Allowed tartans

[mddock58]

The pieces you quoted only signify that the common colors used in their tartans were "red and green" not that there was a "specific" tartan designed for the clan at that time.

As we have seen in much research, there are many specifics left out, but we tend to define or interpret them as we wish. I am not saying that there was no specific tartan for the Grants, from what you posted, but that what was posted is vague, and can be interpreted many ways.

There are many scholarly works that contain mis-information, mostly because they accepted information of questionable sources. If we could travel back, we could know for sure, but we all try to piece histories together from sources we can access.

Tartans did not really have significance (as far as patterns, for history's sake) until they became manufactured more commonly. When they were woven by local "artisans" there would have been a large variation in design, because they would not "count threads" or see colors the same.

This seems to be an argument that is trying to be "won", when until there is verifiable evidences brought forth to change what is currently known, there is no point in arguing.

This is an interesting thread, but the vehement attitude should be set aside.

[Quaich Maker]

The pieces you quoted only signify that the common colors used in their tartans were "red and green" not that there was a "specific" tartan designed for the clan at that time.

As we have seen in much research, there are many specifics left out, but we tend to define or interpret them as we wish. I am not saying that there was no specific tartan for the Grants, from what you posted, but that what was posted is vague, and can be interpreted many ways.

There are many scholarly works that contain mis-information, mostly because they accepted information of questionable sources. If we could travel back, we could know for sure, but we all try to piece histories together from sources we can access.

Tartans did not really have significance (as far as patterns, for history's sake) until they became manufactured more commonly. When they were woven by local "artisans" there would have been a large variation in design, because they would not "count threads" or see colors the same.

This seems to be an argument that is trying to be "won", when until there is verifiable evidences brought forth to change what is currently known, there is no point in arguing.

This is an interesting thread, but the vehement attitude should be set aside.

The writings give the colours , the paintings give the sett .
All give the Clan

[mddock58]

The painting gives a representation of the sett as worn by the piper at the time the painting was created, not proof that this was a specified "Clan" sett.

[Quaich Maker]

The painting gives a representation of the sett as worn by the piper at the time the painting was created, not proof that this was a specified "Clan" sett.

The chief specified the sett .
Thats why the paintings , and the edict go hand and hand .

Do your own research , do not rely on that of others .
You have enough info to get started .

[Peter C.]

The pieces you quoted only signify that the common colors used in their tartans were "red and green" not that there was a "specific" tartan designed for the clan at that time.

As we have seen in much research, there are many specifics left out, but we tend to define or interpret them as we wish. I am not saying that there was no specific tartan for the Grants, from what you posted, but that what was posted is vague, and can be interpreted many ways.

There are many scholarly works that contain mis-information, mostly because they accepted information of questionable sources. If we could travel back, we could know for sure, but we all try to piece histories together from sources we can access.

Tartans did not really have significance (as far as patterns, for history's sake) until they became manufactured more commonly. When they were woven by local "artisans" there would have been a large variation in design, because they would not "count threads" or see colors the same.

This seems to be an argument that is trying to be "won", when until there is verifiable evidences brought forth to change what is currently known, there is no point in arguing.

This is an interesting thread, but the vehement attitude should be set aside.

Well said, I was trying to say some of what you said but you said it so much better and with extra points, all of wich I agree with.

Peter