Tartan of the Month - January 12: what do you see?

**Dixiecat** · 7th January 12, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by figheadair

Anyone else? It's quite an important historical feature that helps date tartan.

Can I 'cheat' and use your own words?

The material is woven from hand spun ‘singles’ (non-plied yarn)

rurally woven sometime between c1730-60

**JSFMACLJR** · 7th January 12, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dixiecat

The last things I can add are that the threads seem shiny and that the background colour is actually two colours, one darker than the other.

As for Post #13. While nothing can be determined positively, I can dream.

Are the red "shiny" threads of silk?

**Steve of Lansing** · 7th January 12, 07:06 AM

Brand new to this but I'll give it a shot.

Does the way the treads seem to be broken rather cleanly have anything to do with dating fabric?

Also, the threads don't look very "fuzzy". Wool can be kind of itchy and I thought that the ends of the strands sticking out of the threads were what caused that.

Just a couple shots in the dark.

**figheadair** · 7th January 12, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by JSFMACLJR

Are the red "shiny" threads of silk?

No they are not.

Originally Posted by Steve of Lansing

Brand new to this but I'll give it a shot.

Does the way the treads seem to be broken rather cleanly have anything to do with dating fabric?

No, it is the result of the cloth having been cut rather than worn/torn.

Also, the threads don't look very "fuzzy". Wool can be kind of itchy and I thought that the ends of the strands sticking out of the threads were what caused that.

The 'clean' look is own to the fact that the yarn is worsted and the original fleece used was or a coarser type no longer available.

**figheadair** · 7th January 12, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Dixiecat

Can I 'cheat' and use your own words?

The material is woven from hand spun ‘singles’ (non-plied yarn)

rurally woven sometime between c1730-60

Oh that's good. Have an A+ for the first bit. Hand spun singles is what you were supposed to see and rurally/pre-industrially woven is the logical deduction.

What's wrong with the dates?

**Morris at Heathfield** · 7th January 12, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by figheadair

What's wrong with the dates?

The Cameron of Erracht tartan is believed to have been designed for the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, which were raised in 1793.

**Nick the DSM** · 7th January 12, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by figheadair

Oh that's good. Have an A+ for the first bit. Hand spun singles is what you were supposed to see and rurally/pre-industrially woven is the logical deduction.

What's wrong with the dates?

Are the dates of a later time? 1800s?

Do you tell by the weave or the colours?

**figheadair** · 7th January 12, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Morris at Heathfield

The Cameron of Erracht tartan is believed to have been designed for the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, which were raised in 1793.

Correct although they were actually raised as the 79th of Foot (Cameron's Highlanders). They didn't become the Queen's Own until there was a Queen i.e. Victoria.

**thescot** · 7th January 12, 04:38 PM

Lord, this was worth following just to see how sharp is our Dixiecat. She's not only a good dancer, she's a brilliant observer of detail and adept at reviewing cloth.

Does the woman have no bounds?

**RockyR** · 9th January 12, 06:12 AM

Are we looking at the back side of the cloth (judging by the crease and the direction of the twill lines)? Assuming it was from a kilt and the pleats were knife pleated running in 'usual' manner (counterclockwise while looking down), then the hole in the cloth would be in the DEPTH of one of the pleats, not the face (reveal) of the pleat.

Is there significance to the hole? Is there a reason it's on the under side of a pleat?

Sorry... I may be adding to the list of questions, not taking away from them.