Hose Height / How much knee?

[Calgacus]

I think with modern hose, that seem to be a tad longer, Calqacus has it about right in his picture. Using his picture as an example, I suppose I have got used to that look, although with older shorter hose--- usually hand knitted by "granny" where yarn may not have been so plentiful---- I seem to recall that they were possibly two inches shorter----perhaps a tad less--- on the leg and with a shorter turndown, even for civilians.

Yes Jock, two inches is a shade over half the height of my hose top in that photo. I would happily wear my hose maybe an inch lower, I think they are at more of a 'two finger' height there, but the length of them and the way they fold means that they tend to end up where they are in that photo.

There's probably a gap in the market for someone to produce kilt hose in a variety of lengths. The pair in that photo are UK size 5.5 - 7.5, and my feet are a size 7, so they are supposedly on the small side, yet are still rather long.

[Spartan Tartan]

I am in large agreement with what others have said here. I tend to go with 2-3 fingers below the knee. That said, there seems to be a natural place where my garters tie comfortably and tend to end up regardless if I attempt to locate them elsewhere. Most of my hose require me to have a double fold for the cuff (down and back up).

This is me out at a Highland Games in Rhode Island. The weather was a tad warm for a tweed jacket, but generally this would be how I wear my kilt anyway... and yes, I DO wear a flatcap with my kilt. Not to derail this thread--I do not normally with a jacket, but this is my favorite hat and I wear it nearly everyday kilt or otherwise.

RI Highland Festival 8JUNE2013.jpg

[OC Richard]

Taking the long view of things, this is something that's been fairly stable over the centuries until rather recently, when people (especially Americans, it seems to me) started to pull their socks up right to the kneecap.

Here you can see the 'classic' height, here in the late 18th century, in this original portrait done from life



Yes there's more knee showing, with the kilt at (or very slightly above) the top of the kneecap.

As in so many things the Army does things the old way. Here you can see plenty of knee (slightly exaggerated by the camera angle) with the kilts at the top of the kneecap and the hose at the lower, traditional height.

In the army, with diced hosetops worn with spats, the height is dictated by how many diamonds the particular battalion has showing, the edge of a diamond coming precisely to meet the spats (well, the Gordons Pipe Major has one hosetop a bit high, and the Black Watch Pipe Major, a very tall man, has both his a tad high).



So what about the civilian world? The 56 kilted men in The Highlanders Of Scotland are fairly consistent in their hose height; photographs from the same period show the same thing. (Calgacus, above, appears to wear his kilt and hose quite like this.)



Nowadays in Pipe Bands one often sees kilts worn absurdly low, often accompanied by the pulling of the socks very high. Note that the waistcoat isn't long enough to compensate for the kilt being worn a few inches lower than intended by the maker



Here you might notice that the pipers tend to have a bit of knee showing, some of the drummers none at all



And since people are posting some selfies, Yours Truly piping at Fort MacArthur last weekend, in Great War period Warm Weather Service Dress, with a Lieutenant of the Austro-Hungarian Imperial Army (my buddy Larry, a fine piper himself). I have plenty of knee showing in the old way (sorry for my non-authentic sunglasses!) (The eagle-eyed might spot the quad .50s in the background.)

[Calgacus]

Taking the long view of things, this is something that's been fairly stable over the centuries until rather recently, when people (especially Americans, it seems to me) started to pull their socks up right to the kneecap. *Snip!*

I have been pondering why this should be, and have a few ideas that I'll just throw out there to see what others think.

I wonder if hose height was relatively static when hose were hand-knitted and therefore usually custom-made for the wearer. Once hose (and socks more generally) became mass-produced, they may have become longer in an attempt to satisfy all sizes (better too long than too short), or alternatively to be the correct length for wearing with breeches/plus fours/shorts, which were presumably a numerically larger market.

I also wonder if it's because someone not used to kilt wearing feels exposed and so consciously or subconsciously pulls their hose up high.

As for kilt height, again, similar possibilities. Maybe the wearer feels exposed and so lowers the kilt.

Maybe they are unused to the relatively high position of the waist, and so wear it lower than intended by the maker.

Finally, I think the "kilt should just brush the floor when kneeling" thing is still present, and in fact was trotted out by the woman in the BBC radio 3 clip that was posted on these forums a few days ago. I don't know where it comes from, but I hear it over and over again. I believe one method of measuring for a kilt involves measuring from floor to navel when kneeling so maybe that's where it comes from, but as a rule for wearing a kilt it leaves something to be desired.

[Nathan]

Finally, I think the "kilt should just brush the floor when kneeling" thing is still present, and in fact was trotted out by the woman in the BBC radio 3 clip that was posted on these forums a few days ago. I don't know where it comes from, but I hear it over and over again. I believe one method of measuring for a kilt involves measuring from floor to navel when kneeling so maybe that's where it comes from, but as a rule for wearing a kilt it leaves something to be desired.

