X Marks the Scot - An on-line community of kilt wearers.

   X Marks Partners - (Go to the Partners Dedicated Forums )
USA Kilts website Celtic Croft website Celtic Corner website Houston Kiltmakers

Waistcoat with a belt

Printable View

  • 13th January 10, 06:17 AM
    Asser 1
    His flashes aren't too far off. Especially his left, the regiments line the front flash up to the line of the shin. Maybe he is an old military man.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tobus View Post
    I'd also like to fix his garter flashes. Good grief.

  • 13th January 10, 06:18 AM
    Tobus
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Asser 1 View Post
    His flashes aren't too far off. Especially his left, the regiments line the front flash up to the line of the shin. Maybe he is an old military man.

    I could appreciate that if the flashes were in roughly the same place on each leg.
  • 13th January 10, 06:44 AM
    OC Richard
    Yes wearing a waistbelt over the waistcoat appears in many old images of people in Highland Dress. But to call it the only "proper" or "correct" way goes beyond the evidence I see.

    As always, for a "reality check" I go back to The Highlanders of Scotland, for indeed that source is unique.

    Of the figures which are wearing jackets and waistcoats, and the jacket is unbuttoned, I see:

    16 men wearing no visible waistbelts

    8 men wearing their waistbelt over both their jacket and waistcoat

    2 men wearing waistbelts over the waistcoat

    1 man wearing a waistbelt over his waistcoat but is jacketless

    NONE of the waistcoats are tucked into the kilt, including the two men wearing waistbelts over their waistcoats. Here's one of them:

    http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u...ghlanders2.jpg

    Also, NONE of the men are wearing waistbelts peaking out from under their waistcoats. This has always looked sloppy and "wrong" to me. It just wasn't done in the past... at least I don't recall coming across a vintage image of it.

    Here's what it looks like:

    http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u...iper/euro2.jpg

    Note how the black belt ruins the look of the shape of the bottom of the black waistcoat, foils the waistcoat's "line" and cut.

    In a band, where you're stuggling to present uniformity, the waistbelts always fight against it, as they droop down to various level and are seen to various different degrees. How much better it looks, how much more uniform, and also how much more in line with tradtion it is to go without the belts:

    http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u...iper/euro1.jpg
  • 13th January 10, 08:18 AM
    MacMillan of Rathdown
    There may be an exception
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OC Richard View Post
    Yes wearing a waistbelt over the waistcoat appears in many old images of people in Highland Dress. But to call it the only "proper" or "correct" way goes beyond the evidence I see.

    As always, for a "reality check" I go back to The Highlanders of Scotland, for indeed that source is unique.

    Of the figures which are wearing jackets and waistcoats, and the jacket is unbuttoned, I see:

    16 men wearing no visible waistbelts

    8 men wearing their waistbelt over both their jacket and waistcoat

    2 men wearing waistbelts over the waistcoat

    1 man wearing a waistbelt over his waistcoat but is jacketless

    NONE of the waistcoats are tucked into the kilt, including the two men wearing waistbelts over their waistcoats. Here's one of them:

    http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u...ghlanders2.jpg

    Also, NONE of the men are wearing waistbelts peaking out from under their waistcoats. This has always looked sloppy and "wrong" to me. It just wasn't done in the past... at least I don't recall coming across a vintage image of it.

    Here's what it looks like:

    http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u...iper/euro2.jpg

    Note how the black belt ruins the look of the shape of the bottom of the black waistcoat, foils the waistcoat's "line" and cut.

    In a band, where you're stuggling to present uniformity, the waistbelts always fight against it, as they droop down to various level and are seen to various different degrees. How much better it looks, how much more uniform, and also how much more in line with tradtion it is to go without the belts:

    http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u...iper/euro1.jpg

    Further to the above comments highlighted by bold type, with the exception of the last mentioned gentleman, every single person wearing a belt is also wearing a dirk or sword, often (usually) both. The gentleman not under arms is engaged in putting the stone, so one may assume that the belt is being worn to prevent the chance of injury whilst competing in a seriously strenuous athletic event.

    Since this discussion is taking place in the "Traditional" as opposed to the "Wear What You Want" thread, I would have to say that if one wishes to present themselves as properly attired, then the belt should not be worn with formal day or evening attire, at all. If worn with less formal day wear then it should be worn instead of the waistcoat, not with it.

    Unless, of course, one is engaged in putting the stone...
  • 13th January 10, 08:31 AM
    Lyle1
    The other day, in the Kilt Advice Forum in a thread entitled "White Tie Detail Question, a picture of the Earl of Mansfield was posted, and he was wearing a belt over a formal waistcoat.

    I did not particularly think the belt did anything for the Earl's appearance, but some of the gents pictured in this thread look good with a belt over a vest. I guess when it works it works, and when it doesn't it simply doesn't.

    For me, the belt should not appear to be simply slapped on over top the vest as if the wearer felt compelled to wear a belt. The belt should look as if it was part of the outfit and be in harmony with the vest. Too many separate lines can confuse the eye and be distracting to the overall look.
  • 13th January 10, 08:43 AM
    Woodsheal
    The belt when worn over the waistcoat is a dirk belt. If you're not carrying a dirk, you don't need a belt either over or under the waistcoat when it is worn (unless of course you're wearing a belted plaid!)....
  • 13th January 10, 10:30 AM
    NorCalPiper
    Correct or not, I always wear a belt with my kilt and waistcoat.....But then again, I'll wear Argyll hose with my kilt and a t-shirt for a casual outing....
  • 13th January 10, 10:33 AM
    Jack Daw
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woodsheal View Post
    The belt when worn over the waistcoat is a dirk belt. If you're not carrying a dirk, you don't need a belt either over or under the waistcoat when it is worn (unless of course you're wearing a belted plaid!)....

    This is my opinion as well.
  • 13th January 10, 10:35 AM
    Jack Daw
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by The Deil's Chiel View Post
    When last seen, auld Farquharson was ambling about Invercauld, his sporran agape, leaving himself a trail of breadcrumbs so he could find his way back home:

    http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l...arquharson.jpg

    I'm not as elderly, but I've made the mistake of neglecting to close my sporran a couple of times. When I catch it, it makes me feel like I've left my fly open (which I don't do at all...I swear). I like his jacket and waistcoat!
  • 13th January 10, 01:58 PM
    M. A. C. Newsome
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jack Daw View Post
    I'm not as elderly, but I've made the mistake of neglecting to close my sporran a couple of times. When I catch it, it makes me feel like I've left my fly open (which I don't do at all...I swear). I like his jacket and waistcoat!

    I resemble that remark!
    http://lh6.ggpht.com/_-DGC5EPerrg/SD...2/100_1457.jpg

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.0