Campbell or Black Watch

[IsaacW]

If you're a Campbell, it's your tartan, just don't call anyone else out for wearing it who is not a Campbell for even by the strictest adherence to the tradition of wearing a tartan to which one is associated,

No worries with this. I could care less about the dress of others and am pretty open in that regards. I just worry about my own self; which is more than enough to worry about most of the time!!

is that since it belongs to the government, anyone can wear there is zero exclusivity where the government sett is concerned.

The government sett is one of the oldest tartans and pre-dates the concept of clan tartans by quite some time.

And indeed reasons why I like it. It is very safe in the strictest sense and it is also old. The history nerd in me appreciates this!!

[frank_a]

Isaac, if you haven't already, I would encourage you to join CCSNA. They put out a great Quarterly Journal, as well as an electronic newsletter. The society is very active around the country and not expensive to join. All the best to you! Frank

[JohntheBiker]

Given the advice on the CCSNA site, you clearly can't go wrong with an ancient Campbell tartan. If I had seen that before getting my first kilt, I might have entertained a different option than the Campbell of Cawdor modern that I wear as a family tartan. It is often mistaken for one of the other tartans that use BW as a base.

[IsaacW]

While speaking of the Gov't. Sett, can someone explain how the Sutherland 42nd tartan plays into this? I see the double line in each square of blue as opposed to how it is in the Black Watch, but what is the history of this?

thanks again,

[IsaacW]

While speaking of the Gov't. Sett, can someone explain how the Sutherland 42nd tartan plays into this? I see the double line in each square of blue as opposed to how it is in the Black Watch, but what is the history of this?

thanks again,

Through Google, I see that it is a simplified version of the Gov't. Sett and a piece of it ca. 1770 was found near Stirling. It also shows up in Wilson's Key Pattern books in 1819. I would love to hear more about it!

The reason I ask is due to recently pulling the trigger (prematurely) on an eBay find. It looks to be a very nice kilt and the price was definitely nice. I originally thought it was Gov't. Sett but something made me look at it harder (too late to pull my bid) and I realized it appears to be the Sutherland 42nd tartan. Anyway, it looks like I may have another (my 2nd) kilt at, again, a very good deal but still not necessarily "proper" to my family or background.

IW

[figheadair]

While speaking of the Gov't. Sett, can someone explain how the Sutherland 42nd tartan plays into this? I see the double line in each square of blue as opposed to how it is in the Black Watch, but what is the history of this?

There is/was no such thing as the Sutherland 42nd per se. The 93th Regt (Sutherland Highlanders) wore the Gov't tartan. In Wilsons' 1819 their entry says only that The clothing of the 93rd regiment is the very same in every particular as the 42nd Regiment. The Cockburn Collection (1810-15) contains four samples of Gov't tartan named:

No1 Sutherland
No2 Campbell Argyll
No3 Munro
No4 Grant of Grant

These were all Clan names, including Sutherland and demonstrates how families with military connections, either directly or by name, adopted the regimental/Gov't tartan as their own. There is no difference in any of the settings from the standard Gov't tartan.

The simplified Gov't sett, often referred to as the 2/2 arrangement by academics (as opposed to the 2/4 one) was not included in Wilsons' 1819 KPB despite claims on several websites. There is said to be a sample labelled [I]Sutherland[I] in the collection of the Royal Scottish Museum and the old Scottish Tartans Society records say that there are several Wilsons' examples named Smallest 42nd although I've never seen any in this 2/2 setting. There are however a number of extant Wilsons' samples of the standard 2/4 setting labelled Smallest 42nd. I therefore conclude that the dating of the 2/2 version to Wilsons was an error by some early researcher who misread an old sample, perhaps because it did not show the full sett.

Through Google, I see that it is a simplified version of the Gov't. Sett and a piece of it ca. 1770 was found near Stirling. It also shows up in Wilson's Key Pattern books in 1819. I would love to hear more about it!

The earliest confirmed date for the 2/2 setting I've been able to find is from the 1880 Clans Originaux.

Can you post the link for the alleged c1770 piece. If it's really that old it would be the oldest surviving example of any version of the Gov't tartan. I have my doubts.

[IsaacW]

Alleged and perhaps mythological, but here is the link to where I read it...
http://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/tar....aspx?ref=4044

[BCAC]

Alleged and perhaps mythological, but here is the link to where I read it...
http://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/tar....aspx?ref=4044

No mention in your link about a piece of tartan being found near stirling around 1770.

It does however state that the weaving firm Wilsons of Bannockburn was founded (which, in case you didn't know, means started) in 1770 near Stirling.

[figheadair]

Alleged and perhaps mythological, but here is the link to where I read it...
http://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/tar....aspx?ref=4044

Ah, therein lies the problem.

I've already made reference to the 'alleged' sample in the National Museum (now Royal Scottish Museum). The STS/STA/STR entry conflates the alleged sample and Wilsons' founding in 1770 (actually it was 1762) and there is no evidence to date the 2/2 setting that early.

[California Highlander]

Great stuff Figheadair.

IssacW: More from the XMarks archives as well, with pictures: http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...-tartan-74896/