US Army Tartan

**longhuntr74** · 27th March 10, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by M. A. C. Newsome

I actually thought I remembered a year or so ago that the US Army tartan had received official recognition by the Army, but I don't see anything about it in the STA notes and I can't find anything with a quick Google search, either, so I may be remembering wrong.

Matt...I believe there is some "official" recognition by the US Navy for the Navy (Edsel?) tartan. Don't believe there is any Army recognition though. The Marines have also been trending towards more and more kiltwearers and pipers at "official" functions from what I've read and heard. Maybe they'll see Leatherneck get officially adopted?

**Geoff Withnell** · 27th March 10, 06:36 PM

The Leatherneck tartan has no "official" standing in USMC uniform regulations. That said, I have seen a piper in a Dress Blue blouse and Leatherneck tartan kilt playing at a formal retreat ceremony at 8 & I (the USMC headquarters in Washington DC). It is seen quite commonly on both currently active and non longer subject to reveille Marines at Marine Corps Birthday Balls. And the curtains in the Marine detachment office on US Army Fort Meade here in Maryland are Leatherneck tartan. Nobody in the detachment did knew that the nice "plaid" curtains were Leatherneck tartan. The curtains had been up for years. I remarked on it when I first went in the office. I'm a civilian consultant to a DOD agency on Ft Meade.

Geoff Withnell

**RockyR** · 27th March 10, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Riverkilt

My understanding it that the copyright to the Army tartan is held by Alexis Malcolm and Strathmore Mills. I believe Marton Mills pays a royalty to weave the Army tartan in Polyviscose.

Close, but not quite, Ron.

USA Kilts (not MM, but me myself) got Alexis Malcolm's permission and paid Strathmore a royalty to have a single run (130 M) of the cloth woven in PV. We did the special run of cloth back in 2007 and have since sold out of it with no plans to re-weave it. The costs associated with doing things 'the right way' (i.e. paying royalties to the proper people) get expensive when other companies get away with weaving it without paying any royalties and sell the cloth / kilts for less. It is sad but true.

I can also comment that I know for a fact that NO company currently has Strathmore's permission to weave ANY of the following tartans in any non-wool fabrics (yet it is done WITHOUT permission):

US Army
US Navy (Edzell)
US Forces
US Air Force
US Coast Gaurd

The Marine Corps tartan is a 'non restricted tartan' that can CAN be woven / sold by anyone.

**Riverkilt** · 27th March 10, 09:41 PM

Thanks for that clarification Rocky. I'm glad I got in on that 2007 run and I'm glad I can proudly wear a "legitimate" run of the Army tartan.

Seems such a guilty thing to wear a kilt from a bootleg run of such a proud and honorable tartan.

Duty, Honor, Country means just that.

Sad that we have to double check such things these days.

Bootlegging vendors make such a loud statement about themselves when they choose to dishonor those holding rights to tartans.

And, on the other hand, vendors who take the time, trouble, and expense to do it right also make a loud statement about themselves.

I prefer to do business with the later.

**Highland Logan** · 28th March 10, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Riverkilt

...such a proud and honorable tartan.

An unofficial, never worn in battle, not part of any current or past uniform, not reconized by the USMC, fashion tartan. How did you get the words "proud and honorable" from a unofficial tartan?

Frank

**longhuntr74** · 28th March 10, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Highland Logan

An unofficial, never worn in battle, not part of any current or past uniform, not reconized by the USMC, fashion tartan. How did you get the words "proud and honorable" from a unofficial tartan?

Frank

I think he was referring to the legacy of the Armed Forces that the tartans represent...not so much the legacy of the tartan itself. When you get right down to it, isn't that the deal with all tartan? Is there something special about the Black Watch tartan that makes it proud and honorable? Not in my opinion...it is just a symbol...like a flag, unit colors, etc. It is the men who wore it that have made the legacy and who we honor by wearing it...not the person that invented the pattern.

**Riverkilt** · 28th March 10, 09:35 AM

I shall bite back a two word response....I will....I really will.

Okay, first I was speaking of the Army tartan. There are apparently no copyrights to the Leatherneck tartan.

FOR ME...just me...my opinion...my heritage...the Army tartan is proud and honorable because it was designed to represent the U.S. Army - I believe the color designations have been well posted.

FOR ME...just me...I wear it to honor my father's service as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Army in the early years of 1942 in North Africa when my country was losing. My father flew P-39s for the Army Air Corps back when there were few planes on the Allied front lines. He was shot down by ground fire at the Battle of Kassarine Pass while endeavoring to stop the assault of the Afrika Korps. I also wear it to honor my Uncle Don, a ground pounder who fought across France and Germany and was with the first company to liberate Dachau. And, I wear it for my Great Uncle Charlie who served in France with the U.S. Army in WWI - no small thing.

That's where pride and honor comes from when I wear that tartan. Now multiply that by millions of other heroic and not so heroic men who have served in the U.S. Army over the past few hundred years.

And, even though I was typing about the Army tartan and the response was about the Leatherneck tartan I believe that proud and honorable applies to all service tartans from all nations.

Pride and honor comes from history and the heart - not some set of rules. A device meant to honor history does not itself have to be dipped in blood to "qualify" to proudly honor service.

Still biting back that two word response...and still will not buy kilts made from cloth woven by bootleg mills and sold by vendors who "overlook" royalties to copyright holders.

**Riverkilt** · 28th March 10, 10:21 AM

And furthermore....

If you want to see PRIDE AND HONOR in person just go to any reunion of a WWII fighter squadron. There are still a few of the old guys left. If you go to one you'll see today's young jet jockies have sought them out. That's right, today's young fighter pilots seek out War 2 fighter squadron reunions. They young pilots sit with reverence at the feet of the old combat fighter jocks and hang on their every word. I've not witnessed such respect anywhere else.

**longhuntr74** · 28th March 10, 10:21 AM

Riverkilt...well spoken...and don't let that comment get you too riled up...obviously looking to start an argument...you've said everything that needs to be said...

Though...regarding both of our posts...I'd just like to say that we both specified the honor, bravery, and courage of the "men" who served. In my case, as I suspect in yours, I also honor the women who serve as well. I stated men, as I was thinking of the historical context from the 1700s and 1800s...when the roles of women in the military were non-existent or severly limited. For the ladies in uniform out there, please except my apologies for the oversight and know that today you are making equal contributions to that legacy!!!

**Riverkilt** · 28th March 10, 10:39 AM

Women for sure. Funny, I've always thought the term "men" when referring to a military unit, referred to all personnel in the unit...no biggie though. Don't need a syntax argument.

Frank, you're a good sniper...ya got me good. [insert standard two word response here]