prince of Persia I notice people using leopard skins as blankets. Wouldn’t you have the lovely furry pelt against your skin rather than the tanned skin side?
I suppose, for whatever reason – display of rank, or for conspicuous consumption, or the beauty of the pelt – whichever of those, you want to see the pelt pattern. I’m guessing fur coats have an inner liner of other, less impressive animal – say, knitted wool or rabbit fur. ANd the insulation ability works nearly as well out then in, although I suppose the best warmth is other way around.
We’re generally not allowed to WAG in the first post. But you’re just gonna get 'fur is murder posts soon, and I wanted to be ahead of the curve.
But yeah, for video game and movie purposes, you gotta see the pelt pattern to know who you’re dealing with. Ref: http://www.redvdit.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180604205824648.jpeg
‘Vat is dis, velvet?’
Historically, furs were used to line garments intended primarily to be warm, and to decorate the outside of garments intended primarily to mark status. Of course, skins worn with the fur on the outside can also contribute to warmth, and fur linings or facings can also make a garment look more luxurious, so there’s no real bright line between those two categories.
Modern luxury fur coats generally have a smooth fabric lining such as quilted satin. People who wear fur coats usually don’t want a furry and/or high-friction lining such as wool or rabbit fur dragging at their outfits and shedding hairs on them.
Also, keeping the hair side of a pelt outermost is best for preserving the appearance of the fur.
Thank you so much for anticipating something I should’ve seen coming and a thoughtful answer from both of you. The Dope ain’t what it used to be, but I still love it for what it is is.
Fur works best when you wear it the way the original owner did, pelt out. If you get body oils on the fur it will matt and lose its heat retentive properties, not to mention looking like hell after a while. The only exception I can think of is the sheepskin jacket with the wool sheared off closely and worn inside with the suede leather turned out and that’s probably due to needing weather protection from snow and wet–the wool retains warmth even if it gets wet but the leather outside keeps it dry longer not to mention how absolutely gross a bit of wool fleece gets when it’s exposed to the natural world and all its ickiness. The sheepskin is a very sensible type of pelt for clothing.
And, to fill out the posting requirements, I remember long ago reading about a fictional character who was searing a coat made with the fur side inside, because she was from a background rich enough that they didn’t have to show off by putting the fur on the outside.
You can always have it both ways, as it were: for example, a sable coat lined with rabbit (or more sable).
Going back to the OP, it’s a movie, so having the leopard skins fur side up instantly conveys “this is a leopard skin” without needing any explanation or description.
Yeah, you got me there.
There’s a Prince of Persia movie? I thought the first game was fantastic. I need to hunt that down!
Leopards weren’t raised for fur. It’s possible that most furs wouldn’t be comfortable. (I suspect the inside, in real life, would have been lined with some softer “higher quality” fur.)
As your counter example shows “it’s complicated”. Many traditional garments have the hairs pointing inwards, that that would often be to combine it, in very cold weather, with one with the hairs pointing outwards.
The hairs on the inside will insulated better if:
- the fur is of a kind that doesn’t get compacted too much to counteract the benefit of trapping more air
- if it’s prevented from contamination by skin oils (wear an undershirt), or, like wool, doesn’t mat quickly due to oil. (Wool is naturally greasy, which is part of the reason it warms well despite being damp.)
Having the hairs on the inside means you wear them off quicker through just wearing, but having them on the outside might wear them off through other use, which is why you generally don’t see gloves with the hairs on the outside, but do see them fur lined.
My mother had a genuine mink coat - the furside was outside and the inside was lined with silk.
I was going to post the Hiawatha poem but was ninjad.
Perhaps don’t assume you know what others will post because so far, you’re incorrect.
Tarzan wore his shorts furside outside 
Tell that to the people of the Arctic. They make clothing both ways, fur in and fur out.
yep, this.
The common image of a cave man always has him or her with a fur wrapped around their waist. This is a puritan view just for the history books.
We used to wear them around our shoulders, where they would do some good keeping us warm and alive. The bottom part of our body is better left bare in areas where we might be jumping in and out of canoes all day or wading across streams.
“We”? It sounds like you’re speaking from experience, there.
I don’t know where these hypothetical cave men are living, but it’s pretty obvious that furs are practical, if expensive, items of clothing in the Arctic, Siberia, Antarctic, and similar, assuming one cannot get to a North Face outlet, somewhat less so in the tropics and African jungle. The Tarzan leopard guys were supposedly based on a real secret society, interestingly enough.
It is just my justification for not wearing pants.
But in reality a person needs to keep their upper body and vital organs warm. Modesty is secondary.
Where I lived in the early 70’s, men who were much older than the road wore a bit of leafy brush in front, held by a waist band.
The young men wore a skirt (a lap-lap), and between those two groups the men wore a piece of cloth front and back.