Quote Originally Posted by creagdhubh View Post



It is interesting isn't it? Hmmm...good question. My guess would be that the hose were simply made to have a minimal turnover seeing the overall length/height about right - then again if you look at other old photos of a similar nature and of MacLeay's Highlanders, you tend to see hose worn very high up on the leg, or well below the knee. Perhaps just enough turnover to hide the garters underneath? As you stated Scott, they could also be hose that were either borrowed or handed down. I'm not so sure he outgrew them, since the height looks pretty good - quite a traditional height for kilt hose.

Cheers,
But they wouldn't be if they had a normal turn over. They would be too short. I had a pair of hose like this once. They were pure wool and they shrunk on me. I'm pretty sure this photo pre-dates clothes dryers though.