so this is what we've come to? (Prince Charlie)

[Nathan]

It's obvious from my own choice of formal attire that I prefer a doublet and diced hose but I don't think it's obvious from the OP's photo that the gentleman's outfit is "Tat"

If we assume that a PC is an acceptable choice, it would be fair to say that superior tailoring is preferable to shoddy work. But we can't anything about the quality of the PC and waistcoat from the photo.

It has been suggested that green and blue should be worn more, but that purple is a terrible choice. Not sure why this would be.

As far as PC not being traditional because it is a product of the early 20th century, consider this: 1930 was 83 years ago!
The battle of Culloden was only 268 years ago and King George IV visited Scotland 191 years ago.
The MacLeay portraits were painted in 1870 - (143 years ago. )

So there was less time between MacLeay and the KA catalogue (63 years) and the KA catalogue and today (83 years).

In my view, 83 years is around four generations and that is plenty of time to say a tradition has been established. My great, great, grandfather was born in 1905 and would have been the target age for the coatee in the Kinloch Anderson catalogue. My oldest brother is approaching 50 and I have nephews that are old enough to wear their own coatee.

So if the guy in the photo had sprung for tartan or diced hose instead of the belt and plaid, Bob's your uncle, right? He could have worn a jabot like the gents in the KA catalogue but many ridiculed Sir Sean for making that choice with the coatee. His kilt looks to be of fine quality but again, it's a photo.

I like diced hose and doublets and hair sporrans and many fancy things, but I am very happy to see more men being married kilted than ever before.

If I ran a kilt hire shop, there's no way I would be able to carry hundreds of tartans in hundreds of sizes for hire. That's why many people have their kilt made and just hire the accessories.

Some of it is a fashion choice. In my brother's wedding photo posted earlier, the only hired kit was the groom's PC and waistcoat, his rouche tie, and his plaid brooch.

Everything else in that photo belonged to the gentlemen wearing the attire, and was purchased because that is the contemporary look.





I have nothing hired in either of these photos. At the time, I owned two pairs of hose. Cream and green. I used to choose cream with my PC because it looked nicer with my white seal fur sporran to my eye and made the laces on my ghillie brogues stand out.

I wore the green with my brown leather sporran and tweed and I had never seen tartan hose on anyone except for female Highland Dancers and had only seen diced hose tops being worn with spats and a hair sporran in a military context.

I love that xmarks provides a view into the past and that OC Richard can post photos from the last two centuries to give us ideas on how to stand out in a crowd. I just think we should be careful when we malign the current fashion. A lot of men were married in that style and we shouldn't make them feel embarrased or ashamed of their wedding photos. They wore the kilt and did so according to contemporary standards and have every right to look at those photos with pride.