New meets old kit.

[rik_uk3]

1jack1pike, I think your desire to use certain gear because it makes you happy when you use it is perfectly good. You are right, we don't "need" to do any of this, so we have the freedom to do things just because we want to. If you are making a stylistic choice, that's fine, and there is nothing wrong with it.

The only thing I will say, just for clarification purposes, is that "traditional" kit doesn't mean basic kit and it doesn't mean more reliable kit. A kit can be basic and reliable whether it be traditional or modern, and inversely, a kit can be complicated and unreliable whether it be modern or traditional. History is filled with examples of both. Flint and steel (traditional tool) is no more reliable than a ferro rod (modern tool); your Jetboil (modern tool) is probably more reliable and efficient than the alcohol stove Nansen carried on his Greenland expedition in 1888 (traditional tool?), just as an example. Consumerism is nothing new either. You have plenty of examples of 18th and 19th century expeditions that carried mind-blowing amounts of "traditional' gear.

All I can say is clear your mind any notions of what traditional and modern gear are and aren't. Those are artificial constructs that we have created. Only reliable gear is reliable; only basic gear is basic; only practical tools are practical; only minimal kit is minimal. If you are looking for any of those things, you can find them in either type of gear whether it's been deemed "traditional" or "modern".

If on the other hand we are talking just about a stylistic choice, then I'm afraid my comments haven't been much help. I'm sure there are manufacturers that specialize in that type of retro gear, I'm just not familiar with them.

Good post(s) Ross, sadly for old and new people in bushcraft there seems to be an image they feel they need to reach.

 

[Old Bones]

I think you made the point about the Franklin Expedition better than I did - their kit was unsuitable for the conditions, and they really should have followed the locals. I think that some have pointed to Amundsens success in his race to the pole in using clothing modelled on Inuit types, although he also used Burberry and gaberdine.

As for titanium, I was thinking of it as a gift rather than something they'd have to shell out for - although aluminium in the 19th century would have been the equivalent of titanium from the mid 20th century - a very useful,but eyewatering expensive material. But your right to say that cost v weight has always been a key consideration - hence the reason why I can't afford the truely lightweight kit I see on the net! What I was trying to say is that when given the possibility of something stronger, lighter or better in some way, people in the past have tended to use it, just as we do now.

 

[Nyayo]

Good thread guys, as is often the case. I love the canvas and leather stuff too, but it's a pain when it's wet - I love my 1950's Norwegian Army bag - it's great when I'm at a school as I can fit all my stuff in and 'looks the part'. If I'm climbing a hill, a very modern, petrochemical, ethically dodgy Decathlon rucksack is my answer. When I'm in my woods living out, my current choice is a charity shop cotton scarf used as a bindle/scarf/belt/gathering sack etc. I am personally really drawn to the 'anti consumer' and trad feel of modern canvas and leather kit....but am also suspicious that I am only drawn to it by because subtle advertising, consumer lifestyle imagery etc is making me feel that I need to buy it!!! Can't win!!!!

Anyway, good luck on your mission!

 

[BearNaked Woodsman]

This is a great thread with some great discussion! Like the OP I love the feel and look of traditional products and I think there are some great modern equivalents that can be sorted out! I also agree regarding it getting you no closer to nature, however the brightly coloured noisey fabrics of ultra light modern equipment can strike a disharmony...

Like some early posts good light quality is not cheap and niche products like Moditional or tradern?? Are usually the opposite! I have found brands such as fjallraven produce some good niche products that can have some of the comfort and lightweight properties in subdued and traditional styles... I also look to minimise the gear I take to increase my skill and submersion in bushcrafting. And some traditional products are ideal such as Gransfors Bruks and Wetterlings or Mora and Helle...

And occasionally you can even find some ultra lightweight traditionalish products such as the Heavy Cover titanium canteen and cup in the USGI style... Half the fun is finding and trying the tools that encourage us to get outdoors!

If that new bag makes you go for a walk then it's already a winner! Cheers B.