Ghillie brogues - why the dislike and resentment..?

[OC Richard]

The so-called Traditional Kilters' stance on various elements of Highland dress is curious to me - being what seems to be based on the inter-war years catalogue ideal...

The history of Highland Dress displays the "punctuated equilibrium" manner of evolution, which features relatively long periods of stability and brief periods of rapid change.

The period c1820-1840 was one such period, followed by relative stability during the Victorian period. The next such period was c1905 to c1920 which established our Traditional Highland Dress that's still with us today.

Time will tell whether the serious challenge to this tradition which has been mounted by Kilt Hire (which took off in the 1980s) and their black Prince Charlie + black leather sporran + white hose + black Ghillies costume will be looked back upon by future Highland Dress historians as another brief rapid sea-change in Highland Dress, or merely a blip.

I do follow Kilt Hire trends and they have steadily been going away from the costume mentioned above and turning back towards Lovat tweeds and coloured hose and brown sporrans, in other words the Day Dress costume established immediately following World War One.

I do have to address your mention of "catalogue ideal". It's puzzling why in ordinary fashion circles, say people studying the dress of the 1920s, vintage catalogues are heavily relied upon, while in Highland Dress circles the assertion is often made that catalogues don't show what people actually wore.

I believe that this assertion can be dismissed on two grounds. First, vast numbers of photos show men wearing exactly the outfits shown in the catalogues.

The second thing is simple logic. Firms making and selling Highland Dress have one goal: to turn a profit. They're not going to make fanciful stuff that sits on the shelves. It wastes production capacity and valuable shelf space. Also quite valuable is catalogue space. Catalogues are expensive to print (colour printing in the 1920s wasn't cheap) add to that the expense of posting the catalogues to Australia, America, etc. Adverts often mention that the catalogues are posted free. Catalogue space is devoted to items expected to sell.

So yes vintage catalogues are an excellent guide to what people are going to purchase, and presumably wear.

Certainly by the 1940s, this Traditional Kilters' style was being heavily criticised in print, for its continual dulling-down of Highland style to match more closely the prevailing Lowland fashions.

This is something I'd love to learn more about. Were they advocating a return to tartan jackets? To the breacan-an-feileadh?

For sure, as you mentioned, above the waist Highland Dress has tended to follow prevailing European fashion. This seems to have always been around, witness the "slashed doublets" seen in both Highland and non-Highland portraits. (True that these doublets continued in fashion longer with Highland Dress.)

On the other hand we see in 18th century Highland Dress a love for tartan jackets and waistcoats that's uniquely Highland. In the Regency period tartan jackets remained popular though the cut of these jackets followed the prevailing European fashion.

In the 1840s tweed jackets began becoming very fashionable for gents' outdoor wear and they were quickly adapted to Highland Dress. So yes tweed jackets aren't traditionally Highland, but if people were criticising them in the 1930s I'm sorry to say that the horse had left the barn.

MacIan's portraits...

People may find it nitpicking, but the difference between portraits and illustrations is critical to the subject at hand.

Portraits are paintings of living persons posed in front of the artist. They attempt to capture the person, the clothing, and the lighting present at the time the painting is executed.

Illustrations can be based on verbal descriptions, pictorial sources, or imagination.

The MacIan illustrations are just that, illustrations. Is there any record of where he got his ideas about the costumes of earlier periods? For sure the Western artist Frederick Remington had quite a collection of Native American and Cowboy costume in his studio for his models to wear. Did MacIan have access to a surviving centuries-old pair of Highland moccasins? Or had he seen an image of such? Or was he himself part of the Revival process?

All of which makes me wonder about the ghillie-brogue. The style and antiquity is at least double that of the 'contemptible' tweed-and-Tattersall of the TKs, and far more appropriate than any English shoe style.

I love wearing Ghillies precisely because they're specifically Highland.

