Basics of vests

[MichiganKyle]

I have an egregiously long torso with short legs, so a normal length waistcoat works fairly well for me. When, historically, I've donned kilt-length waistcoats it's required effort to keep my shirt from peeking out around the edges (my kilts are standard rise of about 2-3cm above my bellybutton, a military style kilt would likely rectify this). However if you aren't built like a Neanderthal like I am; you can try stitching the shoulders to increase the cut of the waistcoat.

Oh, hadn't thought about that. That would make shortening a waistcoat much easier. I'm built the opposite way - long legs, short torso and arms.

[Tobus]

Given the wide array of body shapes/proportions combined with the wide array of available waistcoat cuts, there really is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all answer.

I am on the short-torso side, so a standard waistcoat is usually too long for me to wear with a kilt unless I alter it. But I've noticed that many vintage waistcoats that were made to go with kilt jackets are often too short! Unless I'm wearing a high-rise kilt, these vintage waistcoats end up riding up above the top of the kilt at the sides and back. For that reason, I can't seem to make it work wearing a waistcoat without a jacket. I tried it once, and spent all day tugging at the back of my waistcoat to keep it below the top of my kilt and trying to avoid looking like a numpty.

But beyond that, I also tend to agree with the more traditional view that a waistcoat is not really intended to be a stand-alone outer garment. The satin (or silk, in rare cases) back is not meant to be seen. They use that material on the back to decrease bulk under the jacket, as well as decrease friction. The decreased friction provides ease of movement and minimises bunching. And the adjuster belt, being connected at the seam between the satin and front material, is meant to be hidden under the jacket. For these reasons, a waistcoat with a satin back just isn't traditionally supposed to be worn with the back exposed; it is obviously designed to be under a jacket. I do realise that modern society doesn't seem to care, but it always seems like a bit of a fashion faux-pas when I see it done. A waistcoat worn sans jacket reminds me of a waiter or someone in a pipe band. If I were going to try wearing one without a jacket, it would have to be the type with the same material on the back and no adjuster belt.

So, for me, I think a waistcoat is best worn with a jacket and not by itself. My first preference is for it to match the kilt jacket material, although using a constrasting colour and material can be pulled off quite well if done smartly.

As for specific styles or cuts, I wouldn't get hung up on one particular maker's names. Waistcoat styles are virtually infinite. Any waistcoat can be altered at the front/bottom to provide clearance for your sporran or give personal flair, or change out the buttons for your preference. The less alterable items are pockets/flaps. Modern makers tend not to put flaps on the pockets unless you go a custom route, but these can make a ho-hum waistcoat into something really special.

[Brian Rose]

The "two peoples separated by a common language thing" strikes again. To find Pleater's sleeveless pullover on this side of the pond, one has to search for a "sweater vest" .