Limits of tattersall

[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.

[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]

[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.)

[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.

[Arnot]

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

I think they are all fine for kilt wear.

In the photo below, Jock is wearing a larger check and I am wearing a smaller more subtle check. They both work. It just depends what one likes. I wear both types.

[OC Richard]

I'm a visual person and when I was introduced to the concept of the "tattersall" shirt I began making visual notes of what seemed to define the beast.

Like many visual things it's much easier to identify by sight than to define in words.

I based my visual construct on looking over a number of British clothing firms, observing what they called "tattersall" and what they called "country check". As with any other aspect of clothing 1) British firms are more consistent in use of terminology than American firms and 2) even so, a few British firms use terminology differently than the majority.

Here in visual form, what as best I can figure out is a true Tattersall shirt:



My attempt to define the beast, in words:

The shirt: long sleeve with non-buttoning square collar (neither strongly pointed nor strongly spread), the shirt usually being white or ivory.

The pattern: a system of even-width lines forming squares using two alternating colours.

Patterns that deviate from this, say three-colour patterns, or patterns that go, for example, blue/blue/red/blue/blue/red rather than alternate, are usually called "country check" by the firms.

A "country check" shirt.



Here's a selection of traditional-looking tattersall and country check shirts, giving a quick visual suggestion of the range of traditional patterns



Notice the range of colour of the shirts, the range of colours of the patterns, the range of scale (pattern-size), the fact that none of the patterns are strongly rectangular, that the lines are of equal (or nearly equal) width.

You don't see any shirts with fat stripes, or huge widely-spaced lines, or very fine closely-spaced lines.

American shirts usually deviate from the classic Tattersall shirt in one or more ways.

Quite often American shirts with correct Tatterall patterns have button-down collars and/or point collars or are short sleeved.

And often the pattern itself varies from the classic Tattersall pattern, having rectangles rather than squares, or having the width of the lines vary. Patterns with lines of various widths often look more "plaid" than "check" to me.

[ShaunMaxwell]

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..

There are less expensive tattersall and country check shirts to be had: https://www.rydale.com/collections/mens-shirts

I've not purchased any of these shirts and cannot vouch for their quality. Perhaps some UK-based members can comment. Some years ago, I did purchase a diamond quilted waxed waistcoat from them, and it's been fine given the light use it receives in Houston, TX.

Cheers,

SM

[Profane James]

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.

Man, that’s right!

I did an ‘Elizabeth!’ when I first saw the retail:

[figheadair]

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?

Apologies, I way meaning generically a light background that is, or at that end of the colour scale to white. Cream, beige, creamy-yellow would all fit to my mind but not yellow as in the sun. The point I was trying to make was that the original probably had some sort of ercu or lightly coloured off white base. Once the base is identifiably red, blue, green etc then it's not Tattersall IMO. Colour; hue, tone and shade may have a defnably range but like beauty they are often perceived differently.

[tripleblessed]

That aside, is the fashion industry going bankrupt? I hadn't heard that! Seems like they're doing just fine to me.

Financially, not so much. Tastewise? An argument might be made for large swaths of the industry.