Sett Size

[Newfoundlander]

As it is a matter of proportions, I feel that one should factor in the size of the individual wearing the kilt. My Robertson Red from Robert Noble has quite a smaller sett size than the typical offering. However, I feel it works better for my body type.


Conversely, my Wyvern sporran, while beautifully crafted, gets little wear because it feels disproportionately large for my frame.


It is somewhat humorous for me to read the frequent posts about individuals needing extra long garters, or barrel-chested jackets, when I seem to have just as much trouble locating items for my short stature. I’ve been hunting a second hand 42 Short tweed jacket for years.

To echo this, I think the size of the person certainly makes a difference. I was at a wedding not too long ago actually and remember contemplating this very thing. For the life of me, i can't find the picture I took though... you'll have to settle for my description I guess:

The Brides Father and Uncle are both "gentlemen of substance" shall we say, and both in their Anderson kilts. However, the Uncle has a much larger sett size, and the Father of the Bride had the "usual" sett size. Now, both looks very good I have to say, but the large sett did make the kilt look a bit more subtle than the normal intricate Anderson tartan. So, I think if subtle is what your after, larger sett sizes are great. The brides' sister's boyfriend also had an Anderson kilt on as well in the usual sett size, and being a much more slight lad, it seemed to suit his body type well.

Granted, I could be biased, because I like the intricate Anderson tartan in the usual set size.

My humble opinion only of course...

[Orvis]

As others have said, I look at sett size as a byproduct of cloth weight. The yarns in a 16 oz tartan are thicker than in a 13 oz, so the sett of a 16 oz will necessarily be larger than that of a 13 oz in the same tartan (see illustrations above). Reaching back into tartan history, I've noted that Wilson's & Sons had plaiding and they had kilting setts of the same tartans, and that the kilting setts seemed to be smaller. Figheadair has showed us photos of 18th c. plaids with really large setts (2-1/2 sets to a 27" width), including that tartan set of MacDougall curtains with the 20" sett. Perhaps he could enlighten us on whether there were differences in the sett sizes of kilting and plaiding cloth of the same tartan during the early days of tartan. Thank you in advance!

[Spartan Tartan]

I very much consider sett size. There are some tartans that I find beautiful, but the sett is too small for my liking. To answer your question another way, I consider the sett more so than the colours (I.e. modern, ancient, weathered, etc....).

Admittedly, I don't have a large number of kilts. But my newest (still being made), was a tough decision for me between two tartans. Ultimately, the one (of the two) with the larger sett was ordered. In both cases a custom weave was necessary, so I elected the one with what I could be sure was a larger (and therefore preferred by me) sett.

[figheadair]

As others have said, I look at sett size as a byproduct of cloth weight. The yarns in a 16 oz tartan are thicker than in a 13 oz, so the sett of a 16 oz will necessarily be larger than that of a 13 oz in the same tartan (see illustrations above). Reaching back into tartan history, I've noted that Wilson's & Sons had plaiding and they had kilting setts of the same tartans, and that the kilting setts seemed to be smaller. Figheadair has showed us photos of 18th c. plaids with really large setts (2-1/2 sets to a 27" width), including that tartan set of MacDougall curtains with the 20" sett. Perhaps he could enlighten us on whether there were differences in the sett sizes of kilting and plaiding cloth of the same tartan during the early days of tartan. Thank you in advance!

An interesting question and one for which there is not easy answer for three reasons (this assumes that by during the early days of tartan you mean pre-c1770 and that by kilt we are meaning feileadh beag:

1. There are relatively few extant examples from the period and portraiture of the period ranges from very good to impressionistic.

2. With the exception of the Murray of Tullibardine I don't know of any extant examples/portraits from that period that show the same sett let alone in different sizes.

3. It is not always possible to determine how a fragment of tartan was used. Many of the larger setting pieces were plaids or at least woven with that intention. Some of the small sett pieces have a herringbone selvedge which is an indicator that they were similarly intended for use as plaids but others could have been for a range of clothing including kilts (feileadh beag).

The only evidence for feileadh beag settings we have is from portraits such as those of the MacDonald Boys, James Moray, Yr of Abercairney and the like. Interestingly they generally show large setts, often with a selvedge mark which would suggest that off-set single width plaid material was being used unjoined. This makes sense as people would have been more interested in the garment from material that was available and less concerned about fitting the sett. It was probably the case that the growth of a smaller, non-plaid sett size has its origins with the military where numbers and uniformity would have been the contributing factors.

[Guinness>water]

I guess I'm the only one who prefers a smaller sett. I was very suprised when my kilt arrived, I had no idea that the pattern was going to be so big. Its not that I dont like it, I just pictured being smaller. I beleive the tartan in my kilt is a 8" sett. While playing around on Scotweb's tartan designer, I have made every tartan with a 6" sett. If and when I every get the money to have Maccormick tartan custom wove, I'll have them make it with a 6" sett repeat.

I have read(I think on Albanach.org) that it was a larger sett size that made kilts go from 4-5 yards to the now standard 8 yards. Please correct me if I'm wrong Matt.

If I understand the above correctly, I wonder what the average (if there was such a thing) sett size was before they began to grow?

[figheadair]

I have read(I think on Albanach.org) that it was a larger sett size that made kilts go from 4-5 yards to the now standard 8 yards. Please correct me if I'm wrong Matt.

That's not the case. The main reason for the increase in the amount of cloth was the introduction of pleating to sett rather than stripe.

If I understand the above correctly, I wonder what the average (if there was such a thing) sett size was before they began to grow?

Historically, i.e. in the c18th there was no such as a standard sett size and probably not in the majority of the C19th either.

[Guinness>water]

Yes sir, your right.

Do you think sett sizes have changed much from back in the old days? Is a sett repeat bigger today than back then?

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I have read(I think on Albanach.org) that it was a larger sett size that made kilts go from 4-5 yards to the now standard 8 yards. Please correct me if I'm wrong Matt.

I don't recall ever making such a statement. I also don't think that the switch over from pleating to stripe to pleating to sett was a contributing factor either. I say this based on the fact that the earliest reference I know of to pleating to set is c. 1900 while the increase of material in the kilt grew from nominally 4 yards to nominally 8 yards over the course of the 19th century.

I honestly think the increase in the amount of cloth used was a fashion trend, and probably facilitated by the fact that as the nineteenth century progressed, the kilt changed from being an everyday garment to a more ceremonial (special occasion) garment.

[figheadair]

Do you think sett sizes have changed much from back in the old days? Is a sett repeat bigger today than back then?

Again, by back in the old days I presume you mean pre-19th century. That being the case then you are asking the wrong question and are trying to equate our modern use of tartan to that of our forefathers which just doesn't work.

In 'the old days' tartan was generally woven with an end use in mind and therefore the sett size, and in fact even the sett itself, was depenant on the end use. One also has to remeber that sett size and sett complexity are two different things.

There was no such thing as a clan tartan and therefore no need to conform to that constraint. Plaid settings were generally larger as the cloth was designed to be joined to make it double width and the sett and sett size was produced with that in mind and on the intended effect with the colours available. That said, not all old plaid setts were large. Similarly, setts and settings for made p clothing tended to be smaller than those for plaids but not always.

A simple answer to your question: there was no such thing as a standard sett size so it cannot be copared to today where weavers tend to work to rough standards in order to maximise the utilisty of the cloth.

[Guinness>water]

I'm sorry Matt, I have pulled the thread off of subject. Please allow me to put us back on.

If the mills offered as many different sett sizes as they do color variations, I would like that very much. I prefer the smaller sett.