X Marks the Scot - An on-line community of kilt wearers.

   X Marks Partners - (Go to the Partners Dedicated Forums )
USA Kilts website Celtic Croft website Celtic Corner website Houston Kiltmakers

User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21
    Join Date
    18th October 09
    Location
    Orange County California
    Posts
    10,560
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes it's Hugh Montgomerie (later the 12th Earl of Eglinton) signed and dated by the artist John Singleton Copley.

    The painting hangs in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

    https://collections.lacma.org/node/236420

    The painting owned by the National Museums Scotland is an unsigned and undated copy. That artist changed the angle of the sword, making the two paintings easy to distinguish.

    Here's the unsigned and undated copy in Scotland. It is sometimes listed as "by an unknown artist" and sometimes "after Copley" but sometimes it's incorrectly listed as being by Copley himself. Note how crudely the hand holding the sword is painted- just a huge blob of flesh-coloured paint, and how bad the anatomy of that arm is, like a boneless rubbery appendage. Also the basket hilt of the sword shows incorrect foreshortening, and doesn't make much structural sense. With the face, note that the eyes are a bit wonky.



    For comparison, here's the signed at dated original, a beautifully executed portrait by perhaps the leading portraitist of that time.

    Last edited by OC Richard; 29th September 19 at 09:14 AM.
    Proud Mountaineer from the Highlands of West Virginia; son of the Revolution and Civil War; first Europeans on the Guyandotte

  2. The Following 2 Users say 'Aye' to OC Richard For This Useful Post:


  3. #22
    Join Date
    2nd January 10
    Location
    Crieff, Perthshire
    Posts
    4,522
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke MacGillie View Post
    Peter, Im obviously not a weaver, only going off the surviving papers. What is your interpretation of one selvage twilled?
    That undoubtedly refers to single-width cloth on which one selvedge, the non-joining one, was herrigboned (or possibly chevroved like the 64th specimen). The other selvedge would have been one of the blue pivots so that when joined, the pattern repeated correctly.

    As to the red/yellow tartan, when the only place I saw it was in the Mutineer colured engravings I dismissed it as artistic licence. When I saw it in this painting, It changed my mind. Little details like how one of the figures is in diced hose, the other tartan hose, it changed my mind.
    I am very dubious about the accuracy of the Highland figures in this painting and suspect a large dose of artist licence. Not also that the one in the right is wearing a red kilt/feileadh beag and a green plaid. Mixed tartans in military uniform? I don't think so.

  4. The Following User Says 'Aye' to figheadair For This Useful Post:


  5. #23
    Join Date
    16th July 19
    Location
    Central Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Waistcoat

    Would some one please tell me what year the British Army switched into white waistcoats? i have the information here somewhere but over two days of searching been unable to find it. It's not relevant to the conversation, but the not knowing is driving me crazy.

    Thanks much

    Jacques
    "I know of no inspiration to be got from trousers."
    Lt. Col. Norman MacLeod, QOCH, c. 1924

  6. #24
    Join Date
    23rd November 16
    Location
    Newport, NC, USA
    Posts
    112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I believe the white waistcoats came in with the 1768 warrant.

    See below. Credit goes to Carl Franklin, from “British Army Uniforms of the American Revolution, 1751-1783”.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D59D5950-5ADC-481A-ACAE-BB2095C52D46.jpeg 
Views:	20 
Size:	338.4 KB 
ID:	37517

  7. The Following User Says 'Aye' to Guthrumironhead For This Useful Post:


  8. #25
    Join Date
    11th July 05
    Location
    Alexandria, VA (USA)
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As to the portrait of Hugh Montgomerie (by Copley), I believe it depicts some of his alleged exploits against Native Americans while he was a lieutenant in the 77th Regiment of Foot (aka Montgomery's Highlanders, or the 1st Highland Battalion of Foot, raised 1757, disbanded 1763) in the French and Indian War. The uniform is in the style of the late 1770's, but shows the 77th's correct facing color of dark (or hunter) green. Copley may have access to articles of Montgomerie's old 77th uniform (particularly the plaid), while other uniform items (bonnet, hose, regimental jacket) he might have accessed from Scottish fencible units. Hugh Montgomerie later became Colonel of the West Lowland Fencibles (1790s) and 12th Earl of Eglington, and some authors have incorrectly stated that Montgomerie wore the uniform of that unit for this portrait.

    To those who asked, the white wool or linen waistcoat was mandated as an article of uniform for all British regiments (replacing the red wool waistcoat) in the Royal Clothing Warrant of 1768. The only exception would have been that the waistcoats of each regiment's light infantry company (which were added to each regiment's establishment in 1773) were to be of red wool, laced with regimental lace.
    Last edited by Orvis; 1st October 19 at 10:48 AM.

