contemporary dressy/formal

[Ancienne Alliance]

Once again the voices from the chorus must be heard: "Don't worry about matching tweed to tartan!!! Highland gentlemen have little interest in such plebian matters."

Agreed ! Here are more examples of the things I do...








Best,

Robert

[ThistleDown]

Once again the voices from the chorus must be heard: "Don't worry about matching tweed to tartan!!! Highland gentlemen have little interest in such plebian matters."

Actually I have nothing to say about the jacket-kilt combination because I'm quite comfortable with that. The hose are just fine, too. True, the tie should have been left at the outfitters prior to last night's wedding and he should have remembered to bring a different sporran to wear after the sleep-over. But he looks as though he has recovered from the night's debauch, has showered and shaved before having this photygraf taken for the wedding album this morning . That's quite an advace on some of the other lads we've seen on the forum recently. And, I readily admit, on my own memory of mornings-after years ago.

Rex (too)

[Jock Scot]

Once again the voices from the chorus must be heard: "Don't worry about matching tweed to tartan!!! Highland gentlemen have little interest in such plebian matters."

It sounds that at least four of us are singing the same song and what is more, we are in tune!

[OC Richard]

Once again the voices from the chorus must be heard: "Don't worry about matching tweed to tartan!!! Highland gentlemen have little interest in such plebian matters."

Yes I fully agree that we shouldn't worry about matching tweed to tartan. But on the other hand it's better if there's something about the colours that harmonises somehow.

In that particular outfit, there's a bright acidic periwinkle-ishness about that tartan that, to my eye, is totally at odds with the soft olive tones of the jacket.

The kilt, hose, and necktie are setting up one sort of colour scheme, the jacket is setting up another.

The dark blue hose suggest to my eye that a jacket in blue tones might be better.

Robert's examples are lovely.

[CMcG]

I've been reading back over the many pages of this thread and have decided to attempt a bit of a summary. Many thanks to all who have contributed thus far.

The traditionalists, not surprisingly, do not favour this look and have most eloquently expressed themselves on the subject. Their rejection has ranged from constructive criticism to full-on condemnation, so one might be wise to avoid wearing one of these outfits to a gathering of Highland gentlemen!

From those who do like the look, the approuval has extended from general acceptance to conditional approbation. The contemporary flavour and trendiness of the style has been deemed more germane to concerts, parties, clubs, billiards, lounges, dinners, and maybe even some weddings where the social circle is on the younger side of hip.

The contemporary muted colour palette has found favour but the monochromatic look less so, especially when it comes to the lack of differentiation when shirt and flashes are the same colour as jacket and hose.

The ruche tie with wing collar has not fared well and has been deemed overly scrunchy or too reminiscent of kilt hire hegemony. If one were to go with it, a spread collar shirt and self-tied cravat could help obviate the long, poofy neck problem. A regular tie with a big Windsor knot might be a better solution for keeping some of the look, without overdoing it.

The cut and style of the jackets has generally been welcomed by all sides though some debate has arisen about sleeve and body length. As long as the jackets don't go past the fell of ones' kilt, they should be fine. The jury is still out on sleeve length but I personally favour showing some shirt cuff. It adds visual interest and looks sharper... too much shirt cuff makes the jacket look ill-fittingly short though.

The level of formality seems roughly equivalent to a dark suit and could be worn at both day and evening events. These outfits are not formal enough for black tie and too dressed up for casual, so they seem to sit somewhere between those two poles. The very interesting discussion put forth by the rabble has shown how context impacts on dress codes and that these outfits might be more formal than some members will ever go, while remaining too informal-yet-not-quite-casual for others!

With all due respect, I hope I haven't misrepresented anyone. I must admit that my own bias has probably shone through in this summary and therefor I must take responsibility for any errors.

Have I missed anything?

[Jock Scot]

