Waistcoat with a belt

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I'd advise against it. First, the waistcoat should never been tucked into the kilt; it just isn't designed (or intended) to do that. Secondly, when wearing a waistcoat the belt should be dispensed with as it presents an awkward appearance peeping out from under the waistcoat. Thirdly, the belt was/is intended to be worn with a dirk, and in those circumstances would be buckled over the waistcoat (as it is in the illustration on the cover of Thompson's book).

Since the kilt is a fitted garment that does not require a belt to stay in place, why bother with one in the first place?

[CMcG]

I seem to recall seeing an old printing of the wonderful Thompson book, So You're Going to Wear the Kilt, and something struck me as odd, but at the same time very sharp. On the cover, it shows a gentleman in daywear, but instead of wearing a belt or waistcoat, he was wearing both with the waistcoat tucked into his kilt. My question is this, does anyone still do this? I fondly recall my late Grandfather doing this on occasion, & his Ancient Gordon looked wonderful with his charcoal jacket & waistcoat. Anyhoo, I've planned on experimenting with this look but I want some opinions on what you all think.

I'd advise against it. First, the waistcoat should never been tucked into the kilt; it just isn't designed (or intended) to do that. Secondly, when wearing a waistcoat the belt should be dispensed with as it presents an awkward appearance peeping out from under the waistcoat. Thirdly, the belt was/is intended to be worn with a dirk, and in those circumstances would be buckled over the waistcoat (as it is in the illustration on the cover of Thompson's book).

In the section of Thompson's book dealing with waistcoats and belts (third revised edition 1989, p 68-69), he advises on this very subject. If the two are worn together, he writes that the belt should go over top of the waistcoat and that the waistcoat should not be seen under the belt. His solution, if one were to have the problem of a waistcoat showing under the belt, is indeed to wear one's kilt over the waistcoat.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

In the section of Thompson's book dealing with waistcoats and belts (third revised edition 1989, p 68-69), he advises on this very subject. If the two are worn together, he writes that the belt should go over top of the waistcoat and that the waistcoat should not be seen under the belt. His solution, if one were to have the problem of a waistcoat showing under the belt, is indeed to wear one's kilt over the waistcoat.

Life is full of bad "solutions" to what should be non-existant problems. If one followed Thompson's suggestion to its (il)logical conclusion, one would suppose he'd advise Texas businessmen to tuck their waistcoats into their suit trousers so people could see their rodeo belt buckles. Sorry, but as this is the "Traditional" forum, I'm sticking to my guns with a very traditional comment:

Kilted, or in trousers, one should never "tuck in" his waistcoat.

[Heming]

Kilted, or in trousers, one should never "tuck in" his waistcoat.

Hear! Hear!

[CMcG]

By citing Thompson on this subject, I didn't mean to imply that he was correct. The OP mentioned an image from the book of the "waistcoat tucked in belt over top" look and the point I wanted to make was that the author covered it in the text as well.

I wouldn't do it, but according to Thompson and in response to the OP, there are people who do.