Waistcoat with a belt

[Tobus]

His flashes aren't too far off. Especially his left, the regiments line the front flash up to the line of the shin. Maybe he is an old military man.

I could appreciate that if the flashes were in roughly the same place on each leg.

[OC Richard]

Yes wearing a waistbelt over the waistcoat appears in many old images of people in Highland Dress. But to call it the only "proper" or "correct" way goes beyond the evidence I see.

As always, for a "reality check" I go back to The Highlanders of Scotland, for indeed that source is unique.

Of the figures which are wearing jackets and waistcoats, and the jacket is unbuttoned, I see:

16 men wearing no visible waistbelts

8 men wearing their waistbelt over both their jacket and waistcoat

2 men wearing waistbelts over the waistcoat

1 man wearing a waistbelt over his waistcoat but is jacketless

NONE of the waistcoats are tucked into the kilt, including the two men wearing waistbelts over their waistcoats. Here's one of them:



Also, NONE of the men are wearing waistbelts peaking out from under their waistcoats. This has always looked sloppy and "wrong" to me. It just wasn't done in the past... at least I don't recall coming across a vintage image of it.

Here's what it looks like:



Note how the black belt ruins the look of the shape of the bottom of the black waistcoat, foils the waistcoat's "line" and cut.

In a band, where you're stuggling to present uniformity, the waistbelts always fight against it, as they droop down to various level and are seen to various different degrees. How much better it looks, how much more uniform, and also how much more in line with tradtion it is to go without the belts:

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Yes wearing a waistbelt over the waistcoat appears in many old images of people in Highland Dress. But to call it the only "proper" or "correct" way goes beyond the evidence I see.

As always, for a "reality check" I go back to The Highlanders of Scotland, for indeed that source is unique.

Of the figures which are wearing jackets and waistcoats, and the jacket is unbuttoned, I see:

16 men wearing no visible waistbelts

8 men wearing their waistbelt over both their jacket and waistcoat

2 men wearing waistbelts over the waistcoat

1 man wearing a waistbelt over his waistcoat but is jacketless

NONE of the waistcoats are tucked into the kilt, including the two men wearing waistbelts over their waistcoats. Here's one of them:



Also, NONE of the men are wearing waistbelts peaking out from under their waistcoats. This has always looked sloppy and "wrong" to me. It just wasn't done in the past... at least I don't recall coming across a vintage image of it.

Here's what it looks like:



Note how the black belt ruins the look of the shape of the bottom of the black waistcoat, foils the waistcoat's "line" and cut.

In a band, where you're stuggling to present uniformity, the waistbelts always fight against it, as they droop down to various level and are seen to various different degrees. How much better it looks, how much more uniform, and also how much more in line with tradtion it is to go without the belts:

Further to the above comments highlighted by bold type, with the exception of the last mentioned gentleman, every single person wearing a belt is also wearing a dirk or sword, often (usually) both. The gentleman not under arms is engaged in putting the stone, so one may assume that the belt is being worn to prevent the chance of injury whilst competing in a seriously strenuous athletic event.

Since this discussion is taking place in the "Traditional" as opposed to the "Wear What You Want" thread, I would have to say that if one wishes to present themselves as properly attired, then the belt should not be worn with formal day or evening attire, at all. If worn with less formal day wear then it should be worn instead of the waistcoat, not with it.

Unless, of course, one is engaged in putting the stone...