Sticks and Bonnets?

[Bugbear]

If more casual or for the Scot's look, the a bamoral ( NON MILITARY style) or Tam o Shanter.( like WPG's that I reviewed)

Puffer

Thanks, Puffer.

What exactly is a Tam o Shanter? I've read about them and seen them being sold along with balmorals as more casual, but what is the difference?

[puffer]

Thanks, Puffer.

What exactly is a Tam o Shanter? I've read about them and seen them being sold along with balmorals as more casual, but what is the difference?

Ted, good ???

Basicly a Tam O Shanter (TOS) is LARGER in diamiter. ( a "full size" one is a balmoral on STEROIDS)

Here is my take on the subject.

Balmorals-
a. Military style are the smallest, 9-9 1/2" in diam. (refer to the upper left pic ( my 1960 "Berret") Note both the "modern US & Brit issue are sim.)
The upper mid. one is of modern Brit issue TOS, BUT I rate this as a Balmoral because of it's size (10")

b. Civilian style are a little larger, usually 10-11" ( the upper right one is 11"

Tam O Shanter
a. The lower left one (WPG TOS) measures 12 1/4"in diamiter ( about the smallest size, IMHO)
b. The lower right one is a "Traditional " style TOS measures 13 1/2"

I hope this helps


NOTE that I wear my US version with the flash/badge on the RIGHT & the Scot's styles on the LEFT.

Puffer

[Jock Scot]

Sorry to take issue with you Puffer, but Scots style is to have the badge on the LEFT(see picture on post #23) and for civilian wear the balmoral does not have the "starched and ironed" look ,quite the opposite,the more beaten up they look the better they are. I read somewhere that kicking your new balmoral along a road for a mile or two to customise it, is recommended. A bit drastic, perhaps, but it works!

[puffer]

Sorry to take issue with you Puffer, but Scots style is to have the badge on the LEFT(see picture on post #23) and for civilian wear the balmoral does not have the "starched and ironed" look ,quite the opposite,the more beaten up they look the better they are. I read somewhere that kicking your new balmoral along a road for a mile or two to customise it, is recommended. A bit drastic, perhaps, but it works!

OOOPS I goofed. I made the changes to the post (reflecting your correction & the pictures themselves )

I also agree on the "non starched look"

Puffer

[Bugbear]

Thanks, Puffer for including those mesurments; that does explain the difference.

... and for civilian wear the balmoral does not have the "starched and ironed" look ,quite the opposite,the more beaten up they look the better they are. I read somewhere that kicking your new balmoral along a road for a mile or two to customise it, is recommended. A bit drastic, perhaps, but it works!

Now it all makes perfect sense in my mind. I didn't think they were perfectly formed and ridgedly flat-stiff as a board on top-more lumpy and soft.
Thanks Jock! That takes care of most of my fears and worries.

[Jock Scot]

Thanks, Puffer for including those mesurments; that does explain the difference.





Now it all makes perfect sense in my mind. I didn't think they were perfectly formed and ridgedly flat-stiff as a board on top-more lumpy and soft.
Thanks Jock! That takes care of most of my fears and worries.

Any time Ted. Leave all that starch and ironing stuff for the military! Actually, joking apart, sometimes people's military background is quite obvious by the way they incorrectly wear the civilian balmoral.

[puffer]

Any time Ted. Leave all that starch and ironing stuff for the military! Actually, joking apart, sometimes people's military background is quite obvious by the way they incorrectly wear the civilian balmoral.

Although I agree with you for "general casual wear" I think that the "Ironed look'" looks better for semi- dress ( like the dif. of wearing a "slouch" hat with a suit or a nice fedora )

NOTE, my 1960 "beret" is not "ironed/starched" Of course this beret was not "US Army issue" In fact it was not "authorized" @ this date (Kennedy semi-authorized it in 61 & formally in 62) Our berets @ this time were "civilian" made & not "blocked" as they are now" In fact with the exception of the beret I reserved for "dress wear (@ a later date), the "crest/flash was not "backed by a stiffener" ( For my "dress beret", It put a piece of cardboard inside, behind the crest/flash , Many did not, but @ this time I was in DC.

NOTE, we took PRIDE in looking "informal" But then again, the Regular Army thought we were an aberition any how
DE OPPRESSO LIBER ( Free the Oppressed )

Puffer

[Jock Scot]

My dear Puffer, I hope you are not offended by this, but your last post here proves my point exactly!

[Panache]

...quite the opposite,the more beaten up they look the better they are. I read somewhere that kicking your new balmoral along a road for a mile or two to customise it, is recommended. A bit drastic, perhaps, but it works!

Slightly Off Topic...

When I was at the Hat store on Friday purchasing a new Kangol hat I wore my old black beret. I noted to the clerk that perhaps I should trade in my battered 25+ year old beret (with its cracked band, tattered ribbons, and lost liner) on a new one. She replied "Oh no! I saw you wearing it when you came in. It has a great shape and character. Keep it!"

Nice to know that some things improve with age and wear

Cheers

Jamie

[Jock Scot]

Jamie,I have been telling myself and any one else that cares to listen, about things improving with age. Sadly, in my case, reality is just dawning upon me!