Civilian Spats

[OC Richard]

I have a quite large collection of 19th century and early 20th century photographs of men in Highland Dress and, in looking over them just now, I can only find one showing spats, a fine early image it is:



More common, in early photographs, are ankle boots

[Dale-of-Cedars]

I have been looking regularly for low spats on that auction site, but they are usually in sizes much too small for my size 12 to 13 shoes.

Argyle hose tops are so much less expensive than full hose, so I keep looking....

[CMcG]

Spats (or gaiters as they used to be referred to) were an ordinary item of everyday dress, kilted or otherwise, before WWI (1914-1918). After the war they still remained in vogue, especially among the upper-middle and upper classes. As modes of dress became less formal fewer gentlemen wore gaiters and by the end of WWII (1945) only elderly gentlemen would be seen in gaiters.

Loudon McQueen Douglas in his book, THE KILT (published in 1914), when describing proper day dress, has this to say about gaiters:

"Footwear should consist of thick soled brogues with gaiters to match the stockings."

C.R.MacKinnon of Dunakin, writing in 1960, makes no mention whatsoever of gaiters, which clearly indicates that by that date "spats" were probably relegated to the costume of music hall comedians.

I have a quite large collection of 19th century and early 20th century photographs of men in Highland Dress and, in looking over them just now, I can only find one showing spats, a fine early image it is:



<snip>

Thank you both for helping fill in some gaps in the historiography. Strange how spats/gaiters were recommended wear in 1914 but we see so few photos or paintings showing them being worn...

[AKScott]

Thank you both for helping fill in some gaps in the historiography. Strange how spats/gaiters where recommended wear in 1914 but we see so few photos or paintings showing them being worn...

I opine it is because they served no useful purpose outside fashion conciousness, and are a pain in the neck. Kilted, they aren't going to keep you any warmer, and they aren't going to keep bugs from crawling up your legs.

And they were supposed to match the hose color? I have four different colors of hose already and really want at least two more. I feel like changing hose color gives me freedom to wear for instance the same shirt with maybe four different ties and not look like a rental shop patron. Six pairs of gaiters is not in the budget.

For you guys that are thinking about this, the one thing they are going to do for you is smooth out your foot line, make the shoelaces go away. I am not going to bust anyone's chops for ordering eight pairs in eight different colors. But really, you are going to need more wardrobe space, it is more stuff to keep clean and I don't think you are going to wear them very often.

Tell you what, figure out your favorite look, shirt/tie/kilt/hose/shoes and order one pair of gaiters to match those hose. See how often you really wear those after two years before you order a second pair of gaiters.

Claret might be a good choice. But in my neck of the woods if I show up in a tie, a kilt and claret hose no one is going to comment on claret spats; the few that notice probably won't see the point.

Thirsty Viking, you look great in those. I am not sure how far up the formality scale you could take them, but you look quite at home in them as pictured.

Tobus, I can see the point. You are geared up for more than a day hike and you don't have to worry about thorns, bugs or your socks (or anything else below the knee) while you are wearing those. You might get some bug bites ON your knees, but not through your leggings.

Harry Lauder looks like a million bucks. I notice his gaiters contrast with his hose, and HRH the Duke of Rothesay seems to generally wear his garter ties in the same manner.

I'll wager ten US dollars that if we buy MacMillan of Rathdown a pair of claret spats this month he will find less than five excuses to wear them to official functions in the next two years.

[Tobus]

I opine it is because they served no useful purpose outside fashion conciousness, and are a pain in the neck. Kilted, they aren't going to keep you any warmer, and they aren't going to keep bugs from crawling up your legs.

I could be wrong, but I would think spats were originally intended to keep the hose from getting wet or snagged when walking through the countryside, since roads were not very well developed in the Highlands back then. Nothing more than a utilitarian function.

As roads and transportation became more modern, the use of spats went away. Some people clung to them out of a sense of tradition, but that eventually waned.

I personally love the look, and don't mind the hassle of lacing up gaiters or leggings. I wish they would come back into style.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I'll wager ten US dollars that if we buy MacMillan of Rathdown a pair of claret spats this month he will find less than five excuses to wear them to official functions in the next two years.

You loose, as I never wear spats. So, let me suggest that you take the cost of a pair of spats (colour unimportant) which is about US $50, and add to that the US $10 that you've lost on this wager, and cut a check for US $60, made payable to The Wounded Warrior Project, and send it on to Matt Newsome at the Tartan Museum. I'll collect the cheque from Matt at the Greenville Scottish Games and pass it along to The Wounded Warrior Project, one of two charities that the games generously support (the other being the Erskine Hospital in Scotland).

[Dale-of-Cedars]

Just my 2 cents, but I'd put the ubiquity of spats among the well-heeled in the 18th and 19th centuries (and their extinction in the 20th,) down to one cause; the amount of horse manure in city streets (and we think we have 'vehicle exhaust' problems!)

The cost of replacing/cleaning spats would be so much less than than replacing/cleaning shoes that got a load of exhaust down in the laces, tongue and ankle areas.

[CMcG]

<snip>
And they were supposed to match the hose color?

Judging by the few examples I can find and the general attitude towards matching that still exists in the Highlands, I imagine the colour wouldn't have mattered at all. Neutral colours like white and grey, seemed popular.

Here's a few more images I dug up of how it used to be done:





I'm not sure if this one is military or civilian:

[OC Richard]

In the post above, the image from The Highlanders of Scotland is showing a military man, so spats are to be expected.

I would wager that the bottom photo is a "play dress-up" photo, not a portrait of a person accustomed to wearing Highland Dress and posing in clothes that they own and wear regularly.

The tell-tale signs are the mixing of civilian and military items, things being worn improperly, things ill-fitting, and exaggerated poses.

He's wearing a Gordon Highlanders officer's sporran which has not been stored properly, plain hose with no flashes, mismatching kilt and plaid, no collar badges or cap badge, and posing with a sword tho not wearing a sword belt or scabbard...

It's obvious when a subject is wearing a Gordon Highlanders sporran but not wearing Gordon Highlanders flashes, hose, spats, kilt, or jacket.

[SlackerDrummer]

I'll wager ten US dollars that if we buy MacMillan of Rathdown a pair of claret spats this month he will find less than five excuses to wear them to official functions in the next two years.

You loose, as I never wear spats. So, let me suggest that you take the cost of a pair of spats (colour unimportant) which is about US $50, and add to that the US $10 that you've lost on this wager, and cut a check for US $60, made payable to The Wounded Warrior Project, and send it on to Matt Newsome at the Tartan Museum. I'll collect the cheque from Matt at the Greenville Scottish Games and pass it along to The Wounded Warrior Project, one of two charities that the games generously support (the other being the Erskine Hospital in Scotland).

No, Scott. I think he's got you on a technicality. I'm pretty sure it should have said "no less than five". In fact, though, you have found less than five excuses.