Kilt Suit and sporran..or not?

[ccga3359]

I say sporran even with the pockets. Nothing ruins the lines of a suit more than bulky items in the pockets.

[Panache]

I would suggest following Hamish's excellent advice!

Cheers

Jamie :ootd:

[St. Amish]

I would go with the sporran. I don't think a kilt apron looks right without one.

[Asser 1]

I would also take all of Hamish's advice as well. With it you would have a flawless look.

[caig]

Your suit is great the way it is. The modern kilt suit does not need a sporran, especially as the jacket pockets can contain all the necessities. However, a plan sporran as Hamish suiggests would not look out of place. So I suppose the answer is - do what pleases you. Personally, I would not wear a sporran.

[MacRobert's Reply]

In the 18th Century, kilts (both great and small), jackets, waistcoats and hose were often made of the same cloth. So the kilt suit has some historical provenance. The neck of the jacket looks somewhat 18th Century – hints of a Sherrifmuir. Back then, a sporran, generally hanging from the main belt that secured the kilt but sometimes from a separate strap, was the norm. So a sporran would seem quite appropriate with a 21st century version.

The rule of thumb for sporrans tends to be plain leather for day wear when an Anglo-Saxon lounge suit would be worn; some silver trim and fur for formal day wear when morning dress would be worn; and a full fur sporran with a silver cantle for evening wear (black or white tie).

The first or second option should work well with your suit.

As others have suggested, garter flashes would be good but I am not convinced that a kilt belt is appropriate with a waistcoat … although I increasingly see the two worn together in Scotland, and in the 18th Century they were both worn when the belt held the kilt together.

But you probably know all this already and I am new to this forum – so sorry if I'm teaching granny to suck eggs!

Nice suit, by the way

Iain