kilt hose vs. shooting socks

[Domehead]

Jock Scot,
I agree with your sentiment. I'm simply saying, I asumed that "kilt" hose and "shooting" sock were euphemisms for essentially the same thing. I find it interesting that there seems a structural difference between the two - specific to for a kilt versus, for Plus-4's, say. My initial assumption was born from images of Prince Charles (among other more vintage images) in patterned turn-overs, and the myriad offerings from HoC, New House Highland, et al.

As for me, personally I feel better that my hose position being slightly outside the "norm" (whatever that is) is a construction issue and not an error. After all, my efforts attempt to balance my comfort / confidence with respect for individuals such as you (collectively).

[Tobus]

I think we really are in danger of over-thinking all this. If the turnover is really too long then all that is needed is a nifty fold and the problem is solved. In truth though, so what if the fold is a wee tad too large, the world is hardly going to stop spinning, now is it? The benefit of a large(long) turnover is that the flashes usually only stick out a wee tad which is better, by far, than the "wind-sock" effect.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the world is going to stop spinning. I was just pointing out that I do notice the difference and I prefer the shorter turnover length of kilt hose.

That said, however, I do agree that the benefit is a shorter exposed length of garter. Just as with the Duke of Rothesay above, when I wear my HoC hose, only the tips of my garters show (as seen below), which is a look I much prefer to long tails. I've tried folding the turndown back under, but wasn't overly happy with the result. However, I know one other member here who does it and the results look OK. So I may give that a shot again.

[tulloch]

"The wind sock effect." That is great. I will use that. Thanks Jock.

[OC Richard]

These are shootings socks I got on Ebay



If I do a single turnover the cuffs go halfway down my leg, so I do a double fold thing.

[pugcasso]

some of those products at 'shootingsocks' are nice ... would like to have some of those some day

[M. A. C. Newsome]

As I said before, shooting socks are typically made a bit longer than kilt hose. The only brand I can speak from intimate experience on is House of Cheviot. Their popular Lewis style are kilt hose, and made to be kilt hose. The very similar Rannoch style, on the other hand, are made as shooting socks (which is the lion's share of their business). If you compare the two, the additional length of the shooting sock is incorporated into the band of ribbing between the patterned cuff (turn over) and the leg of the sock. Here's a photo to illustrate.

(The grid lines in the photo are 1" squares).

This is a pair claret Lewis hose next to a pair of brick red Rannoch hose. I've lined up the tops of both. You can see the line of stitching where the cuff is joined to the sock. The sock length is the same -- the extra length is in the cuff, but not the decorative patterned part.

So someone with shorter legs will have a harder time getting the Rannoch hose to the proper height below their knee, but as Jock Scot has said, a simple double fold will fix the problem easily. In fact, it's much easier to deal with the problem of too-long hose than too-short hose! So that makes shooting socks very adaptable as Highland kilt socks.

The length of the cuff (turn over) itself I don't think really matters. There is no set width of kilt hose cuffs, after all. How wide your cuffs are depends on what you like (especially true if you are having your hose hand knit). Some patterns will demand a wider or more narrow turn over. Diced hose, for example, typically have a very narrow cuff, whereas Argyle hose have a wider cuff, necessary to show the diamond pattern. The hose being worn in the above photo by Prince Charles are not repurposed shooting socks, but kilt hose, made as such. He has all his kilt hose hand knit for him, so doubtless they were made exactly how he wanted them to be.

The way most plain colored kilt hose are made, the width of the cuff when worn depends on the length of the wearer's leg, by my observation (and how much the hose have shrunk in the wash). People just turn down the cuff where it suits them, or where they are able to. With a patterned cuff, it's a little more obvious where it is supposed to turn down, but even then you have some wiggle room.

[opositive]

is there a functional reason for shooting socks having a longer top? "staying more secure" i do not think would apply since garters often come with them.

[Downunder Kilt]

Shooting socks are made to be worn with plus 2's, 4's and breeks and no skin shown between the two. The socks extra length ensures that no unsighly skin pops out during strenuous stalking operations.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

To illustrate Downunder's point, shooting socks in action.

[Jock Scot]

Weeeeell not always like that Matt, it depends on the fastening on the legs of the plus 4/2's. Plus 4's in particular, are often a strap and buckle and it is normal to fasten the buckle over the hose......in consequence the patterned hose top is unseen , as well as the legs of the plus 4's flop over the top part of the exposed hose. You will find few plus 4 owners buying hose with coloured hose tops.

Interestingly there is a train of thought that makes the white hose/flat cap/matchy matchy/ kilt height discussions pale into insignificance and that is whether the hose tops should be seen at all! But I think with the way most plus 2's are cut these days then on the whole the coloured hose tops on display don't look too bad--------even if they are a tad loud! Of course, the wind-sock effect with those dreadful garter ties comes into the line of fire too!

Not a hose top, or flashes in sight!