origins of the right-hand fringe

[figheadair]

If the Grant swordsman's plaid has contrasting selvedge, how can it look the same around all the edges?

It's possible to weave a selvedge mark at the ends too but it's technically challenging and only something a very experienced weaver could do. I've found three historical examples and recreated the techqiue once.

http://www.scottishtartans.co.uk/Two...ish_County.pdf

http://www.scottishtartans.co.uk/A_C...buie_Plaid.pdf

[OC Richard]

It's possible to weave a selvedge mark at the ends too but it's technically challenging and only something a very experienced weaver could do. I've found three historical examples and recreated the techqiue once.

http://www.scottishtartans.co.uk/Two...ish_County.pdf

http://www.scottishtartans.co.uk/A_C...buie_Plaid.pdf

Wow those Antigonish plaids are beautiful!

Still, when I look at the Grant swordsman painting it looks to me like binding. There seems to be thickness to it, and a roundness to the edge, rather than a woven selvedge, and it's the same width that binding usually is.

But it could be a case of the artist being familiar with bound edges on clothes (remember that portrait artists paint clothes all the time) so interpreted a contrasting threads at the borders as binding.

One thing to keep in mind about portraits is that they were extremely expensive, the domain of the wealthy, and the clients were keenly aware of their carefully selected and extremely expensive clothes and would expect the artist to paint them accurately. With the accompanying portrait (the piper) the artist spent a large amount of time painting each of the numerous rosettes on the piper's coat. Time is money, and the artist wouldn't have spent all that time painting those details if the client didn't expect it/hadn't insisted on it.

In other words a painted portrait is unlike a photograph in that the sitter (or in this case the sitter's employer) has input on how the image comes out. It's why on so many 16th and 17th century portraits the artist has lavished more time on the clothes than on the anatomy.

So, I'm hesitant to dismiss how clothes are depicted in pre-modern oil portraits.

[figheadair]

Still, when I look at the Grant swordsman painting it looks to me like binding. There seems to be thickness to it, and a roundness to the edge, rather than a woven selvedge, and it's the same width that binding usually is.

But it could be a case of the artist being familiar with bound edges on clothes (remember that portrait artists paint clothes all the time) so interpreted a contrasting threads at the borders as binding.

I've had this discussion before. For me, it makes no sense whatsoever to produce cloth/a garment that has a versatile handle due to the structure of the weave and then constrain that by adding a binding of a different material that has less give. It just seems an unnecessary constraint.

There are plenty of examples of selvedge marks and selvedge patterns on historical specimens, I’ve only come across one with any binding – discussed here – and that I’m feel certain was added later when the surviving piece of the plaid was repurposed.