kilt hose vs. shooting socks

[Tobus]

Overall, they do seem very similar. Especially between the HoC lines of kilt hose and shooting socks.

But it occurs to me that when compared with other brands of kilt hose (not HoC), the turndowns on shooting socks tend to be much longer than regular traditional kilt hose. For a visual example, here is a photo from the thread about the Duke of Edinburgh attending a Highland Games with the Queen and the Duke of Rothesay. Note the difference between the turndowns on their hose. The Duke of Edinburgh's hose are more like traditional standard kilt hose, where the Duke of Rothesay tends to wear checkered-top hose that are more like shooting socks.



What I've noticed is that HoC's turndowns on their kilt hose tend to be longer like shooting socks, where other makers tend to stick with a shorter turndown. I love the quality of HoC hose, and they are by far my favourite brand of kilt hose (aside from my custom hand-knit hose), but I rather dislike the fact that the turndowns are so long, because they look like shooting socks to me.

And on the same line of thinking, I believe shooting socks are intended to be worn a little higher than kilt hose (as others have mentioned). The top of a shooting sock comes up to just below the knee, where kilt hose should be a couple of inches below the knee (or three finger widths, as a general rule). Again, HoC makes their kilt hose more like shooting socks, making it difficult to stick with this general rule.

So for me, that's usually the glaringly obvious difference. Overall height and the length of the turndown. Does it work? Yes. But I do notice the difference.

[Domehead]

Tobus is spot on.
All my hose are HoC: Lewis, Chessboard, New Diamond, Rannoch - the only traditional "kilt" hose I have are HoC military diced.
Tobus assertion that the turn-over is longer and the height is higher must be correct. Point of fact: images I've posted of me in Highland attire garnered that very comment (not negative), just a comment re: my hose could be a notch lower below my knee. As well, my turn-over's a tad long related to my garters.
However, having only ever worn the diced "kilt" hose (not that often) I never noticed the difference until this thread. Interesting.

[Jock Scot]

I think we really are in danger of over-thinking all this. If the turnover is really too long then all that is needed is a nifty fold and the problem is solved. In truth though, so what if the fold is a wee tad too large, the world is hardly going to stop spinning, now is it? The benefit of a large(long) turnover is that the flashes usually only stick out a wee tad which is better, by far, than the "wind-sock" effect.

[Phil]

I think we really are in danger of over-thinking all this. If the turnover is really too long then all that is needed is a nifty fold and the problem is solved. In truth though, so what if the fold is a wee tad too large, the world is hardly going to stop spinning, now is it? The benefit of a large(long) turnover is that the flashes usually only stick out a wee tad which is better, by far, than the "wind-sock" effect.

A very sensible summation about what, after all, is just a pair of socks. Perhaps if you are not really used to wearing longer woollen hose it may seem strange but there really is nothing remarkable about them.

[pugcasso]

some of those products at 'shootingsocks' are nice ... would like to have some of those some day

[M. A. C. Newsome]

As I said before, shooting socks are typically made a bit longer than kilt hose. The only brand I can speak from intimate experience on is House of Cheviot. Their popular Lewis style are kilt hose, and made to be kilt hose. The very similar Rannoch style, on the other hand, are made as shooting socks (which is the lion's share of their business). If you compare the two, the additional length of the shooting sock is incorporated into the band of ribbing between the patterned cuff (turn over) and the leg of the sock. Here's a photo to illustrate.

(The grid lines in the photo are 1" squares).

This is a pair claret Lewis hose next to a pair of brick red Rannoch hose. I've lined up the tops of both. You can see the line of stitching where the cuff is joined to the sock. The sock length is the same -- the extra length is in the cuff, but not the decorative patterned part.

So someone with shorter legs will have a harder time getting the Rannoch hose to the proper height below their knee, but as Jock Scot has said, a simple double fold will fix the problem easily. In fact, it's much easier to deal with the problem of too-long hose than too-short hose! So that makes shooting socks very adaptable as Highland kilt socks.

The length of the cuff (turn over) itself I don't think really matters. There is no set width of kilt hose cuffs, after all. How wide your cuffs are depends on what you like (especially true if you are having your hose hand knit). Some patterns will demand a wider or more narrow turn over. Diced hose, for example, typically have a very narrow cuff, whereas Argyle hose have a wider cuff, necessary to show the diamond pattern. The hose being worn in the above photo by Prince Charles are not repurposed shooting socks, but kilt hose, made as such. He has all his kilt hose hand knit for him, so doubtless they were made exactly how he wanted them to be.

The way most plain colored kilt hose are made, the width of the cuff when worn depends on the length of the wearer's leg, by my observation (and how much the hose have shrunk in the wash). People just turn down the cuff where it suits them, or where they are able to. With a patterned cuff, it's a little more obvious where it is supposed to turn down, but even then you have some wiggle room.

[opositive]

is there a functional reason for shooting socks having a longer top? "staying more secure" i do not think would apply since garters often come with them.

[Domehead]

Jock Scot,
I agree with your sentiment. I'm simply saying, I asumed that "kilt" hose and "shooting" sock were euphemisms for essentially the same thing. I find it interesting that there seems a structural difference between the two - specific to for a kilt versus, for Plus-4's, say. My initial assumption was born from images of Prince Charles (among other more vintage images) in patterned turn-overs, and the myriad offerings from HoC, New House Highland, et al.

As for me, personally I feel better that my hose position being slightly outside the "norm" (whatever that is) is a construction issue and not an error. After all, my efforts attempt to balance my comfort / confidence with respect for individuals such as you (collectively).

[Tobus]

I think we really are in danger of over-thinking all this. If the turnover is really too long then all that is needed is a nifty fold and the problem is solved. In truth though, so what if the fold is a wee tad too large, the world is hardly going to stop spinning, now is it? The benefit of a large(long) turnover is that the flashes usually only stick out a wee tad which is better, by far, than the "wind-sock" effect.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the world is going to stop spinning. I was just pointing out that I do notice the difference and I prefer the shorter turnover length of kilt hose.

That said, however, I do agree that the benefit is a shorter exposed length of garter. Just as with the Duke of Rothesay above, when I wear my HoC hose, only the tips of my garters show (as seen below), which is a look I much prefer to long tails. I've tried folding the turndown back under, but wasn't overly happy with the result. However, I know one other member here who does it and the results look OK. So I may give that a shot again.

[tulloch]

"The wind sock effect." That is great. I will use that. Thanks Jock.