  9. The Following User Says 'Aye' to Orvis For This Useful Post:


  10. #26
    Join Date
    2nd January 10
    Location
    Crieff, Perthshire
    Posts
    4,522
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Orvis View Post
    To those who asked, the white wool or linen waistcoat was mandated as an article of uniform for all British regiments (replacing the red wool waistcoat) in the Royal Clothing Warrant of 1768. The only exception would have been that the waistcoats of each regiment's light infantry company (which were added to each regiment's establishment in 1773) were to be of red wool, laced with regimental lace.
    Jerry, I think I'm right in sayong that it was only Line Regiments and that Volunteer and Fencible regiments, or some at least, continued to wear red faced waistcoats after 1768?

  11. The Following User Says 'Aye' to figheadair For This Useful Post:


  12. #27
    Join Date
    11th July 05
    Location
    Alexandria, VA (USA)
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by figheadair View Post
    Jerry, I think I'm right in sayong that it was only Line Regiments and that Volunteer and Fencible regiments, or some at least, continued to wear red faced waistcoats after 1768?
    Peter - As far as I've been able to determine, the Royal Clothing Warrant applied to all Crown forces, regulars or others. From what I've seen in portraits from the post-1768 period, Volunteer and Fencible regiments emulated (for the most part) with what the regulars were doing. Of course, that isn't to say that there might not have been a few maverick regiments that wore red waistcoats or other departures from the 1768 Royal Warrant.

  13. The Following User Says 'Aye' to Orvis For This Useful Post:


  14. #28
    Join Date
    2nd January 10
    Location
    Crieff, Perthshire
    Posts
    4,522
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Orvis View Post
    Peter - As far as I've been able to determine, the Royal Clothing Warrant applied to all Crown forces, regulars or others. From what I've seen in portraits from the post-1768 period, Volunteer and Fencible regiments emulated (for the most part) with what the regulars were doing. Of course, that isn't to say that there might not have been a few maverick regiments that wore red waistcoats or other departures from the 1768 Royal Warrant.
    Jerry, one such maverick example - Strathspey Waistcoat, or perhaps the whole unit wore it?

  15. The Following User Says 'Aye' to figheadair For This Useful Post:


  16. #29
    Join Date
    18th October 09
    Location
    Orange County California
    Posts
    10,560
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry to continue this waistcoat sidetrack, but I thought I came across something somewhere about regiments with buff facings wearing buff waistcoats rather than white? Don't remember.

    About John Singleton Copley having access to various uniform items, I would think that Hugh Montgomerie would arrive dressed for his portrait in the clothes he wanted to be painted in.

    Clothes conform to the body and hang in a specific unique way, and you can't paint a sitter wearing one outfit and stick on another, like a cut-out paper doll. It would be obvious and look bad.

    What a portrait painter can do, and I've done it myself, is do head studies of the subject but paint the body from a model wearing the outfit the subject wants. It's tricky to do well; the model has to have the same body as the portrait subject, and you have to get the pose and the lighting exactly the same.

    Is there evidence that this was done with the Hugh Montgomerie portrait? More common, easier, and giving better results would be for the subject to be dressed in the clothes he will wear in the final painting.
    Last edited by OC Richard; 2nd October 19 at 05:28 AM.
    Proud Mountaineer from the Highlands of West Virginia; son of the Revolution and Civil War; first Europeans on the Guyandotte

  17. The Following User Says 'Aye' to OC Richard For This Useful Post:


  18. #30
    Join Date
    11th July 05
    Location
    Alexandria, VA (USA)
    Posts
    321
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Peter - I'm no expert on British Army uniform regulations after the 1780s, and the waistcoat you point out was for an early 1790s fencible regiment, so I presume that the Colonel could have dressed them in red waistcoats had he wanted to (with the approval of the Board of General Officers had the regiment been taken into regular service, as Grant's 97th Regiment was. Note also the lack of regimental lace, which would have been present had the regiment been called into regular service. It was not unusual for waistcoats to have different colored back panels (or in this case, tartan) in the 18th/early 19th centuries, since the waistcoat would have been worn under a regimental coat.

    In answer to the earlier question, post-1768 regular regiments which had buff facings did indeed have buff-colored waistcoats and breeches. I'm not sure when this was discontinued, but I presume it was dropped sometime in the early 19th century.

  19. The Following User Says 'Aye' to Orvis For This Useful Post:


Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.0