Extending use of my military kilt beyond formal events

**Tobus** · 28th August 18, 05:05 AM

The high rise of a military kilt can look perfectly normal on some folks who have longer torsos, while it can make shorter people with higher hips and shorter torsos (like me) look out of proportion. For that reason, I usually will only wear my military kilt in the cooler months of the year when I can wear something over it: a waistcoat, light shell jacket/windbreaker, jumper/sweater or the like. In the hot months, that kilt is a little too warm for me to wear anyway, even with nothing over it. I'll be honest - it can be a real challenge to wear a military kilt due to that rise.

If you want to wear your military kilt in warm weather, or don't otherwise want to cover the top, it just takes some experimentation to find the right look. As others said, there's nothing inherently formal about a high-rise kilt, and I assume you just want the aesthetics or proportions to work for you. Certain types of shirts can work well with a military kilt since they can change the visual proportions. A khaki shirt with a back vent (known around here as a "fishing shirt") can tend to blouse out a little more than a traditional shirt, which is an interesting approach to making the high rise of the kilt stand out less.

I've found that wearing a high rise military kilt as a civilian often comes across better without a belt, and just a sporran. The belt tends to highlight the rise, where just a sporran tends to draw the eye a little lower, if that makes any sense. McMurdo posted some photos recently that stuck in my mind as a good example, and I know he's about my height. See this thread: http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...lection-94134/

**MenOfTheNorth** · 28th August 18, 05:29 AM

Thanks for the additional suggestions. As the first snows have landed on the tops of the Rocky Mountains just west of here - it's August, for Pete's sake - and morning temperatures are already into the single digits Celsius, being over-warm is less of an issue for this year now.

I'll try blousing my shirts, and skipping the belt as treatments.

**McMurdo** · 29th August 18, 02:13 AM

This is a Military kilt and it looks just like any other with my jacket on, as for a belt I never bother with one, as the military kilts fit snug as it is, so like the suggestion of leaving it off. I do not however like to flounce my shirts, personal preference there but I do not mind the high waist of a military kilt.

**Ivor** · 29th August 18, 12:11 PM

Now I am puzzled. What is the difference between everyday kilts and “military” kilts? I know that kilts are fitted to the natural waist, a little higher than trousers normally, but are “military” kilts higher again?

**Tobus** · 29th August 18, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Ivor

Now I am puzzled. What is the difference between everyday kilts and “military” kilts? I know that kilts are fitted to the natural waist, a little higher than trousers normally, but are “military” kilts higher again?

The rise is the distance between the straps and the top of the kilt. A military kilt is designed to wear with the straps at the same place as a civilian kilt (the natural waist), but it extends higher up the rib cage than a civilian kilt. A typical civilian kilt may have a 1-1/2" rise above the straps, for example, where military kilts can have 3" or even 4" rise above the straps.

There are other differences too, such as the yardage, wool weight, pleating (usually a "military box pleat" which is much more complex than a knife-pleated civilian style kilt), buckle styles, etc.

**Tobus** · 25th September 18, 12:10 PM

Ivor, this thread sort of died after my last post and I was wondering if your question was answered satisfactorily.

As I was looking at some photos I took last night, it occurred to me that this was a visual example of what I was talking about in previous posts in this thread. Specifically, the high rise of the military kilt (which I am wearing below). I tend to like to wear my military kilt with a waistcoat over it so the rise isn't so pronounced. But you can still see where the top of the kilt is in my photo by the way it "prints" through my waistcoat.

As you can see, there is quite a bit of rise above my natural waist (where the top straps are) and the top border of the kilt. It rides much higher than my civilian kilts. But on the bright side, one of the advantages of a military kilt is that the higher rise helps reduce the "muffin top" effect when you cinch your kilt down pretty tightly. I'm finding that to be very helpful these days...

**McMurdo** · 25th September 18, 12:23 PM

I wore the same military today but without a waistcoat, this shows the high rise of a military kilt

**Allan Thomson** · 26th September 18, 12:42 AM

Having started out with military kilts I still don't totally get why the rise is felt to be such a problem anyway? I think it helps the kilt stay at the correct height much better than one cut to a civilian waist.

If I ever get my ambition of having a Dress Thomson Kilt made it will be to the Military Waist and military box pleated to the stripe...

**Tobus** · 26th September 18, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Allan Thomson

Having started out with military kilts I still don't totally get why the rise is felt to be such a problem anyway? I think it helps the kilt stay at the correct height much better than one cut to a civilian waist.

I agree that the rise on a military kilt helps it conform to one's shape. It isn't the fit that bothers me about it. It's purely an aesthetic issue with proportions. Wearing a regular kilt at the natural waist is already much higher than where people wear their trousers these days, and takes some getting used to. But adding the extra rise of a military kilt can make one feel that they're wearing the kilt up to their armpits, and it drastically changes the proportions between how much shirt is showing versus how much kilt is below it. For short-torso fellows like myself, it can be a challenge to make it work with regular shirts and ties. It just feels strange to wear a shirt where the breast pocket is halfway covered up by the kilt, and it takes some experimentation to make a tie short enough without looking strange. It's not a "problem" per se, but it just requires a different expectation on proportions.

Military kilts are better suited to tall lanky fellows, and shorter people like myself have to find ways not to highlight our shortness. Proportionality has a lot to do with that, which is why I think it looks better when I wear a waistcoat over it to even those proportions back out.

**Allan Thomson** · 26th September 18, 08:23 AM

The thing is whilst I was always slim & have proportionately long legs, short torso is definitely a description that could be applied to me & I don't remember the rize being quiet as extreme as you're saying & the Argyll's kilt I had was for a bigger man as I had to belt it to stop it slipping from the above the knee position. I would have said the rise was to under rib cage level but.nowhere near covering my shirt pocket.

I did tend to go for wearing it with a waistcoat though and I did fold the shirt over and secured it with a belt if not wearing one so that could have played a part?