Are kilts getting longer?

[St. Amish]

My kilt is long because it was my first tank, and I didn't know enough about the process to clearly state what I wanted. When length was measured at 22", I thought that was a perfect length to wear just above my navel, and have fall just below the top of my knee. Then they took the 22" and added 2", so if I am to wear my kilt above the knee, I have to pull the top up 4 or 5 inches above my navel. If it's the difference between wearing my waistband in my armpits or covering a couple inches of knee, I'll be covering the knee.

[Ancienne Alliance]

My kilt is long because it was my first tank, and I didn't know enough about the process to clearly state what I wanted. When length was measured at 22", I thought that was a perfect length to wear just above my navel, and have fall just below the top of my knee. Then they took the 22" and added 2", so if I am to wear my kilt above the knee, I have to pull the top up 4 or 5 inches above my navel. If it's the difference between wearing my waistband in my armpits or covering a couple inches of knee, I'll be covering the knee.

It's a shame the kilt maker didn't make that clear when he asked you your measurements.


Best,

Robert

[St. Amish]

It's a shame the kilt maker didn't make that clear when he asked you your measurements.


Best,

Robert

I actually drove to the gentleman's house to avoid measurement issues. I wanted this kilt to be perfect and eliminate any error on my part.

Now I know for the next one. The length is not obscene, just two inches longer than I would have preferred. If I ever wear it in formal style, it doesn't matter where the top is because it's well hidden by 4 layers of clothing.

[bricelythgoe]

I actually drove to the gentleman's house to avoid measurement issues. I wanted this kilt to be perfect and eliminate any error on my part.

Now I know for the next one. The length is not obscene, just two inches longer than I would have preferred. If I ever wear it in formal style, it doesn't matter where the top is because it's well hidden by 4 layers of clothing.

I have had 4 kilts. My first three were relatively inexpensive ones (with USAK casual being the most expensive). After those 3 (and talking A LOT with Alan H) I really got an idea of what I wanted. I then ordered a customer made kilt from Burnett's and Struth. Fit perfect. I did not have anyone in my town who could measure, so it was trial and error.

Brice

[freddie]

I remember a guy in a kiltmakers in Scotland saying to me "Of course if you've got a bit of a tummy on you the kilt will always drop a bit" and I guess that's what's happening here. The only way to avoid this would be to wear braces (suspenders) to keep the kilt at the right level.

[thescot]

I remember a guy in a kiltmakers in Scotland saying to me "Of course if you've got a bit of a tummy on you the kilt will always drop a bit" and I guess that's what's happening here. The only way to avoid this would be to wear braces (suspenders) to keep the kilt at the right level.

No, actually, the straps on the side of the kilt will keep it at the proper level when adjusted tight. That is assuming that the kilt fits correctly to start with.

We of more generous girth know this. Only when you loosen the straps on a properly fitted kilt will it slide down on the hips.

And, in my opinion, looks deplorable. As said above, it looks more like cross dressing, but that floats your boat, so be it. Of course, I also detest "shorts" that are not shorts but are actually coullots, and any form or trousers that allow the posterier to protrude, but that's just me.

I wear mine just to the top of the knee cap--or a bit above--and I like it that way. In fact, for real walking or hiking, a longer kilt is pretty pesky as it tends to hit the back of my calves.

C'est la vie.

[McMurdo]

So, you are saying you know for sure that the kilts worn were their own. You never indicated that in the first post. If so I would assume they were wearing the kilt too low, not that the the kilts were being made longer. Any kilt maker I've ever dealt with would not intentionally make the kilt too long. As for the photo above as it is solders I'd have to say that the kilts worn were most likely not made for them, therefore, it would be difficult to use that photo as a guide.

[Highland Logan]

As for the photo above as it is solders I'd have to say that the kilts worn were most likely not made for them, therefore, it would be difficult to use that photo as a guide.

Very standard for the Army... either too big or too small. Quarter Masters always have the best humour.

Frank

[Cavebear58]

12345

[St. Amish]

So, you are saying you know for sure that the kilts worn were their own. You never indicated that in the first post. If so I would assume they were wearing the kilt too low, not that the the kilts were being made longer. Any kilt maker I've ever dealt with would not intentionally make the kilt too long. As for the photo above as it is solders I'd have to say that the kilts worn were most likely not made for them, therefore, it would be difficult to use that photo as a guide.

http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/gen..._Rulations.pdf

For argument's sake, I'm going to point out that if this document is the RROS equivalent of the United States Army's AR 670-1, then it would be the strictest standard. The fellows in this guide would be wearing garments that are fitted properly. They aren't candid photos from a battlefield.

There are at least two fellows in this document, the STANDARD of RROS military uniform who are wearing their kilts at or just below the kneecap. In two of the photos provided, the kilt very nearly TOUCHES the top of the hose. I would charge that the writers of the document didn't care that the kilts were worn so low, or they would have corrected it in the military regulation manual.

I personally like the kilt higher. I like to show off my knees. I don't think it's the end of the world when I see someone with their kilt slightly lower. Halfway down the shin is ridiculous. Anywhere near the kneecap, and I don't take a second look.