Where to get a high quality Ghillie Shirt (100% cotton)

[Jock Scot]

Since we're sharing puffy-shirt photos, in full disclosure, is this... piping for a Renaissance banquet.

Fair enough, but to my eye even when considering the event, the outfit looks artificial and unnecessarily theatrical, particularly as there are more genuine choices to be had. Sorry.

[OC Richard]

The outfit looks artificial and unnecessarily theatrical, particularly as there are more genuine choices to be had.

The waistcoat is definitely theatrical- I don't think there's any evidence of anything like that existing historically.

The shirt on the other hand is an authentic 18th century pattern.

Artificial indeed- with the Hollywood waistcoat, 18th century shirt, and ordinary modern kilt, sporran, and pipes it's a mashup.

I will say that it was the most suitable outfit for the occasion I could throw together. Wearing modern Highland Dress would have been completely out of sync with the event- nobody there was in modern clothing.

The most suitable outfit for me to wear at that event would have been this:



It's 17th century, far later than the Renaissance, however it's the earliest clear image we have of Highland Dress, and thus the only responsible starting-point for a Highland outfit of any earlier period.

[jsrnephdoc]

The most suitable outfit for me to wear at that event would have been this:



It's 17th century, far later than the Renaissance, however it's the earliest clear image we have of Highland Dress, and thus the only responsible starting-point for a Highland outfit of any earlier period.

Thanks for that And, I'll submit that to a great extent, much of this debate is a tempest in a teapot. I wear a kilt and other elements of highland dress because they're comfortable, look much better in public than an irreverent teenager broadcasting his stupidity wearing a T-shirt saying "I'm so horny, not even the crack of dawn is safe," and pay respects to my parents' origins. I cannot imagine ANYWHERE one would wear what's in OC Richard's picture except for some sort of re-enactment, without a theatrical or film costumer doing better fact checking than they often do first. And, even the backwards picture of the Royal Family displaying their various badges and awards doesn't provide much insight on what might be "appropriate" to wear today in public for ordinary life.

Certainly I for one can learn a great deal from the collective wisdom of this group about how people dress today and did in the past, but when the issue is "what looks good and wouldn't insult anyone on the street today," I agree with Jock that rules are to be considered but need not be slavishly obeyed to the extent of the "accuracy" of the hemline of one's underwear. (No, I haven't read that from Jock, but claiming that one should NEVER wear a flat cap with a kilt is no more helpful than saying one's socks can never be black or white but otherwise their color should look like you got dressed in the dark!

[OC Richard]

I cannot imagine ANYWHERE one would wear what's in OC Richard's picture except for some sort of re-enactment...

Exactly, and that is what the event I was piping for, a Renaissance banquet, with everybody in Renaissance costume.

Modern Highland clothing would have been unacceptable.

Going forward into the early 18th century we have the first clear depiction of a Highland piper, and of Highland bagpipes.

I've always wanted a reproduction of this set of pipes! But AFAIK no pipe-maker has done such.

So this would have been the most appropriate piper-specific costume to wear.



This is the closest-looking surviving Highland bagpipe



This set, which sat for many years in the window of the Glen shop, had the date "1409" on it, but is assumed to have been a Victorian fake.

[Jock Scot]

The last two posts are absolutely correct , that people can wear what they like, when they like. The problem, yes alright it is my problem, is that it gives the unknowing the opportunity of gaining a false impression. "THAT WONT HAPPEN!" I hear you both say. Really?

What about the Braveheart syndrome? What about the Highlander syndrome? What about the many romantic books and films made about Scotland in the past? What about the misguided posts on this website? They ALL lead the unknowing astray. I am not necessarily blaming them totally for their impressions, but it does get tiresome when a coach load of tourists arrive with starry eyed expectations, gained from films, TV, books and events like yours, of what they expect Scotland to be. I do not exclude the tourist industry from criticism either, as they perpetuate the myths ruthlessly. "No that can't happen!" I hear you say. Oh yes it does and it happened here again yesterday, last week and......and ...... and.... and sadly it will continue!

[jsrnephdoc]

The last two posts are absolutely correct , that people can wear what they like, when they like. The problem, yes alright it is my problem, is that it gives the unknowing the opportunity of gaining a false impression. "THAT WONT HAPPEN!" I hear you both say. Really?

