the Short Modern Kilt

[OC Richard]

I came across this photo which perfectly illustrates the traditional way of NOT chopping a kilt to 21 or 22 inches, but letting a kilt simply ride higher on the body.

These men are Regimental Sergeant Majors. It's hard to imagine higher examples of the way the regiment's kit should be worn. If either of these men's kilts wasn't exactly how they wanted it to be they would take it to the regimental tailor and have it sorted.

You can see that one man is large, and there's a gap of several inches between the bottom of his shirt pockets and the top of his kilt. The other man is much shorter and the top of his kilt overlaps the bottoms of his pockets a bit. (I have another photo of the man on the left where you can see that the bottoms of his pockets are under his kilt.)

Surely the regulations would specify a set number of inches between the bottoms of the pockets and the top of the kilt? We can see that this isn't the case.

I think if the man on the left were an American kiltwearer, military, police, fire, or ordinary civilian, he would have his kilt chopped by three or four inches, or wear his kilt three or four inches lower, coming to the top of his hose.

[figheadair]

Surely the regulations would specify a set number of inches between the bottoms of the pockets and the top of the kilt? We can see that this isn't the case.

Look also at the difference in the length of the hose top turnover and the position and amount of the flashes showing.

[DCampbell16B]

"Look also at the difference in the length of the hose top turnover and the position and amount of the flashes showing."

Same hose but longer leg on the RSM to the right? They have about the same distance from the top of the hose to the bottom of the kneecap. "Listen, Laddie. It's one sgian dubh handle from the top of the hose to the bend of the knee!" Or something like that...

[Riverkilt]

Say what? I've been displeased with men wearing their kilts so they are well below the knees...way way below the knees.

I don't think the length of the kilt means anything as long as the bottom of the kilt is at the middle to top of the knee.

I'm 5'10 but have short legs - 30" inseam. My kiltmaker makes them to fit and I use her length when ordering from machine sewn kiltmakers. So I've always had about a 21" long kilt.

Seems fair to let the kiltmaker fit the kilt to the man. Whatever the resulting length is seem irrelevant.

[Kiltsnquilts]

I'm 5'7" but with a longish body and quite short legs and 24" kilts are a lot too long for me. There are other issues at stake these days too, such as what rise is there and is it flared. I find most modern kilts do not have a flared rise and so if I do mine tight enough at the waist not to drop then they are not very comfortable to sit or breath in, which is probably one good reason for many to wear them lower. Of course if they do that with a 24" kilt it is going to hang below the knee on many people, which is what you see in many pictures, even allowing for camera angle.

Body shape also comes into it. If I'm going to be comfortable then I wear mine so they are supported naturally by my hips. Having a failrly straight body, if I try to fasten them any higher, breathing becomes an issue, never mind sitting. Unfortunately one hip seems to be fractionally lower than the other and the slope is higest at the front. I must have shrunk as well as had a body shape change since my younger days as I've even had to, very regretfully, have my 60+yo teenage kilt hemmed recently. (I'll get it shortened properly one day when I feel I can afford it.)

I guess the moral of the story is that everyone is different and all should get their kilts tailor made by someone like Steve who seems to take all aspects into account. but be prepared for changes as you age.

The issue of rise and flaring the pleats is a really valid one! I have been asked to make kilts shorter so they sit at the natural waistline but I always explain that it is the fit of the pleats (including the flare above the natural waist) that makes the kilt sit nicely into the small of the back and keep it sitting where it should!

[Kiltsnquilts]

Look also at the difference in the length of the hose top turnover and the position and amount of the flashes showing.

A photo is really hard to use as a guide to the length - the camera would be at head height and so there is an angle down to the kilt making it hard to see the knees. To see the length properly the photo would need to be taken at knee height.

[Kiltsnquilts]

I came across this photo which perfectly illustrates the traditional way of NOT chopping a kilt to 21 or 22 inches, but letting a kilt simply ride higher on the body.

