Two things are true of the leather goods industry at the same time, and most of the conversation around it only ever mentions one.
The first is that it is enormous and moving fast, though how enormous depends on who is counting. Grand View Research puts the global leather goods market at around 300 billion dollars this year. Mordor Intelligence puts the same market at closer to 480 billion. That is a wide gap for two firms measuring the same industry, and it says something on its own: a market this size and this fragmented does not have one settled figure, only estimates that vary by what each firm counts as a leather good and how they weight regions. What both agree on is direction, the market is large and still growing. The synthetic leather segment alone, mostly polyurethane, is worth over 67 billion dollars and growing at roughly 8.5 percent a year, and PU dominates that synthetic market, holding around 62 percent of it, pushed largely by car interiors and by demand for cruelty-free materials in fashion.
The second thing is quieter, and it is the reason this Journal exists. Buyers are asking different questions than they used to. Not how much and how fast, but who made this, how it was stitched, what it was made from, and what happens to it when something goes wrong. The ethical and artisan end of the market is growing at a similar clip to the volume end, roughly 8 percent a year, and it is growing for a specific reason. People have started noticing that most of what they own does not last, and they are tired of it.
Those two trends are not really opposed. They are the same industry sorting itself into two different answers to the same question: what is this object actually for.
I want to be fair to the volume side, because most criticism of it is lazy. Mass-produced leather goods and synthetic alternatives exist because they solve a real problem: they make a leather-adjacent product available to more people at a lower price, and in some cases, PU genuinely outperforms leather on specific technical measures, breathability and consistency among them. That is a legitimate design decision for a specific set of goods.
What it is not designed to do is last. Real leather, cared for, is one of the few common materials that improves with use rather than degrading. Full-grain leather that has been vegetable tanned develops a patina that machine-made synthetics cannot replicate, because the process that creates it takes weeks rather than days and cannot be sped up without losing the result. Synthetic alternatives, by contrast, are built to a fixed lifespan. When that lifespan ends, so does the product, and something new has to be bought.
Neither approach is dishonest. But they are answering different questions, and it matters which one a maker is actually answering, because that decision touches everything downstream of it: what material gets specified, what tanning process is chosen, how a seam is stitched, what happens when a client asks for a repair five years after the piece was made.
Insignis sits deliberately on the side of the second question. We do not compete with the volume side of this industry, because we are not trying to solve the same problem it solves.
The studio takes on a capped number of commissions each month, never speculative production ahead of demand. Every piece starts with a brief, not a pattern already cut and waiting for a buyer. Materials are chosen against that brief from reputable tanneries, most connected to or auditable against Leather Working Group standards, and both vegetable-tanned and chrome-tanned leather are used depending on what the piece genuinely needs, not depending on which is currently more marketable. Saddle stitching is used throughout our commissions, by hand, two needles and one thread, because a hand-locked stitch does not unravel the way a single continuous machine line can. None of this is presented as superior in every situation. It is presented honestly, because durability, not a marketing claim about sustainability, is the actual argument being made here. A piece that is used for twenty years instead of replaced three times over that period has a smaller footprint than any recycling program can claim on its behalf, and that is true regardless of what label gets put on the box.
This is also why the studio does not chase growth for its own sake. The range does not expand to meet demand. Capacity is capped on purpose, not because we could not take on more work, but because taking on more than the workshop can properly do would mean quietly lowering the standard on all of it. That trade is not one this studio is willing to make.
The industry is not going to resolve into one side winning. Volume production will keep getting faster and cheaper, and it should, for the buyers it is genuinely serving. The artisan and bespoke side will keep growing at its own pace too, because the appetite for objects that last, made by someone who will answer a question about how they were made, is not a trend. It is a return to how things were made before speed became the only variable that mattered.
This Journal is where Insignis will keep making that case in detail: the material decisions behind specific commissions, the reasoning when something does not meet the standard and has to be remade, and occasionally a look further out, at techniques and crafts that are genuinely at risk of disappearing, and at the people, past and present, whose work is worth knowing about for reasons that have nothing to do with Insignis at all.
If that is useful to you, Material & Method, the studio's monthly newsletter, covers the fuller version of these stories once a month.
Join the waitlist