I have this standard in a guide to kilt wearing that was written in Scotland pre WWI and it was the standard of my Highland Regiment. Thompson calls this look "old fashioned" in "So You're Going to Wear the Kilt". The mid knee and top of knee debate has raged for a long time and I can post some sources when I get time to show that it's nothing new.

[creagdhubh]

I have this standard in a guide to kilt wearing that was written in Scotland pre WWI and it was the standard of my Highland Regiment. Thompson calls this look "old fashioned" in "So You're Going to Wear the Kilt". The mid knee and top of knee debate has raged for a long time and I can post some sources when I get time to show that it's nothing new.

Nope, it sure isn't!

[CeilidhDoc]

First of all, thanks to all of you for such detailed answers and photos. It is nice to see that there is so much consistency amongst members of this forum who's style I often admire. Cheers mates!

However, I am still not wrapping my brain around the folding method being suggested by some to rectify the situation when the hose are too long to fold the standard way and achieve the height you want. The only one I can envision not ending up with the top cuff of the hose inside-out would be an elaborate accordian type fold. Some have mentioned folding the cuff back up at the end, but I can't picture how that also would not end up with the cuff inside-out so perhaps somebody could explain that to me in further detail. Sorry for being a bit daft on this. I'm just trying to figure out how to get the hose I already own (that were not custom made) to the proper height.

Kyle, you and I have similarly sized feet. I'm a 10 or 10.5 US depending on the brand of shoe so I do appreciate your tip on going to a size small, as I never would have imagined that would fit on my foot. But it does not solve my dilemma with the hose I own already and the last thing I need is an excuse to spend lots of $ on all new hose, lol. My highland kit addiction has been on a bit of a shopping spree lately after about 15 years of admiring things I had no way to afford.

Tips like these are so useful when one has no other family or friends that wear the kilt!.. well, I have convinced my father to begin wearing it. Still working on my brother...

Slainte!



Clarification: My issue with the concept of the upward fold at the end has to to with proper sizing of the cuff and the placement of the garter. I'm thinking that if I did it doubles over the garter and then back up with the full width of the cuff then it would now be too low rather than too high, or have an unsightly bulge only for the top part of the cuff if it was done in a way that did not expose the back side of the cuff while still turning the whole cuff out the right way. Perhaps I am just over thinking this. I will have to play with it when I have time.

[OC Richard]

I also wonder if it's because someone not used to kilt wearing feels exposed and so consciously or subconsciously pulls their hose up high and lowers the kilt.

Maybe they are unused to the relatively high position of the waist, and so wear it lower than intended by the maker.

Yes I think you're bang-on with both observations.

One wouldn't think so, especially while watching The Red Carpet arrivals at a Hollywood event, but an old puritanical element is alive and well somewhere down deep in the American psyche, especially in certain regions and among certain groups. An American who thinks nothing about wearing shorts and sandals and exposing most of his legs, well, when you put a kilt on him he suddenly becomes very modest!

And most Americans just can't get it into their heads that a kilt is not a pair of jeans. Heck, we've even invented Utility Kilts in order to cater to this desire to have kilts be like jeans! And traditional kilts? Well we'll tell the kiltmaker to make them shorter than they ought to be and wear them lower than they ought to be and have the kiltmaker put wide belt loops on them so we can wear belts to hold them up! (Of course if we wore them properly and had them made properly we wouldn't need belts.)

Rant over.

[MacKenzie]

And since people are posting some selfies, Yours Truly piping at Fort MacArthur last weekend, in Great War period Warm Weather Service Dress

Looking sharp, Richard!

[creagdhubh]

Yes Jock, two inches is a shade over half the height of my hose top in that photo. I would happily wear my hose maybe an inch lower, I think they are at more of a 'two finger' height there, but the length of them and the way they fold means that they tend to end up where they are in that photo.

There's probably a gap in the market for someone to produce kilt hose in a variety of lengths. The pair in that photo are UK size 5.5 - 7.5, and my feet are a size 7, so they are supposedly on the small side, yet are still rather long.

With House of Cheviot made hose in my preferred choice of the Rannoch and Lewis lines, I always buy a size small despite the fact that I am a size 10.5 US foot. The reason for this is that the small size tends to bring the height of the hose right where they need to be/where I like them to be (about 2-3 finger breadths beneath the kneecap). If I ordered the hose in my actual size (size medium) in accordance with House of Cheviot's sizing guide, they would be entirely too long. Therefore, with the exception of my bespoke hose from Almost Unwearoutable and Kenneth Short, I always buy a size small.

House of Cheviot


Almost Unwearoutable