Limits of tattersall

[Tobus]

Jock Scot made an interesting comment in another thread, and not wanting to hijack that thread, I thought it better to start a new one. Note: I'm posting this specifically in the traditional forum so as to focus on the traditional perspective.

In a discussion about sources for shirts, the tattersall shirt offerings at Samuel Windsor were brought up. Jock Scot's reply was:

I had a quick look at their tattersall and "country" shirts and found that they tend to look a tad "noisier" than some of the shirts that we are used to over here.

It made me curious as to where we draw the line between tasteful, traditional tattersall shirt patterns and other noisier/louder patterns. Before you say it, yes, I realise that this borders on over-thinking things or focusing on minutia, but I enjoy such thought exercises. And yes, I realise that the term tattersall originally meant something very specific with regard to patterns on a horse blanket. I'm not interested in tedious definitions of how to define tattersall. I'm more interested in where the traditional eye ceases to think of a tattersall or checked shirt pattern being appropriate with the kilt, and what those factors would be.

Is it the size/spacing of the grids? Thickness of lines? Number of different colours of lines? Background/base colour? I hope the question makes sense.

A picture is worth a thousand words, yeah? I don't think there would be any use in trying to rigidly define such limits by measurements. I'm looking more for some visual examples of what traditionalists consider to be a solidly-traditional tattersall shirt for wearing with a kilt, as well as examples of when you'd be approaching the limits or going past the limits.

Below are a couple of the tattersall shirts I have. Apologies for my amateur selfie skills.

This one, I would presume, is a rather mild pattern that isn't too bold or "noisy". Would traditionalists agree?




What about this one? It is obviously a bolder pattern. Would it be approaching the "noise limit" for wearing with a kilt, or has it already passed that limit?



Do you have examples of shirts that you would say are traditional versus "too noisy"? And what about the pattern makes it so?

[imbrius]

I would be interested in this as well. I have several such shirts but all of them tend toward the bolder side in color and my wife says they look too busy with my kilt whereas my subdued blue gingham check looks smashing, and to be honest, I have no idea why!

[Profane James]

It's likely a product of the fashion world going bankrupt and attempting to reinvent the wheel. You'd probably have to order from UK.
Here is a nice Barbour:
https://www.outdoorandcountry.co.uk/...l?c=Rich%20Red

[CollinMacD]

I am on board with this post, as I am totally confused on the criteria that determines a Tattersall Shirt.

Tattersail seems to be what one interprets a Tattersall to be, but there has to be some to of standard.

I see shirts that appear to be like Tattersall, but are referred to graph shirts or Geometric Square or several other names, yet the look like Tattersall. So I would like to learn what the criteria is of a Tattersall, as I see some that have button down collars, but yet others say no spread collars, I see some with white or cream color background, and yet others with blue or dark blue with contrasting lines. Does the actual material of the shirt matter, does it have to be a shirt with a certain thread count? Are the lines printed or threaded?

Just would like to know and understand what to be when looking for a Tattersall Shirt for use with a Kilt or Scottish dress.

[tokareva]

It's likely a product of the fashion world going bankrupt and attempting to reinvent the wheel. You'd probably have to order from UK.
Here is a nice Barbour:
https://www.outdoorandcountry.co.uk/...l?c=Rich%20Red

Thanks for the interesting link, but $70.00 for a shirt, you've got to be joking. Nice shirts yes, but at that price I'll risk a slightly bolder pattern.

[figheadair]

As has been pointed out by others, there are many versions of the basic pattern that are claimed to be Tattersall. Is one more correct than another, can there only be one? Applying my tartan historian logic I tried to find an example of the original blanket, in a museum perhaps but was unsuccessful. Finding modern examples is easier.



So let’s look at some descriptions and compare/apply them to what’s on offer. A typical dictionary definition is:

Noun
1. A pattern of dark lines forming squares on a light background.
2. Cloth woven or printed with this pattern.

Adjective
Having a pattern of dark lines forming squares on a light background.

Note that there is nothing about the distribution of size of the lines.

Wiki, that well known source of everything that is true, sort of, says Tattersall describes a check or plaid pattern woven into cloth. The pattern is composed of regularly-spaced thin, even vertical warp stripes, repeated horizontally in the weft, thereby forming squares. As a tartan weaver this makes perfect sense, it’s a small uneven symmetrical check with different colour stripes in the warp and weft.

British suppliers tend to agree with the Wiki definition:

Joseph Turner - Tattersall refers to a check pattern created by combining a horizontal stripe with thin, even vertical stripes. A tattersall check often consists of different coloured lines on a lighter background.

