<!--quoteo(post=350616:date=Feb 22 2010, 10:33 AM:name=knifegloves.com)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (knifegloves.com @ Feb 22 2010, 10:33 AM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=350616\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecOR.... the rivet is attached and is pulling the leather up past the drawstring. <img src=\"style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif\" style=\"vertical-align:middle\" emoid=\"
\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /><!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndI agree. I've never heard of the "un-attatched bottom rivet" theory, but that doesn't mean it's not true. In the stick shift photos, it's 100% clear that the bottom rivet is attached and pulling the glove upward. I can easily see how the rivet could have torn through the glove at a later date, however. If they didn't use a washer, or some sort of divider to prevent the the rivet slipping through from underneath, all it would take is a good yank to tear it through the hole. Especially if it was an old, soft leather. (which it was)
\" border=\"0\" alt=\"biggrin.gif\" /><!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndI agree. I've never heard of the "un-attatched bottom rivet" theory, but that doesn't mean it's not true. In the stick shift photos, it's 100% clear that the bottom rivet is attached and pulling the glove upward. I can easily see how the rivet could have torn through the glove at a later date, however. If they didn't use a washer, or some sort of divider to prevent the the rivet slipping through from underneath, all it would take is a good yank to tear it through the hole. Especially if it was an old, soft leather. (which it was)