Thoughts on the MacGregor Drawstring Plaid

[Calgacus]

I came across this article...

http://www.scottishtartans.co.uk/A_H..._MacGregor.pdf

...whilst browsing the forums and thought that the way in which the plaid was thought possibly to be worn might be incorrect. Firstly, the idea that the unjoined mid section might be to accommodate the tail of the jacket just didn't ring true. Besides, the drawstring arrangement simply wouldn't work properly, leading either to one big pleat in the middle, or the need to manually pleat the centre section and somehow use the drawstring to pleat the rest. It all just doesn't add up.

Secondly, I noticed that the centre unjoined section was exactly twice the length of the end unjoined sections (32" vs. 16"), and was symmetrically placed. I had one of those "lightbulb" moments and came up with the following:-



Here's how it works.

1) The plaid is laid out on the ground and a drawstring is inserted through the 14 loops.

2) The plaid is DOUBLED OVER to create a double-thickness of material 102"x48". This is the critical piece of the puzzle so far missing.

3) The drawstring is used to create the pleats. interestingly, there are only 6 pleats.

4) The wearer lies on the plaid, pulls the aprons over his lower body, and ties the drawstring off at the left hip, both ends of the string are tied to the 'loop' created by the folding of the cloth.

5) The wearer arranges the upper portion of the plaid as necessary.

This method leads to some interesting conclusions.

1) The whole ensemble is double thickness. Four layers at the apron instead of two, two layers over the upper body instead of one.

2) It is easier to put on than a simple rectangular plaid. the aprons can be arranged separately from the 'cloak'. Anyone who has tried to don a plaid will appreciate this.

3) There are only six pleats at the rear. This is a very low number by modern standards, but my impression is that historically, pleat numbers were lower in the past.

4) It's much more weatherproof. Having done a fair bit of hillwalking (hiking) in my kilt, I have observed that whilst a single layer of cloth might get wet through, I have never encountered two layers getting wet through, at least not on any typical day in the Scottish mountains. I have in the past wondered how the upper portion of the plaid was arranged to keep the weather out, when the standard method of wearing the plaid led to a single layer of cloth covering the upper body. This new arrangement however leads to a double layer on the upper body, thus keeping the wearer much drier.

Any thoughts or comments would be much appreciated.

[figheadair]

Interesting but I don't quite follow the double upper section concept.

[Calgacus]

I mean when the upper part is worn over both shoulders as a cape or cloak to keep the weather off, as opposed to when it is worn pinned over one shoulder. When you do this with a 'normal' plaid, your upper body is covered by a single layer. Using my configuration, your upper body is covered by a double layer.

[Mr.Charles Anthony]

Calgacus; First hints, pop over to Matt Newsome website, on this advert page, www.albanach.org he has an entire history paper of this subject alone!
Next, I have worn a Great Kilt, with the loops and draw string, I think you may have overdone the home work. On mine, I put a fabric loop on every repeat sett, tied off the last loop to the drawstring, pulled the 4 yds of kilt wool towards the knot, and tied it off when it was about 1/3 of my waist. I think I had a dozen or so gathers/pleats. Once tied, you can put it on, take it off, standing up; just toss the top half over one shoulder, catch it with your chin, and belt the Plaid about the waist. Your done, if you want a 'sleeping bag' at night, loosen the drawstring. If you want the early version of a wee kilt; fold the width in half, the non-drawstring portion inside, draw in the kilt fabric, and belt it on, and tuck the upper part of the kilt fabric under the belt, to keep it from slipping out! Allowing for height, width of fabric, you should have 06-08 inches above the wide belt.
Your on the right trail, a well fitted Great Kilt is a joy to behold, but it is 'one tripp & fall' away from a "costume"--"Run Away-Brigadoon refugee sighted"!
Kilted Tailor
Emeritis Member; Re-created 74th Regiment, Argyle Highlanders-1776-1784

[figheadair]

I mean when the upper part is worn over both shoulders as a cape or cloak to keep the weather off, as opposed to when it is worn pinned over one shoulder. When you do this with a 'normal' plaid, your upper body is covered by a single layer. Using my configuration, your upper body is covered by a double layer.

I'm afraid I'm still confused by your description. Yes, when worn as you describe over both shoulders as a cloak then the front portion is effectively doubled but that is the same irrespective of whether the end portions are sewn or not. But, the back portion of the cloak can only be a single layer - unless I'm missing something?

We know from Dighton's portrait that the plaid was worn off the shoulder for the 1822 Levee - I also have access to his original pencil studies of each character which are much more detailed. The condition of the original plaid suggests that it was not much used and as the whole outfit is Highland Revival I still believe that the unsown central section is more likely to have been for the longer coat tails of the period.

[Calgacus]

Hi Charles,

Sorry, but I don't think I am over thinking this. I too have worn a Great Kilt in an attempt to understand the garment and as a bit of experimental archaeology. I'm just about to sell the fabric, as a matter of fact.

I agree with you how a regular fully stitched rectangular plaid works, both with and without the drawstring. My theory relates specifically to this one plaid however, although the implication is that other plaids might have been worn doubled.