I've been reading back over the many pages of this thread and have decided to attempt a bit of a summary. Many thanks to all who have contributed thus far. The traditionalists, not surprisingly, do not favour this look and have most eloquently expressed themselves on the subject. Their rejection has ranged from constructive criticism to full-on condemnation, so one might be wise to avoid wearing one of these outfits to a gathering of Highland gentlemen! From those who do like the look, the approuval has extended from general acceptance to conditional approbation. The contemporary flavour and trendiness of the style has been deemed more germane to concerts, parties, clubs, billiards, lounges, dinners, and maybe even some weddings where the social circle is on the younger side of hip. The contemporary muted colour palette has found favour but the monochromatic look less so, especially when it comes to the lack of differentiation when shirt and flashes are the same colour as jacket and hose. The ruche tie with wing collar has not fared well and has been deemed overly scrunchy or too reminiscent of kilt hire hegemony. If one were to go with it, a spread collar shirt and self-tied cravat could help obviate the long, poofy neck problem. A regular tie with a big Windsor knot might be a better solution for keeping some of the look, without overdoing it. The cut and style of the jackets has generally been welcomed by all sides though some debate has arisen about sleeve and body length. As long as the jackets don't go past the fell of ones' kilt, they should be fine. The jury is still out on sleeve length but I personally favour showing some shirt cuff. It adds visual interest and looks sharper... too much shirt cuff makes the jacket look ill-fittingly short though. The level of formality seems roughly equivalent to a dark suit and could be worn at both day and evening events. These outfits are not formal enough for black tie and too dressed up for casual, so they seem to sit somewhere between those two poles. The very interesting discussion put forth by the rabble has shown how context impacts on dress codes and that these outfits might be more formal than some members will ever go, while remaining too informal-yet-not-quite-casual for others! With all due respect, I hope I haven't misrepresented anyone. I must admit that my own bias has probably shone through in this summary and therefor I must take responsibility for any errors. Have I missed anything?

You have missed three things. Kilt height, hose height, and inappropriate sporrans.

[MacLowlife]

As one of the old coots so kindly referred to as "traditionalists", I just want to get on board with the patterned jacket gents. I think a subtle check or windowpane is a fine thing with a tartan kilt. Robert, the grey patterned tie is worth le prix d'admssion, pardonnez ma Franglais, svp.

All in all this is an informative and entertaining thread. I thought at first someone had mentioned that the subject had managed to get dressed and shaved for his POLYGRAPH, but I guess that is my own life intruding..,.

[CMcG]

You have missed three things. Kilt height, hose height, and inappropriate sporrans.

Ah yes, thank you sir. In most of the photos the kilts are a little too long and the hose a little too high. I believe the judgement lies not in an appeal to traditional or contemporary values; rather, ladies like to see knees, so don't hide 'em!

As for sporrans and assuming my summary of the level of formality of these outfits is correct, I posit that the most appropriate choice would be a semi-dress sporran with fur but no cantle, a "hunting" sporran with a cantle or studs but no fur, or a fancy daywear sporran with studs, tassles, and patterned detailing. Most of the models are wearing either a dress sporran with fur and cantle (too much) or rather plain daywear sporrans (too little).

I might have missed it but there didn't appear to be a very detailed discussion of the sporrans. Does what I wrote sound about right?

[Jock Scot]

Ah yes, thank you sir. In most of the photos the kilts are a little too long and the hose a little too high. I believe the judgement lies not in an appeal to traditional or contemporary values; rather, ladies like to see knees, so don't hide 'em! As for sporrans and assuming my summary of the level of formality of these outfits is correct, I posit that the most appropriate choice would be a semi-dress sporran with fur but no cantle, a "hunting" sporran with a cantle or studs but no fur, or a fancy daywear sporran with studs, tassles, and patterned detailing. Most of the models are wearing either a dress sporran with fur and cantle (too much) or rather plain daywear sporrans (too little). I might have missed it but there didn't appear to be a very detailed discussion of the sporrans. Does what I wrote sound about right?

Before I reply, let me say that this thread has been very entertaining and interesting. I am delighted to note that the "modernists" have not really succeeded in re-inventing the wheel!

Semi -dress sporrans are neither "fish nor fowl" in my book and I do wish that people who don't know what they are buying, would not talk themselves into parting with their hard earned cash thinking they are making a good compromise. In my view they are not. They would be better, by far, to put their money towards a good day sporran and a good dress sporran. In passing, I was not the only one who passed comment on kilt height, hose height and sporrans.

[Tobus]

Yes I fully agree that we shouldn't worry about matching tweed to tartan. But on the other hand it's better if there's something about the colours that harmonises somehow.

In that particular outfit, there's a bright acidic periwinkle-ishness about that tartan that, to my eye, is totally at odds with the soft olive tones of the jacket.

That is exactly where I was coming from with my comment on the kilt/jacket combination. This may be a case where the olive color in the jacket does match the hue of the tartan perfectly when seen up-close. But from afar, the contrasting colors in the tartan seem to change the hue. And since the jacket is a large area of the same color without the contrasting colors interspersed, the visual effect does not carry through.

As for whether Highland gentlemen shouldn't worry about such things, I won't claim to speak for anyone. But surely there's some level of personal taste involved when choosing what goes with what. Everybody pays attention to color to some degree when picking what they're going to wear. One needn't match perfectly all the time, but that doesn't mean an outfit shouldn't be well coordinated if the wearer doesn't want to look foolish.

I just don't understand how we can be as nit-picky as we are about sleeve length, minute details on jacket cuts, hose length and color, which sporrans go with which style jackets, and all the other minutiae involved in "proper" Highland dress, and then say that color coordination isn't something that should be worried about at all.