Less Can Be More

[creagdhubh]

So, I've been educated that it is not absolutely essential
to "tic all of the boxes".

Thanks,

-Don

Right you are, Don!

[CMcG]

So, I've been educated that it is not absolutely essential
to "tic all of the boxes".

Thanks,

-Don

Thread mission accomplished

[TheOfficialBren]

I, for one, have certainly learned a lot from this thread and have found it to be wholly entertaining and enlightening.

I get the impression (and plse do feel free to correct any potential misinterpretation on my part) that "how it's done" is not one cookie-cutter uniform to fit all but rather to be yourself while respecting the traditions of our forebears. To some of us who didn't grow up with these traditions and are having to rediscover, revive, and resurrect them it can be a challenge. Men like Jock, Kyle, and Nathan (SHARP photos, by the way, mate) who have been immersed in THCD from the cradle do it with such finesse and ease. You chaps (and many, many more whom I have omitted for the sake of brevity) have been inspirational and fine examples. Your advice and the candour with which you offer it is one of the things that makes this board great.

I want to thank you gentlemen for helping those of us who are rediscovering our heritage to "get it."

The kilt and its accoutrements do not make the man. They are symbols. We honour our ancestors and keep their memories alive when we don their garb. Without honouring them the symbols are meaningless and are just lovely bits of cloth in that case. With or without our kilts and tartanry we carry their legacy with us daily. Tartan is an outward expression of who we are and who came before us.

I am daily humbled by the insight and guidence offered by the rabble. I apologise if my post seems to ramble a bit and derail the topic but it seemed as good a time as any to share these thoughts and offer my thanks.

[David Thorpe]

...be yourself while respecting the traditions of our forebears...

That sums it up very neatly.

[creagdhubh]

I, for one, have certainly learned a lot from this thread and have found it to be wholly entertaining and enlightening.

I get the impression (and plse do feel free to correct any potential misinterpretation on my part) that "how it's done" is not one cookie-cutter uniform to fit all but rather to be yourself while respecting the traditions of our forebears. To some of us who didn't grow up with these traditions and are having to rediscover, revive, and resurrect them it can be a challenge. Men like Jock, Kyle, and Nathan (SHARP photos, by the way, mate) who have been immersed in THCD from the cradle do it with such finesse and ease. You chaps (and many, many more whom I have omitted for the sake of brevity) have been inspirational and fine examples. Your advice and the candour with which you offer it is one of the things that makes this board great.

I want to thank you gentlemen for helping those of us who are rediscovering our heritage to "get it."

The kilt and its accoutrements do not make the man. They are symbols. We honour our ancestors and keep their memories alive when we don their garb. Without honouring them the symbols are meaningless and are just lovely bits of cloth in that case. With or without our kilts and tartanry we carry their legacy with us daily. Tartan is an outward expression of who we are and who came before us.

I am daily humbled by the insight and guidence offered by the rabble. I apologise if my post seems to ramble a bit and derail the topic but it seemed as good a time as any to share these thoughts and offer my thanks.

Cheers, my friend!

[Angstrom]

Random thoughts on revisiting this thread....

Looking at the photos of the royals on the first page, one thing that jumped out at me was the wearing of black shoes with a brown sporran. I would've thought that was "wrong", since I'm used to always matching my belt and shoes, but it's good to know that it's acceptable.

Hose without flashes just doesn't look quite right to me. That small bit of contrasting or complementary color can have a signoficant effect on the overall look.

I generally wear a kilt as the sartorial equivalent of a pair of nice slacks, so a nice button-down shirt (and sweater, depending on weather) seems entirely appropriate to wear with it. In a setting where a sport jacket would be unusual a kilt jacket would feel a bit "costumey."

Going back to the photos, some of those pictured are clearly comfortable in their outfits, and others are not. That air of confidence and ease makes a huge difference to the viewer's impression of the overall look.

[OC Richard]

Black shoes with brown sporran was, at least back in the first half of the 20th century, the most common situation in Day Dress. As I've mentioned before, I was a regular "Highland Dress watcher" for a few years before I saw somebody wearing all matching brown ghillies, sporran, and belt and it looked a bit odd to me. Looks odd to me still, as a matter of fact... I had the Brown Day sporran + black brogues + black belt stamped upon my "eye" so many times.

My vintage Highland Dress catalogues from the 1920s and 1930s only offer brown Day sporrans and do not mention brown brogues or belts.

Scroll down a bit on this page to see my posts showing that black shoes and brown sporrans have been a common combination since 1700

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...ssories-75232/

About flashes, I know they're standard now but in the mid 19th century it was just as common to not have visible flashes.

I just looked over dozens of photos of men in Highland Dress from the 1860s through 1890s and most have no flashes visible.

[Angstrom]

About flashes, I know they're standard now but in the mid 19th century it was just as common to not have visible flashes.

I just looked over dozens of photos of men in Highland Dress from the 1860s through 1890s and most have no flashes visible.

Interesting. It makes sense, though -- flashes would just get snagged walking in tall grass or brush. It'd make more sense to keep your garters or ties tucked under your hose tops if you spent much time outdoors.

Are flashes a military development that transferred to civilian wear?

[CMcG]

...

Hose without flashes just doesn't look quite right to me. That small bit of contrasting or complementary color can have a signoficant effect on the overall look.

...

Notice just how small the bit of flashes is showing from under Rothesay's hose? Less is more

[Peter Crowe]

Black shoes with brown sporran was, at least back in the first half of the 20th century, the most common situation in Day Dress. As I've mentioned before, I was a regular "Highland Dress watcher" for a few years before I saw somebody wearing all matching brown ghillies, sporran, and belt and it looked a bit odd to me. Looks odd to me still, as a matter of fact... I had the Brown Day sporran + black brogues + black belt stamped upon my "eye" so many times.

My vintage Highland Dress catalogues from the 1920s and 1930s only offer brown Day sporrans and do not mention brown brogues or belts.

Scroll down a bit on this page to see my posts showing that black shoes and brown sporrans have been a common combination since 1700

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...ssories-75232/

About flashes, I know they're standard now but in the mid 19th century it was just as common to not have visible flashes.

I just looked over dozens of photos of men in Highland Dress from the 1860s through 1890s and most have no flashes visible.

A good observation Richard, I must confess I never gave it much thought until I was in 2nd Uddingston Scouts where there was a set of guidelines for wearing the kilt with Scout Uniform, which stated that in uniform we must wear lovat green hose, green flashes, black shoes, brown leather day sporran and Scout belt (brown leather).

I do remember my dad when I was a wee boy wearing a brown sporran and dark tan brogues with the kilt but no belt.

To be honest I have worn both black or brown shoes with the kilt with a brown sporran, whatever was handy at the time.