I challenge anyone to re-create the MacGregor plaid and make it work in any sensible fashion other than the one I propose. I'd do it myself, but I'm not about to cut slits in a perfect piece of cloth I'm about to sell!

[Calgacus]

Hi figheadair,

Yes, you must be missing something, from figure 2 onwards in my sketch, the entire plaid consists of two layers of material, cloak section included. Try it with an old dust sheet or something.

I agree with you that the plaid is highland revival, not much used, and possibly always worn over one shoulder, but my point is that if it was indeed worn doubled over, this indicates the possibility that other and/or earlier plaids were worn this way, at least some of the time. I think this is an important point.

I just can't see how the 'slot for coat tails' interpretation actually works. It does at first glance, but if you think about it in detail, it simply doesn't.

Any chance of photos or scans of the pencil sketches you mention?

[Herr Doktor]

Grüß Gott Calgacus!

Yes to me it is clear as the Kristall is.

I will try this as you say with the dust sheet!

Thank you for useing the time to post this drawing.

"Any chance of photos or scans of the pencil sketches you mention?"

I will be interested to view the pencil sketches!

Tschüß!

[Sir Didymous]

I like where you're going with this, but there are a few questions that have come to mind. First, with the notches you get on either side, it would leave very little material above the belt in front. for general dress wear this would still be okay, but with hiking and the daily hard living wouldn't that give the opportunity for the front aprons to slip out from under the belt? Secondly, the way you have this folded one half of the loops are on the outside and the drawstring is completely visible. I don't recall having seen any artistic representations of the string being on the outside. Third, it seems to me that having everything double layered like this would be somewhat bulky, would you happen to know the approximate weight of the material in the original plaid being discussed?
Over all, you have my interest piqued as I love great kilts and use them in my reenacting (and occasionally just for wearing). On my existing plaids I have simple threaded through drawstrings but, given the opportunity I may be inclined to try this.

[Calgacus]

I like where you're going with this, but there are a few questions that have come to mind. First, with the notches you get on either side, it would leave very little material above the belt in front. for general dress wear this would still be okay, but with hiking and the daily hard living wouldn't that give the opportunity for the front aprons to slip out from under the belt? Secondly, the way you have this folded one half of the loops are on the outside and the drawstring is completely visible. I don't recall having seen any artistic representations of the string being on the outside. Third, it seems to me that having everything double layered like this would be somewhat bulky, would you happen to know the approximate weight of the material in the original plaid being discussed?
Over all, you have my interest piqued as I love great kilts and use them in my reenacting (and occasionally just for wearing). On my existing plaids I have simple threaded through drawstrings but, given the opportunity I may be inclined to try this.

Hi Sir Didymous,

Thanks for your support, and if I'm going to keep it I had better answer your questions!

First, the small amount of material above the belt. This applies whether you accept my interpretation or not. The fact that the aprons are similar to a modern kilt, being 'half height' is undisputed. The material is 24", which is more than your average modern kilt, and on me at least puts the top of the aprons between 2 or 3 inches above the navel. I'm not particularly tall, but then men of the period were probably not much taller on average. Let's say the top of the aprons lay 1 to 2 inches above the navel on our wearer. I think that's probably enough to be held in place by the belt. In my sketch, I show the drawstring holding the aprons in place. This is not necessarily how it was worn however. There are three options. 1) The aprons were indeed held in place by the drawstring. 2) The aprons were held in place by the belt only, and the drawstring was tied round the frond of the body over the shirt. 3) The drawstring was not tied round the body but was only used to gather the pleats then was tied off, and the belt held the whole plaid to the body.

Would the aprons have slipped during use? Possibly, but this is definitely the case no matter whether the plaid was folded in half first or not.

Now your second question.

You are quite right, the way I have drawn stages 2 and 3 in my sketch, the tapes and drawstring are visible. What you have not spotted though is my deliberate mistake. I drew them this way for illustrative purposes, but if you follow through from stage 1, you will find that the tapes and drawstring actually end up INSIDE the double layered plaid. I should really have drawn the tapes and drawstring in dotted 'hidden detail' lines in stages 2 and 3, but I figured this would make the idea harder to follow (and harder to draw!)

It's entirely possible to wear the plaid either way, drawstring on outside or inside of the doubled material, but I suspect it was inside. Firstly, because as you say this hides the string, but secondly because of the presence of the rosette. This is stitched on the opposite side to the tapes, so either appears as a decorative rosette on the bottom right corner of the apron, or as I suspect more likely, at the top left corner of the cloak, where I think it possibly served the function of a mount or strain relief for the plaid brooch. Note that Peter is wrong in his assumption that the drawstring would be on the outside if worn thus.

To your third question,

The bulk of the plaid remains the same, whether worn doubled or not! You either have fewer pleats of doubled up material or more pleats of single material. In fact, wearing it my way distributes slightly more of the bulk to the front, as the aprons are 4 layers thick in total, as opposed to two. Peter simply notes the material weight as being 'fine', but comments that 6 yards is on the long side for being practical. Doubling the material over takes it from being 'fine' to being something thicker, and reduces the 6 yards down to a more manageable, (and possibly a bit skimpy) 3 yards.

I hope this answers your questions and clarifies exactly how I think the plaid was worn.