Waist: high or jeans

[OC Richard]

What you're talking about here is called the rise. That's the distance from the top straps/buckles of the kilt to the very top of the kilt. On most civilian kilts it's around 1-1/2" to 2". On military kilts it can be 3" to even 4" (called high-rise kilts).

In either case, it's the straps that should be at your natural waist, not the top of the kilt.

Here we can see the several differences between an ordinary traditional Other Ranks army kilt (left) and an ordinary traditional civilian kilt (right).

The difference in "rise" can clearly be seen; as Tobus says the upper of the two buckles is worn at the same point of the body on both military and civilian kilts.

It's why traditionally kiltmakers have not spoken of the "length" of the kilt (the distance from the binding at top to the selvedge at bottom) but rather the "rise" (the distance between the waistline of the kilt and the binding at top) and the "drop" (the distance between the waistline of the kilt and the selvedge at bottom).

Thus two kilts of differing length might have the same distance between the waist and the knee, for example:

Kilt 1: 22" drop, 2" rise, 24" length.

Kilt 2: 22" drop, 4" rise, 26" length.

A buyer not knowing these things might imagine that a 26" length kilt will of necessity hang lower, covering more of the knees, than a 24" length kilt. It's about the drop, not the length.

You might also note the four other observable differences between the construction of the two kilts.

The straps that should be at your natural waist, not the top of the kilt. It is as you surmised: that is essentially the internal 'belt' of the kilt, and needs to be around a narrower part of the body with something wider below it, or it will just slip right off.

Unlike trousers, the kilt doesn't hug your hips or rear end.

I should point out that well-made traditional kilts conform to the small of your back, which goes a long way to keeping them in place.

It's the very thing missing on my "semi-traditional" kilt that just goes straight across the back. Add to that the fact that the pleats aren't cut out so the kilt is bulkier across the back than a traditional kilt with cut-out pleats.

[Tobus]

So far, my feeling is that top of the kilt right at the navel, or at most halve an inch above that, is where it will look best on me. This is also the widest part of my belly. And it really does seem to be a more flattering look than a jeans waisted kilt, as long as it does not go more than halve an inch above the navel.

That does bring me back to my initial worry: is it going to stay put if worn that way?

Apparently the two (topmost) straps are generally about 2 inches from the top, so does that put them in a place where they could hold up the kilt? I imagine that might depend on your actual figure so here goes:



The black & yellow rectangle is exactly two inches tall so the top of the topmost straps should just touch the bottom of the black & yellow rectangle if we assume a 2 inch rise. Is that correct and would this work (ie kilt staying up)?


What's puzzling me is that, if I remember correctly (I've seen and read so much these past few days that I might be mixing things up slightly), Rocky from USA Kilts also says in some videos that the (semi/traditional) kilt should be worn roughly two inches above the navel. Yet if I look at the various videos from USA Kilts it looks to me as if they wear their kilts right at the navel, not two inches above it.

So again it really doesn't look to me like he's wearing it two inches above the belly button. The overall look in that video actually seems very similar to the above picture of myself where I wear my make shift kilt right at the navel.

Also, if my eyes are not deceiving me, the straps seem to be closer to the top than two inches on that kilt.

My advice would be to stop using the navel as any sort of reference. Forget it was ever mentioned. I really, really wish the kilt industry would remove all references to the navel in their fitting guides, because it is quite useless. Instead, think in terms of your rib cage and your hip bones. Find your natural waist from your sides, not your front. Stand with your hands on your sides as I'm doing in the photo below, with hands above your hips, and dig into your sides as hard as you can. Below your rib cage and above your hip bones is where the natural waist lies. Or, put on a belt over your shirt and cinch it as tight as you can. Move it up or down and keep tightening it until you find the location where the belt cannot move up or down because it's at the narrowest point. That's the natural waist, regardless of where your navel is.

(Yes, I'm wearing trousers in this photo, and you can see where the top of my belt buckle is printing through the front of my jumper. But the webs of my hands between my thumbs and forefingers are digging into my natural waist, well above my "jeans waist".)



That's ideally where your kilt straps ought to go: centered in that groove of the natural hips. If you are trying to size your kilt based on any other location on your abdomen, you're going to end up with an ill-fitting kilt that will want to slide down or ride up over the course of the day. When you walk, sit, stand, bend over or crouch, hop a mud puddle, dance, etc., your kilt is going to constantly need adjustment if it's not sized to your natural waist, or whatever the narrowest part of your torso is. I understand your inclination to wear it somewhat lower; that's common with new kilt-wearers who just cannot get used to the visual proportions of wearing a kilt as high as it's supposed to be worn. I did the same thing with my first few kilts, and learned over time that where I really want to wear it is at my natural waist. It's more comfortable, less fussy, and just looks more like a kilt should look when worn at the natural waist.

Looking at your photo, it appears to me that your natural waist is actually at the top fold of your towel, where I have placed a yellow arrow. Your best fit will be with the straps centered there, and the top of the kilt around 2" above that (depending on what rise is built into your kilt). Keep in mind that when we talk about the rise, it's from the center of the straps, not necessarily the clear distance above the straps.

