Assumption time!!!
to me it appears that the name Jatz was mad as a catchy more marketable version of Jats, which would pluralise the contents of the packet of jatz.
therefore, would a single cracker fromt he packet of jatz be called a Jat?
These are australian crackers but im sure this is not the first time an S has been substituted by a Z.
Not a GD, methinks.
Well Ritz is definitely singular AND plural, since their slogan is (or was), “Everything tastes great when it sits on a Ritz.”
Nope. Collectively they are Jatz crackers. Just one of them is a Jatz cracker. Not a Jat cracker. Not even a Jat.
‘Jatz’ as the plural of ‘Jat’, and ‘Jat’ as the name for a single cracker, makes no sense. If a single cracker is a Jat, then you have a box of Jats; not a box of Jats crackers. I mean, you don’t have a plate of brownies cookies, do you? You just have a plate of brownies. And, if the single item was called a Jat cracker, then a box of them would be a box of Jat crackers, not a box of Jats crackers.
Jatz crackers were launched in 1957, to rival the already-established Savoy crackers, launched in 1952 (or, more accurately, to forestall the expansion of Savoy crackers from their home market, Victoria, into New South Wales). Both products were marketed as party foods. The names were chosen, I guess, to give a cocktail-bar, upmarket feel to the products. My guess it that Jatz is, consciously or otherwise, a combination of ‘Jazz’ and ‘Ritz’.