"Viking Style" Brouge lacing?

[Tobus]

Tobus:

Are those bison or dark natural? I think they may be the latter.

I’m thinking the bison hose are lighter.

https://horseandhoof.com/house-of-ch...riantid=112152

Either way, looking sharp as always!

Cheers,

SM

I was pretty sure those hose are bison, but it's been about ten years since I purchased them. So it's possible that my memory is wrong.

[tripleblessed]

Tobus: Are those bison or dark natural? I think they may be the latter. I’m thinking the bison hose are lighter.

Computer screens and eyes often have different ideas about color, and humans vary surprisingly in their perceptions of the same color. Holding my bison hose up to my
screen, my hose are definitely darker than the Horse and Hoof link photo, and the "in the wild" photo looks slightly darker than mine. I do have a darker brown pair as well,
but don't recall the HoC labeling of that color. I think Tobus is correct. Different dye lots? Just the computer?

[ShaunMaxwell]

Computer screens and eyes often have different ideas about color, and humans vary surprisingly in their perceptions of the same color. Holding my bison hose up to my
screen, my hose are definitely darker than the Horse and Hoof link photo, and the "in the wild" photo looks slightly darker than mine. I do have a darker brown pair as well,
but don't recall the HoC labeling of that color. I think Tobus is correct. Different dye lots? Just the computer?

Interesting! My bison hose are very close in color to the ones in the link I’d posted previously. They appear on the far left in the image below. (I couldn’t find a photo of me wearing them…)



Cheers and merry Christmas, gentlemen!

SM

[MacKenzie]

I wear white socks all the time... with jeans or shorts and hiking boots. It is my every day attire. I'm quite out of style now-a-days because a) black is the "in" color for casual socks and b) I still wear mid-calf length vs. the ubiquitous footies (they've been "footies" all my life, but now that men are wearing them they are called "no shows"). Footies simply don't work with "mid-top" hiking boots and I don't own a pair of low-top athletic/running/sneaker shoes.

On the occasion I wear semi-formal attire - or, heaven forbid, formal - do I even consider white socks or, were I in with the trend, black footies? No. Is there a rule that says I can't? No. Would it look right if I did? No. Have I ever even thought about this? No.

For me, the kilt is not casual, knock-about attire*. Ergo, no white socks. As was said above, it's jarring to my eye.

Now, about shoes...

*There are lots that do wear a kilt as casual attire. That's great. I tried it. I bought a couple of utility/cargo kits and, for me, a kilt just doesn't work in the wood shop or the wood lot or mucking around in the barn or woods. Like footies and hiking boots, it's not practical.

[YOJiMBO20]

This thread reminds me of the kid a few years ago that bought a kilt and ghille shirt in a tourist trap in the Golden Z and insisted that the ghille shirt was the traditional shirt worn with the kilt.

When he was told otherwise he got upset and defensive and kept talking about how how they had to be the real thing and wouldn’t listen to anyone when told otherwise.

[Jock Scot]

This thread reminds me of the kid a few years ago that bought a kilt and ghille shirt in a tourist trap in the Golden Z and insisted that the ghille shirt was the traditional shirt worn with the kilt.

When he was told otherwise he got upset and defensive and kept talking about how how they had to be the real thing and wouldn’t listen to anyone when told otherwise.

There are posts and discussions on this website from time to time such as you describe. Generally the discussion does not end well, despite the good intentioned advice that is given.

[TheVintageLibertine]

As a new member, I'm somewhat hesitant to wade into this discussion, but here it goes...

I am a history buff, generally snazzy dresser, and recovering clotheshorse. Because of that combination of interests, I am very familiar with both conventional and historical sartorial "rules" (aside: "etiquette" or "conventions" are probably more apt terms).

From that experience, I would say the "animosity" (aside: "annoyance" or "frustration" are probably more apt terms) with the kilt-hire industry is twofold. First, out of practical and economic necessity it leans to the generic. For example, it usually provides customers with ghillie brogues and white hose for all occasions, because stocking buckle brogues as well, and a plethora of colored and pattern hose is too impractical. And, this has led to a homogenization of both highland and Saxon formal wear, which is sad if you care about such things. Second, customers usually rely on kilt- and tuxedo-hire firms to tell them what is and isn't correct. But, too many of these firms blithely tell customers that whatever they happen to have available is correct for the customers' needs in the interest of making a sale. Which, or course, it pretty crappy. And, this has led to "dumbing-down" of both highland and Saxon formal wear, which is also sad if you care about such things.

