Community hub
0 subscribers8 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
All channels
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Fish fur.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Fish fur
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
Fish fur (Russian: рыбий мех, romanized: ryby mekh) is a Russian-language ironic expression used to describe poor quality of coats and other clothes worn for warmth.[1] In modern times, it is also used for fake fur, especially of poor quality. The term traces back to a Russian proverb "A poor man's fur coat is of fish fur." (Russian: У бедняка шуба на рыбьем меху, romanized: U bednyaka shuba na rybyem mekhu.)
The expression has often been used to describe the uniform of the Soviet Army.[2] In particular, elements of winter uniform (ushanka, collars, mittens) of ordinary soldiers and lower ranks were made of wool pile, which has been a popular cheap material for civilian clothing as well.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his Gulag Archipelago records the expression "Stalin's fur" in the meaning of no fur of any kind, in reference to the dress of Gulag inmates, supposedly derived in an analogy with "fish fur".[3]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Lubensky, Sophia (1995). Random House Russian-English Dictionary of Idioms. Random House Reference. ISBN 978-0679405801.
- ^ Zaloga, Steven J. (1987). Inside the Soviet Army. Bloomsbury USA. p. 53. ISBN 0-85045-741-6.
- ^ Solzhenitsyn, Alexander (1974). The Gulag Archipelago, 1918–1956. Translated by Willetts, H. T.; Whitney, Thomas P. Harper & Row. p. 534. ISBN 0-8133-3291-5.
External links
[edit]Fish fur
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
Definition and Etymology
Core Meaning
Fish fur denotes artificial or synthetic fur, typically of low quality, employed as a fabric lining or outer material in cold-weather apparel to mimic the insulating properties of genuine animal pelts. The phrase serves as an ironic descriptor, emphasizing the material's inauthenticity, as fish lack fur and thus cannot provide any biological equivalent. This usage stems from Russian-language slang, where "рыбий мех" (rybij mex), translating literally to "fish fur," underscores the artificial origin and often substandard durability or warmth of such substitutes compared to natural furs like sheepskin or muskrat.[3][1] In practical application, fish fur commonly appears in mass-produced garments, such as ear-flapped hats (ushankas) and jacket collars, where cost constraints favored synthetic pile fabrics over scarce or expensive real fur during periods of resource limitation. These materials, often comprising wool-blend piles on cloth backings, provide basic thermal retention but degrade faster under harsh conditions, leading soldiers and civilians alike to deride them with the term's humorous connotation of biological impossibility. The expression gained traction in Soviet contexts for uniform components, reflecting broader reliance on ersatz goods in state-supplied winter gear.[4][5]Linguistic Origins
The term "fish fur" in English derives directly as a calque from the Russian phrase рыбий мех (rybij mex), an idiomatic expression denoting artificial or low-quality synthetic fur used in clothing.[3][6] This linguistic borrowing reflects the ironic humor inherent in the Russian original, as fish possess scales rather than fur, underscoring the fakery or inadequacy of the material for insulation—often applied to winter garments that fail to retain heat effectively.[1][7] In Russian slang, рыбий мех functions as a pejorative idiom for substandard outerwear, with roots traceable to regional dialects such as those in the Don area, where fish scales were colloquially jested as "fur" (мех рыбий), and extended into modern youth jargon (жарг. мол.) specifically for synthetic alternatives to natural pelts. The phrase gained traction in Soviet-era military contexts to mock uniform linings, but its etymological core predates widespread artificial fur production, likely drawing from folk observations of fish anatomy to highlight implausibility.[8] No precise date of first attestation exists in available lexical records, though its usage aligns with 20th-century industrialization of textiles, emphasizing the term's role in critiquing material authenticity over biological realism.[9]Historical Development
Pre-Soviet Usage