About antiquity, who can say. If one wanted ancient Highland footwear they could follow the old verbal description and make a pair out of deer-hide. We have no idea what these looked like other than by referencing footwear from other places like the Aran Isles.

We can only trace Ghillie-brogues to perhaps to around 1850, the same time that tweed was becoming the standard outdoor wear with kilts.

It is interesting that the Army never issued Ghillie brogues to its Highland Soldiers, but rather the ordinary period shoes seen in so many 18th century Highland portraits, either laced or buckled.

[bdkilted]

In answer to the earlier query. I just I am fine with them, but since I could never find any that fit I went with wingtip. Having worn out a couple pair of those I now where a wingtip lace up boot. I guess this is to say I try to be as traditional as I can.

[GlenaladalePiper]

One reason for their not so great rep would be people wearing the laces so far up the leg they look like a gladiator. This seems to come from the kilt hire industry especially with the bright white socks.

[FossilHunter]

Troglodyte, I think you make a lot of reasonable points.

For myself, there are a few reasons I do not wear ghillies. First, most that are available in the US are rather chunky and inelegant. I would not take issue with fine ghillies like you sometimes see George VI wearing in photos. But with their connection to pipe bands and hire, chunky soles and cheap construction are quite common.

Ghillie brogues are also inexorably linked to the kilt, meaning they cannot be worn with other clothes without appearing eccentric. As an American kilt wearer, I admit that I should probably be used to that by now but it is what it is. On the other hand, I can easily wear oxfords, captoe or brogued, with my suit trousers and cords. I would much prefer one or two pairs of quality shoes that perform double duty to a slew of cheaper pairs filling every niche.

I do agree that the objection to ghillie brogues can be overstated. They obviously have a pedigree as long as some other more respected elements of traditional highland dress. I think the association with bands and hire has damaged their reputation in general but that doesn’t mean they cannot or should not have a place in the discussion of traditional civilian highland dress.

[Troglodyte]

Troglodyte, I think you make a lot of reasonable points.

For myself, there are a few reasons I do not wear ghillies. First, most that are available in the US are rather chunky and inelegant. I would not take issue with fine ghillies like you sometimes see George VI wearing in photos. But with their connection to pipe bands and hire, chunky soles and cheap construction are quite common.

Ghillie brogues are also inexorably linked to the kilt, meaning they cannot be worn with other clothes without appearing eccentric. As an American kilt wearer, I admit that I should probably be used to that by now but it is what it is. On the other hand, I can easily wear oxfords, captoe or brogued, with my suit trousers and cords. I would much prefer one or two pairs of quality shoes that perform double duty to a slew of cheaper pairs filling every niche.

I do agree that the objection to ghillie brogues can be overstated. They obviously have a pedigree as long as some other more respected elements of traditional highland dress. I think the association with bands and hire has damaged their reputation in general but that doesn’t mean they cannot or should not have a place in the discussion of traditional civilian highland dress.

What you say is pretty much what I have come to assume - and that ghillies have an unwanted negative cachet due to association with bands and kilt-hire.

I guess people are fearful that others will draw the wrong conclusions, and judge them badly.

But it seems odd to me, that a shoe style that is uniquely Highland in style and origin, and intended for kilt-wear, is shunned in favour of (and I have seen this often) slip-on loafers and other styles that are not.

Each to their own, and all that, but it does seem a pity that, after hundreds have been spent on kilt, jacket, sporran, hose, etc, the outfit is topped-off (or rather footed) with the shoes already in the wardrobe. But then ghillies are not the only kind of brogue, and brogues are aguably the 'only' shoe for kilt-wear.

Interestingly, I can think of no time of ever hearing anti-ghillie sentiment here in Scotland, with only personal taste or preference being the deciding factor in favour of a closed brogue or ghillie-style. But I would say that ghillies are probably more common in the evening, or when the outfit needs to be dressed-up a bit, which is when the kilt gets worn most often here.

