Enlarged Sett

[Barb T]

My 15 oz DC Dalgliesh kilt swishes every bit as good as my 16 oz Lochcarron Strome kilt. I really don't think any "compensation" has to be made in the kilt construction.

I totally agree. I find the bigger difference is in "hand" - how the tartan feels. Some heavyweight tartan is stiffer than others, some is "smoother" than others. All of the regimental weight tartan that I've made kilts from is not just slightly heavier in weight but also very different in hand - very "blankety". That comes from the way the fabric is finished, not just the size of the threads used. All make great kilts (and I don't mean "Great Kilt"!).

Personally, my favorite tartan to make kilts from is Dalgliesh's heavyweight tartan. Just a personal preference, but I do love it. Makes a fab kilt. I don't see a material difference in look, swish, etc. between what is technically designated as 15 oz and what is designated 16 oz.

[figheadair]

Peter,

Upon further investigation, and from my own prior knowledge, there are several similar, yet different Chattan setts. Some are called by different names such as the Macpherson Crubin Plaid, Chattan Clan, and Chattan Chief. Whereas I can quite easily see subtle differences between each tartan, can you tell me what the major differences are (colour of yarn used, sett size, etc)? I have referred to the Tartans Authority website, as well as D.C. Dalgliesh's website for further research, yet I would also like to hear from you, if at all possible. Thank you.

Kyle,

Making comparisons between the sett size and colours of modern weavings of the tartans variously called: MacKintosh, MacPherson and Clan Chattan a pretty pointless exercise as they are all historically corrupt to some degree or other.

We've discussed the Crubin Plaid before. I remain unconvinced about its alleged origins and the specimen claimed to be it at the West Highland Museum is very definitely an example of Wilsons' MacKintosh from their Old superfine range c1800. The example in the Cockburn Collection (below) is sightly heavier.



This was Wilsons' MacKintosh - Old Method where the yellow squares comprised a set of wool and silk threads. A count for this was included in their 1819 which gave a 6.3 inch sett (full repeat). They also gave a count for the MacKintosh - New Method (yellow was wool only) with an 8.3 inch sett. I can't remember exactly but the Cockburn sample (Old Method) is somewhere in the region of a 10 inch sett.

Does that help?

[Calgacus]

I totally agree. I find the bigger difference is in "hand" - how the tartan feels. Some heavyweight tartan is stiffer than others, some is "smoother" than others. All of the regimental weight tartan that I've made kilts from is not just slightly heavier in weight but also very different in hand - very "blankety". That comes from the way the fabric is finished, not just the size of the threads used. All make great kilts (and I don't mean "Great Kilt"!).

Personally, my favorite tartan to make kilts from is Dalgliesh's heavyweight tartan. Just a personal preference, but I do love it. Makes a fab kilt. I don't see a material difference in look, swish, etc. between what is technically designated as 15 oz and what is designated 16 oz.

Thank you Barb & Tobus, excellent information.

[Calgacus]

Kyle, a bit more scaling gives the following sett sizes for the MacLeay clansmen-

Macpherson dress ~10.5"

Macpherson hunting ~10"

Cameron ~10"

Mackintosh ~9"

Scotweb's designer assumes about 43tpi, but the swatch in front of me is 40tpi. Using the 40tpi figure, their Chattan (clan) has a sett size of ~10" as already stated, and their Chattan (chief) has a sett size of a mahoosive ~20"!!

[creagdhubh]

Kyle,

Making comparisons between the sett size and colours of modern weavings of the tartans variously called: MacKintosh, MacPherson and Clan Chattan a pretty pointless exercise as they are all historically corrupt to some degree or other.

We've discussed the Crubin Plaid before. I remain unconvinced about its alleged origins and the specimen claimed to be it at the West Highland Museum is very definitely an example of Wilsons' MacKintosh from their Old superfine range c1800. The example in the Cockburn Collection (below) is sightly heavier.



This was Wilsons' MacKintosh - Old Method where the yellow squares comprised a set of wool and silk threads. A count for this was included in their 1819 which gave a 6.3 inch sett (full repeat). They also gave a count for the MacKintosh - New Method (yellow was wool only) with an 8.3 inch sett. I can't remember exactly but the Cockburn sample (Old Method) is somewhere in the region of a 10 inch sett.

Does that help?

Yes, thank you Peter!

[Domehead]

This is all brilliant stuff.

[creagdhubh]

This is all brilliant stuff.

I couldn't agree more! Wonderful and invaluable information contained within this thread. Thanks again to all of the insightful contributions! We shall see how the project unfolds (no pun intended).

Cheers,

[WillowEstate]

All of the regimental weight tartan that I've made kilts from is not just slightly heavier in weight but also very different in hand - very "blankety". That comes from the way the fabric is finished, not just the size of the threads used.

Indeed, the kiltmaker who altered my military MacKenzie Seaforth kilt described it as "22 ounce blanketweave", common, apparently among older kilts.

[Jock Scot]

Indeed, the kiltmaker who altered my military MacKenzie Seaforth kilt described it as "22 ounce blanketweave", common, apparently among older kilts.

I wonder, can new 22 ounce wool "blanketweave" tartan be obtained these days?

[Nathan]

I wonder, can new 22 ounce wool "blanketweave" tartan be obtained these days?

Regimental tartans can be obtained in this weight if one knows who the weaver or kiltmaker for a regiment is but it doesn't appear to be marketed on the civilian side for some reason.