Finally, the best advice I ever read regarding sartorial rules/etiquette/conventions: one should learn them before choosing to ignore them so that ones style is transcendent, not transgressive.

[Ivor]

There are posts and discussions on this website from time to time such as you describe. Generally the discussion does not end well, despite the good intentioned advice that is given.

Having read old threads I couldn’t agree more. It seems that what would appear to many as trivial items can become festering bones of contention. I can’t quote it but I recall an extensive thread about shoes almost as if choosing between one type or another was an affront to humanity and those ones with buckles and straps were just a bit too “ girlie” for the red-blooded types. Similarly socks seem to attract the same degree of controversy as if anyone straying beyond the accepted norms was beyond the pale. I won’t even go to a discussion of headwear which seems to have triggered the controversy to which Jock alludes. Quite why such differences should arise is bound to affect anyones approach to kilt-wearing- I know it has mine. I know from what I have read here that pleats are not worn to the front and it is not necessary to wear a belt with a PC and waistcoat but beyond that it all seems a matter of personal choice. OK fancy socks, even tartan ones, are preferred but at what cost for the occasional kilt wearer? Similarly other expensive items such as various jackets to suit every occasion and sporrans for day or evening wear. It seems that achieving the recommended dress involves considerable expense whereas one can go to a hire company and rent the desired result for considerably less. For me, and this is no criticism of advice here, if I am to appear at a function in highland dress it will most obviously be in a hired outfit with the dreaded white socks and (pardon my offensive language) gillie brogues. Should I feel that I am offending everything that Scotland and its traditions stand for and, if so, should I just go along in a lounge suit? Or is what I have seen elsewhere acceptable and wear the white socks and ghillie brogues.

[gsmacleod]

OK fancy socks, even tartan ones, are preferred but at what cost for the occasional kilt wearer? Similarly other expensive items such as various jackets to suit every occasion and sporrans for day or evening wear. It seems that achieving the recommended dress involves considerable expense whereas one can go to a hire company and rent the desired result for considerably less.

It need not be very expensive if one is patient and willing to carefully assemble an outfit over time. While I have a few Highland dress pieces that are more dear, consider this outfit:

20221002_130933.jpg

Bonnet - homemade - about $30 in materials
Bonnet badge - vintage, $40
Tweed - vintage from a retiring pipe band member, $50
Kilt - vintage, $75
Sporran - closeout sale, $35
Hose - homemade - about $45 in wool
Shirt, tie, pocket square and brogues - all stuff I wear regularly to work so not included in the total.
Cromach - not required - $200

So about $275 (excluding cromach) and that includes several pieces you don't need (bonnet and badge, hose are a fancier pattern which takes more wool - could certainly knit a solid colour for about $20 in wool). So, a completely functional daywear ensemble, using items you probably already have, for about $180.

However, to put that all together would take time and good fortune, so if you need it tomorrow, then probably not a good option. But, if you're thinking of having a nice daywear ensemble, putting one together over a couple of years need not be extremely expensive.

Shane

[gsmacleod]

Or is what I have seen elsewhere acceptable and wear the white socks and ghillie brogues.

As to this, nobody (likely) is going to say anything. But, since certainly you're talking about wearing a kilt more than once, I'd opt for something other than white, cream or black. Blue, green, red, yellow, purple, orsnge; with so many options, you'll probably land there eventually anyway.

For my wedding, I had a kilt made, bought the recommended white hose, and rented jacket, waistcoat and belt per hire shop recommendations. While I have many great memories of the day, I wish I knew then what I know now. The white hose, tartan flashes and waistcoat and belt are all the things I immediately notice in the pictures.

To the rental companies credit, when I asked about rented/buying ghillie brogues, they said just to wear a highly polished pair if cap toe oxfords so at least I don't have to look at those in the pictures.

Shane