why black watch?

[OC Richard]

Your point is well taken, many are the statements in books which have nothing supporting them.

There was some matter, I can't remember what now, that appeared in two or three books, and they they all listed a certain older book as the source...which, when I got said book, gave no support for the statement.

Now I take illustrations made after the fact with a lick of salt, but some of the earlier illustrators are far more reliable than new ones.

Here's an illustration which looks like it could be contemporary (or nearly so) showing a piper of the 91st. You can just see a red line in the tartan.



(Generally crude contemporary paintings contain more truth than recent slick-looking ones.)

Here's a later painting, Simkin or Norie probably, showing the red line more clearly. I do wonder at the diced Glengarry, but who can say.



The painting on the left has the look of the typical Simkin or Norie, while the one on the right could be contemporary or nearly so, just guessing based on style (note the tiny feet). Though the tartan is tentatively painted the red line can be seen.

[lschwartz]

Yes , You are correct!

and one more my mistake - Liverpool Scottish = Forbes tartan (BW with white stripe between 2 fine black lines on green).

Correct. Lamont does not have the narrow black lines, one on either side of the white stripe, like the Forbes does.

[figheadair]

Your point is well taken, many are the statements in books which have nothing supporting them.

There was some matter, I can't remember what now, that appeared in two or three books, and they they all listed a certain older book as the source...which, when I got said book, gave no support for the statement.

Now I take illustrations made after the fact with a lick of salt, but some of the earlier illustrators are far more reliable than new ones.

Here's an illustration which looks like it could be contemporary (or nearly so) showing a piper of the 91st. You can just see a red line in the tartan.

(Generally crude contemporary paintings contain more truth than recent slick-looking ones.)

Here's a later painting, Simkin or Norie probably, showing the red line more clearly. I do wonder at the diced Glengarry, but who can say.

The painting on the left has the look of the typical Simkin or Norie, while the one on the right could be contemporary or nearly so, just guessing based on style (note the tiny feet). Though the tartan is tentatively painted the red line can be seen.

As you rightly say, the details of some of these early pictures needs to be taken with a lick of salt. Of the four that you posted; 1-3 looks as though they could have been intended to show the 42nd Coarse Kilt sett, the forth appears to show a red stripe on the green and a white/light blue on the blue. This last would correspond to the Leslie or Argyll/Campbell of Cawdor tartans respectively.

I've never see an original specimen of Wilsons' Coarse 42nd but here's me weaving the sett.

[blackwatch70]

Also that in 1881 when the 91st became the 1st Battalion Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders, and were put in kilts, the Battalion had a large quantity of the red-stripe tartan to hand so that the 1st Battalion's kilts had the red line until around 1883.

I've also never heard about this story...

[OC Richard]

Very cool Peter! So green and blue areas separated by black stripes, no black Black Watch double-track, with a red line in the green?

IMHO that looks like what the officer in the mid-19th century watercolour (with the tiny feet so stylish at that time) is wearing. I do seem to see a white line in the blue, however.

The early piper painting does appear to show a white line on the bag-cover at least.

The illustrations that look like Simkin or Norie have normal-sized feet indicated they were painted later, and as you see don't show the white line.

Here are a couple photos of officers of the 91st evidently taken 1864-1868.

The tartan appears to clearly lack the Black Watch double-track. Seems to me there's a wide dark line on the green and a narrow light line on the blue. Keeping in mind that both of these doublets are scarlet, I don't see how the wide dark line can be scarlet; it appears darker.





But look at the trews of this 91st Officer, on which the fat dark line in the green is either missing or more subtle.



About the story of the 91st's stock of tartan not being used up until 1883 who can say, but there is a photo of the 1st Battalion Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders said to have been taken in 1882 (South Africa) where they've not been issued kilts or Highland bonnets yet, are still in trews and spiked helmets as formerly.

It does appear that they're wearing the old 91st tartan.





Where I mostly see the old 91st kit retained is with the pipers, who continued to wear the old 91st pipers' sporrans for some time (white with six short black tassels).

[figheadair]

Very cool Peter! So green and blue areas separated by black stripes, no black Black Watch double-track, with a red line in the green?

Yes, the Coarse 42nd tartan had roughly equal sized blue and green grounds separated by a black bar, as opposed to the standard 42nd sett which pivots on alternating blue squares that have the classic 2/4 overstripe arrangement. So, in essence a sett like MacLeod.

IMHO that looks like what the officer in the mid-19th century watercolour (with the tiny feet so stylish at that time) is wearing. I do seem to see a white line in the blue, however.

The early piper painting does appear to show a white line on the bag-cover at least.

The illustrations that look like Simkin or Norie have normal-sized feet indicated they were painted later, and as you see don't show the white line.

Here are a couple photos of officers of the 91st evidently taken 1864-1868.

