Day and evening sporrans

[bwat]

However as I've said before I've been hired to pipe at daytime weddings here in which one entire side of the family has flown over from Scotland for the event and the Scotsmen are all in black Prince Charlies or black Argylls with fur sporrans, leaving myself, if wearing Day Dress, somewhat out of step.

That's how it is most often done in Scotland. The typical kilted Scottish wedding is in the "kilt hire" style. I would guess that to the Scots at that wedding you probably looked like you weren't making much of an effort but "a nice try for an American." Of course we all know you've forgotten more about highland dress than the average Scot will ever learn, but that's the situation today. The highland dress as seen through the kilt-hire-filter has been adopted as appropriate wedding attire by Scots from Gretna to the granite city. I think we really should be looking at wedding attire as its own, quite influential, sub-culture.

[CMcG]

Here's a pic and Jock's comment from another thread.

.....I thought that some might find the pictures useful, to show that thank goodness, not all Scots weddings are of the " kilt hire shop" variety these days.

Scots aristocrats, Edmund Salvesen and Abi Elphinstone, at their wedding. Courtesy of the Daily Mail:

[freddie]

Neither fish nor fowl (nor, I suppose "foul" either) it's a recent innovation, so there is no weight of either tradition or propriety behind it.

The "Neither fish nor fowl" comment comes from Thompson's book 'So You're Going To Wear The Kilt' and I think he's referring to the type of sporran that looks like a traditional leather day one with fur in the front and CHROME chains hanging down. This is the one called 'Semi Dress'. I like the style of sporran worn by the man in the wedding picture which is plain leather daywear with a fur front and leather tassels and probably looks more dressier than a plain leather front, but in no way encroaching on 'Evening Wear'.

[The Q]

Be careful when judging dress styles that war time and for a period after clothing was rationed in the uk and so a bridal gown my not have been available.
Also its common for the lady to change from the bridal gown into her going away dress at some point in the festivities. Whereas the man may or may not .

[OC Richard]

No, I am sorry, he is not in day dress kilt attire! He is wearing a suit equivalent...

This seems to be one of those times when things which to a mere observer like myself appear to be one thing, but to others something else.

Certainly in outward appearance that man's dress conforms entirely to Day Dress as it is always described, with tweed jacket, leather sporran, lovat hose, etc. In all my vintage Highland Dress catalogues, contemporaneous with that photo in fact, that precise sporran is listed as a "Day" sporran, that precise jacket listed as a "Day" jacket (see below for that exact sporran being so listed).

Puzzling...

Anderson's in 1936 states what at that time was, to them, appropriate for weddings:



Note that they mention what we would call charcoal grey, and black, kilt jackets. They don't call it "semi-dress" but indeed they seem to be speaking of a category of Highland Dress in between formal/evening dress and tweed day dress.

[OC Richard]

So is the fur-and-leather Semi-Dress sporran ever appropriate?

There was, in the modern traditional Highland Dress which has come down to us from the early 20th century, no such thing as "semi-dress" (at least not so named, see above).

From the very earliest appearance I can find of the modern small pocketlike sporrans, "day" sporrans were offered with fur fronts, here in 1936. So, fur-and-leather sporrans were deemed to be appropriate for all the same times as all-leather ones.



The man in the old wedding photo is wearing one of these "day" sporrans, leather with fur front; in fact, he seems to be wearing #11 above, perhaps purchased from Andersons!

[Jock Scot]

This seems to be one of those times when things which to a mere observer like myself appear to be one thing, but to others something else.

Certainly in outward appearance that man's dress conforms entirely to Day Dress as it is always described, with tweed jacket, leather sporran, lovat hose, etc. In all my vintage Highland Dress catalogues, contemporaneous with that photo in fact, that precise sporran is listed as a "Day" sporran, that precise jacket listed as a "Day" jacket.


Puzzling...

I don't think its puzzling at all. In UK terms please remember we use "dress" as another word for formal. Therefore what I see in that picture is not " Dress"(formal) kilt attire. I see smart(suit equivalent) kilt attire. As we are discussing Scottish attire(and within Scotland,UK), then I respectfully venture to suggest, that UK terms would be appropriate and would cause less confusion that way?

[OC Richard]

Which is why I'm guided by the appearance or form of things rather than by nomenclature.

In old photos and paintings we can't know what names people had for things. We can only see their appearance. So you might have to pardon me at times for following the "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck" mindset.

In the photo of the man at that wedding I can see not a stitch that he's wearing that is different from what all the Highland Dress catalogues at that time were calling "Day Dress". So we know what the people he probably bought his kit from called it; what he called it himself we cannot know; what we call it today is our own concern.

[Jock Scot]

This seems to be one of those times when things which to a mere observer like myself appear to be one thing, but to others something else.

Certainly in outward appearance that man's dress conforms entirely to Day Dress as it is always described, with tweed jacket, leather sporran, lovat hose, etc. In all my vintage Highland Dress catalogues, contemporaneous with that photo in fact, that precise sporran is listed as a "Day" sporran, that precise jacket listed as a "Day" jacket (see below for that exact sporran being so listed).

Puzzling...

Anderson's in 1936 states what at that time was, to them, appropriate for weddings:



Note that they mention what we would call charcoal grey, and black, kilt jackets. They don't call it "semi-dress" but indeed they seem to be speaking of a category of Highland Dress in between formal/evening dress and tweed day dress.

If you care to read carefully they stipulate FULL DRESS(formal) which leaves one to be in absolutely no doubt of the attire being talked about . Therefore the fellow in the other picture dressed in tweed etc is not in FULL DRESS he is in smart (suit) kilt attire which is not formal. Perhaps you are missing the "social aspects" of the wording that were particularly pertinent in the !920/30/40/50's and to a lesser extent continue today.

It is interesting the comment about tweed being worn at weddings if you care to read on and it is interesting how tweed these days(post WW2) is regarded as quite acceptable for anything other than a formal(dress) wedding event.

[freddie]

Seems you could only 'down dress' when the wedding was 'in the country' (whatever that means) . If I were going to a wedding I would wear my black Argyll jacket with silver buttons or a charcoal tweed jacket (if I possessed one) and my black leather sporran.