If the long laces are the problem, perhaps we should start a short-lace ghillie-brogue fashion...

[Tobus]

If the long laces are the problem, perhaps we should start a short-lace ghillie-brogue fashion...

As I mentioned, this is the only way I wear ghillie brogues. In honesty, I rarely wear them, as I prefer my Sanders brogues. I invite others to join the dark side!

[FossilHunter]

What you say is pretty much what I have come to assume - and that ghillies have an unwanted negative cachet due to association with bands and kilt-hire.

I guess people are fearful that others will draw the wrong conclusions, and judge them badly.

But it seems odd to me, that a shoe style that is uniquely Highland in style and origin, and intended for kilt-wear, is shunned in favour of (and I have seen this often) slip-on loafers and other styles that are not.

Each to their own, and all that, but it does seem a pity that, after hundreds have been spent on kilt, jacket, sporran, hose, etc, the outfit is topped-off (or rather footed) with the shoes already in the wardrobe. But then ghillies are not the only kind of brogue, and brogues are aguably the 'only' shoe for kilt-wear.

Interestingly, I can think of no time of ever hearing anti-ghillie sentiment here in Scotland, with only personal taste or preference being the deciding factor in favour of a closed brogue or ghillie-style. But I would say that ghillies are probably more common in the evening, or when the outfit needs to be dressed-up a bit, which is when the kilt gets worn most often here.

If the long laces are the problem, perhaps we should start a short-lace ghillie-brogue fashion...

The thing about leather shoes is that they usually become more comfortable the more they’re worn. So that’s a good argument, in my opinion , for wearing one pair of brogues. For me this would also extend to Saxon dress. I would prefer to wear my polished captoe oxfords over brand new patent leather shoes with a tuxedo, simply because I already have the shoes and they are broken in.

I don’t judge anyone who chooses to wear ghillies. It’s not really that difficult to gauge whether they’re in the know or not based on the other parts of their outfit. If they wear ghillies with tartan hose and a well cut doublet I expect they know what they’re doing. If they are wearing them with white hose and a pirate shirt one could reasonably infer what the situation is.

For the record I almost exclusively wear black, brogued oxfords when kilted. I believe they have a pretty strong highland pedigree as well in spite of their wider acceptance throughout the UK and abroad. Enough so that the Highland regiment is still issued brogued oxfords.

[OC Richard]

Most Ghillies that are available in the US are rather chunky and inelegant...with their connection to pipe bands and hire, chunky soles and cheap construction are quite common.

So true!!

The modern mass-produced Ghillies that are sold by the thousands to Pipe Band people the world over generally have the cemented-on thick rubber soles.

The idea is that these "marching sole" Ghillies are more comfortable. Thousands of Pipe Band people would disagree.

BTW there's a regular occurrence at Highland Games which have big Pipe Band contests: invariably a band member will have the sole of one of his Ghillies just fall off. (That's what Duct Tape is for, right??)

Things were different in the mid-1970s when I joined my first band and bought my first pair of Ghillies. Mind you, only one person in the band owned Ghillies at the time I joined, a "mature gent", a piper who had served in the Cameron Highlanders in the Western Desert in WWII, who did loads of solo gigs and was a sharp dresser.

But the Pipe Major decided we should all get Ghillies, and I bought a pair at the next Highland Games.

The firm was Keltic. They had two styles of Ghillies to choose from: a heavy brogue with thick leather sole, and a lightweight shoe of supple leather. I picked the latter, and wore this pair for nearly 30 years. They were the most comfortable shoes of any sort I've ever worn (including trainers). I think I had them re-soled 4 times.

This was before Ghillies with cemented rubber soles had made their awkward debut.

Ghillie brogues are also inexorably linked to the kilt...

That's the very thing I like about Ghillies, they're a specific unique Highland Dress shoe.

...they cannot be worn with other clothes without appearing eccentric.

