Brown or black kilt belt?

[kilted2000]

My one day sporran is black leather and I don’t think I’ll be able to get a brown one until next year. I’m about to order a USA Kilts casual kilt. Would you recommend a black leather belt to go with the black sporran, or a brown belt to go with the more casual outfits worn with this sort of kilt. Think t Shirts, Polo Shirts, Sweaters/Sweatshirts. Shoes would be anything from boat shoes, hiking boots, or chukka boots. I’ve always been taught not to mix brown belts and black shoes so I’m looking for some kilt specific advice. And yes, I know I’m probably overthinking things, it’s my superpower.

[Jock Scot]

I would not worry about it if I were you.

[Troglodyte]

It is not really essential to wear a belt with the kilt, unless what you want to carry needs to be suspended from it, but a belt does much to create a visual link and division between kilt and shirt if you are without a jacket.

As you only have the one sporran for now, why not do the simplest thing and get a belt to match it? If the belt and sporran match, you will feel less self-conscious and more relaxed as any element of doubt about mixing black and brown will be removed. You can always get a matching belt for the new sporran when that time comes, and the buckle can be quickly swapped between the belts as needed, if you only have the one.

What you say about footwear, etc, sounds like your kilt-wearing will be quite casual anyway, so any 'rules' for matching, co-ordinating, etc, can be comfortably set aside.

In other words, do what you like and enjoy yourself..!

[Father Bill]

Whichever one you grab when you wake up in the morning.

[OC Richard]

Would you recommend a black leather belt to go with the black sporran? I’ve always been taught not to mix brown belts and black shoes.

In Highland Dress, from our earliest images around 1700, the most common combination has been black shoes with brown leather sporrans. Belts, when worn, were usually black.

In other words the concept of matching leathers hasn't traditionally been a concept in Highland Dress.

One thing to perhaps keep in mind that the earliest sporrans we see, in the first half of the 18th century, are undyed deer skin, soft and pliable. The shoes and belts would be cowhide.

Another thing to be aware of is how in the 2nd half of the 18th century the deer skin sporrans were replaced by fur-front sporrans. In the early 19th century the hair got longer and by the 1840s sporrans were long hair.

Around 1900 plain leather sporrans appeared again after an absence of nearly 150 years, now made in buff deerskin, ginger pigskin, or brown cowhide.

And there things sat until the 1970s, when the Kilt Hire Industry started having leather sporrans made in black so they could hire them along with black Prince Charlies and Argylls. Now for the first time a man could match black sporrans to black shoes and black belts.

...a brown belt to go with the more casual outfits...

It's true that Highland Day Dress (which emerged as a complete outfit type around WWI) employed brown leather sporrans. I don't think there was a term or concept of "Highland casual dress" but I suppose the equivalent would be to wear Highland Day Dress and take off your jacket and tie.

Yet another thing to be mindful of is that in traditional Highland Dress there has never been such a thing as a "kilt belt".

Kilts aren't worn with belts in the way that trousers are.

Traditional Highland Dress did have what was called a "dirk belt" which as the name implies was worn to support the dirk. But when a dirk wasn't worn neither was its associated belt.

From what I can see this began changing, but only in Evening Dress, in the 1920s when a new jacket, the Montrose, was introduced. It was a shell jacket, ending at the waist, and was from the get-go intended to be worn with a new-style dedicated belt. Ironically the Montrose and its belt appeared at the exact time that the wearing of dirks had fallen out of style.

In any case the Montrose belt is really the only belt associated with traditional civilian Highland Dress, and it's a purely 20th century thing.

[KennethSime]

I'd go black. If I wear a kilt belt, I do try to match it with my sporran. It's not essential, but I like the look that way. Sometimes, but not always, I'll even try to get a rough match between my belt + sporran + shoes. I do think this is a bit "extra," though.

[McMurdo]

From what I can see this began changing, but only in Evening Dress, in the 1920s when a new jacket, the Montrose, was introduced. It was a shell jacket, ending at the waist, and was from the get-go intended to be worn with a new-style dedicated belt. Ironically the Montrose and its belt appeared at the exact time that the wearing of dirks had fallen out of style.

In any case the Montrose belt is really the only belt associated with traditional civilian Highland Dress, and it's a purely 20th century thing.

A small point of clarification on this Montrose belt assumption. I have a Balmoral Doublet circa 1911. A Balmoral Doublet is meant to be worn with a dirk belt. As such I think the belt worn above a doublet does date back to the Edwardian or even Victorian Era. I know there are several examples of dirk belts over doublets in the Highlanders of Scotland for example.