Waist Coat Length?

[K. MacRuadh]

No offense intended, but is that the sporran you'll be wearing? I think the occasion calls for something a little nicer. Maybe a semi-dress sporran....not too much bling but a little nicer than a plain day wear? I understand the budget is strapped but maybe you could borrow one?

Congrats on the "public" wedding!



Kev

[Dan R Porter]

I will be wearing an Irish Saffron kilt so I was thinking of wearing no sporran at all. I also dislike those horsehair/fur sporrans, I just find them ugly. So maybe if I can save up some more $$$ I will get a little fancier leather sporran. I am not the flashy type.

[Bugbear]

... So maybe if I can save up some more $$$ I will get a little fancier leather sporran. I am not the flashy type.

There you go, Dan. I can relate to that

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Dan,
Everything looks fine. Your outfit is perfect-- even the sporran. Take the extra $20 and buy a bottle of bubbly. Don't bother with a three-button waistcoat right now. Especially if you aren't going to wear a bow tie. Long ties with 3 button waistcoats look dorkey. Now go put everything back on the hanger, pour yourself a cuppa coffee, and chill out in front of the TV. You look great.

[Colonel MacNeal]

Back to the original question - the waistcoat should be long enough to cover the top of the kilt, especially on the sides. I frequently see white shirts peeking out from under the waistcoat, and it looks terrible. I don't know about highland wear, but in regular black tie and white tie, the waistcoat should be slightly longer in front than the tails jacket.

[Fougasse]

Back to the original question - the waistcoat should be long enough to cover the top of the kilt, especially on the sides. I frequently see white shirts peeking out from under the waistcoat, and it looks terrible. I don't know about highland wear, but in regular black tie and white tie, the waistcoat should be slightly longer in front than the tails jacket.

Col Mac, I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of you post, but not the second part. In regular/Highland, white/black tie the waistcoat should never extend below the bottom of the tailcoat, or Highland equivelant.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Col Mac, I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of you post, but not the second part. In regular/Highland, white/black tie the waistcoat should never extend below the bottom of the tailcoat, or Highland equivelant.

Quite so. Although the fashion in the Regency period was to show several inches of the waistcoat below the front hem of the jacket (which was buttoned) once the "modern" dress jacket became the norm waistcoats were shortened so that they were the same length as the jacket. For well over a century the waistcoat-- be it white or black-- has generally remained the same length as the coat. This applies to Highland, as well as civilian, attire.

[JSFMACLJR]

[IMG] I don't know about highland wear, but in regular black tie and white tie, the waistcoat should be slightly longer in front than the tails jacket.

I am afraid I cannot agree with this point, Colonel.

[Colonel MacNeal]

Perhaps there is a miscommunication. This is a photo from Eire which shows the arrangement which I described. Although it is a white tie & tails example, this waistcoat length would work for black tie & tails as well.

[JSFMACLJR]

Perhaps there is a miscommunication. This is a photo from Eire which shows the arrangement which I described. Although it is a white tie & tails example, this waistcoat length would work for black tie & tails as well.

Black tie and tails? What, for servants?