Lucky Craft Real Skin

[SmokeyJ]

Have you guys seen this yet? It's pretty cool. They actually wrap the plastic baits in real fish or squid skin and seal it before they paint it. Here are some pictures from the LC website that show the process and the finished product:

Why didn't any of us think of this?

[blackjack]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it is not real skin underneath the clearcoat as this would totally mess up any clearcoat with the moisture trapped between the plastic body and the clearcoat. More than likely it is a picture of whatever type of baitfish/prey that has been

super-imposed onto the surface of the bait. Guys have been doing that here for quite some time. I think Husky or Fatfingers did a tutorial on how it can be accomplished with an inkjet printer and tissue paper. Tom Mann did this back in the 80's on his crankbaits and the pogoshad. Nothing new as far as I am concerned. Just some hype to jack up the price of a bait that is mass produced.

[nova]

They do make clothing out of fish skins.(Iceland) It's cured, tanned and then treated.

I would think that as long as it is dry and free from oils it would work.

I also think that this is just a ploy to catch the fishermen. I'm sure the cost will be very high compared to the rest of their products; and they are high enough. I'm also sure that the fish don't give a darn that it has a squid skin wrapped around it.

To me this is nothing more than an pricey novelty.

Just my 2 cents.

www.novalures.com

[SmokeyJ]

I just thought it was kind of a cool idea. And blackjack, it is real squid skin. I don't know how they seal it. It looks from the pictures that maybe they stretch the skin across the lure and let it sit till it dries. I also read that they lightly dye the squid skin with coffee to bring out the natural patterns. I thought someone here might be interested enough to give it a try.

I'm not going to go out and buy any. It adds about $5 to the price of the lure, and I'm not paying $20 for a lure unless its the costs incurred in me making one. Anyways, just thought it was a novel idea.

[Lure--Prof]

It is real skin, but there is nothing new about that. I have a Frog Pappy over 50 years old which is a wood Darter-type lure that is covered in real frog skin...and it is in near perfect condition.

Dean

[count draculure]

Real skin on lures isn't new at all. A company called Eger Bait Company made a lure covered in real frog skin back in the 1930's. They were issued a patent for the process in 1937. They also made frog skin covered lures for Shakespeare.

It's cool to see how many "new" ideas were done many years ago using the materials that were available at the time. For example: the Shakespeare "Evolution bait". It features a minnow shaped rubber body that looks similar to the soft plastics of today. It came out in 1902 !

I enjoy studying old lures and am amazed at how ingenious some of the designs were; and I have seen a few post on this board that everything has been done before, don't believe it! I have come up with several designs that I can find no evidence of having ever been done before. It just takes a goal, dilligence, the ability to accept your failures and learn from them, and most importantly, thinking "outside the box".

Keep pluggin' !

da Count

[SmokeyJ]

Sorry, you'll have to excuse a young whipper-snapper who isn't up to date on his tackle history. I was mainly posting this as an idea for lure builders here to try, not as a plug for Lucky Craft. Personally I think their stuff is way too expensive.

I just can't understand why you guys aren't chomping at the bit to get some squid skin to stretch around your lures and try this yourself? I'm sure it would smell wonderful while you were waiting for it to dry.

[dampeoples]

While it's a neat idea, I don't think many folks are wanting to do it because from the pictures you posted, I've seen hammer mechanics (first class one's, too) make lures that look just as good as these. Hell, there's a few guys here who can paint that well.

That and the skin doesn't really add anything to the lure, fish-catching wise.

[mark berrisford]

i've got to agree with dampeoples, i don't see the point,covering it in resin and painting it would offer no advantage as far as i can see in terms of fish catching,angler catching that may be a different matter

[SmokeyJ]

I just find the responses to this interesting. I have a sneaking suspicion that if I or better yet one of the more recognizable luremakers here like Nathan Bettencourt had presented a lure wrapped in squid skin, or halfbeak skin in the case of the bluish lure on the bottom of the second picture, that the responses would be a lot different: "wow, that's cool", "that natural scale pattern is amazing", etc.

I disagree that it doesn't add anything to the lure. I think it adds a realism that just can't be imitated by paint because it is a natural material that is providing coloration, depth, and random patterning. I have tremendous respect for the incredibly talented artists here, but I don't think anyone can match that aspect of these lures purely with paint (you really have to see these lures in person; a camera doesn't do them justice).

Will the real skin make a huge difference in fish catching ability? No, probably not. But why do so many anglers want ultra-realisitic paint jobs on lures? I think it is because on those days when the fish are looking, but not biting, that extra bit of realism can be what finally makes the fish take your lure. In those cases I think the real skin could be that x-factor.

Okay, enough of my whining, ranting because people didn't think this was as cool as I thought.