The tartan appears to clearly lack the Black Watch double-track. Seems to me there's a wide dark line on the green and a narrow light line on the blue. Keeping in mind that both of these doublets are scarlet, I don't see how the wide dark line can be scarlet; it appears darker

Those are very interesting early photographs of the 91st that I’d not seen before. It is quite clear that they are wearing a Coarse 42nd type sett but one of the pivots stripes is white, yellow or light blue. Determining the colour from a black and white image is always tricky without reference to a colour example for comparison. That said, I have no dount that the wide dark line is black. Here is a piece of Wilsons’ No. 230 or Argyll in colour and then in B&W, it gives an idea of how the latter tones relate to the original colours. The Wilsons’ shades are from natural dyes and by 1860 onwards the use of chemical dyes was taking off and so we cannot be sure which would have been used for the tartan in the earlier photos but the difference between the green and blue is obvious. By the South African Wars all the dyes would have been artificial but the tonal difference between blue and green is still apparent.



In all the images there is obviously a lighter stripe running across the green and I think I can make out the red on the blue ground too. Based on the Wilsons’ naming of their No. 230 or Argyle sett (now Campbell of Cawdor), I’m inclined to think that the lighter stripe is light blue and that the Argyll sett must have been the so-called east country setting of the Campbell tartan with a red line.


[QUOTE]But look at the trews of this 91st Officer, on which the fat dark line in the green is either missing or more subtle.

But having had a play with the tone on one section it is possible to make out the difference colours.



About the story of the 91st's stock of tartan not being used up until 1883 who can say, but there is a photo of the 1st Battalion Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders said to have been taken in 1882 (South Africa) where they've not been issued kilts or Highland bonnets yet, are still in trews and spiked helmets as formerly.

It does appear that they're wearing the old 91st tartan.

Agreed.

In the Embarkation of 91st Highlanders at Southampton, 1879 they appear to be wearing the same sett.

[OC Richard]

Very interesting, that painting seems to be more like the trews in my closeup photo of the seated officer in Blue Patrols, the fat dark stripe in the green looking more subtle to the eye somehow.

I can see the light line in the blue.

One thing that three of those four photos show is the officer's plaids being lighter shades than their trews. I suppose it's possible that they're different tartans, for sure the trews closeup photo shows a tartan that has a different appearance that the other officer's plaids, which have the fat dark line in the green.

It couldn't be that the plaids were old and faded, unless they fade quickly! Because they only started wearing tartan, as far as I know, in 1864 and the latest some of those photos could be is 1869 (due to the doublet style changing).

Perhaps the plaids were a lighter-weight fabric than the trews, and were woven in different colours and/or in different tartans for reasons unknown.

[figheadair]

One thing that three of those four photos show is the officer's plaids being lighter shades than their trews. I suppose it's possible that they're different tartans, for sure the trews closeup photo shows a tartan that has a different appearance that the other officer's plaids, which have the fat dark line in the green.

I've looked again at the three photographs and can't work out which you mean? The sett size in the plaid and trews look to be the same in each and, allowing for the angle of the light, they look like the same shades.

[OC Richard]

If you look at the group photo there are three officers wearing plaids and trews, if you see where the plaids are hanging down vertically they're at the same angle as the legs of the trews, but clearly darker.

It's the consistency of this, from man to man, that struck my eye.

To me it's clear that the plaids are a different weave, lighters colours.

Look at this first photo, you can see the direction the strong sunlight is coming from, hitting directly on his front leg.

Yet, that leg is darker than the side of his plaid that's away from the light.



With this man the sun is directly hitting two vertical surfaces, his leg and the hanging portion of the plaid. It's clear to me that the trews are darker.



By the way, the same difference can be seen here, around a decade after the amalgamation.

Note that the officer's plaid is lighter than any of the other tartans, the other man's plaid, the trews, the kilt, which all match more or less.



On the other hand, the pre-amalgamation tartan of the 93rd, here as worn by a piper, appears to be more or less the same shades on kilt and on plaid.

[figheadair]

If you look at the group photo there are three officers wearing plaids and trews, if you see where the plaids are hanging down vertically they're at the same angle as the legs of the trews, but clearly darker.

It's the consistency of this, from man to man, that struck my eye.

To me it's clear that the plaids are a different weave, lighters colours.

Look at this first photo, you can see the direction the strong sunlight is coming from, hitting directly on his front leg.

Yet, that leg is darker than the side of his plaid that's away from the light.

I see that now and agree about the apparent difference in shades. The sett size looks to be roughly the same though.



[QUOTE]With this man the sun is directly hitting two vertical surfaces, his leg and the hanging portion of the plaid. It's clear to me that the trews are darker.

Agreed. Again, same size sett.

By the way, the same difference can be seen here, around a decade after the amalgamation.

Note that the officer's plaid is lighter than any of the other tartans, the other man's plaid, the trews, the kilt, which all match more or less.

And a smaller setting too by the looks of things.

On the other hand, the pre-amalgamation tartan of the 93rd, here as worn by a piper, appears to be more or less the same shades on kilt and on plaid.

Yes, and the same sizze and setting. Note the blue pivot with the four black stripes (only two showing) on the selvedge of both.