The Russian proverb "У бедняка и шуба на рыбьем меху" (The poor man's fur coat is lined with fish fur), dating to at least the Tsarist era, illustrates pre-Soviet usage of "fish fur" as an ironic descriptor for inferior or makeshift warm clothing among the impoverished. This expression underscored the absence of genuine mammalian fur, implying a substitute material unfit for true insulation, often employed by those unable to afford high-quality pelts from Siberian trade staples like squirrel or fox.[10] In the Russian Empire's vast territories, particularly among indigenous Siberian and Far Eastern peoples such as the Nivkh and Nanai along the Amur River, fish skins were processed into practical garments for waterproofing in harsh, wet climates. These communities tanned salmon or other fish hides—retaining scale patterns for durability—into coats and footwear, as evidenced by Nivkh fish skin coats collected around 1900, which featured intricate embroidery linked to ancient motifs from 5,000-year-old Sikachi-Alian petroglyphs. Such materials provided rudimentary protection but lacked the thermal properties of fur, reinforcing the derogatory connotation of "fish fur" in broader Slavic folklore.[11][12] Evenki and Nenets groups in Arctic Siberia similarly incorporated fish skins as outer layers over reindeer or caribou hides, prioritizing impermeability over warmth in coastal expeditions. This adaptation, observed in ethnographic records from the late 19th century, highlighted resource scarcity driving innovation, yet the slippery, scale-covered texture evoked ridicule in Russian settler narratives, embedding "rybiy mekh" as a metaphor for substandard attire predating industrialized synthetics.[13][14]Soviet and Post-Soviet Contexts
![Soviet soldier wearing ushanka and afghanka with fish fur]float-right In the Soviet Armed Forces, "fish fur" (Russian: рыбий мех) served as slang for the inexpensive synthetic or plush material employed in winter headgear and clothing for enlisted personnel. Officers were equipped with ushankas crafted from authentic animal fur, such as rabbit or sheepskin, whereas lower-ranking soldiers received versions made from this substandard substitute, which bore little resemblance to natural fur and was mockingly likened to the non-existent pelage of fish.[15] This distinction underscored resource allocation practices during the Cold War era, where genuine fur was reserved for higher echelons amid material shortages.[4] The term gained traction particularly with the ushanka hat and the collar of the afghanka field jacket, standard winter uniform components introduced in the 1940s and refined post-World War II. Soldiers derided the material's coarse texture and poor insulating qualities, often joking that it originated from aquatic sources devoid of mammalian fur, reflecting broader dissatisfaction with military provisioning under centralized planning. By the 1960s and 1970s, mass-produced synthetic variants dominated production to meet demands across the vast Soviet territory's harsh climates.[1] Following the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991, "fish fur" persisted as colloquialism in the Russian military for artificial fur on ushankas and related gear, symbolizing continuity in uniform standards despite economic transitions. Post-Soviet reforms introduced some real fur options for elite units, but synthetic "fish fur" remained prevalent for conscripts due to cost efficiencies, with the slang enduring in barracks culture as a nod to Soviet-era austerity.[3] In civilian contexts, the phrase occasionally extended ironically to cheap faux fur apparel, though its primary association stayed military.[16]Cultural and Commercial Usage
In Apparel and Fashion
In Russian-speaking contexts, "fish fur" denotes artificial fur of low quality, typically employed in mass-produced winter apparel such as coats, jackets, and linings, where it serves as a cost-effective substitute for genuine animal pelts but offers inferior insulation. This synthetic material, often composed of acrylic or polyester pile on a fabric backing, gained prevalence during the Soviet era for civilian and military garments, enabling widespread distribution amid material shortages, though its thermal retention was notoriously inadequate, prompting the ironic nomenclature since fish lack fur and the fabric mimicked none convincingly.[17] The term's application in apparel underscores a utilitarian approach over aesthetic appeal, with "fish fur" linings appearing in overcoats and parkas designed for harsh climates, yet frequently criticized for shedding, matting, and failing to block wind effectively, as evidenced by anecdotal reports from Soviet-era users who supplemented them with additional layers. In commercial production, it facilitated affordable fashion items for the proletariat, contrasting with luxury real-fur exports reserved for elites, and persisted post-Soviet in budget lines from manufacturers prioritizing volume over durability.[18] Contemporary fashion occasionally repurposes "fish fur" ironically in avant-garde or streetwear designs, evoking post-Soviet nostalgia or critiquing consumerism, though its primary role remains in entry-level outerwear sold via markets and surplus outlets, where prices as low as 500-2000 rubles (approximately $5-20 USD as of 2023) reflect its disposability rather than style. Designers avoid it for high-end collections due to ethical faux fur alternatives like shearling mimics, but in regions with cold snaps, it endures for its machine-washable convenience despite ethical debates over microplastic shedding.[5]Association with Ushanka Hats
