General Question on Proper Fit in the Front with the Apron

[shamrock715]

General question on fit in the apron.

When I tried on a kilt for the first time, I tried on a 38 & a 40. It didn't matter which size it was, I ran into the same problem of seeing my junk in the front because the apron didn't lay flat. Seemed tight in the front. Is this an issue of how tight I buckled one of the buckles and would be alleviated with adjusting them or is this a fit issue from my body type/shape and will be alleviated with a properly measured and custom made kilt?

Any input on this would be helpful.

Thanks,
Matt

[RichardtheLarge]

General question on fit in the apron.

When I tried on a kilt for the first time, I tried on a 38 & a 40. It didn't matter which size it was, I ran into the same problem of seeing my junk in the front because the apron didn't lay flat. Seemed tight in the front. Is this an issue of how tight I buckled one of the buckles and would be alleviated with adjusting them or is this a fit issue from my body type/shape and will be alleviated with a properly measured and custom made kilt?

Any input on this would be helpful.

Thanks,
Matt

Matt,

Guys in N. America in general and the States in particular will very often wear the kilt at a non-traditional height: the old guidelines suggest that the top should be level with your navel and the bottom should be level with the top of the knee cap. Most people have enough stomach that this height adjustment will cause the apron to hang correctly.

More often than not, you will see guys wearing kilts at their “jean waist”, several inches below the natural waist. Sometimes this causes the knees to be hidden entirely from view, very much disrupting the intended visual effect! This is especially true if the kilt is otherwise tailored with adequate length to the individual’s height.

Another consideration is that many of the off the rack kilts will be lighter, thinner fabric than 13-18 oz. wool.

Finally, a sporran hanging at the correct height will obfusticate the issue you’re describing. Indeed, at least one historian has suggested that the traditional hanging position of the sporran was in part to provide groin protection.

[tokareva]

I don't know what's going on ,but I'm sure there are many including myself who wish they had the same problem.

[Jumpmonkey]

That's an interesting issue, I can't say I've run into it myself, with either the more hip-worn utility-type kilts I've worn, nor with my more traditionally styled Casual Kilt, worn at the navel. But as Richard said, if nothing else the sporran "has you covered" so to speak.

[Tarheel]

The only time I've had the problem you described, was when I tried to wear my kilt after I had gained too much weight. The apron and under apron didn't span correctly or fall forward as intended. My kilt that allows for extra diameter doesn't give me any issue.

[shamrock715]

Matt,

Guys in N. America in general and the States in particular will very often wear the kilt at a non-traditional height: the old guidelines suggest that the top should be level with your navel and the bottom should be level with the top of the knee cap. Most people have enough stomach that this height adjustment will cause the apron to hang correctly.

More often than not, you will see guys wearing kilts at their “jean waist”, several inches below the natural waist. Sometimes this causes the knees to be hidden entirely from view, very much disrupting the intended visual effect! This is especially true if the kilt is otherwise tailored with adequate length to the individual’s height.

Another consideration is that many of the off the rack kilts will be lighter, thinner fabric than 13-18 oz. wool.

Finally, a sporran hanging at the correct height will obfusticate the issue you’re describing. Indeed, at least one historian has suggested that the traditional hanging position of the sporran was in part to provide groin protection.

The ones I tried on were at the belly button. Question on that, do you line it on center of the belly button or the top? I've read both. It seemed to be a matter of preference as to exactly where if you liked wearing it a little higher or not.

[shamrock715]

The only time I've had the problem you described, was when I tried to wear my kilt after I had gained too much weight. The apron and under apron didn't span correctly or fall forward as intended. My kilt that allows for extra diameter doesn't give me any issue.

That makes sense to me. I'm 6 ft, 200 lbs but my belly is a little bigger than my hips so I think it's causing the apron to do that.

Thanks for the tip!

[The Wizard of BC]

I'm sorry but using the naval is a very poor way of describing the fit of a kilt. Depending on their weight a guys navel will be in a different place.
It is much more accurate to reference the bones as they don't move.

All kilts made in the Traditional style are designed to have the top strap cinch into the anatomical waist. This is just below the ribcage at the side.

If the wearer wants to wear his kilt lower it must be designed and made to fit that way from the beginning.

This picture describes the fit of a kilt using the bones and where the strap cinches in at the back of the body.



The top strap in this photo is at the "Full Rise" of a traditional kilt.
The middle strap is riding on top of the hip bones and shows "Mid Rise"
The bottom strap is where blue jeans fit and is called "Low Rise".

This word "Rise" is a bit confusing. In days past all trousers were made Full Rise. This referred to the length from the crotch up to the top of the waist band.
But in a kilt refers to the amount of kilt above the top strap.

A kilt can be made with 1 inch, 2 inch and even 3-4 inches in a military kilt. In fact the basic difference between a military kilt and a civilian kilt is the amount of kilt above the top strap.

The three kilts in this photo all fit me. On the left is an actual Royal Regt. of Scotland military kilt with a 3 inch rise.
In the middle is my Tewksbury civilian traditional kilt with a 2 inch rise.
On the right is one of my Contemporary kilts with a 1 inch rise.



Please notice that the length of the pleats from the bottom of the Fell area to the hem is the same. Only the Fell Length and the Rise are different.

If you try to wear a kilt designed for full rise lower on the body two things happen. First you will see a large pucker develop in the front and the kilt may not hang straight down from the belly.
And the second thing is that the bottom of the Fell area in the back will droop below the crest of the buttocks and hips. This is one of the reasons you will see the large shower curtain folds in the back of the pleats on so many kilts at Highland Games.

[RichardtheLarge]

The ones I tried on were at the belly button. Question on that, do you line it on center of the belly button or the top? I've read both. It seemed to be a matter of preference as to exactly where if you liked wearing it a little higher or not.

As it was explained to me, the real intention was that the top of the kilt would be above the bony ridge of the pelvis. When this occurred, the kilt would “hang” on the pelvic ridges without much risk of falling down. Similarly, old fashioned trousers tailored with a high rise to the natural waist will be much less prone to sliding down over the course of the day.

For me, this is approximately level with the navel, and “feels right” (top of the kilt at the center of the navel). Very heavy guys will have some traction of the navel downwards and may need to wear the kilt above the navel to get it to the natural waist.

I spoke with a Scot who insisted that the top of the kilt should cover a rib or two, and there are some portraits that support an “Imperial waist” at this height for a kilt. To my eye, this waist is just too high and the effect is a bit cartoonish. A waistband at navel level is already VERY high by contemporary standards, so I would avoid going higher out of deference to modernity and avoid going lower out of deference to tradition.

[RichardtheLarge]

Steve, I agree with you that “navel level” is problematic as far as sizing goes, but seems to correspond reasonably well with the Iliac crests of the pelvis in most men. This is what I’m getting at.

Based on your post, I am advocating for a mid-rise approach to the kilt, as I find that the other options look off. This is particularly true when a belt is worn...the full rise at that height looks completely disjointed to me, with the buckle resting several inches above the hips, and a belt worn at low rise with a kilt looks like a Wild West juxtaposition.