There were long stretches when Ghillies were the only black dress shoes I owned, and I often wore them with trousers. People rarely noticed. (Trousers are expected when performing on the Uilleann Pipes.)

I think the association with bands and hire has damaged their reputation in general but that doesn’t mean they cannot or should not have a place in the discussion of traditional civilian highland dress.

That's the thing, when I started kiltwearing Pipe Bands were just beginning to wear them. That 1970s Pipe Band, my first band, only started to get Ghillies in the late 1970s and would be the only band at Games wearing them, the other bands wearing either spats with military-style Full Dress, or buckled shoes with tartan hose and Evening Dress.

Also the nascent Kilt Hire Industry was yet to have it deleterious impact on traditional Highland Dress.

We all are a product of our age, and for my first decade of kiltwearing Ghillies had yet to acquire the dual stink of Kilt Hire and Pipe Bands. I'm simply unable to view Ghillies through the lens of someone who started kiltwearing when Ghillies were on the feet of every mannequin in every Kilt Hire shop window and being worn by every Pipe Band on the planet.

[FossilHunter]

So true!!

The modern mass-produced Ghillies that are sold by the thousands to Pipe Band people the world over generally have the cemented-on thick rubber soles.

The idea is that these "marching sole" Ghillies are more comfortable. Thousands of Pipe Band people would disagree.

BTW there's a regular occurrence at Highland Games which have big Pipe Band contests: invariably a band member will have the sole of one of his Ghillies just fall off. (That's what Duct Tape is for, right??)

Things were different in the mid-1970s when I joined my first band and bought my first pair of Ghillies. Mind you, only one person in the band owned Ghillies at the time I joined, a "mature gent", a piper who had served in the Cameron Highlanders in the Western Desert in WWII, who did loads of solo gigs and was a sharp dresser.

But the Pipe Major decided we should all get Ghillies, and I bought a pair at the next Highland Games.

The firm was Keltic. They had two styles of Ghillies to choose from: a heavy brogue with thick leather sole, and a lightweight shoe of supple leather. I picked the latter, and wore this pair for nearly 30 years. They were the most comfortable shoes of any sort I've ever worn (including trainers). I think I had them re-soled 4 times.

This was before Ghillies with cemented rubber soles had made their awkward debut.



That's the very thing I like about Ghillies, they're a specific unique Highland Dress shoe.



There were long stretches when Ghillies were the only black dress shoes I owned, and I often wore them with trousers. People rarely noticed. (Trousers are expected when performing on the Uilleann Pipes.)



That's the thing, when I started kiltwearing Pipe Bands were just beginning to wear them. That 1970s Pipe Band, my first band, only started to get Ghillies in the late 1970s and would be the only band at Games wearing them, the other bands wearing either spats with military-style Full Dress, or buckled shoes with tartan hose and Evening Dress.

Also the nascent Kilt Hire Industry was yet to have it deleterious impact on traditional Highland Dress.

We all are a product of our age, and for my first decade of kiltwearing Ghillies had yet to acquire the dual stink of Kilt Hire and Pipe Bands. I'm simply unable to view Ghillies through the lens of someone who started kiltwearing when Ghillies were on the feet of every mannequin in every Kilt Hire shop window and being worn by every Pipe Band on the planet.

What did your band and others wear before they had ghillies?

[OC Richard]

What did your band and others wear before they had ghillies?

Civilian pipe bands, from the time they first appeared in the 19th century up to around 1980, either wore military-style Full Dress with spats, or civilian Evening Dress with full tartan hose and buckled shoes.

I have a photo of a Highland Games massed bands in 1972 and there's not a single pair of ghillies, nor a single Glengarry to be seen.



Our band had worn Full Dress for gigs and competition up until around 1978 when for competition at Games we switched to this outfit. Initially only two guys had Ghillies, but we were all told to get them.

As you see we just wore ordinary black shoes (the shoes we wore under our spats in Full Dress).