MacKenzie tartan on bagpipes

[MacKenzie]

My point in posting this here in The Tartan Place is that tartan-spotters will notice that the bag-cover isn't MacKenzie.

The seller doesn't know his tartans, evidently.

The funny thing is that I messaged him saying that the cover wasn't MacKenzie. His response was to the effect that it was MacKenzie because the pipes were army pipes. That is circular reasoning.

Flipped the other way, what does the fact that the cover isn't military say about the provenance of the pipes?

Did his mis-identification of the tartan play a role in his identification of the pipes as military pipes?

Too many incongruities.

If "make unknown" then how can one know they are military pipes?

Ross Johnstone Bagpipes, who "fully refurbished [the pipes] to a high standard" couldn't ID them? I don't know doodly squat about bagpipes. Are there tons of anonymously made pipes floating around out there?

The bag cover is Seaforth HLI (but we already know that's not true) yet the bag itself is goretex? According to wiki-know-it-all, "The Highland Light Infantry was amalgamated with the Royal Scots Fusiliers in 1959". Gore-Tex didn't exist in 1959.

[Mike S]

Too many incongruities.

If "make unknown" then how can one know they are military pipes?

That could be a case of "a little knowledge being a dangerous thing". I can remember when full imitation ivory mounted pipes were described by a number of makers as "Regulation Army" style in the vendor catalogs. I'm not sure if this is still a common descriptor, but one can still occasionally hear that nomenclature among we old timers. That MAY explain the wording in that listing.

In terms of the maker, a number of manufacturers have supplied pipes to the MOD over the decades.