What's the story on the huge hairy sporrans

[Bugbear]

To the OP question....well when there's something hanging low in that area and the word "horse" comes to mind...it's not always a bad thing....

[Tobus]

I'm not sure what the "story" is on hair sporrans; that's a good question. They go back to at least the early 1800s in military tradition, but I'm not sure if they had a civilian history before that. I don't recall seeing examples of hair sporrans in pre-proscription portraits, but I could be wrong. I'm sure the experts like Matt or Todd will have the background.

At the very least, they were in full-blown fashion by the mid 1800s. From there up through at least the 1920s or 1930s, men wore them quite often. Then they just kind of disappeared from popular Highland fashion and were replaced with other sporran types.

The story is that hair sporrans go way back and seem to be making something of a comeback.

I'm glad to hear they're making a comeback! I absolutely love my horse hair sporran, and would like to branch out to a goat hair sporran, as well as other hair sporrans with various cantle styles. I really think hair sporrans work well with the proportions of a kilt. It always looks odd to me when people wear those tiny day sporrans and have a lot of tartan real estate below it. A long hair sporran just looks better to me. Especially if it goes all the way to the bottom of the apron and just a tad below.

And yes, there's something inherently manly about a long, hairy sporran swinging in front of you. We could debate all day about the imagery or connotations behind it, but you have to admit that it's just plain cool. And I'd bet the ladies really like it, even if they find it rather crude. If nothing else, it gives your kilt some 'action' in the front when you walk, like the swish of the pleats in the rear. A long swinging hair sporran really makes people look at you when you walk.

Come to the dark side. Wear the hair!

[McClef]

I think they hide too much of the apron.

There - I said it!

[OC Richard]

Perhaps I could find the answer (or multiple opinions) regarding this if I searched long enough but I'm curious about the reasoning and tradition of those really huge and hairy sporrans (horse hair).

When and why did some sporrans get so enormous?

Well the when is well known; as for the why, who can say? It's like any other fashion trend... it happens, but there's usually no reason for it other than fashion itself.

The earliest sporrans we have clear images of appear to be made of plain deerskin, and are simple leather bags. Here is Lord Duffus in 1700:



Later in the 18th century sporrans were become more elaborate, often of sealskin, with a purselike top and decorative tassels. Here is one in the 1780s. In this portrait can also be seen the origin of the Feather Bonnet.



Here is another late 18th century sporran, here worn with trews by Sir John Sinclair. One can also see the feathers overtaking the bonnet.



Also popular were badger head sporrans, here in the early 19th century:



Here is a Highland Costume in 1835 showing the sporran of the period. Military sporrans looked identical. As you can see, sporrans were getting longer and more hairy at that time.



In the 1840s the military went to rather longer sporrans. These were probably goathair, not horsehair, at that time. Here they are in 1852:



So, this was a steady fashion evolution, taking place simultaneously in military and civilian Highland Dress.

By the mid 19th century long hair sporrans (probably goathair, though sometimes horsehair) were the standard sporran for all modes of Highland Dress, worn with the simplest possible Day Dress, with elaborate Evening Dress, and in the military.

Here is typical Day Dress in the 1860s:



Which continued throughout the 19th century:



But early in the 20th century new sporran styles emerged, shaped like simple pockets. These gained in popularity with civilian dress, but the Army continued to use the long hair sporrans. The Army did adopt simple leather pocket-shaped sporrans for some orders of dress and wears both long hair sporrans and small leather sporrans to this day.

Here the new styles can be seen, in a catalogue from 1930:

[biblemonkey]

I think they hide too much of the apron.

There - I said it!

*WHEW!* It's NOT just me?! ith:

[Peter Crowe]

*WHEW!* It's NOT just me?! ith:

I agree with both Biblemonkey and Trefor in respect of general kilt-wear. I suppose it is also what you are used to, I was brought up to the wear the kilt by my dad who customarily wore THCD day dress, so a smaller leather sporran is part of my earliest kilt memory. I was also taught that Horsehair sporrans were uniform items for Soldiers or Bandsmen.

[creagdhubh]

I'm not sure what the "story" is on hair sporrans; that's a good question. They go back to at least the early 1800s in military tradition, but I'm not sure if they had a civilian history before that. I don't recall seeing examples of hair sporrans in pre-proscription portraits, but I could be wrong. I'm sure the experts like Matt or Todd will have the background.

At the very least, they were in full-blown fashion by the mid 1800s. From there up through at least the 1920s or 1930s, men wore them quite often. Then they just kind of disappeared from popular Highland fashion and were replaced with other sporran types.


I'm glad to hear they're making a comeback! I absolutely love my horse hair sporran, and would like to branch out to a goat hair sporran, as well as other hair sporrans with various cantle styles. I really think hair sporrans work well with the proportions of a kilt. It always looks odd to me when people wear those tiny day sporrans and have a lot of tartan real estate below it. A long hair sporran just looks better to me. Especially if it goes all the way to the bottom of the apron and just a tad below.

And yes, there's something inherently manly about a long, hairy sporran swinging in front of you. We could debate all day about the imagery or connotations behind it, but you have to admit that it's just plain cool. And I'd bet the ladies really like it, even if they find it rather crude. If nothing else, it gives your kilt some 'action' in the front when you walk, like the swish of the pleats in the rear. A long swinging hair sporran really makes people look at you when you walk.

Come to the dark side. Wear the hair!

Well said, Tobus!

[McClef]

Glad to see I am not the only one of that opinion!

When part of an extremely elaborate uniform such as a military band they look less out of place because there is so much to take attention away from the kilt in any case.

But otherwise I have to stand by what I said - they are more overwhelming decoration than use. There is only the sporran to compete with the kilt rather than compliment it.

I appreciate that some will like long sporrans but I honestly feel that this is at the expense of the kilts beneath.

[Tobus]

they are more overwhelming decoration than use.

Yes, this is true, and that's why many like them. Each to his own, of course. But if we start saying that anything that's more decoration than use doesn't really belong with the kilt, then we would also not wear:

sgians dubh
Braemar cuffs
gauntlet cuffs
epaulets
buckle brogues
waistcoats
any pocket which is sewn shut
heck, even the kilt itself!

I'm not sure why decoration is something that should be avoided. It is, after all, much of the reason we wear the kilt! These are not strictly utilitarian garments. Decoration is every bit a part of the kilt as comfort and utility. As long as something doesn't actually impede functionality, why would we want to take away the decoration?

[creagdhubh]

Yes, this is true, and that's why many like them. Each to his own, of course. But if we start saying that anything that's more decoration than use doesn't really belong with the kilt, then we would also not wear:

sgians dubh
Braemar cuffs
gauntlet cuffs
epaulets
buckle brogues
waistcoats
any pocket which is sewn shut
heck, even the kilt itself!

I'm not sure why decoration is something that should be avoided. It is, after all, much of the reason we wear the kilt! These are not strictly utilitarian garments. Decoration is every bit a part of the kilt as comfort and utility. As long as something doesn't actually impede functionality, why would we want to take away the decoration?

Agreed, Tobus. Decoration shouldn't be avoided. Highland Scots have prided themselves with the wearing of ornate decoration in their attire for centuries, who are we to 'drastically' change such a time-honoured tradition that is uniquely Highland? It's apart of the Highland Scot ethos, in my opinion.

Cheers,