Kilt length

[KennethSime]

The problem with wearing a kilt down to mid-knee or lower becomes apparent the first time you wear a kilt for any kind of long walk - - more acutely apparent should the bottom of the kilt get wet, say from dreary weather. When the wet pleats slap the back of your knee again and again and again until the skin is raw, you'll learn your lesson.

[Steve Ashton]

This is very true. There was a photo of three guys hiking the Appalachian trail. All three were wearing kilts and all were being worn at jeans waist height. It had been raining for days and the trail was very muddy. Each guy was bleeding at the back of his knees from mud soaked kilt hems chafing at the backs of their legs.

[Troglodyte]

This kind of experience with the kilt is often reported, and always leaves me wondering.

I regularly wear the kilt on the hills, in bracken, heather, long grass, over rock, etc, and in all weathers, but I have never experienced this cutting or rubbing problem.

In fact, I find the opposite, as the kilt hanging as it does provides much more protection and comfort than either shorts or trousers.

But then I have a proportionately high waist naturally, and wear the kilt high up the body, with the bottom edge reaching just past the top edge of the knee-cap. The practical effect is that the kilt skims of the knee-cap as the leg is bent. If my leg is bent so much as to make contact with the pleats at the back, the pleats touch my lower leg which is 'protected' by hose.

However, I find the hem of shorts, particularly if wet, highly bothersome - and this is when the rubbing and grating of the skin can produce grazing or frinction wounds.

The kilt tends to keep comfortably away from the legs, and thigh contact when going up a slope is quite literally negligable.

I surely cannot be the only kilt-wearer with this only-positive experience, or can I..?

[Jock Scot]

No, I don't think you are the only one.

I have spent much of my time "rock hopping" around the Highlands wearing the kilt. I have had sore backs of knees on occasion. However I think with experience one develops a "sweet spot" that allows one to do ones thing in the kilt without discomfort. For me, about an inch above the knee suits me and frankly sartorial elegance is a secondary consideration when out on the hill.

I suspect the "wet kilt comfort syndrome" will dictate different heights for different body shapes. Nevertheless, for more normal kilt events the kilt hem touching the top of the knee is, for me, the smartest position and the most comfortable place to wear the kilt and that is where the kilt maker measured from. The placing for the top of the kilt varies on what the customer requires and after discussions with the kilt maker.

AND YES! During the day even with the best fitting kilt -------we all might put on, or, loose a pound or two over time ------so with the best bespoke kilt that money can buy, gravity can be an influence. A surreptitious glance in a shop window, or, comment from a partner can help keep the kilt hem in place with a discreet adjustment.

[OC Richard]

About kilt length, what I find surprising is, in general, how stable it's been over the 300 years we have clear images of men in kilts.

It's always varied a small amount from gent to gent within the same time period. The range is generally from the top of the kneecap to mid-kneecap.

In the 18th century you often see most of the kneecap showing.



In the 19th century this is less common, and the average I would say is around 1/3 to 1/2 way down the kneecap.

This is pretty typical of Victorian times, and has stayed more of less the same ever since.



Here are Scottish civilians in the 1950s



What never looks right to me is when the entire kneecap is covered, which one does see sometimes nowadays.

[Hauge]

Regarding lower than mid kneecap, on modern day carriers. Could this be down to 24" standard length, when on a budget, or renting?

The two kilts, i have, are a tad to low, due to that fact. I'm on a budget, and 172cm/5.643 Ft high, so 24" ideally should be some 23" or maybe 23 1/4".

Just a thought...

[OC Richard]

Regarding lower than mid kneecap... Could this be down to 24" standard length?

24" should be good for the average man IF the kilt is worn at the intended place around the natural waist.

If the kilt is worn lower than it was designed to be worn, down round the hips like blue-jeans, then the bottom will be too low.

Like this

[figheadair]

Regarding lower than mid kneecap, on modern day carriers. Could this be down to 24" standard length, when on a budget, or renting?

The two kilts, i have, are a tad to low, due to that fact. I'm on a budget, and 172cm/5.643 Ft high, so 24" ideally should be some 23" or maybe 23 1/4".

Just a thought...

I've I never heard of a 'standard length kilt? I am 174cms (5' 9") and have always worn a 22 inch length.

[Jock Scot]

I've I never heard of a 'standard length kilt? .

That’s a new one for me too.

[Paco500]

Most of the budget tartan kilts (i.e. made in Pakistan) and those purporting to be ex-hire are advertised as coming at a “Standard 24” Length”. Who knows how they came up with this as a “standard” but there you go. Just search for new kilts on eBay and Etsy, and you’ll see.

Also, I’m confident that I have seen/read that military kilts, at least for the lower ranks, used to come in a standard length and we’re worn higher or lower depending on the height of the individual.