I'll answer that neither OC Richard nor I have made such a claim. I suspect that the three of us would all agree that "history" itself is in so many ways many "stories" about how we got to where we are. Telling those stories can improve or distort accuracy, and the latter is abundant everywhere, depending only partly on the intent of the storyteller.

Relating to my FAR TOO FEW visits to the European countries where my ancestors lived, prime examples are monuments from war. I've mentioned here that my very first visit to Scotland followed by only a day several disturbing hours at one of THE most sobering "historical" monuments of the last century, the WWI Verdun War Memorial, which just SCREAMS "let's remember this horror so we never repeat it." That message, while SO vividly presented (the very earth of the rolling hillsides surrounding the monument is pockmarked by gigantic acneiform craters from year upon year of senseless two-way artillery bombardment). One of the REAL tragedies, of course, is that no matter how sobering and troubling the story, we managed to deny it less than a decade after the memorial was erected.

And, one of the things that made my first visit to Scotland troubling was that, barely 24 hours later, the Edinburgh Castle Museum, taking a MUCH longer view of CENTURIES of "history" told ME a story that I've summarized as "yeah, we know them English have almost exterminated us SO many times, but just give us one more chance with our Claymores and Dirks and Sgian dubhs against their Nukes, tanks, and missiles, and we'll SLAUGHTER 'em all." (I know that's not the REAL intended message, but that inference is hard to escape).

Then there's the crown jewel of Edinburgh tourism, the Royal Military Tattoo. Is it not curious that most of the performer groups that come together at the Castle's outdoor promenade come to Scotland from other places around the globe that were once subjugated by the English?

"Fashion" changes for a reason—more accurately, for a jumble of competing reasons. If sartorial accuracy about the kilt required faithful and never-changing reproduction of what came before, we'd all lie down on the grass next to our sheep, bunching up last night's scratchy wool protection against the elements into the ancient predecessor of pleats. On the other hand, the telling of the HISTORY of tartan and the kilt can include fascinating "stories" of its evolution (factual AND ridiculous) just in the way we wear it, because the only thing that's certain is that if we as cultures or even as a species are around 100, 50, or even 10 years from now, we won't be telling exactly the same story in exactly the same way as we do today. And, I'll wager we'll never surmount that tension between the real and the fabricated.

[Jock Scot]

I'll answer that neither OC Richard nor I have made such a claim. I suspect that the three of us would all agree that "history" itself is in so many ways many "stories" about how we got to where we are. Telling those stories can improve or distort accuracy, and the latter is abundant everywhere, depending only partly on the intent of the storyteller.

Relating to my FAR TOO FEW visits to the European countries where my ancestors lived, prime examples are monuments from war. I've mentioned here that my very first visit to Scotland followed by only a day several disturbing hours at one of THE most sobering "historical" monuments of the last century, the WWI Verdun War Memorial, which just SCREAMS "let's remember this horror so we never repeat it." That message, while SO vividly presented (the very earth of the rolling hillsides surrounding the monument is pockmarked by gigantic acneiform craters from year upon year of senseless two-way artillery bombardment). One of the REAL tragedies, of course, is that no matter how sobering and troubling the story, we managed to deny it less than a decade after the memorial was erected.

And, one of the things that made my first visit to Scotland troubling was that, barely 24 hours later, the Edinburgh Castle Museum, taking a MUCH longer view of CENTURIES of "history" told ME a story that I've summarized as "yeah, we know them English have almost exterminated us SO many times, but just give us one more chance with our Claymores and Dirks and Sgian dubhs against their Nukes, tanks, and missiles, and we'll SLAUGHTER 'em all." (I know that's not the REAL intended message, but that inference is hard to escape).

Then there's the crown jewel of Edinburgh tourism, the Royal Military Tattoo. Is it not curious that most of the performer groups that come together at the Castle's outdoor promenade come to Scotland from other places around the globe that were once subjugated by the English?

