interesting Victorian hose

[OC Richard]

I just picked up this old photo on Ebay.

First, about photo credit: I use this photo with the permission of myself, the owner of the original, which is here in my hot lil' hands. I paid around seven bucks for it, well worth it.



Overall the dress is typical of the sort seen in The Highlanders of Scotland, including the ankle boots. I find the hose very interesting, neither tartan nor diced nor plain. There's a pair a bit like these in The Highlanders of Scotland, hose with a simple line pattern.

[creagdhubh]

Very interesting! Yes, I instantly thought of the similar pair of hose in The Highlanders of Scotland. I believe that pair was worn by a Mackenzie, hence the stag's heads woven throughout. The kilt length looks absolutely perfect on this chap too. I also really like his sporran molach. Very smart.

Thanks for sharing,

[artificer]

Very interesting! Yes, I instantly thought of the similar pair of hose in The Highlanders of Scotland. I believe that pair was worn by a Mackenzie, hence the stag's heads woven throughout. The kilt length looks absolutely perfect on this chap too. I also really like his sporran molach. Very smart.

Thanks for sharing,

You are correct, Kyle. Thomas Mackenzie is the chap with the 'windowpane' and stag's head hose.

It's interesting how little turn over their is on the cuff of his hose. On his right (our LSF) leg it appears that he maybe has 1" or so of turn over.
I wonder if that was intentional in the design, or if this was a pair of hose was borrowed, handed down, or he outgrew them?

ith:

[Chas]

I am interested in the stick he is carrying. The head is more elegant and detailed than is common on a walking stick. It looks more like the head of a chromach. Even if the stick carries on downwards to the ground (which I don't think it does), it would be too short for a chromach and would then be too long for a walking stick. It might possibly be a broken chromach that has been cut down to be a walking stick, but even then it is far too short for that man.

The man is obviously wearing his own clothing. The picture is a studio picture. I wonder if he was given a prop to hold.

[Tobus]

I was thinking the same thing about his walking stick. Too short to be a cromach, and the size of the head is a little small for that too. Probably just a regular length cane.

It also appears that he's wearing a sgian dubh, which had just started to make its appearance as an accessory around this time. I don't recall seeing any in the MacLeay portraits, anyway. So his dress seems to come from that transition period. What do you figure as the year of this photo? I'd guess 1880s, but could be wrong.

[creagdhubh]

I was thinking the same thing about his walking stick. Too short to be a cromach, and the size of the head is a little small for that too. Probably just a regular length cane.

I agree that it is probably just a regular length cane, or possibly a market stick. Perhaps the stick is simply a prop used for the photo. Hmmm....I guess we will never know.

[creagdhubh]

You are correct, Kyle. Thomas Mackenzie is the chap with the 'windowpane' and stag's head hose.

It's interesting how little turn over their is on the cuff of his hose. On his right (our LSF) leg it appears that he maybe has 1" or so of turn over.
I wonder if that was intentional in the design, or if this was a pair of hose was borrowed, handed down, or he outgrew them?

It is interesting isn't it? Hmmm...good question. My guess would be that the hose were simply made to have a minimal turnover seeing the overall length/height about right - then again if you look at other old photos of a similar nature and of MacLeay's Highlanders, you tend to see hose worn very high up on the leg, or well below the knee. Perhaps just enough turnover to hide the garters underneath? As you stated Scott, they could also be hose that were either borrowed or handed down. I'm not so sure he outgrew them, since the height looks pretty good - quite a traditional height for kilt hose.

Cheers,

[Nathan]

It is interesting isn't it? Hmmm...good question. My guess would be that the hose were simply made to have a minimal turnover seeing the overall length/height about right - then again if you look at other old photos of a similar nature and of MacLeay's Highlanders, you tend to see hose worn very high up on the leg, or well below the knee. Perhaps just enough turnover to hide the garters underneath? As you stated Scott, they could also be hose that were either borrowed or handed down. I'm not so sure he outgrew them, since the height looks pretty good - quite a traditional height for kilt hose.

Cheers,

But they wouldn't be if they had a normal turn over. They would be too short. I had a pair of hose like this once. They were pure wool and they shrunk on me. I'm pretty sure this photo pre-dates clothes dryers though.

[creagdhubh]

But they wouldn't be if they had a normal turn over. They would be too short. I had a pair of hose like this once. They were pure wool and they shrunk on me. I'm pretty sure this photo pre-dates clothes dryers though.

Well, that's certainly true Nathan. However, I tend to think a "normal" turnover can be rather subjective, as we have seen from time to time that some kilt hose have just enough turnover to cover the width of the garters (diced regimental hose for instance) and maybe a bit more, whilst others have a 3-4 inch turnover. To my eye, the latter looks much more aesthetically pleasing and is arguably what "we" consider to be the standard for most kilt hose, especially for Argyll style tartan hose.

Perhaps the chap's hose did shrink somehow?!

[Nathan]

Well, that's certainly true Nathan. However, I tend to think a "normal" turnover can be rather subjective, as we have seen from time to time that some kilt hose have just enough turnover to cover the width of the garters (diced regimental hose for instance) and maybe a bit more, whilst others have a 3-4 inch turnover. To my eye, the latter looks much more aesthetically pleasing and is arguably what "we" consider to be the standard for most kilt hose, especially for Argyll style tartan hose.

Perhaps the chap's hose did shrink somehow?!

For some reason my "Ayes" aren't working, so....'Aye'.

The Following User Says 'Aye' to creagdhubh For This Useful Post:

Nathan