Samuel Windsor - A check pattern made by mixing thin, even stripes with a horizontal stripe in the weft part of the weave, to create a square-shaped pattern. The different lines are usually different colours and often darker than the background.

So, if one wanted to define the cloth then a reasonably description would be: a check pattern with a plain ground of white or cream with fine, evenly spaced overstripes of the same size in one or two colours and having different colour stripes in the warp and weft. A bit of a mouthful but that seems to cover everything one might think of as a traditional Tattersall pattern.

Using this criteria the patterns with dark grounds, such as the blue and green ones offered by Cordings are not traditional Tattersall patterns. Where it becomes more tricky is when the lines are of different sizes, unevenly spaced or having the same colours in warp and weft. When is a tartan a check or a check a tartan?

However one defines Tattersall, this range of fabrics certainly fails the definition and general acceptance of what is Tattersall.

[Tobus]

So, if one wanted to define the cloth then a reasonably description would be: a check pattern with a plain ground of white or cream with fine, evenly spaced overstripes of the same size in one or two colours and having different colour stripes in the warp and weft. A bit of a mouthful but that seems to cover everything one might think of as a traditional Tattersall pattern.

I couldn't help but notice that you added "white or cream" background as part of the definition, where the other definitions tended to just use a general "lighter colour" description. Does this mean that a pale yellow, light dusty beige, or a pale blue background would fall out of the tattersall range? Considering Steve's example of the original (which seems to be a distinct creamy yellow), we can safely say that a stark white is not necessarily required. But how far can it safely stray from white-ish before the traditional eye sees it as more of a "plaid" instead of a tattersall type pattern? What hues would be a turnoff? Would, say, a light pink background take it away from tattersall territory?

Another visual example seems appropriate. Here's a photo that includes some more of my tattersall shirts, laid out together (all from Samuel Windsor). Numbers 1 and 2 are from my original example, and I've added 3 and 4. It isn't quite so noticeable when any one of these shirts is seen by itself, but when laid together it is obvious that none of them use the same background white. Number 1 is the brightest white, 2 actually seems to be a very pale greenish hue, 3 is a very subtle cream, and 4 is a darker cream or dusty colour.

And going back to Steve's example and my attempt to find proportions of the original, it actually seems like number 4 is the closest in proportions and even background colour to the original. We've already talked about number 2 being on the bold side and 1 being perfect for wearing with a kilt. What do you all think of 3 and 4 in terms of traditional pairing with a kilt? Number 3 seems to be a slightly larger grid pattern than the others.

(I suppose I should really just pull out my kilts and photograph these shirts next to them for better comparison.)

[Profane James]

Thanks for the interesting link, but $70.00 for a shirt, you've got to be joking. Nice shirts yes, but at that price I'll risk a slightly bolder pattern.

it’s a pretty penny - check out Turnbull & Asser for even greater sticker shock:

http://turnbullandasser.com/catalogs.../?q=Tattersall

I’ve stalked a couple from eBay already - top notch!

Also, Hilditch & Key:
https://international.hilditchandkey...checked-shirts

Made in the USA, Gitman Brothers:
[URL=https://www.gitman.com[/URL]

[tokareva]

it’s a pretty penny - check out Turnbull & Asser for even greater sticker shock:

http://turnbullandasser.com/catalogs.../?q=Tattersall

I’ve stalked a couple from eBay already - top notch!

Also, Hilditch & Key:
https://international.hilditchandkey...checked-shirts

Made in the USA, Gitman Brothers:
[URL=https://www.gitman.com[/URL]

Those are making the $70.00 shirts look like a bargain. I think what really got me was the one for $365.00 but still didn't qualify for free shipping, sorry but that's a deal breaker for me.
Those shirts should come with a free straight jacket.

[Nomad]

I would be interested in this as well. I have several such shirts but all of them tend toward the bolder side in color and my wife says they look too busy with my kilt whereas my subdued blue gingham check looks smashing, and to be honest, I have no idea why!

As far as my opinion goes, I think your wife has summed it up perfectly, it's not just colours but how they are combined in the pattern. If the colours are deep/dark and there are many lines/checks/patterns then there is a chance that they will compete and give the beholder a headache or at the very least a mild feeling of vertigo.

Tobus, first shirt no problems, second you may be right on borderline because the green line tends to catch my eye, but that may be because it is a close up, it could be entirely different from 5 foot away. I tend to like tattershall so because the background is an off white/ cream colour which is much more pleasing than a large expanse of white against the kilt colours.

Of course these are just my opinions and like that well known phrase, that is too rude to say on here, everyone has one.