Tartan hose vs plain hose

[Kilted kiwi]

I have a question re tartan hose

After looking at some old prints of highlanders of various clans etc and seeing them all wearing tartan moggans ( moggans = footless hose tied up with a garter etc ) why is tartan hose, Argyle hose etc now considered only suitable for full dress ? . Why did this come about ?

Kilted Kiwi

[MacMullen]

IMO, price is one big factor. If I paid the prices I've seen for tartan hose, I don't think I'd wear it except on special occasions. for fear that I'd screw them up.

[LoftGuy]

Hi,

Yes, price is indeed a very serious consideration but IMHO, they look so much better than white socks which have always appeared harsh looking to me. Colored socks, coordinated with the kilt and shirt do seem a fine compromise to me.

Bob

[Robin]

...my signature

:rolleyes:

[cajunscot]

My tartan hose are worth every penny I paid for mine, and I would do it again! Sometimes you have to pay more for quality, but you won't have to keep replacing them -- my grandmother's definition of being "frugal".

Cheers,

Todd

[Iolaus]

I have a question re tartan hose

After looking at some old prints of highlanders of various clans etc and seeing them all wearing tartan moggans ( moggans = footless hose tied up with a garter etc ) why is tartan hose, Argyle hose etc now considered only suitable for full dress ? . Why did this come about ?

Kilted Kiwi

Ummm, Footless? What's the point of those? :confused:

[Alan H]

"moggins", or tartan legwear from the late 1600's and early 1700's, I believe....

...I'm quite open to being corrected here...

....were not knit wool, they were woven wool. In other words, they were probably made of much the same stuff as the kilt material was made from. Of course, the wearer would have been likely to mix and match tartans as he saw fit and his budget allowed. Thus it would be entirely possible for a highland townsman to wear a philebeig in one tartan, a jacket or waistcoat in another tartan (or a solid color) and leg coverings in another tartan.

[Woodsheal]

Alan is correct. Tartan "short hose" of the 17th and 18th centuries were sewn up from woven cloth, not knitted, with the seam running up the back of the leg. The fabric was described in one period source as being "of a thicker stuff than their plaids are made of." So perhaps different weights of tartan were woven for different uses!

They could either be full-footed or of a footless type (these are easy to make):



I think the latter type was used by poorer folk who ran around bare-footed quite often. I also think "moggan" is a modern term....

[bratach1]

Hi,

Yes, price is indeed a very serious consideration but IMHO, they look so much better than white socks which have always appeared harsh looking to me. Colored socks, coordinated with the kilt and shirt do seem a fine compromise to me.

Bob

Full tartan hose are only for formal occasions and for day wear a classic self coloured hose, argyll top etc.

as for the white hose that is worn by so many pipe bands these days, personaly i feel they should never be worn and look dreadful. They came from the irish pipe band scene with the pop corn top but should be avoided.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I did a blog post on this topic a few years ago. You can real the whole post here, but here's a summary of my thoughts concerning the appropriateness of tartan hose during the day.

Fashions obviously have changed over time. Back when cadadh were the only hose worn, they were almost universally tartan, and worn day and night, formal and casual. When knit hose became more popular, so did solid colors. Knitting in a tartan pattern (Argyle hose) is obviously harder than knitting in one color, so tartan hose became less common. Though people still made the effort to acquire and wear tartan hose, more than likely due to the enduring popularity of the look of the cadadh.

By the time we get to 1901, Erskine (author of The Kilt and How to Wear It) says that tartan hose are for evening wear, except for "livery servants, pipers, or day fulll dress."

Fast forward to 1979 and Thompson (So You're Going to Wear the Kilt) says tartan hose are "for evening only" with no exceptions!

Jump again to 2001 and Martin (All About Your Kilt) reminds us, "The books say
that 'tartan' hose should not be worn during the daytime, without remembering that kilt hose were originally of tartan cloth, cut from the piece and worn all the time (cadadh)."

In other words, he sees no inherant reason why one couldn't wear tartan hose during the day. Nor do I.

I think one reason why tartan hose are most often seen for evening wear is that they do look fancier and are unquestionably the preferred hose for formal dress. That is not at issue here. The question is should they be worn only for formal evening wear.

Another factor that has been mentioned is cost. They generally do not come cheap, and most people will understandably reserve an expensive item like that for special occasions, meaning they will tend to use them only for formal dress.

But is any of this a reason to tell people they should not wear their tartan hose during the day? Not to my mind. While I can easily imagine casual day outfits where tartan hose would look horrible, I have also seen some people wear tartan hose during the day with much style and panache. I think they certainly can look nice with "day full dress" as Erskine described it.