High rise military kilts

[jhockin]

In another thread:
( http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=80390 ),
One post states that: "Military kilts usually had a very high "rise" meaning that they were high-waisted, coming up to the ribs. The total length of military kilts used to be 27" regardless of the height of the man the kilt was issued to. "
I'm wondering if this is still true, "in the modern era", and if it may be a reason why we sometimes see both regular troops, and cadets, wearing kilts well down past their knees ... As a result of being given the first kilt that fits their waist, but the straps and buckles not being moved, so that the bottom of their kilt hangs at or above their knees? Any thoughts?

[The Wizard of BC]

I have a brand new, still with the basting stitches, Royal Regt. of Scotland kilt here in my shop.
It has the same 2" rise found on almost every other modern traditionally made kilt.

The Rise of a kilt is the distance from the center of the top buckle and strap, up to the top of the kilt. (Drop is from the top buckle down to the hem)

All traditionally made kilts are supposed to be worn with the top strap and buckle cinched into the natural waist which is right under the ribs. A kilt worn at the natural waist will have the top of the kilt about two or three fingers width below the bottom of the sternum.

This is quite a bit higher than men today wear pants. Many kilt wearers do not understand that traditional kilt are supposed to be worn this high and attempt to wear them like pants.
This causes the bottom of Fell and the Hem to drop down.

Another issue that may contribute to this is that the kilt should taper in from the hip to the top straps and them flare back out above the straps. On the RRS kilt I have this was not done. The smallest part of the kilt is the waistband. If this kilt is worn it will always try to slide down till the smallest part of the kilt is at the smallest part of the body.

[OC Richard]

You can't see it very often in photos, because the soldiers are usually wearing jackets. And when you can see the entire kilt you can't be sure of the kilt's length because you don't know how tall that particular soldier was.

But here you can see a kilt that surely must be made from the entire width of tartan, and worn by a rather short man



Here's another rare pic of soldiers without their jackets



As far as 'the modern era' goes, that would mean, in Scotland, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, and judging from the RRS kilts I've seen sold on Ebay, they have a rise more similar to modern civilian kilts.

Here's the Drum Major of the Argylls, probably in the 1990s. I don't know how tall this man is, but you can see that the kilt comes fairly high on him, though not as high as in 'the old days' seen above.



Here's the problem with Royal Regiment of Scotland kilts being sold on Ebay... the 'drop' and 'rise' aren't listed on army kilts!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ROYAL-REGI...item2a35510f7b

The formula is total man's height/waist circumference/hip circumference.

[The Wizard of BC]

I think the problem we are dealing with is how we use the word 'Rise".

In the quoted post;
"Military kilts usually had a very high "rise" meaning that they were high-waisted, coming up to the ribs. The total length of military kilts used to be 27" regardless of the height of the man the kilt was issued to. "

The bold section of this sentence is not incorrect but may be misleading.
Some do indeed use the word 'rise' to mean where on the body a kilt is worn but in fact, when we are talking about kilts, it refers to where the straps are placed when the kilt is made.
The straps should cinch into the natural waist regardless of where the kilt is worn on the body. If the kilt needs to be worn higher, due to the height of the wearer, then the straps are placed lower. The rise still refers to the distance from the straps up to the top of the kilt, so yes, the kilt wold have a longer "rise".

Here is a pic of one of my traditionally made kilts being worn at the natural waist where it was designed and made to fit. The top pencil is pointing to the bottom of my breastbone and the lower pencil is pointing to my navel.



This kilt has a modern 2" rise. The strap and buckle is cinched into my natural waist. The top of this kilt is actually riding up over my short ribs and is at about the kidney level.
This is why the kilt must flare out above the straps & buckles.

This also shows one of the reasons why I try not to reference the navel when describing how a kilt fits. I prefer to refer to the natural waist or the hip bones. The relative position of the navel can change in relation to the waist depending on the wearers weight. The bones don't change though.

[TheOfficialBren]

Steve, thank you for sharing your professional expertise. I've wondered about this. Does a (ahem) tummy affect this? My winter tummy is shrinking.

[unixken]

Steve, thank you for sharing your professional expertise. I've wondered about this. Does a (ahem) tummy affect this? My winter tummy is shrinking.

The natural waist is based on the skeleton, not necessarily on the mass that surrounds it. Your natural waist is shown in the pic below, regardless of how much weight you carry...

[The Wizard of BC]

I have posted my measuring video before and it is a sticky in the Freedom Kilts section.
But this is a pretty good explanation of the different places you can wear the waist of a kilt.

Please note that I use the word 'rise' when talking about where the waistband is worn. I am using the other definition of 'rise' here.

You don't have to watch the entire video. The part explaining the natural waist is found at 4:40 and goes through 7:15.



Notice that I do not reference the navel at all. I talk about where the kilt sits naturally in reference to your back.

This works for almost every body type. I've used this on guys weighing less than 100 lbs and guys upwards of 350 lbs with very prominent bellies.