These men are Regimental Sergeant Majors. It's hard to imagine higher examples of the way the regiment's kit should be worn. If either of these men's kilts wasn't exactly how they wanted it to be they would take it to the regimental tailor and have it sorted.

You can see that one man is large, and there's a gap of several inches between the bottom of his shirt pockets and the top of his kilt. The other man is much shorter and the top of his kilt overlaps the bottoms of his pockets a bit. (I have another photo of the man on the left where you can see that the bottoms of his pockets are under his kilt.)

Surely the regulations would specify a set number of inches between the bottoms of the pockets and the top of the kilt? We can see that this isn't the case.

I think if the man on the left were an American kiltwearer, military, police, fire, or ordinary civilian, he would have his kilt chopped by three or four inches, or wear his kilt three or four inches lower, coming to the top of his hose.

Those kilts might have been made to fit the man but the shirts wouldn't. So the shorter, slimmer guy will be wearing the same 'standard issue' shirt as the taller, larger guy (maybe a size or two different but it doesn't affect the pockets much)

I think the larger guys kilt is too low......traditionally the top of the kilt should finish at the lower ribcage and his looks lower than that - although hard to tell when clothed.

[Tobus]

Those kilts might have been made to fit the man but the shirts wouldn't. So the shorter, slimmer guy will be wearing the same 'standard issue' shirt as the taller, larger guy (maybe a size or two different but it doesn't affect the pockets much)

This is one issue that really bothers me as a shorter man (5'-7"). Even when I am wearing shirts that are well-fitted to my body size, they do not make any adjustment for the breast pockets. They are the same size pockets as larger shirts, and they don't appear to locate the pockets with any thought to the fact that a shorter person is wearing the shirt. It's like they use a standard offset from the shoulder seam, regardless of shirt size. In other words, they don't scale all the parts of the shirt down proportionally. The result is that pockets which should be up on my chest end up reaching all the way down to my belly. And when wearing a kilt at proper height, I end up looking like the shorter officer in that photo, with my pockets at the top of my kilt. Or in some cases, even being slightly covered up by the kilt. For this reason, I have to be very selective about the shirts I choose to wear with the kilt. I mostly opt for no pockets at all, or have a narrow range of shirts I'll wear with the kilt.

[MichiganKyle]

I ordered my last two casual kilts at 25" long. I wear then at my natural waist, which for me actually puts the top of the kilt above my bellybutton. I've only got about 3" between the top of my hips and the bottom of my ribcage, so I don't have a lot of wiggle room to adjust the height. With that length, the bottom of the kilt is right in the middle of my kneecaps.

My first kilt was an XL Sport Kilt, which ended up being *way* too big for me (had to have it tailored immediately after I got it), but also a not insignificant amount too short - I went with "standard" length, which for XL is apparently 22.5". This ended up being quite a bit above my kneecap and was clearly too short when I sat down. I went with that length because I didn't know where the top of the kilt would sit, so when I measured myself for it, that length seemed about right.

Now, granted, I'm a little high-waisted, but that's a 2.5" difference. Again, I originally thought that 22.5" was about right based on measuring myself, but the width of an XL Sport Kilt matched my measurements as well, which means I was measuring lower than my anatomical waist. But since I had no experience with it before, that was my best understanding of how to measure, resulting in drastically wrong results. There's enough body shape variation that I can't say either one should be "standard", but I do think there should be a bit more education on (1) where kilts are worn most comfortably and why, and (2) how to properly measure that before people buy a kilt.

[jthk]

Pardon me, but isn't the "natural waist" where a traditional kilt sits anyway? Compared to the "jeans waist" where my Levi jeans sit?

The issue of rise and flaring the pleats is a really valid one! I have been asked to make kilts shorter so they sit at the natural waistline but I always explain that it is the fit of the pleats (including the flare above the natural waist) that makes the kilt sit nicely into the small of the back and keep it sitting where it should!