To sell my mums fur coats??

[TheCalmingManatee]

They are real fur (im not sure what they are, i think there are a couple of rabbit so less value) all vintage, she has five of them I haven't a clue where she got them from, she wouldn't have bought them new, they are at least 40 years old.

Now I am categorically anti-fur, have taken part in demos etc in my past. And a rather questionable sit in in a fur department of a posh department store in my rebellious youth So, i really don't want to be supporting the fur-trade in any way shape or form. But i have noticed that there seems to be a bit of a revival for vintage fur coats.

Yesterday whilst visiting a collectors fair i noticed coats similar to my mother's for £500, you could have knocked me over wiht a feather. I asked the guy if the woman selling them (she wasn't there) was interested in buying fur and he said she was. I have spoken to my mum and she is interested, well she had actually asked me to take them to the charity shop for her a couple of months back.

AIBU to think i could get a reasonable sum for these? I would never myself wear a fur coat, vintage or otherwise and i would imagine that many other people would feel the same way as i do. I would be (on my mums behalf - but actually im willing to bet she would share the pickings!) very VERY happy to get £200 each for the coats, if she is selling them for 5!!!!

I have an underlying feeling that im mad though!

Exactly.

i have a very stylish fur coat from circa 1950. it weighs a ton and it needs to be -10c outside before you can wear it without glowing.

i would never buy a new one, it was my grandmothers. ironic really as my very buddhist grandmother wouldn't even kill small insects if she could help it. i suspect given the sizing it was a hand-me-down for her also.

randomswitch the same argument could be used against fake fur.

Greenhill you make a good point!

PETA are women-hating fuckers who prefer animals to human beings. Women aren't the only victims of their campaigns of course - they have also been breathtakingly anti-Semitic.

If you don't want to "turn" something into a feminist argument don't associate yourself with misogynists.

Holdme - I've had quite enough of people hijacking threads with feminist theories. Yours was actually astoundingly ignorant.

People don't care about battery animals because its a MANS FOOD? What an actual complete load of rubbish. People do care. Not as many because they aren't educated as to what is happening. Nothing do do with men liking food.

This isn't your thread, GoldShip, so you can feck off finger-wagging about "hijacking".

If you want your daft ideology taken seriously, you should try aiming at serious targets - the massive and LOCAL industry of battery farming, before tossing paint at old ladies.

It's an exercise in making yourself feel smug, not actual concern for a few thousand minks.

Nice silence on the anti-Semitism too.

These animals chickens are merchandise to fur poultry farmers. All they are interested in is producing good looking fur chicken at the cheapest cost possible. Inevitable the welfare needs of the animals are not of interest if they don't enhance the quality of the fur affect the meat. And most, if not all, of their behavioural, psychological, social, emotional and physical welfare needs won't enhance the fur quality affect the meat and so won't be met.

Holdme got in first before I could get the laptop from DD. Fur is a tiny trade, compared with intensive farming. Why are mink more important?

Ooh now there's interesting. If your Big Thing is animal welfare then you might like to consider industrial meat production from a feminist viewpoint. It's mostly women who shop and cook, and mostly women who have to do so as cheaply as possible - and still put meat on the table for the Man Of The House.

Holdme - making rather a lot of assumptions there aren't you. How do you know I don't? I don't 'throw paint on old ladies'. Making me smug? You know nothing about me apart from what I've said in here. Which is that im against killing animals for their fur. I haven't mentioned any other causes because they are irrelevant to this thread.

And no I won't mention anti-semantic because it has nothing to do with this thread. Oh and I've already said I don't actively support PETA and I've said why I don't.

And SGB no I don't want to consider that because its here nor there for me as I'm not interested in whatever feminist issue you're going to try to bring into it. There's always SOMETHING isn't there.

It would seem some feminists leach on every argument to use as a soapbox for their ideals.

Where has anyone said that fur is more important? They haven't. But people are deciding to stick to the topic at hand which I'll think you'll find is the wearing and selling of fur coats

I could go off on a tangent about other aspects of animal cruelty but this isn't the place. There's other topics for that.

