Highland Cutaway Tailoring On Service Dress Jacket

[gordon92]

Recently discovered this interesting photo of a group of Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders positioned in front of a guard Room at Le Havre with no specific date indicated.

The salient aspect of this photo is the diversity of cutaway styles on display for men, presumably, from the same battalion. We can see instances of highly skilled cutaway curvatures to very crudely tailored examples to no cutaway tailoring at all.

What I take away from this picture is that while there were probably specific battalion policies on cutaway styles at the beginning of the War, these seem to have lapsed and become haphazard as time progressed to whatever garments were available. There appears to be no correlation between cutaway style and whether the jacket is 1902 pattern or simplified pattern.

Further thoughts?

[Andrew Upton]

The salient aspect of this photo is the diversity of cutaway styles on display for men, presumably, from the same battalion. We can see instances of highly skilled cutaway curvatures to very crudely tailored examples to no cutaway tailoring at all.

What I take away from this picture is that while there were probably specific battalion policies on cutaway styles at the beginning of the War, these seem to have lapsed and become haphazard as time progressed to whatever garments were available. There appears to be no correlation between cutaway style and whether the jacket is 1902 pattern or simplified pattern.

Further thoughts?

From a previous thread:

There was no Highland Cut SD Jacket at this time and would not be a regular issue pattern until until September 1929. This is when the Service Dress jacket would have a cutaway pattern was approved, "Jackets ORs, Highland and Scottish Regiments". However, regimental tailors could modify the jackets to the Scottish consistency as long as permission was granted. Originally, even this modification was not permitted. It was not until 4 December 1902 that it became permissible to modify the jacket to a cut away to "show kilt". Very early in the war this practice was also supposed to be stopped by direction of Army Orders 356 and 391 of 1915 (which were modifications of the Clothing Regs). It was felt that rounding the skirts was unnecessary in wartime as no sporran or purse was to be taken into the field. These orders were for the most part ignored.

Joe Sweeney

I think what you are seeing as "crudely tailored" jackets are in fact just ordinary unmodified SD jackets with the skirts pinned back to emulate something of the look of the cut-away jacket, but still keep in line with the wartime regulations (a common dodge of the period).

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Gordon92,

Attached are photographs from J. Dodsworth's book on WW1 Uniforms ( top - fig. 9 ) a Service Dress Jacket worn by a Private in the 1/4th Gordon Highlanders, 154 Infantry Brigade, 51st ( Highland ) Division, circa 1918. As the front skirts of the jacket have been rounded, note that the field dressing pocket, inside the right corner, has been moved to suit the cut of the jacket.

The jacket ( shown bottom - fig. 10 ) is that of a Company Sergeant Major, 9th ( Service ) Bn, Black Watch, 46 Infantry Brigade, 15th Scottish Division, early 1918, again with the jacket having rounded skirt corners.

As Andrew has pointed out, these rounded jacket skirt corners were against then standing regulations ( WO letter ACD/42 RD/1134 - RACD of 30th July 1915 and ACI 398 of 6th March 1917 ) which stipulated that the rounding off of the fronts of service dress jackets was forbidden.

As we can see from the attached photographs, these regulations were apt to be ignored.

Before the regulations forbidding the rounding of the jacket skirts, which was done to show more of the kilt, and allow the sporran to be worn, Military Tailors were paid 4d to alter a jacket, and civilians were paid 6d to round the corners of the jacket. The regulations banning the alterations, may have been in part a cost cutting and labour saving effort.

Regards.

LF

[gordon92]

From a previous thread:

I think what you are seeing as "crudely tailored" jackets are in fact just ordinary unmodified SD jackets with the skirts pinned back to emulate something of the look of the cut-away jacket, but still keep in line with the wartime regulations (a common dodge of the period).

Yes, I can see that on at least two of the jackets in the original photo they are indeed merely pinned back. Thank you for pointing this out. I had not realized that the modifications had been officially prohibited.

[gordon92]

Gordon92,

Attached are photographs from J. Dodsworth's book on WW1 Uniforms ( top - fig. 9 ) a Service Dress Jacket worn by a Private in the 1/4th Gordon Highlanders, 154 Infantry Brigade, 51st ( Highland ) Division, circa 1918. As the front skirts of the jacket have been rounded, note that the field dressing pocket, inside the right corner, has been moved to suit the cut of the jacket.

The jacket ( shown bottom - fig. 10 ) is that of a Company Sergeant Major, 9th ( Service ) Bn, Black Watch, 46 Infantry Brigade, 15th Scottish Division, early 1918, again with the jacket having rounded skirt corners.

As Andrew has pointed out, these rounded jacket skirt corners were against then standing regulations ( WO letter ACD/42 RD/1134 - RACD of 30th July 1915 and ACI 398 of 6th March 1917 ) which stipulated that the rounding off of the fronts of service dress jackets was forbidden.

As we can see from the attached photographs, these regulations were apt to be ignored.

Before the regulations forbidding the rounding of the jacket skirts, which was done to show more of the kilt, and allow the sporran to be worn, Military Tailors were paid 4d to alter a jacket, and civilians were paid 6d to round the corners of the jacket. The regulations banning the alterations, may have been in part a cost cutting and labour saving effort.

Regards.

LF

Great photos, LF.

It is interesting that you note Military Tailors were paid 4d to do the rounding. Did the tailors actually retain this sum on top of their regular pay? If so, it makes sense as an incentive for possessing a useful trade.

