Interesting letter

[beloitpiper]

Actually, by Mr. Edmond's statements, he would consider your kilts too long. He states they should be 1 - 1.5" ABOVE the knee cap. Your's coming to the top of the knee would be longer.

Whoops! You're right! That's what I meant.

[Jock Scot]

Whilst clearing a heap of junk from my office I came accross a letter that some of you may be interested in.It was wriiten by a Mr.Charles Edmond from Argyll and the letter was published in the Scottish Field magazine in Oct 2002.
My words in brackets.

Are Kilts Too Long?

Why is it that post war(WW2) wearers of the kilt seem to have developed a tendency to have them made, and worn, far too long?I have worn the kilt regularly since schooldays some 70-odd years ago, and we were instructed always to have the kilt worn at least an inch, to an inch-and-a-half above the kneecap, and to allow five-and-a-half inches between the top of the stockings and the bottom of the kilt. In short, we always had to have five to six inches of leg showing, or if you knelt down on the floor, one-and-a-half inches clear should always be seen.

One only needs to look, however, at today's wedding photographs to see how trollopy some kilt-wearers look with kilt and stockings almost meeting each other.

Does this phenomenon arise because the kilt makers of today's generation have not themselves been properly brought up in the wearing of the kilt, or simply don't know what is correct? Or does it arise from the fact that the kilt is no longer an obligatory garment at school, or in some of the armed forces, or what used to be the OTU(Officers Training Unit) where we were all obliged to wear the kilt? What a pity we can't get it right.C.E 2002


Food for thought,perhaps?

Alright I know this is an old thread of mine, but I guess that many new members(old members too) may not have seen this.It may raise a comment or two?

[Mael Coluim]

Gh, my gosh sir! I think I got it right. Except for those long days when the kilt may have moved down a bit.

[Sir William]

Jock -

Wecome back and thanks for resurrecting the thread.

I was always told no higher than above the kneecap and no lower than mid-knee. My first two kilts measured to mid-knee but now my personal preference is just above the kneecap. And, I like my hose about 3-4 inches below the knee, which gives about a six-inch space between kilt and hose.

When I was measured for one of my kilts in Edinburgh in 2006, the salesman suggested wanted to measure me to mid-knee but I insisted at the top of the knee - which he implied was too short. I thought nothing of it until I ordered another kilt from a major kilt maker at one of our major games and the Scottish representative also suggested it should measured to mid-knee.

I personally think a kilt worn below the knee presents a very poor appearance - but each to their own (fashion) taste.

I would also tend to agree with a previous comment about wedding photographs - how many are wearing hired kilts or perhaps a loaner from a relative?

[Rex_Tremende]

It appears that hemlines everywhere have been sinking for a long time.

If things continue on this trend, it won't be long before we measure our kilts by the distance from the ankle.

Welcome back, Jock. We've missed you.

Regards,
Rex.

[Scotus]

Does this phenomenon arise because the kilt makers of today's generation have not themselves been properly brought up in the wearing of the kilt, or simply don't know what is correct?

I think "yes" to both of these.

If things continue on this trend, it won't be long before we measure our kilts by the distance from the ankle.

LOL!

[KFCarter]

Welcome back, sir, you've been missed. And thank you for bringing this thread back. I thought I had seen more knee in some older photos. I have to say that it feels off to me if the kilt isn't brushing the kneecap a bit, but that's just my "feeling" and not based in any knowledge. I do think a kilt looks better a bit on the short side than when worn too long.

[JolyStNicholas]

Welcome back ya ol rogue! Ya been missed dearly. Hope to have ya back in full swing soon.

[Cynthia]

I'm not fond of kilts that are too long. It just doesn't look right to my eye. I also had noticed hose that's too high also bugs me. I tend to prefer top-of-the-knee kilt length. As I said, I also prefer the hose not so high that it looks like the man is all hose and kilt. One of the things I love about the kilt is that the kilt accents the shape of the man, and the hose also has a nice way of highlighting a man's legs as well -- it's all very masculine to me, and works well, I think. Throw off the balance, and it looks weird to me.

Of course, if that's what someone wants to do, that's fine and they should do what they want. I just know what I personally prefer and what seems to look right to my eye and since we're discussing it, well there's my opinion

[JSFMACLJR]

I find it quite amusing to see all these chaps going about with almost NO skin showing between hose-top and kilt-bottom.

Someone hit on the problem of poorly fitted kilts that "move about," causing them to start the day perhaps at the right length, but swiftly dropping down. I believe there is a lot to this, although the lion's share of the blame rests with the so called experts who measure customers and insist that the correct length is mid-knee.

I find a kilt that is too long chafes and rubs at the back of the knee, especially if one is shooting or hiking.