Military kilt size

**OC Richard** · 3rd January 19, 02:32 AM

It's a beautiful kilt and seems to be the right size.

Though yes traditionally both in military and civilian Highland Dress you would have more knee showing.

Even in the army (that bastion of tradition) they are often wearing the kilt a tad lower and hose a tad higher than they did a few generations ago.

Here's today

Soldiers in the 1960s

Soldiers around 1900 (showing three different orders of dress)

And with civilians too, here in the 1950s

There's always going to be a range of kilt and hose heights as you can see here c1870 (around the same time the MacLeay portraits were painted and showing the same variety of dress)

**Tobus** · 3rd January 19, 06:21 AM

I think it's a great fit on you, in terms of the waist and taper at the top. Looking at the rear photo, I would think you could probably wear it just a smidge higher (say, half the width of the straps) to get the top strap more at the centre of your natural waist. This would bring the bottom up to a more agreeable height closer to the top of the knee.

And yes, those pleats need some attention! If memory serves, what we're seeing here is the so-called "shower curtain" effect. It is sometimes caused by a kilt that's too large at the hip, or where the fell is too high. Maybe one of the kiltmakers here could advise on that, based on the photos.

Pressing the pleats back neatly into their original shape will help, but may not totally mitigate the issue. A lot of military kilts had an elastic band stitched inside the pleats to help keep them tidy and in-line with each other. The photo below is from my QOH kilt as an example. You can see that the elastic is stitched to the inside every other pleat, and is not tight. The upside of this retrofit is that the back of the kilt won't do the "shower curtain" splaying, but the downside is that you don't get the full swish of the pleats when walking. The elastic allows the pleats to move some during walking, but still keeps them in a fairly straight (but not necessarily perfect) line whilst standing. I have debated with myself over the years whether I should take the elastic out or keep it in, but I always opt to keep it in because I have a severe aversion to unruly or untidy pleats.

Anyway, if your pressing doesn't completely solve the issue, you could consider something like this. It's what a lot of military kilt-wearers did to solve it.

**Allan Thomson** · 3rd January 19, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by OC Richard

It's a beautiful kilt and seems to be the right size.

Though yes traditionally both in military and civilian Highland Dress you would have more knee showing.

Even in the army (that bastion of tradition) they are often wearing the kilt a tad lower and hose a tad higher than they did a few generations ago.

Here's today

Soldiers in the 1960s

Soldiers around 1900 (showing three different orders of dress)

And with civilians too, here in the 1950s

There's always going to be a range of kilt and hose heights as you can see here c1870 (around the same time the MacLeay portraits were painted and showing the same variety of dress)

Looking at the picture the child seems to have been added later...

**jhughes** · 12th January 19, 01:20 PM

Sure enough, hanging didn't settle the pleats much so I'll have to re-press. With 28 pleats, that will be a lot of basting! On that subject, is there a special way to baste a military box pleat? TAoK instructs to baste through 4 layers, but in this case that's just one pleat!

Tobus, the elastic strap is interesting, my kilt doesn't have that. When did they start using it? Not sure when yours was made, but here is a picture of the tag inside mine.

OC, thanks for the pictures. It's interesting to see how things have changed over time, not only with kilt length, but also the jacket and sporran styles. Things seem a lot more standardized now in many ways. Since it's an A&S kilt I searched for some pictures of that regiment, and noticed that in a lot of the pictures no sporrans are worn. It seems like sporrans were removed while working or when in camp/barracks, is that correct?

**Tobus** · 14th January 19, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by jhughes

Tobus, the elastic strap is interesting, my kilt doesn't have that. When did they start using it? Not sure when yours was made, but here is a picture of the tag inside mine.

That question should probably be answered by others who have more working knowledge of military kilt construction/history. But I believe I had read that the elastic band was not necessarily standard on them. They may have been added by individual service members for the purpose of keeping the pleats straight for presentation, parades, etc.

**Guthrumironhead** · 14th January 19, 10:24 AM

There is a good video by Robert Macdonald on YouTube entitled "How to add an elastic to your Army kilt". I highly recommend it, along with all of his kilt related YouTube videos.

**Allan Thomson** · 14th January 19, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Tobus

That question should probably be answered by others who have more working knowledge of military kilt construction/history. But I believe I had read that the elastic band was not necessarily standard on them. They may have been added by individual service members for the purpose of keeping the pleats straight for presentation, parades, etc.

In my younger days I wore my father's A&SH unnissued phillabeg - that also did not have anissued.elastic straps. The label inside was much the same as the one above, except no names as it was never issued. I'm sure they were an individual addition put on post issue..

**McMurdo** · 15th January 19, 06:20 AM

Here is the label in one of my military kilts I'm glad to say it fits me now.

**Tobus** · 15th January 19, 06:44 AM

Since we're talking about labels and such, can any of the military kilt experts explain the difference between a "kilt no. 1" and a "kilt no. 2"? I'm noticing that those no. 1 kilts are both labeled O.R. (other ranks, presumably?), with the arrowhead denoting that they were MoD property.

Mine is labeled no. 2 QOH and does not have the arrowhead denoting MoD issue. Nor does it have the same sizing nomenclature. Its label seems more civilian-ish, though it's still a military kilt. Would this be a privately-purchased officer's kilt? Or is it just that the labeling details changed over time?

**Arnot** · 15th January 19, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Tobus

Since we're talking about labels and such, can any of the military kilt experts explain the difference between a "kilt no. 1" and a "kilt no. 2"? I'm noticing that those no. 1 kilts are both labeled O.R. (other ranks, presumably?), with the arrowhead denoting that they were MoD property.

Mine is labeled no. 2 QOH and does not have the arrowhead denoting MoD issue. Nor does it have the same sizing nomenclature. Its label seems more civilian-ish, though it's still a military kilt. Would this be a privately-purchased officer's kilt? Or is it just that the labeling details changed over time?

As it's a Queen's Own Highlanders, I would think the other might be Cameron of Erracht as both tartans were worn after the amalgamation of the Camerons and Seaforths.