Diced Glengarry.

[OC Richard]

Original of this photo in A&SH regimental museum in Sterling castle.

Been there but I wasn't eagle-eyed enough to notice that wonderful photo! Good eye, there.

in the book "Music of the Scottish Regiments" of David Murray there is a good historical overview of Pipers dress. Certainly You have it!

I do not! One of numerable lacunae in my library.

It's a great subject, and I've not seen anything written on it. All I have are scattered images in various books.

In the introduction to the excellent Scottish Regiments And Uniforms 1660-1914 by A. H. Bowling there is the tantalizing sentence:

Bandsmen figures are not included in this book since it is planned to cover bands separately in a later volume.

Was this ever made? I've not seen it.

[Jock Scot]

It happens over and over in fashion, especially military fashion: a feature of clothing evolves in the natural way of things, and many years later a myth is created to explain it.

I could mention a number of these in both US and British military uniform, but it would rile ex-servicemen for whom these myths are Gospel.

"Our battalion wears round buttons because during a break in the battle of Balaclava the men stood in a circle and peed in a ditch" or whatever. What good does it do to point out that every other battalion wears round buttons, or that your battalion was wearing round buttons 100 years before that battle?

It's like the people who venerate their "clan tartan" who get angry when informed that their tartan was originally #125 in the Wilson book, or was invented by an Englishman as part of a hoax, or was originally associated with a different clan, or what have you.

Be careful OCR, there is one regiment in the British Army, still in existence in some form, for example that wears two cap badges. One at the front and one at the back and they wear them with considerable pride and with a very real justification! Don't be too dismissive of the British Army's traditions!

[48HofC]

It happens over and over in fashion, especially military fashion: a feature of clothing evolves in the natural way of things, and many years later a myth is created to explain it.

I could mention a number of these in both US and British military uniform, but it would rile ex-servicemen for whom these myths are Gospel.

"Our battalion wears round buttons because during a break in the battle of Balaclava the men stood in a circle and peed in a ditch" or whatever. What good does it do to point out that every other battalion wears round buttons, or that your battalion was wearing round buttons 100 years before that battle?

It's like the people who venerate their "clan tartan" who get angry when informed that their tartan was originally #125 in the Wilson book, or was invented by an Englishman as part of a hoax, or was originally associated with a different clan, or what have you.

So the belled flashes of the Gordons were based on a myth? How about the back flash of the the Royal Welsh, or the Quatrefoil worn by USMC officers? When men join the military and are asked to fight and die, they become part of a long line that went before them and hold traditions and beliefs that many civvies seek to emulate by dressing up, but do not actually understand. Belittling military customs and beliefs as “myths” is just sad and disrespectful.

[OC Richard]

See? People got riled though I never mentioned a single unit or a single tradition. (Except for my silly and fictitious example.)

Please don't accuse me of saying things I didn't.

And yes one part of my post was over the top and I removed it.

My point however was true in many cases: a clothing feature will arise in the normal way of fashion evolution, it will become a common feature of the military uniforms of one or several nations (though the feature might have arisen in civilian fashion) and after a time, in the normal cycles of fashion, the clothing feature will fall out of fashion, but happen to be retained by one or more military units. At a later date the members of one of the units retaining the clothing feature will imagine that the feature uniquely arose in the unit and a story will appear to explain it.

A person familiar with historical fashion will see the clothing feature and think "Oh, that. Everybody was wearing that in the 1820s" or what have you. But you had better not say out loud! As this thread has demonstrated.

It's in that category that I put the bonnet dicing myths.

[Terry Searl]

See? People got riled though I never mentioned a single unit or a single tradition. (Except for my silly and fictitious example.)

Please don't accuse me of saying things I didn't.

And yes one part of my post was over the top and I removed it.

My point however was true in many cases: a clothing feature will arise in the normal way of fashion evolution, it will become a common feature of the military uniforms of one or several nations (though the feature might have arisen in civilian fashion) and after a time, in the normal cycles of fashion, the clothing feature will fall out of fashion, but happen to be retained by one or more military units. At a later date the members of one of the units retaining the clothing feature will imagine that the feature uniquely arose in the unit and a story will appear to explain it.

A person familiar with historical fashion will see the clothing feature and think "Oh, that. Everybody was wearing that in the 1820s" or what have you. But you had better not say out loud! As this thread has demonstrated.

It's in that category that I put the bonnet dicing myths.

I agree Oc Richard, It seems to me that it is getting quite common and getting worse on this site, that people responding to posts are reading into them or reading out of them which ever way it proves their line of thought.....It also seems to me that some people think that whatever is their opinion is fact......truth and fact are two different things...truth can be what you believe to be ...... fact is what actually is .....and can be corroborated with other facts..........just the way I see it

[PatrickHughes123]

So the belled flashes of the Gordons were based on a myth? How about the back flash of the the Royal Welsh, or the Quatrefoil worn by USMC officers? When men join the military and are asked to fight and die, they become part of a long line that went before them and hold traditions and beliefs that many civvies seek to emulate by dressing up, but do not actually understand. Belittling military customs and beliefs as “myths” is just sad and disrespectful.

I think you have taken this the wrong way. OC Richard is right. Sure, there will be regimental kilt wear. But that does not include dicing. I find the origin of dicing to be a bit of a mystery.

Clan tartans are a 19th Century invention. As much as I love the tradition of Clan Tartans, it is an invented one. I did not get offended at what OC Richard said, it was not an attack on anyone, it was just facts.

[PatrickHughes123]

If you look at tartan, you will seen it is a bunch of squares of different colours put together with lines going over it. What is dicing? A bunch of squares with different colours put together. So going by this logic, the tartan kilt is also a symbol of allegiance to Britain, which it obviously isn't.

According to Scottish Tartans Authority, "The Balmoral bonnet dates back to at least the 16th century when it was a soft, knitted wool cap with a voluminous, flat crown, traditionally blue in colour, sometimes with a diced band (usually red-and-white check)".

This is from a trustworthy source.

[Benning Boy]

Here are a couple of mid 18th Century images that show that dicing was something that started showing up in later part of the 1750's



The caption says a little different, Im of the mind that this is an officer of the newly raised 2d Bn of the 42nd in 1758



Ive lost my info on this image, if someone has the cite, Id love to have it again. Going to commission a knitter to make me a bonnet with this style of dicing here soon.

Each bonnet above appear to have a band of solid color below the checking and then a darker narrow stripe. I assume the dark narrow band is the same color as the body of the bonnet, but the band of another color below the check doesn't seem to belong. How does it fit in?

The second picture shows a zigzaged pattern rather than the usual sort of dicing. I like that, but haven't seen it anywhere else before.

[Luke MacGillie]

Benning Boy,

You are correct, its quite possible that the earliest dicing was not made via a knitted pattern, but an applied piece of work.

The zig zag dicing is part of the knitting process.

You see some bonnets where the brow band is done in red, others where there is a red line above the brow band. Im mostly interested in military bonnets, and the location of the red line Seems to be a unit specific.



This is an early 1760's officer portrait that shows the red line above the brow band.



In this image from the 1770's of an Officer of the 42nd, it appears to just be a 3 part braid of green and red wool tape sewn just above the brow band.

[Katia]

Oh, I like these multicolored/multipatterned dicings. I wish those were still around! (Quick, bonnet-makers... new trend!)