Wearing of the Cummerbund per AR 670-1

[davedove]

Yep, I had to REALLLY watch it. I was about as inked as possible while BARELY scraping under the AR 670-1 radar. A couple of years after I was out, they began allowing neck and hand tattoos (with certain limitations.) I'm not sure if they've rovoked that or not. But, it made me consider going back at weekend warrior status. The wife had other thoughts...

They had to change the standards because the general populace is a lot more tattooed than it used to be and they couldn't get enough people that fit the old standards. The military does change with the times, it's just a bit slow to do so.

[Finn]

Well, there are now changes to the Felony Waiver too.

[fluter]

Hrm. Interesting. I knew the pleats faced up, and had heard the, "They're there to hold your opera tickets" line ...

The musician's apocrypha state that if anyone throws coins at you, you can quickly tuck them in the cummerbund's pleats. Therefore, they face up.

[TheSp8]

I'm not sure if they've rovoked that or not. But, it made me consider going back at weekend warrior status. The wife had other thoughts...

Listen to your wife. Tattoos on the neck are allowed at the back of the neck. A line drawn down the neck from the ears back is what is allowed. The usual caveats apply like nothing racist or offensive.

YMOS,
Tony

[Tattoo Bradley]

Listen to your wife. Tattoos on the neck are allowed at the back of the neck. A line drawn down the neck from the ears back is what is allowed. The usual caveats apply like nothing racist or offensive.

YMOS,
Tony

At the time I'd considered it, I fell within that. (only neck tattoo at that time was on the back.) And yeah, I decided pretty quikly my 5 years were enough.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hrm. Interesting. I knew the pleats faced up, and had heard the, "They're there to hold your opera tickets" line (which I think is not really true, but it doesn't matter), but I'm surprised that the regulation has it backwards.

This is easily solved by wearing a waistcoat/vest instead. Is that an option?

Yes, the pleats originally faced up to provide a "pocket" of sorts, but the real reason was to facilitate the drawing of a tulwar-- the hilt of which was apt to become caught in the cummerbund if the pleats faced down.

Since swords (or tulwars for that matter) aren't carried with Evening/Mess dress I suppose the Army chose to have the pleats facing down as it provides a smoother look for the uniform.

A white waistcoat is worn only with white tie with Army Evening/Mess dress. Black tie requires a black cummerbund (which should be of the same fabric as the bow tie).

[thescot]

I'll bet the writer of the regulation for the Army just didn't know any better, and, like most bureaucracies, can't admit error.

Nothing lasts like a "standard."

I guess you've heard the story about why the parts of the space vessels cannot be over a certain width and length. Has to do with the width of two horses' butts. I don't know if it's actually true, but it stands to reason.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I'll bet the writer of the regulation for the Army just didn't know any better, and, like most bureaucracies, can't admit error.

Actually, and this is just a guess, but as early cummerbunds were wrapped around the body, just like puttees are wrapped around the leg, it makes a certain kind of sense that the pleats would point in the same direction, ie: down.