Less Can Be More

[TheOfficialBren]

(snippets)

I like to stand out, but I still try to avoid looking like a cliche.
- - -
It's up to the onlookers to decide for themselves whether or not I succeed, but one thing is for sure, I'm glad we share our views, but I hope we never end up all dressing alike in some kind of quasi-uniform. We can embrace tradition and individual expression simultaneously. Colin and Kyle are great examples of two gentlemen with a different fashion sense but who both wear the kilt very well and look sharp doing it.

+***!!

I totally agree.

I also agree about that bit about Kyle and Colin. Those two chaps have had some influence on my kilting preferences, along with Jock, Jamie, Tobus, Dale, and umpteen other fellows 'round these parts.

[thescot]

I'm not so sure that would be bad. Especially if they give us rifles and cool mustaches to go with it. Can we work those in?

Rifles, cool moustaches, AND hair sporrans and spats!

Now THAT'S what I 'm talkin' about.

[CMcG]

Rifles, cool moustaches, AND hair sporrans and spats!

Now THAT'S what I 'm talkin' about.

Tobus! Where you at?

[TheOfficialBren]

Seriously! Tobus would be all ober that. Lol. And Panache, too.

[Jock Scot]

With the greatest respect Jock, no matter how many times you repeat this on the forum, it still won't be true. There are several traditional sources both Military and civilian on kilt wearing that I have shown on other threads on this site that suggest "no lower than mid knee" or "mid knee or higher" or "between the mid knee and top of the knee".

It's perfectly fine to state your preference for an above the knee kilt height but to call it an "absolute" is contrary to the demonstrable published record on the subject.

Whilst at the parade this weekend I made note of the soldiers from some 6 kilted regiments all of whom were clothed sharply to this standard.

The fact is that there is and has been conjecture on this point among traditional sources. Wishing it were not the case won't change that.

Sigh, sigh and sigh again.

We are talking very much the same thing, I think. My "around the top of the knee"(I did not say AT the top of the knee) is not really much different from your definition. Had I said, ----and I nearly did------"around mid knee" then this would have allowed some to interpret, incorrectly (for this discussion), that to mean, lower than mid knee, which would have not come within the wonderfully loose and sometimes unhelpfully imprecise THCD definition.

A few months ago there was an interesting and long running thread going where we tried to define THCD and the best we(me I think) could come up with was " I am not sure I can define it, but I know it when I see it". We must remember we are not talking rigid military dress regulations here----thank goodness------- nevertheless, there are very loose THCD boundaries, all of which are entirely voluntary and should one want to dress in that(THCD) style then one needs to be aware of the pitfalls and one of them is kilt height.

[Domehead]

A few months ago there was an interesting and long running thread going where we tried to define THCD and the best we(me I think) could come up with was " I am not sure I can define it, but I know it when I see it". We must remember we are not talking military dress regulations here----thank goodness--------but nevertheless, there are very loose THCD boundaries, all of which are entirely voluntary and should one want to dress in that(THCD) style then one needs to be aware of the pitfalls and one of them is kilt height.

***...same in our family. Jock, you learned through "Spot the lemon", did you not?

[Jock Scot]

That and a certain amount of ongoing trial and error.

[creagdhubh]

The problem with the traditional kilt attire "look", is that there are huge grey areas in interpretation, so, most confusingly to many, nothing is cast in stone. For example, not wearing a sporran can in some circumstances be traditional, not wearing shoes and hose on the beach whilst paddling can be perfectly traditional, The one "absolute" is kilt height at around the top of the knee, however if you see a picture of a kilted soldier, for example, in the midst of a battle with his kilt being worn rather lower, then well, understandably one is forgiving------actually kilts moving south during a battle would be probably considered as very traditional! So in many ways, it is the overall look and the situation that can define the "traditional look".

***

[creagdhubh]

Exactly. Who was arguing for below the knee?

Anyway... getting back to Colin's thread, he made an excellent point that you can be traditional and subtle at the same time and look classy doing it. I think he's absolutely right.
Like I said, I like to stand out, but I still try to avoid looking like a cliche.

It's up to the onlookers to decide for themselves whether or not I succeed, but one thing is for sure, I'm glad we share our views, but I hope we never end up all dressing alike in some kind of quasi-uniform. We can embrace tradition and individual expression simultaneously. Colin and Kyle are great examples of two gentlemen with a different fashion sense but who both wear the kilt very well and look sharp doing it.

You are a fine example as well, Nathan. Cheers, mate!

Kindest regards,

[Tobus]

Tobus! Where you at?

Watching from a distance, with a bowl of popcorn in my lap...