[Lyle1]

[QUOTE= It would be fun to attend local St.Andrews Society affairs, but in Philadelphia you can only get in by being invited by a member, and there is no way to know who is a member. A bit too exclusive for such an old society?

[/QUOTE]

I always wondered if it was really true, but when I lived in the Philadelphia area, I was told by several people that membership in the Phila. St. Andrews Society was limited to a set number. Membership was inherited, and openings only occurred when a member died without heirs. Sounds strange, but, but it was Philly.

[Lyle1]

Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown

The problem with 90% of the photographs used by retailers to promote the sale of various items of Highland attire is that the clothes rarely fit the model. Sleeves can be too long, the body of a PC too short, or the kilt isn't worn at the proper height. It is hard to say for sure in this photo if the jacket is too long, although it does look as if the body of the coat could be a tad shorter-- although it may just be the way the model is standing. The overall "look" is good, the ruche tie excepted. The colour of the tie is excellent, but turning up the collar of the shirt is, in my opinion, very untidy and looks like exactly what it is-- the wrong shirt and tie combination. My objection to all ruche ties is that they are quite obviously fake; in my book a pre-tied tie is no tie at all, and a gentleman should avoid fakery at all costs.

I agree, but models in other ads for non kilt related fashions seem to be given clothes that fit.

I really hope that the shirt collar was not turned up on purpose. I think he forgot to put in the collar stays!

[kid icarus]

what type of jacket is this?

[CMcG]

It looks similar to many of the jackets in the OP but different manufacturers call them different things: Wallace, Glen Orchy, K1, contemporary, Kilt Kut.

Basically a suit jacket with shorter length and sporran cut away.

[MacLowlife]

I am a member of a St Andrew's Society that has a limit on membership. I guess anyone can apply, but getting in would be much simpler if you had the support of members. There are two lists of applicants- related ( who get priority) and unrelated ( who get in, but not as quickly.) You have to assert (but not prove) Scottish ancestry. Even related applicants must wait until a slot is available, which means waiting until someone resigns or dies. It takes several years.

I believe this is how most clubs work. If there is a limit on membership, either because of space or other considerations, there will usually be a waiting list. I know of some clubs ( and/or societies) that bar membership to all but the descendants of other members. I also know of clubs whose structure is so loose that nobody quite knows how membership is obtained.

I would think, in a city the size of metropolitan Philadelphia, that there is more than one Scottish Heritage organization, or if there isn't, that a group of energetic people might organize their own. I expect that second part is true just about anywhere.

[cajunscot]

Originally Posted by MacLowlife

I am a member of a St Andrew's Society that has a limit on membership. I guess anyone can apply, but getting in would be much simpler if you had the support of members. There are two lists of applicants- related ( who get priority) and unrelated ( who get in, but not as quickly.) You have to assert (but not prove) Scottish ancestry. Even related applicants must wait until a slot is available, which means waiting until someone resigns or dies. It takes several years.

I believe this is how most clubs work. If there is a limit on membership, either because of space or other considerations, there will usually be a waiting list. I know of some clubs ( and/or societies) that bar membership to all but the descendants of other members. I also know of clubs whose structure is so loose that nobody quite knows how membership is obtained.

I would think, in a city the size of metropolitan Philadelphia, that there is more than one Scottish Heritage organization, or if there isn't, that a group of energetic people might organize their own. I expect that second part is true just about anywhere.

Spot on, sir!

T.

[OC Richard]

Do you like them? Why or why not?

I'm just now coming to this thread... here are my reactions to these photos for what they're worth...

This all-black look is becoming popular in piping circles. Many are going with kilts in the Black Isle (I think?) tartan.
Is it "too much black"? To my eye, yes, but I'm getting used to seeing this look.
I really like the cut of that jacket. It's more like the cut of tweed jackets worn with kilt in the second half of the 19th century, not as strongly cut away as modern kilt jackets usually are. The vest is nice too.
I don't like that style of necktie however... looks too "wedding hire" for me.



This jacket looks like an ordinary suit jacket which has been chopped- look at the pockets. It's best to start with a suit coat that has patch pockets, I think.
A nice tartan, and the whole outfit looks "right" to me, save that I would prefer a bit more formality in the sporran.
If you MUST wear a tartan tie with a kilt, this is the way, as minimised as possible, I suppose.
I would prefer the flashes at 10 o'clock 2 o'clock rather than 8 o'clock 4 o'clock which seems to be the case here.



This is a very nice, contempory look I'm seeing a lot of pipers wearing nowadays. Very similar to the look in the top photo but with a better choice of shirt and tie.


'
I would prefer an ordinary shirt and tie, and a dressier sporran.
Do you have to pull up your hose that high?



Quite lovely to my eye save for the shirt and tie. With a normal shirt and necktie this is the best of the lot in my opinion.



Hmmm... a charcoal formal doublet? With that sort of necktie? I don't think it all works together somehow.




I really like the cut of that jacket, very classy, very Victorian, buttoning higher and shorter lapels. With an ordinary white dress shirt and black tie it could almost be The Highlanders of Scotland.

[MacLowlife]

OCR, you raised an interesting point about sock height. To my simple mind, the logical place for hose to go is just above the largest circumferential point on the calf- lower means your garters just squeeze them down and higher is too high. I think there is a similar point on the wrist which is the obvious point for a shirt cuff to stop. It is the pivot point where the hand starts and the arm ends. We ought to be wearing our sleeves on our arms and not on our hands, oughtn't we? And the jacket sleeve, then, ought to stop short of the shirt cuff, to allow a little bit to show. MoR is right, as usual- the photographers seem to have been working with gentlemen who were not well fitted- way too many long jacket sleeves for my taste, reaching well down onto the hand and even the thumb.

This may work us all of the way back to the OT-contemporary practice among some contemporary folk (aka the yout of today) is to wear sweaters / jumpers that cover the entire hand, down to the finger joints. I attribute the too-long sleeves on jackets, too long kilts ( caused by wearing them on the hips?) and too tall hose all to the same flesh-concealing impulse. Wearing your kilt or your trousers on your hips is fine, but you have to adjust the length accordingly.

I have heard of a farmer's tan and a trucker's tan. Do you suppose there is such a thing as a kilt wearer's tan ( knees only)?

[Tobus]

I think there is a similar point on the wrist which is the obvious point for a shirt cuff to stop. It is the pivot point where the hand starts and the arm ends. We ought to be wearing our sleeves on our arms and not on our hands, oughtn't we? And the jacket sleeve, then, ought to stop short of the shirt cuff, to allow a little bit to show.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your description, but that sounds a little too short. I've always read that the shirt sleeve cuff should come to the base of your thumb joint. Which for me is about 1" past the pivot point of my wrist. Then the jacket cuff should be right about where you describe the shirt cuff as being (allowing 1/2" to 1" of shirt cuff to show).

Of course, I could be remembering wrong. Or maybe the standard is different in Europe as it is in America and we're referencing different standards.

[Jock Scot]

Kilt wearer's tan? Oh most certainly, or in Scotland it is more like "weathered".