Waistcoat with a Belt?

[Gauranga]

It is my understanding that when wearing a waistcoat it is not necessary to wear a kilt belt (formal wear). Is this true? And if so, what is the reason?

I have always been under the impression that it is just not done, but I have met a gentleman this weekend who wears both at the same time and insists that this is correct.

Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[SlackerDrummer]

Wearing a belt with a waistcoat is not necessary and pretty much for that reason alone it is not done. There is nothing implicitly "wrong" with it. If one is wearing a dirk, however, a belt must be worn (to hold the dirk) and the belt should be worn over the waistcoat.

[CMcG]

One reason for not doing it is that a belt can cause an unsightly bulge under the waistcoat. Another is that a belt should be unnecessary because a kilt is a fitted garment with its own straps to hold it up.

Depending on the cut of the waistcoat, a belt buckle can look good peaking out from between the peaked bottom. The problem here is that it quickly looks sloppy and overdone if the belt twists or hangs too low.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Don't do it. Here's why:

Since a belt isn't required to hold up a kilt, there is no practical reason for wearing a belt when kilted, except when wearing a dirk. As has been pointed out by Slacker Drummer, if you are going to wear a dirk then the belt goes over, not under the waistcoat.

If the waistcoat is properly cut, and if the rise of the kilt is correct, the waistcoat would completely cover the belt; if it doesn't, then either the rise of the kilt is incorrect or the length of the waistcoat is incorrect, or both are incorrect. The only thing worse than wearing a belt with a waistcoat is seeing a bit of shirt in the gap between the the top of the kilt and the bottom of the waistcoat. A belt merely accentuates this problem.

If one is not wearing a waistcoat then a belt functions merely as an unnecessary fashion accessory, rather like the fake spur straps on cheap cowboy boots.

[Kilted Jeeper]

Don't do it. Here's why:

Since a belt isn't required to hold up a kilt, there is no practical reason for wearing a belt when kilted, except when wearing a dirk. As has been pointed out by Slacker Drummer, if you are going to wear a dirk then the belt goes over, not under the waistcoat.

If the waistcoat is properly cut, and if the rise of the kilt is correct, the waistcoat would completely cover the belt; if it doesn't, then either the rise of the kilt is incorrect or the length of the waistcoat is incorrect, or both are incorrect. The only thing worse than wearing a belt with a waistcoat is seeing a bit of shirt in the gap between the the top of the kilt and the bottom of the waistcoat. A belt merely accentuates this problem.

If one is not wearing a waistcoat then a belt functions merely as an unnecessary fashion accessory, rather like the fake spur straps on cheap cowboy boots.

MacMillan of Rathdown, what would your opinion be for those of us that have a "not so fitted" kilt such as a sportkilt or some other off the rack kilt? I ask because I currently have 3 kilts; a Sportkilt, a Frugal Corner Heavyweight and a very, very used Stillwater. Of these 3 only the Frugal Corner fits well enough to wear without a belt.

[biblemonkey]

I prefer to wear a belt most of the time with my kilt (even with sweaters) as I have no hips and even a well fitted kilt feels in danger of riding down. If I were to wear a waistcoat I would most likely still try to find a way to wear a belt with it for that reason alone (feels heavier in the waist and a little more secure) as well as to more visually define the waist as a skinny man in a kilt shows almost no figure. It is up to the individual really (as with most kilt issues) as to what looks appropriate and feels comfortable though you should compare and search for pictures of those wearing waist coats and see if you can find an example of how to do it to spec so to speak.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

MacMillan of Rathdown, what would your opinion be for those of us that have a "not so fitted" kilt such as a sportkilt or some other off the rack kilt? I ask because I currently have 3 kilts; a Sportkilt, a Frugal Corner Heavyweight and a very, very used Stillwater. Of these 3 only the Frugal Corner fits well enough to wear without a belt.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an off the rack kilt if it fits as it should.

With any of the kilts mentioned, provided they are worn at the waist and not sagging off your hips, you shouldn't need a belt to cinch them in place, unless the kilts are too big in the waist to begin with. Kilts are meant to be snug at the waist, not loose like an old pair of jeans or board shorts.

Not seeing how these kilts fit you, it's hard to offer any meaningful comment, beyond suggesting that you may have to reposition the buckles and straps on the Sportkilt (or ditto to the velcro closures on the Stillwater) to get a proper fit. To determine if this is the "fix", I'd begin by comparing your Frugal Corner to the others, and then adjust them as necessary.

Once you've got the fit right you won't need a belt to hold up your kilt. If you like the look of a belt with casual attire there is no reason not to wear one. If your mode of dress is a bit more formal, especially if it includes a waistcoat, then you'd be well advised to forgo the belt.

And if you are one of those guys with snake hips, then I'd suggest you sew on some buttons and buy a good pair of braces! (AKA suspenders in North America.)

Hope that answers your question...

[robbiethepiper]

Don't do it. Here's why:

Since a belt isn't required to hold up a kilt, there is no practical reason for wearing a belt when kilted, except when wearing a dirk. As has been pointed out by Slacker Drummer, if you are going to wear a dirk then the belt goes over, not under the waistcoat.

If the waistcoat is properly cut, and if the rise of the kilt is correct, the waistcoat would completely cover the belt; if it doesn't, then either the rise of the kilt is incorrect or the length of the waistcoat is incorrect, or both are incorrect. The only thing worse than wearing a belt with a waistcoat is seeing a bit of shirt in the gap between the the top of the kilt and the bottom of the waistcoat. A belt merely accentuates this problem.

If one is not wearing a waistcoat then a belt functions merely as an unnecessary fashion accessory, rather like the fake spur straps on cheap cowboy boots.

Excellently put. The only ways I wear a belt are (1) Over my doublet when piping, (2) With a "casual" low rise kilt, when its warm enough to be wearing only a shirt on top...

[Kilted Jeeper]

It does and I thank you for your insight.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an off the rack kilt if it fits as it should.

With any of the kilts mentioned, provided they are worn at the waist and not sagging off your hips, you shouldn't need a belt to cinch them in place, unless the kilts are too big in the waist to begin with. Kilts are meant to be snug at the waist, not loose like an old pair of jeans or board shorts.

Not seeing how these kilts fit you, it's hard to offer any meaningful comment, beyond suggesting that you may have to reposition the buckles and straps on the Sportkilt (or ditto to the velcro closures on the Stillwater) to get a proper fit. To determine if this is the "fix", I'd begin by comparing your Frugal Corner to the others, and then adjust them as necessary.

Once you've got the fit right you won't need a belt to hold up your kilt. If you like the look of a belt with casual attire there is no reason not to wear one. If your mode of dress is a bit more formal, especially if it includes a waistcoat, then you'd be well advised to forgo the belt.

And if you are one of those guys with snake hips, then I'd suggest you sew on some buttons and buy a good pair of braces! (AKA suspenders in North America.)

Hope that answers your question...

[Gauranga]

Thanks for your comments everyone. I believe I got my answer.

Best forum ever.