[rjbass]

Smokey J,

I thought it was pretty interesting also. Lucky Craft lures are hot right now no matter what anybody says....the Stacey King and the Staysee 90 are two of the hottest lures going. There are some pretty bold statements here denouncing a company that has been kicking ass for a long time.... Yes, they are trying to sell lures, does this skin thing work....who knows, interesting none the less.... The fact that companies have tried this before even puts more merit in it as far as I am concerned...."It's called Marketing".....Hello.....Sure, there are a lot of good builders on this site, but I don't think any of them are doing as well as Lucky Craft....trust me.

Smokey you can't be afraid of making a statement here. There are many opinionated people on this site, but I couldn't sit here and agree with them on this.....

Rod

[Vodkaman]

I thought the lures looked interesting, OK for one or two show lures. But producing large numbers could prove to be a problem. I would sooner see them little fishies swimming around and growing into big fishies or at least contributing to another fishies growth.

Count Draculure, great reply, so true. There is a ton of stuff out there, waiting to be discovered.

[SmokeyJ]

I thought the lures looked interesting, OK for one or two show lures. But producing large numbers could prove to be a problem. I would sooner see them little fishies swimming around and growing into big fishies or at least contributing to another fishies growth.

That's the other thing I thought was cool. At least according to an article on ESPN.com, Lucky Craft is getting the skin for their lures from sushi restaraunts! So they aren't even harvesting fish to do it, they are recycling scraps that would normally be thrown away.

[blackjack]

RJ,

I don't think I nor anyone else is denouncing LC baits. I have a whole box of them that I throw when that is what the fish are eating. I don't think there are any builders who frequent this site that are doing as well as LC or even try to compete with them. The whole issue is marketing hype remotely similar to Strike King's Sexy Shad. Joe Pro the professional says he killed the fish on X bait Joe Blow the average fisherman says I need that bait because it will help me catch fish like Joe Pro. Same thing goes for cost analysis, some special new process that noone is doing right now, well, mark up the price. As long as the major players in the business keep doing what they are doing there will be a place like this and builders like us carving out our own little niche

[rjbass]

I agree with you blackjack, I was just trying to defend Smokey, because it seemed everybody jumped on him for just mentioning it.... New members should be able to start threads without getting chastised. Maybe I took it wrong.....

Rod

[BobP]

Just a gimick? Something to make them seem different from the growing competition in high quality finishes? The baits are obviously painted after the skin is applied with net scale on the back, shading, red gills, etc. Looks very nice but I'd bet LC could do just as nice a job with paint if they wanted. Wonder how the finish will last on such an expensive bait. LC's aren't noted for finish durability! But that hasn't stopped me from buying a bunch

[SmokeyJ]

I'm just really confused...I just really liked the way they looked, better than the standard LC finishes IMHO, and thought I'd share the technique here because I was under the impression people liked new and/or different ways to get good looking finishes on their lures. Best way to learn is to pay attention to what others are doing, and if what they are doing works, take it and try to improve on it. Anyways, I don't take anything personally on forums like this, and I hope I didn't offend anyone with what I said. Maybe in a couple months I'll have my own "real skin" lure to show you guys. I just hope it doesn't stink up my garage too bad while the skin is drying out.

[count draculure]

Smokey,

I hope you didn't think that I was trying to discourage you by pointing out that the idea of a real skin lure isn't new. It just seemed to me that if such a finish made for a significantly better producing lure, other companies would have produced some in the 70 years since Eder tried it. Granted, the Eders are frog skinned and and not realistically shaped. I think the LC's are beautiful, but I'm not sure that it would out-perform a nicely painted lure.

That being said; I think if the idea intrigues you, you should by all means try it yourself. Who knows, you may discover a way to produce real skin lures faster and cheaper than using paint!

Best of luck to you

da Count

[Lure--Prof]

It is real skin, but there is nothing new about that. I have a Frog Pappy over 50 years old which is a wood Darter-type lure that is covered in real frog skin...and it is in near perfect condition.

Dean

(I love quoting myself...) Count D-Lure, Nor was I trying to poop on his party when I mentioned the above about the Frog Pappy, (made by Eger Bait Company) over 50 years ago.

Dean

[Vodkaman]

SmokeyJ, it was a great post, it got a good discussion going, pro's, con's etc. That is what this site is about, searching for new ideas, re-evaluating old ideas.

Yes, sometimes new users can get stepped on, I know I was. In fact you don't need to be a new user for that to happen. Nothing wrong with a healthy, heated discussion occasionally. There are a lot of good members to pull us back if it gets out of hand. It just appears like new users get it because they often bring something fresh to the table. This is a good thing, bring it on Smokey.

[SmokeyJ]

Let me recap this thread from my end, so maybe you might see why I was a little taken aback by the responses. I posted a new finish by a major manufacturer using a new technique that I had never heard of, along with pictures because I thought it was a cool idea both in concept and execution, providing a finish unlike any I had ever seen (I have seen these in person as well).