I know you've been asking your questions in the context of having a "belly", but looking at your photo, you seem trim enough that your natural waist is likely going to drive how your kilt naturally sits on your frame. If you get your kilt made with the straps more or less where the top of your towel is, it will fit well. If you size it at the bottom of your yellow marks, several inches below your natural waist, you may find yourself constantly adjusting how it rides on your torso because it's just draped onto a sloping surface, if that makes sense.

Which leads me to something else I don't really understand: if the straps really are two inches below the top, why does the fabric not droop down at the front on the right side above the straps? Is the fabric stiff enough to hold itself up from the straps upward?

Yes, any properly made kilt is pretty stiff from the top binding down to the fell area (where the stitching of the pleats in the back stops). The tartan fabric, plus the interfacing, plus the lining, plus the top binding with all the stitching, makes for a fairly thick and firm garment that will not droop above the straps when it's cinched onto your torso. Here's a kilt I bought about 10 years ago. It's actually not made to fit up at my true natural waist, and I wish I had done so, but I was still not quite comfortable with going that high yet. But as you can see, the area above the straps stands up on its own.



So back to the subject of wearing it at the natural waist. For the best fit to your body, the narrowest part of the "hourglass shape" is where it should be cinched down to avoid it sliding down or riding up. The only reason not to wear it there is if you don't like the visual proportions of it being that high. If you don't think you'll ever wear a waistcoat, jumper, or even a jacket over your kilt, this proportion issue can be ameliorated by wearing a standard kilt belt, which is typically about 2-1/4" (5.7 cm) wide. Such a wide belt drastically changes the look, and creates a visual barrier of sorts between one's shirt and kilt. Instead of looking like the kilt is as high as it really is, what people see is the portion of the kilt that is below the belt. And, to a large extent, the kilt belt can have a visual slimming effect when worn around the natural waist. It accentuates the hourglass shape.

[Scottish Rock]

Here we can see the several differences between an ordinary traditional Other Ranks army kilt (left) and an ordinary traditional civilian kilt (right).

That's all very useful information, thank you. I have reached out to USA Kilts to inquire what the actual Rise is on their semi-traditional kilts (and how they measure it). To my eyes it looks like it's an inch at most (measured from the top of the topmost strap to the top of the kilt) but I could be wrong. The lower the Rise, the better for me I think.

[Scottish Rock]

My advice would be to stop using the navel as any sort of reference.

I hear you. I was mostly just using it as a reference point on my own body there. That belly button of mine is not going to go anywhere anytime soon . It's either that or a tattooed ruler , just like Adam Savage has on his arm. That ain't gonna happen.

[Father Bill]

I hear you. I was mostly just using it as a reference point on my own body there. That belly button of mine is not going to go anywhere anytime soon . It's either that or a tattooed ruler , just like Adam Savage has on his arm. That ain't gonna happen.

The problem is not a reference point on our own bodies, it's using it as a reference point with a kiltmaker.

One of the most important pieces of advice I can possibly give you is that when you select your kiltmaker, use THEIR measuring instructions, not any others since they each measure and calculate it differently.

That being the case, if they use the navel as a reference point... get a different kiltmaker. They haven't thought it through very well.

[TheVintageLibertine]

My view is that kilts ought to be worn at the natural waist, not the hips.

While high waisted garments—jeans, trousers, kilts, etc.—have fallen out of favor, the low rise look is terrible on most body types. This is because it accentuates the midsection (belly and love handles), and so makes even rather svelte men look pudgy. The tailor who makes my suits—a true artist—suggests that unless you literally have six-pack abs, you should always wear dress pants at the natural waist.

In the realm of kilts, this why the high-end makers ask for both a natural waist—i.e., just above the pelvis bones, which usually corresponds approximately to the height of your bellybutton—and the hips, aka seat. This allows them to shape the kilt such that it doesn’t slide down and camouflages any ponch at the front of the apron.

Switching from low to high-rise garments takes getting used to, but once you do, you’ll realize that they are actually far more comfortable; or at least that was my experience when I switched from skintight hipster jeans to grownup clothing in my mid 20’s.

[Scottish Rock]

My view is that kilts ought to be worn at the natural waist, not the hips.

I'm okay with wearing it somewhat higher than the hips. I already mentioned this when I posted a picture of myself with a towel acting as a make shift kilt. But I really do not want the kilt any higher than what is show in that picture. I believe the waistline I'm after would be called a mid waist.

I've read and watched a lot since my previous post, including an entire series on how to make a kilt by Robert MacDonald on YouTube.

What I found interesting is that Robert actually measures at the natural waist (or in fact wherever the client wants to wear his kilt if I remember correctly) and uses that for the top of the kilt, with the straps 2 or 2.5 inches below that. And that's for military style kilts. He does point out that this deviates from how kilts, especially military style, were traditionally made with the straps in the (anatomical) waist and a rise of as much as 4 inches above that for military kilts. He pretty much only does bespoke so he does it pretty much however the client wants it.

