Differences between Tam O'Shanter vs Balmoral

**Terry** · 21st March 09, 09:57 PM

Are there any clear and distinct differences to distinguish between the Tam and the Balmoral? In some instances, the Balmoral appears to be more formal, especially when it includes the wider diced band, the rosette and ribbon tails, and is worn with the top flat and overlapping the band equidistantly and horizontal to the ground.

However, I have noted an Army issue Black Watch regimental Balmoral which appears identical to a Tam O'Shanter in a dark blue color with red torrie, but lacking the traditional rosette and ribbon tails.

So, is there any concise way to differentiate between the Balmorals and Tams or standards governing how they are to be worn? I've seen Balmorals being worn cocked to the side at a 45 degree angle, looking like an emaciated Irish Caubeen.

A link to a web site illustrating various Balmorals and Tam O'Shanters is included.

http://houseoflabhran.net/glengarryf...onnethats.html

**Big Mikey** · 21st March 09, 10:23 PM

To any of our more learned members, this is just my opinion based on my limited knowledge and experience.

The main difference between tam and balmoral is that the tam is most commonly made with a larger top. It is usually worn flat on the head but can be pulled slightly to one side. Due to its larger size, it will not have a straight side such as the balmoral does. See the following definition.

"A Tam o'shanter is a Scottish bonnet worn by men which was named after a character invented by Robert Burns. The bonnet is made of wool with a toorie (pompom) in the centre, and the crown is about twice the diameter of the head. It might be available in plain colours or in different tartans.
Tam o'shanters are worn by the Scottish infantry regiments of the British Army instead of berets. They are plain khaki in colour and are stiffer than civilian tam o'shanters, with a narrower, flat crown often worn sloping down from back to front."

See the following thread for a good picture of what I call a traditional tam.

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/b...hlight=bonnets

I hope this helps.

**DWFII** · 22nd March 09, 06:08 AM

Look through the vintage photos section...you'll see tams being worn in a number of different configurations. I pay particular attention to the photos of Scottish military units wearing tams simply because mine is a khaki WPG model which replicates the standard WWII issue.

I do think that if you wear a flash and a badge on your tam the natural inclination is to cock it slightly over the right ear...and slightly forward. You see a lot of Glengarrys worn with that slight inclination, as well. It's a classic...dare I say "traditional?"...look.

In my opinion...offered gratuitously....the larger diameter of the TOS looks better than the almost too-small-for-the-head look of the few balmorals I've seen.

**Bugbear** · 22nd March 09, 07:19 AM

This is confusing me. I have been told by members from Scotland that the civilian balmorld is worn pulled to the right rather than centered on all sides, and pretty much requires a rosette, ribbons in a bow, and a tourie. Also, that it is not exactly flat on top; more like... unstarched and softened up from being kicked around a bit, and that is with formal or informal civilian attire, worn with or without the kilt. What they have told me and described is what I go by because I have read other confusing things about the Balmorald.

A TOS sounds more like a big soft beret; perhaps a little floppy. Puffer has the exact measurements of the TOS compared to the Balmorald. Perhaps he will post them here.

**DWFII** · 22nd March 09, 08:12 AM

Ted, all,

Here's a photo of me in my WPG TOS worn very similarly to many being worn in the vintage photo forum.

I also had some helpful advice given to me by a friend who is in a re-enactor's WWII Scottish military unit. These guys are serious...they are not "Bobs." And, to be fair, it was mentioned that I could just as well wear it not cocked.

BTW, you can see the tartan bonnet flash and my pins.

**DWFII** · 22nd March 09, 08:15 AM

PS...I don't think it looks like a beret at all...I think the Balmoral, just by virtue of being smaller in diameter looks more like a beret. And the Caubeen even moreso as it has no toorie.

Just because it is cocked doesn't say "beret" to me. Glengarries are often cocked and they don't look like berets by any stretch of the imagination. Or do they?

**Terry** · 22nd March 09, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by DWFII

Ted, all,

Here's a photo of me in my WPG TOS worn very similarly to many being worn in the vintage photo forum.

I also had some helpful advice given to me by a friend who is in a re-enactor's WWII Scottish military unit. These guys are serious...they are not "Bobs." And, to be fair, it was mentioned that I could just as well wear it not cocked.

BTW, you can see the tartan bonnet flash and my pins.

Thanks for the info. Is it a safe rule of thumb to assume that if the headgear has ribbon tails, it is a Balmoral and not a TOS?

Looking at and comparing the modern photos of the current military issued TOS and Balmorals shown at http://houseoflabhran.net/glengarryf...onnethats.html ,
it appears as though they the modern TOS are smaller in circumference and not as distinctively different from Balmorals as the photos of WWll vintage TOS indicate. Is this possible or might it just be the angle of the photo?

The WPG TOS shown in your photo clearly is impressive and appears to have a larger circumference extending out past the band.

Thanks for your information.

**Jock Scot** · 22nd March 09, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Terry

Thanks for the info. Is it a safe rule of thumb to assume that if the headgear has ribbon tails, it is a Balmoral and not a TOS?

Looking at and comparing the modern photos of the current military issued TOS and Balmorals shown at http://houseoflabhran.net/glengarryf...onnethats.html ,
it appears as though they the modern TOS are smaller in circumference and not as distinctively different from Balmorals as the photos of WWll vintage TOS indicate. Is this possible or might it just be the angle of the photo?

The WPG TOS shown in your photo clearly is impressive and appears to have a larger circumference extending out past the band.

Thanks for your information.

I do not know any one, these days, who wears a bonnet of the proportions shown above. They look far too theatrical ,or, Sir Harry Lauderish for my liking.