Could you provide me with a link to this information?"That's interesting. How were they sure the surviving example that they were copying for that was what was worn in North America? That looks quite a bit different than what I've seen described. It almost looks to me like a faded version of what is described. Surprised it is that light, considering the "black watch" nickname supposedly came from how dark the tartan was. Not doubting you, just curious. And if only a few yards were woven, how is anyone supposed to be expected to wear the proper tartan as you say...?"
Bryanbekk, The man who had the 42nd coarse kilt tartan woven, as I said, is the senior researcher for the Scottish Tartan Authority. His knowledge of historic tartans is second to none. He bases his reproductions on surviving samples and extensive knowledge of the dyes used in the old days, before modern chemical dies became known. The reproduction tartan is less "black" than the modern version, but that's authenticity for you. Many tartans are kept in stock by most sellers because there is strong demand for them. Otherwise you have to order a special weaving. I had to do that when I wanted some of my own family tartan that is seldom in demand. It cost me over $1,300 but I got enough for three to five kilts, depending on how much yardage I want to put into each kilt.
For you purposes Black Watch Ancient by Locharron, or Black Watch Muted by House of Edgar would be most nearly authentic. You could have Elliotts weave for you the exact reproduction, of which I posted a sample pic.
To be truly authentic to the era the tartan cloth would need to have what is known as a true kilt selvedge, and only by ordering a custom weave from one of the smaller mills can you get that today. A kilt selvedge is done as a herringbone tweed and is distinctly different from the modern tucked selvedge.
It's my recollection the regiment's men were issued three ells of tartan for their kilts. It would have been the standard 27-inch width, more or less and would have been worn as a small kilt, pleated haphazardly and the pleats unpressed.
Given my field of study, I must always keep a cautious skepticism about so called "experts" and "authorities". Far too many times I have seen incorrect information from so called "experts" cited for generations without being questioned as well as many upstart academics providing information that is trying to reinvent the wheel to secure their place as an "expert". I am of the opinion that both should be questioned and weighed against each other.
Whether or not it is correct, there will be the issue of what everyone else is wearing. I have not seen a single 42nd reenactor wearing this faded/washed out tartan. So, even if it is the correct one, there would be the issue of me not appearing uniform next to other reenactors of the same regiment. I would be very interested in reading about the study and reproduction of this though. If you could point me towards it I'd appreciate it! I'm sure you understand I can't just change my opinion on this without seeing any information which supports your claim, as it is contrary to everything I have personally read and contrary to what I have seen every other 42nd reenactor doing.