Another old tartan

[Domehead]

In this particular case, I'm having real difficulty in finding any justification for the suffix 'of Alytre'.

Andersons, now Kinloch Andersons, don't know anything about naming of the silk specimen they had, a piece of which is now in the STA Collection. It looks to be a c1930-40 sample and was almost certainly woven as a 'special', presumably for a Fraser but whether Andersons called it by that name because the customer did or whether it was already being sold as such is unclear. I favour the former but have been unable to track down who/which family might have ordered it. A recent research discovery means that it's now quite clear to me that the current name of this sett is wrong.

1. Does the position that this sett is "misnamed" derive from legal conventions surrounding male land-holders and "Name-of-Place" v. Female's inaccess to such designation or status, you mentioned before?

2. If so, then why does such an idea bear anything on the sett, when the sett itself bears only little resemblance (tacit colourway) to any Comyn, Cumming setts (or modern associated Glen Orchy, Buchan) before - to include the Logan tabulation, which is distinctly unique?

3. In fact, under the theory of regional affect, this sett bears indisputable hallmarks of the traditional West Highland Group (MacKintosh, MacKintyre, Glen Orchy C18th): this, considering your research on the Appin/Lorne motif, as well as a "double" Robertson-esque feel. Isn't it likely, considering your particular theory re: the "Gentile Loch Eil" naming, Andersons suffixed "Fraser" as a commercial epithet and nothing more?

I appreciate anything you have to teach. Thank you again for your considerable time and energy in these matters. It helps me more than I could ever acknowledge.

Slainte Mhath
Ryan M. Liddell

[figheadair]

Ryan - see my comments to your questions.

1. Does the position that this sett is "misnamed" derive from legal conventions surrounding male land-holders and "Name-of-Place" v. Female's inaccess to such designation or status, you mentioned before?No, it comes from the fact that I've tracked down another specimen, quite clearly from the same plaid, who's owner is known (as much as these things can be 250 years after the event) and it's not Fraser of Altyre.

2. If so, then why does such an idea bear anything on the sett, when the sett itself bears only little resemblance (tacit colourway) to any Comyn, Cumming setts (or modern associated Glen Orchy, Buchan) before - to include the Logan tabulation, which is distinctly unique?

3. In fact, under the theory of regional affect, this sett bears indisputable hallmarks of the traditional West Highland Group (MacKintosh, MacKintyre, Glen Orchy C18th): this, considering your research on the Appin/Lorne motif, as well as a "double" Robertson-esque feel. Isn't it likely, considering your particular theory re: the "Gentile Loch Eil" naming, Andersons suffixed "Fraser" as a commercial epithet and nothing more? No, not in this case. They may have added the suffix (Altyre) but not the Fraser associated, that's much older.

I appreciate anything you have to teach. Thank you again for your considerable time and energy in these matters. It helps me more than I could ever acknowledge.

Slainte Mhath
Ryan M. Liddell

[Nathan]

Fascinating thread, this. Nothing to add but enjoying it very much.

[Domehead]

Ryan - see my comments to your questions.

I think I understand your position:

1. The discovered extant specimen is the "Cumming" sample you referred to earlier. Essentially, this piece is from the same "Fraser of Altyre" piece, but can be dated before the Andersons' sample (a.k.a "Fraser of Altyre"). Therefor, that ascription would be in err. The owner of the discovered & pre-dated sample being "Cumming"

2. It would not matter weather the discovered extant specimen ("Cumming") resembled anything otherwise known as "Comyn, Cumming, etc." because those ascriptions germinate from C19th sources (save for the Logan tabulation) and have their own quandaries.

3. The suffix, "of Altyre", wether it be a colloquialism or an actual designation, bares very little as the discovered extant specimen ("Cumming") can be virtually pre-dated and ownership corroborated to that of a family other than "Fraser", i.e. "Cumming".

Hence, why you commented on the search for an original bill of sale, in order to confirm a possible purchase order in the name of "Fraser", which would explain much in the way of subsequent commercial ascription.

Correct?

Ryan M Liddell

[figheadair]

I think I understand your position:

1. The discovered extant specimen is the "Cumming" sample you referred to earlier. Essentially, this piece is from the same "Fraser of Altyre" piece, but can be dated before the Andersons' sample (a.k.a "Fraser of Altyre"). Therefor, that ascription would be in err. The owner of the discovered & pre-dated sample being "Cumming"

2. It would not matter weather the discovered extant specimen ("Cumming") resembled anything otherwise known as "Comyn, Cumming, etc." because those ascriptions germinate from C19th sources (save for the Logan tabulation) and have their own quandaries.

