17th and 18th Century reproduction sporrans

[OC Richard]

I would first ask the question "how much do we know about what 17th century sporrans looked like?"

From the get-go we would have to dismiss sporrans in museums, unless they have a date engraved on them.

There are loads of old-looking sporrans in museums, but how many have air-tight provenance? I know with pipes you have legends affixed to many old sets but not much in the way of actual provenance unless a set is stamped with the mark of a known maker or engraved with a date (as is the case with presentation sets).

The main source of knowledge that comes with established dates is iconography, generally portraits. Even if a portrait isn't dated we often know the subject's dates.

What portraits showing sporrans can be firmly dated to the 17th century? The earliest clear image of Highland Dress, a 1631 engraving showing four Highland soldiers, doesn't show any sporrans. Ditto engravings from 1643 and 1661.

The earliest clear detailed colour image of Highland Dress is a full length portrait said to have been painted around 1660. I'm looking at it and I can't make out a sporran. (Sorry this image is so small!)



That's it for the 17th century as far as I know. Which means there can be no such thing as a "reproduction 17th century sporran".

With the 18th century we have a large number of images.

Here's Alastair Grant Mor, 1714. His sporran, probably deerskin, can be seen fairly well.



Next in Lord Duffus, who died in 1734. His sporran, probably also deerskin, is also clearly visible.



Now leaping ahead to 1770 with Lord MacDonald we see the sporran has changed quite a bit. Now it's acquired a purse-like brass top. I believe it's made of sealskin.



With Hugh Montgomerie we see an even more elaborate sealskin sporran, with silver top and rows of tassels.

The original signed and dated portrait, 1780, hangs in the Los Angeles County Museum Of Art. The one owned by the National Museums Scotland is an unsigned, undated copy.