"Fashion" changes for a reason—more accurately, for a jumble of competing reasons. If sartorial accuracy about the kilt required faithful and never-changing reproduction of what came before, we'd all lie down on the grass next to our sheep, bunching up last night's scratchy wool protection against the elements into the ancient predecessor of pleats. On the other hand, the telling of the HISTORY of tartan and the kilt can include fascinating "stories" of its evolution (factual AND ridiculous) just in the way we wear it, because the only thing that's certain is that if we as cultures or even as a species are around 100, 50, or even 10 years from now, we won't be telling exactly the same story in exactly the same way as we do today. And, I'll wager we'll never surmount that tension between the real and the fabricated.

Your post would be rather more accurate if you changed “English” to “ British”. I am sorry to say that the Scots often have an unfortunate habit of blaming the English for everything bad in their history. For example more Scots fought on the BRITISH side than English at the battle of Culloden. I am not for one second saying that the English were entirely blameless in forming parts of Scottish history though! But again it’s another example of the starry eyed “ biscuit tin” version of Scottish history that our Country churns out on a daily basis.

Yes the First World War battlefields are a sobering sight , particularly if you have relatives lying there with no known graves. One can only but hope that the human race would learn from these dreadful events. A forlorn hope it seems!

[Janner52]

Then there's the crown jewel of Edinburgh tourism, the Royal Military Tattoo. Is it not curious that most of the performer groups that come together at the Castle's outdoor promenade come to Scotland from other places around the globe that were once subjugated by the English.

It should be noted that these performer groups came from countries that were a part of the British Empire, not English, and the soldiers, including the senior officers, who built that empire came from all of the countries which made up Britain. The British Army Regiments which include those of England, Scotland, Ireland (as it then was) and Wales all won battle honours and gallantry medals fighting in countries of the empire.

[OC Richard]

The problem is that it gives the unknowing the opportunity of gaining a false impression.

What about the Braveheart syndrome? What about the Highlander syndrome? What about the many romantic books and films made about Scotland in the past? What about the misguided posts on this website? They ALL lead the unknowing astray.

I fully agree, and I spend a large amount of time online fighting this very thing.

I also spend time fighting another false impression, which is that re-enactors confuse the past with the present, or that they believe that when they put on historical clothing that they're living in the past, or even that they believe that they're actually becoming a personage from history.

This is all nonsense. Re-enactors more than anyone are acutely aware of time, of all the elements that existed in a historical period which serve to make it so distinct from today. The serious ones are serious historians. They do meticulous research into their chosen period of interest and do their best to re-create the look of that specific time and place. They have a trained eye which can spot the smallest anachronism. They're the last people to wear goofy mashups of bits from various time-periods and places. They're the last people to have romantic notions of the past.

So yes for that Renaissance banquet I grabbed some random "close enough" things out of my closet and did the gig. It has a tinge of Brigadoonery.

But if I were do pipe for such things regularly I would do my research, almost entirely based on the two paintings I posted above (the best evidence that exists) and come up with a historically correct costume, a costume which would be the diametric opposite of Brigadoon, of Braveheart, of Outlander.

[Jock Scot]

I fully agree, and I spend a large amount of time online fighting this very thing.

I also spend time fighting another false impression, which is that re-enactors confuse the past with the present, or that they believe that when they put on historical clothing that they're living in the past, or even that they believe that they're actually becoming a personage from history.

This is all nonsense. Re-enactors more than anyone are acutely aware of time, of all the elements that existed in a historical period which serve to make it so distinct from today. The serious ones are serious historians. They do meticulous research into their chosen period of interest and do their best to re-create the look of that specific time and place. They have a trained eye which can spot the smallest anachronism. They're the last people to wear goofy mashups of bits from various time-periods and places. They're the last people to have romantic notions of the past.

So yes for that Renaissance banquet I grabbed some random "close enough" things out of my closet and did the gig. It has a tinge of Brigadoonery.

But if I were do pipe for such things regularly I would do my research, almost entirely based on the two paintings I posted above (the best evidence that exists) and come up with a historically correct costume, a costume which would be the diametric opposite of Brigadoon, of Braveheart, of Outlander.

Personally I would prefer the present day musician to be clad in a more up to date outfit. That way the spectators will get an idea what more modern kilt attire is about and in consequence, the audience get a reminder that modern kilt attire is relevant to today.