Page 2 of 2

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:56 am
by border reiver
It all fine and well saying what not to wear, But it might be an Idea to give correct alternatives.


Andrew

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:04 pm
by Tod
Andy R wrote:
I don't know what the fuss is, it was fine when I left it........... :wink:
You knew what was coming next b*****d :roll: . The Irish Piquets story says it all. :lol: Fen folk with Claymores who let them join?

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:05 pm
by Andy R
border reiver wrote:It all fine and well saying what not to wear, But it might be an Idea to give correct alternatives.


Andrew
Correct kit guidelines can be given again and again and again, and some numpty will still turn up wearing all the wang kit mentioned above.

It really does make one spit feathers....!!!

In the worst cases, they wil have found ill informed kit guides that contradict your own and use them instead as they fit in with their own MacTartantastic slash-em-up ideals :cry:

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:11 pm
by m300572
Next not to wear, skians in hose.
In the interests of what TO wear, apparently they were worn tucked up the sleeve or in the armpit. (but not one of the modern skian dhu with the black plastic looking hilts and the huge orange glass stone as a pommel)

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:12 pm
by Andy R
Tod wrote: You knew what was coming next b*****d :roll: . The Irish Piquets story says it all. :lol: Fen folk with Claymores who let them join?
You telling me that that is not correct :roll:

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:19 pm
by Andy R
m300572 wrote:
Next not to wear, skians in hose.
In the interests of what TO wear, apparently they were worn tucked up the sleeve or in the armpit. (but not one of the modern skian dhu with the black plastic looking hilts and the huge orange glass stone as a pommel)
Yup, and we are talking Skian Ochles (SP?) not the Skian Dhu which as far as I know is a modern thing? (Victorian+)

Boj made me a very nice one as a wedding present (bless him)

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:23 pm
by Tod
border reiver I've PMed you. Andy and I wrote a kit list (combined effort) ages ago which is about as good as it gets IMO. It's really a minimum and across the board.

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:28 pm
by Neil Johnston
Ah Andy,
Your just teasing me now with that picture.......unfortunately Mrs Johnston prefers the larger calibre.......oo-er :wink:.....of the cannon of course....and cannot hold any muskets by herself.


Not to wear
Coverted modern tartan jackets, often still with sewn up breast pocket visible!!

Cheers
Neil

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:41 pm
by Tod
It's got to be said.
Ginger wigs.

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:49 pm
by m300572
It's got to be said.
Ginger wigs.
Unless worn with the full "See You Jimmy!" Tartan Bunnet as an Ironic Statement!!! :shock: :lol: :lol:

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:45 pm
by Foxe
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't particularly trying to defend Jacobite fish-tail muskets in the '45, I just get jumpy when blanket statements are made about things not happening. I've come across enough references to completely surprising things in the course of various researches not to be surprised by 80+ year old weapons in use by non-regular troops.

Of course, I'm also all about reenacting the "typical", so when I find such odd references I tend to carefully file them near the back and not bring them up in public.

And, as I say, since I don't reenact the '45 the question was entirely academic from my point of view.

Regarding the gonnes/swivel guns from the 1707 wrecks: my primary area of research is maritime, and the supposed "gonnes" don't look much like any early 18thC swivel guns I've ever seen, but since I can't now find a picture of them I won't pursue it. I will, however, throw in a couple of very Elizabethan looking breech loading swivel guns from the same wrecks.

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:54 pm
by Steve of RaT
Andy R wrote:I don't know what the fuss is, it was fine when I left it........... :wink:
I think that's part of Tod's nightmare :wink:

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:08 pm
by Andy R
Steve of RaT wrote:
Andy R wrote:I don't know what the fuss is, it was fine when I left it........... :wink:
I think that's part of Tod's nightmare :wink:
No, no. I must protest.

We all had guns (Bess's and my Spannish 1728), all had c18th coats and waistcoats. The most farby thing was cloth bonnets, as that was when folk were just getting in to the idea of knitted bonnets.

Although at that time there was only 7 of us fot the two years we were active ('96 to '98)

The stuff Mike and I were wearing at the Gunpowder Mill is an example of the quality we worked to.

More to the point, I'm just glad it still fits....!!!

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:11 am
by Tod
Andy R wrote:[
More to the point, I'm just glad it still fits....!!!
All be it a little "snug" :lol: :twisted:

I remember it all so well. "Hey Tod you should come and try Lace Wars it's much better than XX, we have proper Highlanders with proper kit and guns". I was so easily led and by some one younger (marginally) than me.

The next thing I know you've planted your seed and headed off to daddyville - although a day child minding Alex when Jules was making my kit was fun, I hadn't played with toy cars for years.

Remember I didn't inherit from you, although I could hear your manic laughter in the background.

RIP the Atholl Brigade and long live RaT. By the way your membership form will be in the post - Steve, Andy really does want to rejoin, don't take no for an answer, he has a source of meally pudding.

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:18 am
by Andy R
Tod wrote:All be it a little "snug" :lol: :twisted:
Snug enough for me to worry about that last wafer thin mint :cry:

Still, I am now on a cake and snack free diet - hussar...! (Except for the lack of cake and snacks :( )

Yes, the interlude was the problem - oh well, lessons learned and all that.

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:20 am
by Andy R
Tod wrote:I was so easily led and by some one younger (marginally) than me.
Well, some of us are still in our 30's

I may not look it, but I blame that on a windy paper round...!

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:00 am
by Tod
Andy R wrote:
I may not look it, but I blame that on a windy paper round...!
Andy R wrote: Still, I am now on a cake and snack free diet - hussar...! (Except for the lack of cake and snacks :( )
Replace cakes and snacks with c :lol: curry and have your own wind.

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:02 am
by m300572
I may not look it, but I blame that on a windy paper round...!
Best excuse I have ever heard - is it copyright or can I borrow it (my paper round was so windy that it caused my hair to fall out twenty years later!) :lol:

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:30 pm
by Scottish Lady
Think most of the really awful things have been mentioned. What still gets me though, is men without bonets or hats, and women of marriagable age not having their heads covered. Even in our grandparents age, neither sex would have left the house with their heads uncovered.
'The Meenister'

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:42 pm
by Henrik Bjoern Boegh
Another thing I've come to think about is baldrics and belts with a lot of studs. Baldrics with rings and strangely applied leather strings...
Has modern clan badges been mentioned?

Cheers,
Henrik

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:09 am
by Alan_F
m300572 wrote:
Next not to wear, skians in hose.
In the interests of what TO wear, apparently they were worn tucked up the sleeve or in the armpit. (but not one of the modern skian dhu with the black plastic looking hilts and the huge orange glass stone as a pommel)
From what Seamus Grant has said, the term 'black knife' comes from the wearing of the knife in the armpit which in turn got it filthy. Then again, I take what Seamus Grant has to say with a large pinch of salt. :?