great photo of high-rise Army kilt

[Paul Henry]

Roddy,
Kilts can be hemmed without much of a problem, but there are some who frown upon this, but I think it can be done almost invisibly and it is often done without most people noticing. The only occasion wehre there might be an issue with a band or uniform where the "sett" might be at different levels on different men, but if if it a personal kilt I don't think there woud be a problem.
I would really hesitate to cut fabric off the bottom of the kilt preferring to fold it back and hand sew, and re press carefully
In an ideal world the kilt would be shortened from the top, but this means almost rebuilding the entire kilt so a very costly process , so seldom done.

[Chas]

but I think it can be done almost invisibly and it is often done without most people noticing.

I agree with Paul. I have a McLeod Hunting which I like to wear when long distance driving. There is a 2" hem. Even after I tell people that it is hemmed, they don't believe it. I usually have to show them.

[TheOfficialBren]

I wonder if that the man in the top photo is a very short man hiking his government issued kilt farther up to compensate for his short stature and wear the bottom at his unit's regulation height? I'm using his sporran as a frame of reference.

[OC Richard]

I wonder if that the man in the top photo is a very short man hiking his government issued kilt farther up to compensate for his short stature and wear the bottom at his unit's regulation height? I'm using his sporran as a frame of reference.

I think that's exactly what it is. I get the impression- I could be wrong- that at least in some regiments they issued all the kilts the same length regardless of the man's stature, so on short men the thing came up nearly to the armpits!

Trouble is, very few 19th century/early 20th century photos show Army kilts being worn without jackets. Here's one which likewise shows extremely high kilts



Note why these Army kilts need that 3rd buckle, and why modern kilts don't: the 3rd buckle is at more or less the same location as the top buckles on a low-waisted modern civilian kilt.

[artificer]

"No Punching Below the Buckle"

ith:

[CMcG]

...

Note why these Army kilts need that 3rd buckle, and why modern kilts don't: the 3rd buckle is at more or less the same location as the top buckles on a low-waisted modern civilian kilt.

Ah ha! That makes a lot of sense

[TheOfficialBren]

I think that's exactly what it is. I get the impression- I could be wrong- that at least in some regiments they issued all the kilts the same length regardless of the man's stature, so on short men the thing came up nearly to the armpits!

Trouble is, very few 19th century/early 20th century photos show Army kilts being worn without jackets. Here's one which likewise shows extremely high kilts



Note why these Army kilts need that 3rd buckle, and why modern kilts don't: the 3rd buckle is at more or less the same location as the top buckles on a low-waisted modern civilian kilt.

Quite right but look at the boxing photo again. Knees are fully covered and the man on the right's kilt doesn't ride as high as the man n the left. If you imagine him standing erect as his opponent is doing you will notice that he is actually a slight bit taller. His kilt top rests below his opponent's in anatomical terms.

I think that they truly did issue one-size-length kilts. It would have been more economical in those days, I would think.

I could be completely wrong, though.

Military kilts are VERY high-rise, though. Not sure I would enjoy one on a hot day but in the dead of winter, you betcha!

Great thread, Richard!

[Altenberg Bagpiper]

My understanding is that in Victorian times each regiment had a group of soldiers who worked part-time under the quartermaster as tailors. These tailors would also be trained as kilt makers. Officers had to buy there own uniforms but the kilts of ORs would be made by these soldiers. The quartermaster would supply the tartan material and they would make kilts, plaids, bagpipe covers, tartan pipe ribbons, and alter and repair items. I think that is why you see such an extreme high rise in some of the old photos. First, the rise wasn't standardized like today, and I've read that they used the full 27" width of the cloth as a cost saving measure as well as to keep the kidneys warm. Second, since the military kilt was normally worn with a military doublet/jacket which was fairly short in total length, the kilt rise had to be higher to ensure there was no gap between the kilt and doublet. Some of the old photos are pretty funny because on a short person a kilt with a total length of 27" could come up to their nipple line.

[TheOfficialBren]

Ah! Thank you for your insight, Altenberg Bagpiper. I did not know that. I suspect that your assertion is probably the correct one.