I don't see anyone throwing paint over people buying two chickens for a fiver! Or demanding that they burn them instead of eating them!
Tbh, there are plenty of much bigger, more important AW issues than selling 50 yo fur coats. It's like hunting. Such a tiny issue in the scheme of things, but apparently more of an issue than serious ones. It smacks of bullying IMO. Let's attack the people doing something that most people don't really understand. Its a rich mans market, rouse the little people. We can sensationalise this, make it look nice and gory, and we will look like we're getting somewhere when they cave.
Very few would back a campaign against intensive farming, because it would hurt the majority of people where it hurts, in the pocket. None of the real issues, around intensive farming and food production would be likely to rouse a large amount of public support.
The three main issues that I can think of now, fur, hunting and animal testing, none of them actively affect the majority. Maybe Activists pick them Because they know it'll rouse people, and don't bother so much with the others.
Anyway, vintage fur is a bit of a non starter for me. If you want to sell them, sell them. I personally wear mine. Although if it wasn't rabbit, I'd probably sell it TBH!

Then your problem is with activists then, not the people of this thread.

Of course there are bigger, wider spread animal welfare issues, no-one is saying there isn't. But the topic at hand is fur.

And bullying... Seriously?!

Yes. I've seen it. Intimidation. Aggression and physical assault. I'd call that bullying. At the very least.

I thought you meant on here?

You can't judge us all by some idiots you've seen. Some do it -I suspect- because they have nothing better to do and love the drama. I support causes because I genuinely care for animals and don't want them to suffer.

Throwing paint and making a general nuisance of oneself isn't going to help, it just makes the cause laughable.

What about all the marine animals that die due to petrochemicals used to make fake fur? Are they less important because they're not cute and cuddly?

How come those activists with the red paint never targetted any biker gangs wearing leathers?

World where has anyone said this? It is a shame that only the OBVIOUS issues are supported and that people don't do more research, but I'm glad that at least some causes are being supported.

RE the biker thing, a lot of my mates are bikers and I've had this argument a zillion times. They laugh at me with my synthetic boots and jackets!

I agree. I also care deeply for animals. I have many! But it's like ivory. Ban the new stuff. People can still buy antique, it helps keep what market there is from buying illegal new goods. Fur is much more noticeable. Make anyone who wants to wear an old fur coat have to have proof it's vintage. Like ivory. Or people who keep exotic or endangered animals. Throwing old furs in the bin is terrible.

I just think still wearing them is still going to make people want them, people who can't source vintage and find it easier to buy new. I would like all fur, old and new to never see the light of day.

Ivory :( had to stop DP buying a guitar that had ivory on it the other day. Wasn't sure how it had been sourced.

But if new is banned, it's out of the equation. You buy vintage or fake.
Burning or binning is wasting. That vintage oat is a perfectly wearable item. This country is full of people without coats. Why not donate them to charity instead.

It won't be banned though will it, unfortunately.

I wouldn't bin. I wouldn't burn either. I'd either give to an animal shelter (they're lovely for some animals as bedding, not arsed if people think this is a travesty but if an animal has had to die, one should at least benefit) OR give to a homeless person.

Not a charity, because then again it'll be picked up by someone, usually one of these charity shop trawlers 'vintage' shopping, and bang it's back on some fashionistas back again.

At those who worry about people buying new, perhaps it would be better to campaign for the purchase of humanely managed fur, rather than just say "ban fur". At the moment the only new fur I could possibly afford would be something from China, so I don't buy a new fur because I won't support the low standards of animal welfare in China. I don't buy factory-farmed meat either.

I've informed myself about the pros and cons of the fur trade and I would choose to buy European fur if I could afford it. As I can't, I stick to vintage.

Fur is a renewable resource that lasts for years, look at how many of us are buying vintage or thinking about selling coats that are 50-100 years old. Fake fur is not a renewable resource, has no resale value and doesn't last. Having looked at all the angles, my own view is that well-husbanded real fur is more ethical than fake fur, however I respect the right of other people to look at the evidence and reach a different viewpoint.

Sell them, give a donation to charity or put the money in the bank for your DCs when they are older.