The term "fish fur" denotes low-quality or synthetic fur employed in ushanka hats, the traditional Russian ear-flap winter caps designed for extreme cold.[3] This artificial material, often used as a cost-effective substitute for genuine animal pelts like rabbit or fox, gained prominence in Soviet-era production where authenticity was secondary to mass manufacturability.[1] The ironic nomenclature derives from the Russian phrase "на рыбьем меху," literally "on fish fur," highlighting that fish possess no fur, thus emphasizing the faux nature of the fabric which mimics fur without deriving from any mammal.[1][19] In Soviet military contexts, ushanka hats integrated "fish fur" linings and exteriors, particularly in winter uniforms such as the afghanka jacket, to provide insulation amid resource constraints during the mid-20th century.[5] These hats, standard issue for Red Army personnel from the 1940s onward, prioritized durability and warmth over luxury, with synthetic fur enabling widespread distribution despite fur shortages post-World War II.[4] The material's coarse texture and uniform gray or black hues distinguished it from higher-grade natural furs, often leading soldiers to colloquially deride it as inferior yet functional against sub-zero temperatures reaching -40°C in Siberian deployments.[20] Post-Soviet commercialization perpetuated "fish fur" ushankas for civilian and export markets, where affordability appealed to consumers in regions with harsh winters, such as Eastern Europe and North America.[21] Manufacturers in the 1990s and 2000s produced variants blending synthetic fur with fabric or leather for enhanced weather resistance, maintaining the "fish fur" label to evoke the hat's utilitarian heritage while avoiding animal-derived products.[22] This association underscores a broader cultural acceptance of synthetic alternatives in Russian headwear, contrasting with premium real-fur models reserved for elite or ceremonial use.[4]Related Concepts and Distinctions
Artificial vs. Natural Fur
Artificial fur, referred to as "fish fur" in Russian slang due to its non-animal origin—evoking the proverb that a poor man's coat is made of "fish fur"—serves as a synthetic alternative to natural fur harvested from animals such as mink, fox, or sheepskin. This term gained prominence in Soviet military contexts for low-quality synthetic linings in uniforms and ushanka hats, prioritizing mass production over premium materials.[3][5] Unlike natural fur, which consists of keratin-based hairs with natural loft and breathability, artificial fur is typically manufactured from petroleum-derived polymers like acrylic, modacrylic, or polyester, mimicking texture through piled fibers.[23] In terms of thermal insulation, natural fur outperforms artificial variants because its layered structure—guard hairs over dense underfur—traps air more effectively, providing superior warmth in extreme cold without retaining moisture as readily. Studies and practical tests confirm real fur's hollow hair shafts enhance heat retention, making it preferable for harsh environments like Siberian winters, whereas synthetic fur often compacts over time, reducing insulating capacity by up to 50% after repeated use. Durability further favors natural fur; a well-maintained real fur garment can endure 20-30 years, resisting wear from abrasion and maintaining loft, while artificial fur degrades faster, shedding fibers and losing pile volume within one to two seasons due to friction and laundering.[24][25][26] Cost and production scale artificial fur as more accessible; Soviet-era "fish fur" enabled widespread distribution of winter gear at low expense, using wool-pile composites or early synthetics for army ushankas, avoiding the resource-intensive trapping or farming required for natural pelts. Ethically, artificial fur avoids direct animal killing—approximately 100 million animals farmed annually for fur globally—but natural fur proponents argue sustainable harvesting from byproducts of meat industries mitigates waste, though factory farming raises welfare concerns like overcrowding and electrocution methods documented in investigations since the 1990s. Environmentally, the debate hinges on lifecycle assessments: natural fur is renewable and biodegradable, decomposing naturally without microplastic release, but requires significant water (up to 1,000 liters per pelt in some processes) and feed; synthetic fur, reliant on fossil fuels, contributes to ocean plastic pollution via shedding (estimated 0.5-1.5 million tons annually from textiles) and non-biodegradability, with incineration emitting toxins, though its lower production volume tempers overall footprint compared to scaled fur industries.[24][27][28]| Aspect | Natural Fur | Artificial Fur ("Fish Fur") |
|---|---|---|
| Insulation | Superior air-trapping; retains warmth in sub-zero conditions[23] | Adequate but diminishes with wear; less breathable[25] |
| Durability | 20-30 years with care; resists matting[24] | 1-2 seasons; prone to pilling and shedding[24] |
| Cost | Higher (e.g., $1,000+ for quality coat) | Lower; enabled mass Soviet production[5] |
| Environmental | Biodegradable; high water/feed use but renewable[27] | Petroleum-based; microplastics pollution, non-biodegradable[24][28] |