I'm pretty sure that I would be very happy with a kilt made by him but I'm equally sure that it's waaaay above my budget. I always fall into the trap of wanting the best but I really cannot justify spending that much on a kilt so I have to resist that urge and manage my expectations with a lower priced (but still made to measure) kilt.

I sent two emails to usakilts asking what the Rise is on their kilts (top to strap) but haven't heard back from them. I guess they are just extremely busy rushing out kilts for Christmas and now New Year's Eve, it's probably the worst time of the year to ask such questions, so I hope to hear back from them in January.

What I find perplexing is that many (most?) kilt makers, as I've also read in an older post here, don't seem to ask for a measurement of the distance between where the waist was measured and the Hips, ie the height of the Fell.

Of course if you measure exactly at the anatomical waist and measure the length of the kilt to the knees exactly where the kiltmaker expects you to make those measurements, you could use the average size of the fell based on that (1/3 of the kilt if I remember corrrectly) or deduce it from the person's total height if that is given. If that sort of thing didn't work at all there would be no textile industry as we know it and everything would have to be made to measure.

However, if you take those measurements at a somewhat different height than what the kiltmaker expects, either because of error or intentionally because you want to wear it higher or lower on the waist, the Fell is going to be a bit too short or too long, resulting in a tapering that is not entirely correct and possibly the shower curtain effect.

Is it that much extra work to use an actual measurement of the fell when shaping the pattern of the kilt instead of using some fixed ratio based on the total kilt length or body height? Why is that not standard practice as would make sense to my engineering mind?

As for wearing the kilt lower than the natural waist, I understand that if the straps cinch into your natural waist there is no way for the kilt to move either up or down. However I would think that the main thing to worry about it is sliding down and as long as those strops are at a height where the body gets wider going down, it should not be possible for it to slide down, right?

As for sliding up, if the kilt is heavy enough I don't really expect that to happen all that much, but having never worn a kilt maybe I'm wrong about that? I haven't gotten around to doing that experiment with a bath towel that (I think) Steve Ashton suggested but I will do that.

I actually made a drawing of a kilt to help me understand things better, might as well post it here:

kilt measurements.png

As I understand it the Rise portion is either straight (I believe Robert McDonald does that) or tapered to get wider going up if the straps are at the anatomical waist.

The Fell portion should be tapered and this can be done (or is always done?) by tapering the pleats. I wonder if there are any dart stiches in the inner or outer apron or if anything else is done to make those tapered as well. The pleats are stitched into place vertically in this section.

The next section I have termed the 'Straight' as it's not tapered at all and the pleats are not stitched and free to move. It ends at the top of the knee cap traditionally.

Finally, Fell+Straight=Drop.

Did I get anything wrong?

[OC Richard]

This photo clearly shows what I was saying about the kilt conforming to the "small of the back".

Well-made hand-sewn kilts tend to have this advantage over cheaper more simply made kilts.

[Kitfoxdave]

Scottish Rock, keep in mind that the measurements are taken standing still. As you move around ans start flexing your muscles (especially with a bit of a belly), the kilt naturally moves around... you might want to wrap your towel around where you want to wear your kilt, and then reach up and grab something above and in front of you requiring a moderate amount of strength... the result may be good, or it may be surprising!

The use of the towel is a great idea to try things out.

I am glad you are studying the issues and posting your findings... it does help us all understand how the fit of the kilt truly works, or doesn't

[Scottish Rock]

This photo clearly shows what I was saying about the kilt conforming to the "small of the back".

Well-made hand-sewn kilts tend to have this advantage over cheaper more simply made kilts.

Is there any other way to taper the kilt other than tapering the pleats (on the back)?

With 'regular' clothing there are side-seams that can be used to create a taper, but with a kilt there are no side-seams. But I have heard about 'shaping' the apron so I wonder how that is done. Perhaps the first 'hidden apron deep pleat' is used for that? I suppose in terms of pattern design that would be just as usable as a seam to create a taper.

The usakilts website does specify "Proper tapering down the fell to conform to body shape" for the semi-traditional that I'm eyeing but I'm not sure if that means they are tapering all the pleats or if they only taper the first and last one (or the 'deep' inner/outer apron pleats if both of those exist). I'm also not sure how much that matters exactly, ie. does this mean their tapering does make it conform to the small of the back? Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Given the price point of usakilts' semi-traditional kilt and the fact that, according to one of their latest Youtube videos, one of their kiltmakers can do about 2.5 semi-traditional kilts per day (versus taking probably one or more days for a single kilt in the case of someone like Robert McDonald or any of the highly skilled kiltmakers on this forum), you cannot perhaps expect the same perfect tailoring for the cheaper kilt. You get what you pay for I suppose.

But on the other hand I have no idea if tapering the individual pleats is difficult and how much more time that adds so I don't know if that is one of the differences. But maybe it's more a matter of the kiltmakers skill and experience that allows him to use pictures in addition to measurements to fine-tune the tailoring beyond what can be done with just those few measurements.

It almost feels as if by the time I know enough about kilts to order one, I will also know enough to make the damn thing myself^*.

*Not a chance in hell, I know