the Short Modern Kilt

[c0urt]

lots of useful information in this entire thread on length and placement, thank you everyone

[Margaret]

I can skew your lengths

I am very short-waisted, 5'9" and wear a 26" length kilt. When our band had new kilts made, mine came back too short as they couldn't believe (based on my height) that I actually needed a kilt that long...well yes, that's where all my height is between my "natural kilt waist to my knee".

Needless to say, they made me another one. My adult dancing kilt was also 26" in length too.

[Celtic Patriot]

I've seen plenty of the youth wear their kilts at the hips, making the bottom below their knees so it looks more like a DRESS! When you approach them on the proper way to wear a Kilt, they ignore you or get angry. . . So, either they are not "enlightened", or they intend to make a new fashion statement, like how the punkers are wearing them.I found some very affordable Kilts on eBay, but they are at 24". that is the minimal I will wear, as the backside rides up when sitting and I am not comfortable sitting on a public chair on my bare --ss! https://www.ebay.com/itm/182747103869

[OC Richard]

Look also at the difference in the length of the hose top turnover and the position and amount of the flashes showing.

Exactly so! Both men have the garter up at the inside top of the turnover, so different heights of the men = different depths of the cuff = different amounts of the flashes exposed.

There's a recent civilian Pipe Band thing of people moving the garter down to the bottom of the cuff, as if it's their duty to have the maximum expanse of the flashes showing.

[OC Richard]

I've seen plenty of the youth wear their kilts at the hips, making the bottom below their knees...

Yes that's the bane of civilian Pipe Bands. You give people a proper kilt but they shove it down around their hips like they would their jeans and this is the result



There's two problems that result:

1) the bottom of the kilt is too low,
and
2) there's a gap between the top of the kilt and the bottom of the waistcoat.

Both things could be solved by wearing the kilt higher: two problems, one solution.

But instead they solve the problem in a more complicated way:

1) they have somebody hem their kilt shorter,
and
2) they order super-long waistcoats.

There's an American firm J Higgins who is the main supplier for Pipe Band equipment for many pipe bands here in the western US. One of the things they began doing is offering longer, and then even longer, vests for pipe band people due to this very problem.

The last vest I ordered from them, they ignored the length I specified and sent me a vest that's far too long (because of my height, 6'3" they assumed I needed an absurdly long waistcoat). Next time I'll lie about my height (you can't leave that field blank when you order).

[James Hood]

Reading this thread...

...a bit amusing to this reader and a wry thought; the more something (in this instance, a [vs. "The"] kilt gets wider wearing (and exposure to larger numbers of different-subculture, non-strictly-traditional viewers-thinkers)...

...the more "natural - uncontrolled - evolutionary" variations in wearing thereof, will be pondered, tried, produced, encountered.

Even thirty years ago, who could have even fantasized (perhaps some of us, still, in horror-lite) at the number of variations would develop and worldwide-exist, in a garment which pretty much stayed unchanged-ish, for several centuries.

"Utility" kilts in canvas, etc., leather, "punk," multi-solid colour, Steampunk, camouflage....

[jthk]

I'd venture that the kilt HASN'T been the same for several centuries. The belted plaid, then the short kilt (untailored), then some MINIMAL tailoring, then the 4-yard (ish) box-pleated was common for a time. Then the knife-pleats and finally pleating to the sett at the early start of the 1900s (I believe?). If anything, the kilt has changed and evolved and not been a constant.

[OC Richard]

I'd venture that the kilt HASN'T been the same for several centuries. The belted plaid, then the short kilt (untailored), then some MINIMAL tailoring, then the 4-yard (ish) box-pleated was common for a time. Then the knife-pleats and finally pleating to the sett at the early start of the 1900s (I believe?). If anything, the kilt has changed and evolved and not been a constant.

Those things are all true, regarding the construction of the kilt.

However in the matter of how the kilt is worn one can go back to 18th century portraits, through 19th century photographs, and up through the 20th century and observe a remarkable degree of continuity.

It's quite surprising, really, how jacket styles have changed and sporrans have changed but the kilt looks remarkably alike, even in belted plaid times.

Setting aside goofy caricatures of kilted men (which so often show absurdly short kilts) and taking a look at a serious portrait by one of the top portraitists of the period, here's a late 18th century belted plaid. One thing to keep in mind about this sort of portrait is their reciprocal nature: the wealthy subject can view the portrait's progress and insist on having everything just to his liking.



By the way the original of this painting hangs in Los Angeles, of all places. The one in the National Museums Scotland is an inferior copy.

In the mid-19th century kilts were generally worn a bit longer, at the top of the kneecap to nearly mid-kneecap. Here's about the shortest you will usually see.



and here's about the longest you will see from that period



Here, mid 20th century, a group of lifelong kilt-wearers. Note that there's practically no change from that 18th century portrait.

[jthk]

Those things are all true, regarding the construction of the kilt.

However in the matter of how the kilt is worn one can go back to 18th century portraits, through 19th century photographs, and up through the 20th century and observe a remarkable degree of continuity.

It's quite surprising, really, how jacket styles have changed and sporrans have changed but the kilt looks remarkably alike, even in belted plaid times.

I would suggest that it's not a matter of how the kilt was worn but how it appears to us in those portraits/photographs. That image is consistent, I completely agree.

Regarding the image you attached, who are the participants in that apparently violent exchange?

Thanks.

[OC Richard]

Regarding the image you attached, who are the participants in that apparently violent exchange?

Here's what the notes to the copy in Scotland say:

In this large portrait by the American artist John Singleton Copley, the imposing figure of Hugh Montgomerie strides out, with sword drawn, whilst a battle rages behind him. Although painted two decades later, this portrait commemorates the sitter's service in America during the French and Indian War. Montgomerie is shown in the dress of the 77th Highlanders, the unit in which he served. In the background, the Highlanders have the upper hand over the falling Cherokee Indians, suggesting that the picture records their victory over the Cherokees at either Etchocy in 1760 or at War-Women's Creek in 1761.

They are incorrect in saying that their painting is by Copley. The signed and dated original is owned by the Los Angeles County Museum Of Art, the one in Scotland is unsigned and undated and obviously by an inferior copyist. For some reason the sword's direction has been changed, and now the anatomy of the sword-arm is wonky, the subject having two elbows in different locations, evidently. And the hand is now a big pink shapeless blob.

(Signed and dated original on left, unsigned undated copy on right.)