We asked Kate, Cassandra, Shirley, Joanne, and Deborah to comment on the relative merits of barely-there- look hosiery from leading brands.
n Aristoc
''Flawless Finish'', #4.
15 denier tights with low sheen finish and cotton gusset. Reasonably natural appearance compromised by a heavier wight of denier and a shimmery finish. On the plus side, Kate and Deborah agreed that these tights were sufficiently substantial not be ruined in just one wearing.
n Aristoc
''Soleil'', #3.50.
Sheer to waist tights with sandal toe. Although Deborah considered the finish too shiny, everyone else found the 'sun-kissed' appearance reasonably natural. Great value - although undeniably rather fragile.
n debenhams
''Summer Sheer'', #4.
7 denier tights with thong brief-line, cotton gusset, and sandal toe. Cassandra admired the bikini-line styling - although Joanne argued that the finish was nowhere near fine enough for tights which purported to be invisible.
n Donna karan
''The Nudes'', #14.
8-denier tights with control top and sandal toe. The Cadillac (if not Rolls-Royce) of the test-driven brands, these were easily the most expensive - and the most universally admired, except for their ugly waistband. A choice of seven different skin-toning shades ought to help any woman achieve the most convincing neo-bare look of all.
n marks & spencer
''Ultra Sheer'', #2.50.
7 denier tights with reinforced toe. Very modestly priced and (in the palest shade) reasonably natural in appearance - but unwearable with sandals or open-toed shoes.
n pretty polly
''New York Legs'', #5.
7 denier sheer appearance with (according to the packaging) 20 denier strength. Our assessors were intrigued by the cool ''handle'' of these tights. However, no one believed that even the paler shades could possibly look natural on an untanned Scots lassie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article