How about this ensemble?

[Tobus]

Regarding kilt length, I found the following quote in an online guide to kilt wearing which corresponds to what our regimental rules were. Has fashion evolved?

"The lower edge of the kilt should break somewhere between the middle and top of the kneecap. Above the knee, and it's not a kilt, but a Catholic school-girl skirt. Below the knee, and it becomes a tea-length dress." http://www.en8848.com.cn/e/DoPrint/?...d=254&id=19520

Again, your regimental rules are just fine and nobody is saying it's wrong. You absolutely have a perfectly good reason for following the regimental rules that you were taught. We're just talking about fine-tuning minor things, and of course personal preference comes into play.

But to answer your question, I don't really know if this has anything to do with fashion evolving. Just different interpretations of what is "correct", either by regimental standards (not all of which are the same) or civilian tradition. Your regimental standards were apparently based on kneeling and having the selvedge touch the ground. But according to the Royal Regiment of Scotland guidelines, "The bottom of the apron should hang 1 inch above the centre of the knee." This seems to roughly correspond with the loose rule of "somewhere between the middle and top of the kneecap", though I would argue that the 1 inch guideline places it more towards the top of the kneecap than the middle. Personally, I think this is a better guideline than one which is based on kneeling, since it's virtually impossible to kneel and then check the apron without bending over and spoiling the results.

Below is the height I consider perfect. Again, just personal preference, and not insinuating that anything else is wrong.

[Nathan]

It's a fair point. One of the benefits of having a kilt made in the civilian world is that it can be made to measure rather than getting a kilt issued that has been worn by several generations of soldiers and is a close approximation. While we're on the subject, I hear two different views on how high a kilt should go. One is that it should go to the naval and the other is that it should be two inches above the naval and align with one's bottom rib.

I have two kilts, one that goes to the naval which I prefer to wear with a tucked in shirt and one which goes to the two inches above line which I prefer to wear with my coatee as it guarantees no shirt peeking out below my waistcoat.

Is there a general consensus on which of these two measurements is preferable or is this another area of conjecture?

(I hope the thread isn't wandering too far off course...)

Some of my fellow Nova Scotia Highlanders...


Cheers!

[mookien]

I wear kilts about two inches above the navel with one exception. It has a "high rise" or "military rise" that brings it to the bottom of my rib cage, approximately four inches above my navel. I enjoy it most when it is cold, eg snowing, because it is noticeably warmer. It looks a lot like the kilts in the pictures below.



..



I just remembered that I have a picture of it (below). I was practicing for a bit of pub pugilism. Note my special ops balmoral.



.

[Dale Seago]

While we're on the subject, I hear two different views on how high a kilt should go. One is that it should go to the naval and the other is that it should be two inches above the naval and align with one's bottom rib.

There's room for individual preference on this, of course. When it gets much below the navel it starts looking like a Utilikilt or another of that ilk. I don't think a military rise looks bad at all, but it's not my preference. Personally, I like mine at about an inch to an inch and a half above the navel, which I find very comfortable and also high enough to not cause issues with a waistcoat.

Here's an example from this past Friday evening at an art gallery in San Francisco, where I was one of four judges in a contest:





And yes, I like my own kilts right at the top of the knee.

[Tobus]

Yeah, the top of the kilt seems to vary a lot, depending on body shape. Not everyone's navel is in the same place, so that's a poor guide to use. The best location for the top of the kilt is for the straps to be centered right at the 'dip' that defines your natural waist, and the actual top binding ends up... wherever that happens to be (which will depend on the rise of the kilt). In my opinion, this is truly what defines whether a kilt is going to fit you well. It's all about the straps and your natural waist, and has nothing to do with the actual top edge of the kilt.

It can, of course, be hiked up or down as needed if the bottom selvedge is way off from its ideal location, but if you do that, it just won't be fitting you ideally at the waist.

I'm naturally high-waisted, but it just doesn't feel right if I wear my kilt lower than that, and it makes it harder for it to stay in place.

[sydnie7]

Tobus has it right -- the kiltmaker determines where the top of the kilt should be by placement of the waistline/top strap. Whatever material extends above that (the rise) is a matter of preference/style, but is built into the kilt. If you try to hike a low-rise kilt up too high, it will self-correct by settling down until the top strap rides at your natural waist. . . assuming you haven't done something odd like buckle the lower strap (if it exists) tighter than the top strap.

[OC Richard]

Well Nathan you look well turned-out to me!

I will say I agree with the "neither fish nor fowl" comments about those hybrid sporrans, the leather Day Sporrans which have had the pentangular top from a "Prince Charlie" Evening Dress sporran affixed to the flap.

Now, fur-front Day sporrans were made, it appears, right from when our small pocketlike leather Day sporrans first made their appearance near the beginning of the 20th century; here they are in the 1936 Anderson catalogue. Any of these styles would look "proper" and "traditional" with Day Dress



here's a page from the trifold leaflet of sporran photos used by a large number of Scottish sporranmakers from the 1960s to today, what I've called the "canon" of sporran designs, showing typical Day sporrans, which as you can see haven't changed much from the 1930s



and here across the top are the Day sporrans which have the Prince Charlie Evening Sporran top-plates stuck on; this is, more or less, the "neither fish nor fowl page" because there are also Day sporrans with sealskin Evening tassels

[Nathan]

Very interesting catalogues, Richard. So what vintage is that DP/H sporran photo? From the 1960s?

I have been told by some that "semi-dress" sporrans are the appropriate choice and were designed specifically to wear with the semi-formal black barrathea argyll jacket which also occupies the middle ground between the prince charlie coatee and a tweed day jacket. What are your thoughts on that?

If I was wearing that type of jacket to this type of event, would the full dress fur sporran with silver cantle be a little too much or just right?

I find everyone's views on sporran choice interesting and informative so while I'm on the subject: Given the waning popularity of the fur industry, if I was going to be among a particularly activist crowd, what do you think the most appropriate non-fur alternative would be for full dress?

Finally, how do you feel about a black day sporran as opposed to brown for day dress and what type of buckle would you recommend to dress down my belt a little? I've been told something with a brushed finish would be fine, but I'm hesitant about any kind of "plate" style buckle on a black belt.

N