Mike

[Joe Sweeney]

LF/Mike,

The rates quoted " Military Tailors were paid 4d to alter a jacket, and civilians were paid 6d to round the corners of the jacket." come out of part III-IV of the Priced Vocabulary of Clothing and Necessaries--1915.

These are the rates charged to the soldier having the work done and might not necessarily be what goes to either the Civilian or Military tailor. The way the PVCN re-amble is writing it sounds like the Gov't is actually putting an overhead margin to the charge. Not sure what the actual outpay was but I doubt all went to the Mil Tailor.

Joe Sweeney

[Lancashire Fusilier]

LF/Mike,

The rates quoted " Military Tailors were paid 4d to alter a jacket, and civilians were paid 6d to round the corners of the jacket." come out of part III-IV of the Priced Vocabulary of Clothing and Necessaries--1915.

These are the rates charged to the soldier having the work done and might not necessarily be what goes to either the Civilian or Military tailor. The way the PVCN re-amble is writing it sounds like the Gov't is actually putting an overhead margin to the charge. Not sure what the actual outpay was but I doubt all went to the Mil Tailor.

Joe Sweeney

Joe,

Great information, it is nice to know the rates quoted are accurate.

Regards,

LF

[4thGordons]

I sarted going through my photos looking for variations on this at one time. As noted folding back is common and there does seem to be quite a bit of variety in shapes of tailored jackets - and not just between units.

I did not get far but here are a couple of examples

fold back:

Fold back and tailored (3 different regiments)

Variations in cut (same unit)

Chris

[gordon92]

I sarted going through my photos looking for variations on this at one time. As noted folding back is common and there does seem to be quite a bit of variety in shapes of tailored jackets - and not just between units.

I did not get far but here are a couple of examples

fold back:

Fold back and tailored (3 different regiments)

Variations in cut (same unit)

Chris

Interesting photos, Chris, not only illustrating the variations in cut but also other idiosyncrasies including some questions on regiment ID.

Top photo: Shows rounded corners on the kilt apron; I have not seen this before. Is it exposing striping on kilt (if orthochromatic film) on the wearer's left? I am inclined to say 'No,' and that it is something dangling from the left hand or some background effect. Regiment? Circular cap badge suggests 5th Seaforth despite the dicing on the glengarry. A proper glengarry of Sutherland dicing may have been in short supply. If the kilt striping is legitimate, then it could be Liverpool Scottish.

Middle photo: Man on left is clearly an Argyll. Man in center is perplexing in his display of a hybrid outfit. He appears to be wearing an Argyll cap badge, red-white-green diced gelengarry, kilt of possibly MacKenzie tartan and red-white diced hose that would proper for either Seaforth or Argyll. Alas, I do not know what to make of the man on the right with what I think is a Sutherland diced glengarry and kilt with overstripes????

Bottom photo: An island of certainty here in the midst of the confusion noted above: Extremely likely to be HLI men. Cap badge does not look like Scottish Rifles.

Mike

[Joe Sweeney]

Chris/Mike,

That middle photo is real interesting. The man on the left is wearing a Canadian Jacket--modified with addition of buttons on the lower pockets.

This could be a photo of men from the same unit.

The 16th Canadian Bn was made-up of a hodge-podge of Highland units. The man on the left could be from the 91st which wore Argyll trappings-except that they usually wore a bonnet with Argyll Dicing vice a Glen.

The other two could be Canadian Seaforths which also formed part of the 16th Bn CEF.

The 16th remained a hodgepodge of tartans and insignia for quite some time until the battalion standardized. Lack of Canadian Collar insignia early is fairly common too.

Here is another possibility, I think less likely.

If the man on the left somehow got a Canadian jacket (someone at one point posted a photo of a British soldier wearing a Canadian Jacket on this forum) it could also be the 1/5 Seaforths which also had a hodgepodge of uniforms early in the war and in drafts sent.

Joe Sweeney

[4thGordons]

Joe

It actually gets curiouser... here is the whole picture. I was a bit loathe to post it because last time I did it appeared for sale (as a "modern reprint")

Is it perhaps a lineup of canadian scots units? lined up together?

If you would like a high-res scan drop me a line and I'll send it on.

Chris

[4thGordons]

Mike

Wouldn't the insigina and buttons suggest a rifle regiment? And shoulder brasses on man on extreme right would seem to show TF.

Chris

[Tom A McCluskey]

Chris,

I think the bottom photo is the 4th or 5th Royal Scots (QER) - star-shaped cap badge, SD trousers, rifle buttons and cutaway jackets. A close-up of the shoulder title may confirm this. Scottish Rifles tended to wear the standard SD jacket without a cutaway.

I hope this is of use.

Aye,

Tom McC

[gordon92]

Mike

Wouldn't the insigina and buttons suggest a rifle regiment? And shoulder brasses on man on extreme right would seem to show TF.

Chris

I noticed that also, Chris, and discounted it because of the cap badge. The badge may indeed be a star badge of the Royal Scots as Tom McC has noted. Regarding the man on the extreme right in your latest photo, I think I can discern on the shoulder title a 'T' on top of a number on top of something else (either a bugle horn or 'QER') on top of a title. The more I look at it, the title at the bottom appears to have curvature as it would have for the 'ROYAL SCOTS' title worn before 1921 by the 4th and 5th QER. So, I am inclined to agree with Tom McC that these are either 4th or 5th Royal Scots.