which bonnet

[Tarheel]

Jock, I think that a Glengarry (not worn as often by the public as other loose and soft hats) in America, suggests authority or official capacity. Pipe bands and soldiers are seen with them more and usually obtain the publics attention. That is how I view your query.

[Father Bill]

I agree that ordinarily I would not consider wearing any hat while wearing the PC. However it is going to be quite cold on the waterfront and I am wearing my hair very short these days and for some reason my volunteer's baseball cap just doesn't seem the proper cover to wear.

That being the case, a Glen for looks but a Balmoral for warmth - after all, it covers the top of your right ear!

[OC Richard]

1901 style clothing... I have been asked to be in full formal kilt wear with PC jacket

Late to this thread, but I don't think the Prince Charlie Coatee existed at that time. In the 1920s it was being spoken of as a quite recent thing.

The formal jacket would have been the Doublet, which we call the Regulation Doublet today. It was by far the most common Highland formal jacket from the mid-19th century up through the 1920s when it was supplanted by a number of new Evening jacket styles (Prince Charlie Coatee, Kenmore Doublet, Montrose Doublet, Sheriffmuir Doublet). The old Doublet was afterwards regarded as oldfashioned.

This is not a criticism directed at you or anyone else in particular, but I can't help but notice how frequently here in the USA functions which are set in various time periods of the past are attended by people in modern Highland Dress, as if Highland Dress exists in a strange timeless world not connected to the progression of time in the Real World.

Examples are Dickens Balls, Civil War Balls, Colonial Balls, and so forth, inevitably attended by men wearing Highland Dress all or in part of the style which didn't appear until around 1920.

Anyhow here's a c1900 outfit with the fashionable high collar and long tie. Yes I know this guy is a piper, but the only thing that you wouldn't see on a non-piper's outfit are the wings on the shoulders of the doublet.

It was very popular at this time for doublets to have trim as you see here. Long hair sporrans were universally worn. Glengarries were very popular amongst civilians, both pipers and non-pipers. Balmorals became all the rage in the 1930s through the 1970s, Glengarries then being relegated to the military, mostly. Before around 1930 this was not the case, with Glengarries and Balmorals being equally popular in civilian dress.



Here are a number of kilted people in 1909. Note the trimmed doublets, long hair sporrans, etc. Yes the guy in the middle is a piper, the others are not, and all are dressed in the style of the period. Twenty years later this sort of dress would be regarded as hopelessly out of date, twenty or thirty years earlier and the doublets would probably all be plain.

In the centre group of three note that only the piper is wearing a Glengarry, and that the piper's sporran isn't a long hair one, but a large short-fur one. In the group of three to the left note the guy in the Day Dress of the period.

[Mike_Oettle]

While Phil’s question has been thoroughly answered both by experts including Jock Scot and by Phil himself, I thought I would add a note about the formality of bonnets.
A lot of discussion has centred on whether a glengarry is more formal than a tam o’shanter or a balmoral, but little mention has been made of the style of the particular bonnets.
Both glens and balmorals can be purchased with dicing or without, whereas tams rarely have dicing. (At the same time, I know of no law forbidding it.)
To my mind a diced bonnet is more formal, whereas a plain-coloured one is less so.
I certainly regard my own tam (in bottle green) as being relatively informal, although I would not be ashamed of wearing it (out of doors, that is) in any company.
I have no plans to acquire a diced bonnet in any form, although I may at some point purchase a Clan Claus bonnet.
I do plan to purchase a royal blue balmoral which, largely because it will be new, alongside my tam which has lost some of its colour, will be smarter, but there would be little difference in the degree of formality.

[OC Richard]

Both in The Highlanders Of Scotland (1860s) and in the large collection of vintage photos I've amassed it can be seen that throughout the second half of the 19th century and well into the 20th nearly all the bonnets, both Balmorals and Glengarries, worn by civilians are plain.

Dicing was mostly confined to the military, and not all of them: two of the five post-1809 kilted Highland regiments wore plain Glengarries (The Black Watch and the Cameron Highlanders).

[LANCER1562]

Phil,
My wife and I really like the outfit you wore for the evening. The Glengarry looks great with the Prince Charlie. We were wondering what tartan your kilt and fly plaid are.

[sailortats]

Thanks for the complement Robert. The kilt and fly plaid are Stewart Hunting in the ancient colorway. It is the first kilt I owned.

[Leprechaun 91]

...but I can't help but notice how frequently here in the USA functions which are set in various time periods of the past are attended by people in modern Highland Dress, as if Highland Dress exists in a strange timeless world not connected to the progression of time in the Real World...

I have to agree.

All too often we see here, in this very forum, discussions that try to lock the kilt into what is "traditionally worn."

Often we fail to remember that the kilt as we know it today is a very recent creation.
It is an evolution from the "great kilt" which evolved to the "Small Plaid", and then became the tailored garment we wear today.

As for "Rules", do we not remember that the kilt as it was originally worn was often one of the only bits of garb our ancestors owned. They wore it with whatever top was available or they could afford. They worie it for work, weddings, funerals, and war. "Piper's Hose", White hose, flashes, even the Sporran are all fairly new. Even the American adoption of the "Tuxedo" which today is seen as "formal" is really a step down in formality from what was worn in the late 19 century. ... Fashion moves on. Trends change.

Fashion evolves. Style is knowing the "rules" and choosing to follow or break them to suit your personal taste. New fibers, sewing techniques and technology make it possible to do things with a garment we have never done before. I am of the mind that "just because it can be done does not mean it should" but I am also all for allowing a man to choose for himself how he should conduct minself with respect to how he adorns his body. I believe in being respectful of an event and tryingto dress in an appropriate manner. (Let's call it convention.)

If the goal is to keep to a specific form of historical dress then keeping to that period in order to be correct is an altogether different discussion to whether one hat is right or wrong. If it is truly intended to be a reenactment then attention to authenticity and historical accuracy are important.

The OP looked quite smartly put together. He dressed with intention and presented himself with confidence and , dare I say, Panache. That he wore a Glengary rather than a Bal or a TOS is of little consequence. He looked well turned out. Those who do not study such things will have no idea at all what would be considered "proper" with the kilt anyway.

...

I apologize for the rant. It sometimes bubbles up. I guess my bottom line is that I respect those who make the chouce to wear the kilt. If it's on backwards, I will certainly help to inform but I couldn't care less what shoes, socks, hats, or shirts are worn.

End Rant.

Happy new Years Rabble!

[Jock Scot]

I agree with much of what you say, however this is a kilt website and more specifically the question by the OP was posted on a kilt advice forum. By asking that question on that particular forum does invite and encourage an assortment of opinion. It is the very reason for this particular forum to exist. What the OP decides to do with those opinions that are freely given is entirely down to him. For the rest of us an interesting and civil conversation ensued and with the added bonus that these conversations may assist others in their future attire decisions. I personally see no problem with any of that.

[Leprechaun 91]

For the rest of us an interesting and civil conversation ensued and with the added bonus that these conversations may assist others in their future attire decisions. I personally see no problem with any of that.

Agreed. and thank you for your tolerance of my rant. Especially for your measured response.

I consult often to try and determine not just what is "acceptable" but to see what is conventional. As I said above, "Style" is knowing the "rules" and then deciding what to do with them.

Much like your signature implies. Thanks as always, Jock.

David