Gordon Highlanders kilt

[Watchdog]

Hi Rob, I couldn't find any Jarvie at all at first cursory check but I can say that the service number appears to be from the May 1956 t0 Oct 1960 range so as that means post WWII and possibly one of the last drafts of National Service recruits.
In any case as I am sure you know, post WWII records are the hardest to track down and often impossible as they are not freely available to the public. I guess you will have considered the regimental museum but unless he was a "personality" or did something of note that is likely to draw a blank as the average "Jock" in a rifle company tends not to get much mention in unit histories etc. Whatever might be below the name is almost certainly a sub-unit such as A Coy, B Coy etc or perhaps a platoon eg 2 Pl etc.

I will remember the name (unusual as it is) and if it crops up I will post it here.

Regards

Mark

[Watchdog]

I neglected to mention that the date on the label of 1938 presented in that format rather than being the date of manufacture is most likely part of the name of the company as at one time this was very common practice in English speaking countries with names like "Joe Bloggs Manufacturing 1965 Ltd" being fairly normal.

Regards

Mark

[Kohima]

Blast! Possibly not as exciting as I thought, then.
That said, wouldn’t such an establishment date generally be incorporated into the company name, per your example (often in parentheses), just before the Ltd.?

He said.. clutching at straws..

[Watchdog]

I know what you mean Rob, it would be great if the format for company naming were actually that formal. It isn't and you can call the company pretty much what you like and even the very structure of the name as written goes to the identity of the company as a legal "entity". The critical bit is the Ltd or Inc etc which indicates the legal status or "Type" of entity.
So, Rego Clothiers (1938) Ltd and Rego Clothiers Ltd 1938 could legally be two different "entities". Maddening right? Sometimes a company will change names just as per these two examples as part of a winding up and re-establishment exercise, thus the new "entity" is in most cases (other changes included such as directorships etc) not liable for the debts/responsibilities of the first.

Depending on the circumstances there can be as little as one court hearing between the two events!

As for this company (Rego Clothiers) The National Archive at Kew Gardens lists a winding up order in 1924;

Rego Clothiers Ltd: Order. Case number 558 of 1924 | The National Archives

I haven't looked further as that takes quite a lot of work and may not add to the fact that the company was wound up.

I would guess that if you were to delve into the records of Companies House that you will find Rego Clothiers Ltd 1938 established in that year and, as pure speculation on my part, that this may or may not be a "re-birth" of the company due to war-time exigences. I also found a Rego Clothiers in Brighton, (East) Sussex which was created in 1939 which may be connected.

Just to muddy the waters further there is a similarly named company in Toronto, Canada. However, that service number is definitely British not Canadian!

As for your kilt in particular the regimental/service number is as good a date reference as you are likely to find. Whilst I am sure that some kilts may have been re-issued for whatever reason, generally speaking, kilts as I am sure you know, are quite specific to the wearer in terms of length (hem must reach the floor when kneeling with body upright but not fold the kilt is the traditional spec, don't know if it still is?) and how much cloth is needed to wrap around the waist correctly so "re-tailoring" could be a lot of work especially in the days when "re-cycling" was not even a concept.

All in however, a very collectible kilt even if not an El Alamein veteran

I hope this helps.

Regards

Mark

[Kohima]

Thank you for your very detailed explanation and all the time it clearly took to put it all together!
All the best,
Rob

[Kohima]

After much searching, I have found two more examples of Rego Clothiers labels; one from 1939, the other 1940. I am now comfortable in the belief that the date in my kilt is, indeed, the year of manufacture.
That said, thanks to Mark for pointing out the fact that this may not always be the case. Something to bear in mind in the future.
The late/post-war service number in the kilt may suggest that this particular garment languished in a depot store for some time, perhaps due to its small size (the issue of kilts being suspended from around 1941, I believe), or an earlier number has long since washed out. My other kilts have at least two service numbers in each; it makes sense that such expensive items would remain in service for as long as possible.