3. The suffix, "of Altyre", wether it be a colloquialism or an actual designation, bares very little as the discovered extant specimen ("Cumming") can be virtually pre-dated and ownership corroborated to that of a family other than "Fraser", i.e. "Cumming".

Hence, why you commented on the search for an original bill of sale, in order to confirm a possible purchase order in the name of "Fraser", which would explain much in the way of subsequent commercial ascription.

Correct?

Ryan M Liddell

No, not correct Ryan.

1. 18th century specimen that I discovered recently is from the same plaid as the speimen in the OP. That tartan, as you correctly identified is what is known as Fraser of Altyre. The newly discovered fragment is known to have belonged to someone else; i.e not a Fraser of Altyre.

2. For a reason that remains unclear, this sett was sold by Andersons in the 1930s as Fraser of Altyre. John McGregor-Hastie suggested that the tartan was mid-19th century. What he based this assumption on is unknown.

3. Altyre was a Cumming possession and other than a 16th century wedding of a Fraser to a Cumming, there is no know Fraser connection with Altyre.

Does not being a Fraser of Altyre tartan therefore make it a Cumming one? Only if one accepts that the Altyre suffix is/was correct. But the evidence points elsewhere!

I realise I'm in possession of the facts but I got there through detective work. See if you can work this through.

[Domehead]

1. 18th century specimen that I discovered recently is from the same plaid as the speimen in the OP. That tartan, as you correctly identified is what is known as Fraser of Altyre. The newly discovered fragment is known to have belonged to someone else; i.e not a Fraser of Altyre
Got this one...
Both the newly discovered extant specimen and the "original" are of the same plaid and C18th. This renders John MacGregor-Hastie's date moot. As well, it calls into question the ascription for two reasons:
A. The plaid, as stated, is the possession of another family NOT Fraser, whether located in Altyre or otherwise.

B. The sett's commercial viability was post Victorian "Tom-foolery", therefor requires revisionism, certainly under such circumstances.

2. For a reason that remains unclear, this sett was sold by Andersons in the 1930s as Fraser of Altyre. John McGregor-Hastie suggested that the tartan was mid-19th century. What he based this assumption on is unknown.
Got this one...
Although Andersons may have capitalized on the ascription, they did so in err. This company,certainly by c1930's, had Royal patent responsibility and knew the historic legality of "Name-of-Place". It is likely the "Fraser of Altyre" ascription predated their association with commercializing the sett. Yet, as stated, their reasons remain unclear. As well, John MacGregor-Hastie's assumption is defined by its own vapidness.

3. Altyre was a Cumming possession and other than a 16th century wedding of a Fraser to a Cumming, there is no know Fraser connection with Altyre.
Got this one...
The Cumming Estates of Altyre, Moray are long corroborated. From a tartanological perspective,this welcomes analysis of regional affect shown in the sett, itself. As the newly discovered extant specimen and the "original" are of the same plaid, contain distinct "Fraser" characteristics as well as those of the larger West Highland Group...

Does not being a Fraser of Altyre tartan therefore make it a Cumming one? Only if one accepts that the Altyre suffix is/was correct. But the evidence points elsewhere!
...we arrive at the following...
A. NOT being a "Fraser of Altyre" DOES NOT make it a "Cumming" tartan. This only applies if one places gentry over regionality re: the provenance of creative output. We KNOW this not to be the case (see No.43, KIDD, Caledonia, MACPHERSON; P. MacDonald).

B. The combination of regional affect, err in ascription and the newly discovered extant specimen and the "original" NOT in possession of a "Fraser" indicates, in my opinion, a Murray or Grant tartan(deferring to the area of Morayshire). Perusing The History of the Province of Moray, The Rev. Lachlan Shaw, 1775, the parish of Forres is integral to the Altyre Estates (so declared by the heir-in-Chief, Alistair Gordon-Cumming). Some of the lands are a possession of the Grants, beginning Sir James Grant of Grant, since time of publication (obtained from the Dunbars). Considering regional affect, proximity Forres to Altyre, err in ascription & wanton commercialization following 1822, could this be a "Grant" tartan?

[figheadair]

[FONT=Verdana]1. Both the newly discovered extant specimen and the "original" are of the same plaid and C18th. This renders John MacGregor-Hastie's date moot. As well, it calls into question the ascription for two reasons:

A. The plaid, as stated, is the possession of another family NOT Fraser, whether located in Altyre or otherwise.

Yes, it's obvious that McGH's date was wrong. To be fair, we don't know if he ever saw the original and so may have been working with second-hand knowledge.

Did I say that this wasn't a Fraser tartan?

