Belts, a question.

[macwilkin]

If you look at photos of gents in "day attire" from the mid 20th century, you will see quite a few of them wearing tweed kilt jackets and the like with no belts underneath, and it doesn't look bad, INMHO.

I used to be very paranoid about always wearing a belt with a kilt, but now my kilt belt spends most of the time in my closet in a plastic tub. I prefer the "beltless" look, mostly because everyone else wears them!

A good tailored kilt doesn't need a belt to hold it up. But a waistcoat -- it adds a wee bit o'....wait for it...panache!

Cheers,

Todd

[Nanook]

A good tailored kilt doesn't need a belt to hold it up.

I may add: a properly fitting kilt needs to be VERY snug and firm and not to move, shift or bounce about. Only when you suck in your gut and hold your breath should it be movable.

Belts are a difficult terrain. They are within civilian modes of dress nearly always informal. Belts are generally considered as inappropriate to formal or business attire as training shoes. A well dressed gentleman is probably best advised to avoid wearing belts

If one needs a belt to hold up one's pants then one needs no belt but a better tailor! :-)

Belts with kilts are fine with a tweed day jacket but their buckles should typically be either brass or (to be more modern) brushed steel but not polished white metal. Silver buckles are considered more formal where they are, more often than not, out of place.

But a waistcoat -- it adds a wee bit o'....wait for it...panache!

I agree. I tend, however, to like contrast.

[johnnym]

My USA "American Heritage" was tailored to fit (Thanks, Roger) and does not need a belt. Same for the off-the-rack MacKenzie. However, I have an older, solid dark blue generic no-name that has only velcro, no buckles, to securely fasten. Although the velcro holds well, I do not have the secure feeling that the buckles give. Thus, I wear a wide belt with it - just in case.

[Chef]

Belts are a difficult terrain. They are within civilian modes of dress nearly always informal. Belts are generally considered as inappropriate to formal or business attire as training shoes. A well dressed gentleman is probably best advised to avoid wearing belts

If one needs a belt to hold up one's pants then one needs no belt but a better tailor! :-)

I agree for the most part; I have never owned a kilt that required a belt to stay up. Where I disagree is the idea of being dressed with no belt on the kilt. True if you are wearing a PC then you don't need one; when ever I wear a waistcoat (day or evening) or a pull-over I go without the belt; its not seen anyway and it just makes the waistcoast lie badly. However the most formal kilt jacket is arguably one of the variations of the doublet and it absolutley requires a belt. This is my favoutite formal wear.

[Nanook]

I However the most formal kilt jacket is arguably one of the variations of the doublet and it absolutley requires a belt. This is my favoutite formal wear.

The doublet demands a belt--- although it can be worn beltless "out of context" (e.g. as in Pop music fashion)--- but its really a style of (ceremonial) military tunic. The belt is worn over the jacket. Belts here have quite a different tradition. The belt is to the tunic and not to kilt or trews. This is also considered fine style among gentlemen's attire (as much is indeed military inspired and historically designed by the same military tailors) and is mirrored in jacket belts--- what's a "trench coat" without belt?--- to even more casual styles like the "Norfolk" with built-in belt.

[GreenDragon]

Thanks for all your input everybody.