The immediate response is to say that the technique is BS. Hmm, well, no its not, I posted pictures of the actual execution of the technique. Quite frankly that was a little insulting to my intelligence. Subsequent posts were made in order to let me know that someone had already done this with frogskin, its not new. Okay, well, frog skin is different than eel and fish skin, and no one is doing this now, so while it may not be NEW, it is still different.

People also wanted to make sure that I knew that this was purely a marketing ploy by major manufacturer and that they cost more and won't catch any more fish than any other lure. Well, if that is the case then there is no point in people here painting their lures after they seal them because finish has nothing to do with catching fish, only action. Or if that is too extreme for you then at least it doesn't make sense to attempt the photo-realistic finishes that many here like to put on their lures because it makes no difference. I was also informed that you can get the same effect with paint. Well, no you can't because skin is three-dimensional and has translucency and depth that you can't imitate perfectly with paint, hell, you can't even emulate it with a photograph.

The only reason I could see for all the negative responses is because a major manufacturer was doing it. I just couldn't understand why people were getting so up in arms about it. Have a beer, chill out. You'll live longer. Anyways, like I said, its no skin off my back. Just didn't expected that kind of response from this community.

[cullin8s]

A friend of mine bought some, but he has not given me a report yet

[Husky]

Let me recap this thread from my end, so maybe you might see why I was a little taken aback by the responses. I posted a new finish by a major manufacturer using a new technique that I had never heard of, along with pictures because I thought it was a cool idea both in concept and execution, providing a finish unlike any I had ever seen (I have seen these in person as well).

The immediate response is to say that the technique is BS. Hmm, well, no its not, I posted pictures of the actual execution of the technique. Quite frankly that was a little insulting to my intelligence. Subsequent posts were made in order to let me know that someone had already done this with frogskin, its not new. Okay, well, frog skin is different than eel and fish skin, and no one is doing this now, so while it may not be NEW, it is still different.

People also wanted to make sure that I knew that this was purely a marketing ploy by major manufacturer and that they cost more and won't catch any more fish than any other lure. Well, if that is the case then there is no point in people here painting their lures after they seal them because finish has nothing to do with catching fish, only action. Or if that is too extreme for you then at least it doesn't make sense to attempt the photo-realistic finishes that many here like to put on their lures because it makes no difference. I was also informed that you can get the same effect with paint. Well, no you can't because skin is three-dimensional and has translucency and depth that you can't imitate perfectly with paint, hell, you can't even emulate it with a photograph.

The only reason I could see for all the negative responses is because a major manufacturer was doing it. I just couldn't understand why people were getting so up in arms about it. Have a beer, chill out. You'll live longer. Anyways, like I said, its no skin off my back. Just didn't expected that kind of response from this community.

Relax Gerasshopper. Here are some pics of plugs that one of the builders here made. I believe it's results like this that prompted some of the responses you got. Most of the baits are photo finished.

http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c376/big_kahawai/

[nova]

I think it is a really neat idea no matter who does it. I'm all for experimentation and thinking outside the box; as many of the folks here know.

There is one thing about all of this though that we all have to remember; and that is that Lucky Craft is in the business of selling as many baits to as many people that they can.

Many of the folks here just do their craft simply as a hobby and rarely, if ever, sell their products. Some of the baits I've seen in the gallery are truley works of art and if they were priced the amount should be quite high compared to any mass produced bait.

Years ago I tried glueing rabbit skin(with hair) onto a wooden plug to make a type of rat and that lead me to doing Buzz the Mouse.

I have the greatest respect for anyone in any endeavour, with a healthy imagination.

I don't think; or at least I would like to think, that no one here was personally attacking you. I found that when I first joined TU I had trouble with the posting because there is only the written word. There are no visable or audible emotions which are very big cues that we all use instintively.

Anyway; thanks Smokey for posting the pics. It is an interesting concept.

www.novalures.com

[Lure--Prof]

Smokey, I think if you'll go back and read the various reponses, you'll see that you are not being criticized or judged, people are simply responding with their honest opinions on Luckycrafts concept. Trust me, you got plenty of supportive responses, but you need to expect varied responses from, not only many of the most talented and experienced lure builders in the world, but also some of the best fishermen anywhere, so you are going to get opinions! One of the things that makes this forum so informative is that these people challenge everything, and most of them have paid their dues to do so. It is simply part of the learning process for all of us to break everything down and dissect and examine from every angle, every idea presented here; a forum of the best and most passionate lure builders on the planet can do no less!

You had a preconceived notion of how members here were going to respond to your post and you were disappointed. I repeat, you should not be disappointed by honesty. You got opinions and you were also supported because everyone who responded cared and respected your post. You can't really ask for more than that!

Welcome to the Hardbaits board at TU SmokeyJ!

Dean