2. Although Andersons may have capitalized on the ascription, they did so in err. This company,certainly by c1930's, had Royal patent responsibility and knew the historic legality of "Name-of-Place". It is likely the "Fraser of Altyre" ascription predated their association with commercializing the sett. Yet, as stated, their reasons remain unclear. As well, John MacGregor-Hastie's assumption is defined by its own vapidness.

Anderson's and McGH were operating in the same era. It’s unfair to describe him as vapid. He got many of his unusual setts from their collection so we may assume (lacking alternative evidence) that they had it first. I very much doubt that they named it in error and it's more likely that they supplied it at a customer's request. We don't know who that was, nor whether the customer was the source of the sett and name or whether Andersons had it earlier. There was a resurgence of interest in unusual tartans in the 1930s and I'm inclined to the view that this was a new order at that time.

The combination of regional affect, err in ascription [/B]and the newly discovered extant specimen and the "original" NOT in possession of a "Fraser" indicates, in my opinion, a Murray or Grant tartan(deferring to the area of Morayshire). Perusing The History of the Province of Moray, The Rev. Lachlan Shaw, 1775, the parish of Forres is integral to the Altyre Estates (so declared by the heir-in-Chief, Alistair Gordon-Cumming). Some of the lands are a possession of the Grants, beginning Sir James Grant of Grant, since time of publication (obtained from the Dunbars). Considering regional affect, proximity Forres to Altyre, err in ascription & wanton commercialization following 1822, could this be a "Grant" tartan?

Going off down a rabbit hole with this line of thought. See my second comment (above).

[Tarheel]

Fascinating thread, this. Nothing to add but enjoying it very much.

I'm with Nathan. We're allowed to sit at the adult table and listen to important stuff, and understand the content. Thanks for the opportunity.

[Domehead]

Yes, it's obvious that McGH's date was wrong. To be fair, we don't know if he ever saw the original and so may have been working with second-hand knowledge.

Did I say that this wasn't a Fraser tartan?

Just to be clear, yes, you mentioned that the newly discovered extant specimen was "quite clearly from the same plaid, who's owner is known...and it's not Fraser of Altyre"

I presume this to mean the newly discovered extant specimen and the "original" being of the same plaid & NOT in possession of a FRASER (a. someone else; b. Andersons) as well as the err in suffix ascription means NOT a FRASER tartan.

Anderson's and McGH were operating in the same era. It’s unfair to describe him as vapid. He got many of his unusual setts from their collection so we may assume (lacking alternative evidence) that they had it first. I very much doubt that they named it in error and it's more likely that they supplied it at a customer's request. We don't know who that was, nor whether the customer was the source of the sett and name or whether Andersons had it earlier. There was a resurgence of interest in unusual tartans in the 1930s and I'm inclined to the view that this was a new order at that time.

Just to be clear, I didn't say John MacGregor-Hastie was vapid, just the dating of this sett, which was characterized as "[an assumption based on the unknown]"

As well, I didn't say that Andersons NAMED the tartan in err, but that they CAPITALIZED on it's err. I DID suggest Andersons may have affixed the suffix as a commercially viable descriptor, but you expertly addressed that. Hence my re iteration of your concern over a lack of original purchase order, which may have shed considerable light as to "naming" (post #30; post #34)

Going off down a rabbit hole with this line of thought. See my second comment (above).

The "Grant" line of thought may be incorrect, but I'm wont to disagree with the characterization it be a rabbit hole. The tartanologists who established the canon (respectfully incl. Micheil MacDonald & Peter E. MacDonald) by which one pursues the education created the areas so drawn upon:

1. Transitional & repurposed patterns/setts
2. Regionality
3. Familial Provenance gleaned from portraiture, artifact, specimen
4. Socio-scoto Transience (Ireland, France, Jamaica, Canada, Australia, United States)
5. Socioeconomics during the Era of Proscription and post-1822
6. Critical Review & Revisionism of C19th Tartanry

Without access to ACTUAL specimens, WEAVING credentials and MUSEUMS, if one cannot draw upon these theorem, what we're really doing is waiting to be told. Though I personally understand the proprietary nature of academic prowess, we don't even know your own investigative techniques?

In short, the student is ready. I await the teacher's arrival.
Ryan M Liddell

[Nathan]

Just to be clear, yes, you mentioned that the newly discovered extant specimen was "quite clearly from the same plaid, who's owner is known...and it's not Fraser of Altyre"

I presume this to mean the newly discovered extant specimen and the "original" being of the same plaid & NOT in possession of a FRASER (a. someone else; b. Andersons) as well as the err in suffix ascription means NOT a FRASER tartan.

I'm trying to read between the lines here but just because it's not Fraser of Altyre, doesn't mean that it couldn't be another gentleman named Fraser.