With some of the posts recently that mention kilt length in a picture, it got me thinking. Different kilt lengths is a more recent development, probably started when the kilts began to be tailored. It would seem to me that, historically, the length of a kilt on an individual was not determined by his measurements, but rather the size of the cloth. And since their were probably not too many looms in an area, all the cloth in that area would be the same width. Thus, a person in that area would have to wear whatever cloth was available. It could be adjusted a little bit by tucking into the belt, but not much. So, on one person it might fall right at his knees, but a shorter person might have it hit mid-calf, and a taller person might have it hit somewhere on his thigh.

Yeah, well, these days we DO have the means to exactly tailor the kilts. It can hit from the middle to the top of the kneecap, no matter how tall you are. That means there's no excuse for leaning against a motorcycle wearing a kilt short enough to let the world see Mr. Happy.

Rejoice in your time.

Yep, and if anyone thinks your kilt is too long, you can always respond that you can't wear it any shorter. ;)

Sherry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ugly Bear

Yeah, well, these days we DO have the means to exactly tailor the kilts. It can hit from the middle to the top of the kneecap, no matter how tall you are. That means there's no excuse for leaning against a motorcycle wearing a kilt short enough to let the world see Mr. Happy.

Rejoice in your time.

---

Oh, I agree that we have custom lengths now. I was just thinking and kind of wondering when the "proper" length was decided.

Thank you Sherry, hmm... just how long can I get by with?
David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davedove

... a person in that area would have to wear whatever cloth was available. It could be adjusted a little bit by tucking into the belt, but not much. So, on one person it might fall right at his knees, but a shorter person might have it hit mid-calf, and a taller person might have it hit somewhere on his thigh.

---

Interesting speculation. However, while your analysis may seem like sound logic, I don't think I have ever seen a historic painting or reference to a kilt being worn mid calf. If anything, kilts are shown at mid knee or top of the knee. Great kilts are shown even shorter. Long kilts seem to be a recent thing... possibly stemming from male insecurity about showing off their legs. (speculation in my part.) Utilikilt wearers seem quite notorious for long kilts.

IMHO kilts look best striking the top of the kneecap. Mid kneecap gives a bit more formal look. With no knee showing, the kilt somehow starts to loose that "kilt" look. Kilts that are mid calf look just as wrong as those that are mid thigh. I've seen both.

As far as when kilt length was established... tought to say. But the Scots have got this issue right over a very long time. Why mess with a good thing.

blu

I think I'll stick with mid-knee length for now.I don't see myself going regimental and having to buy a longer kilt!! :lol: :lol:

I think I prefer the middle of the kneecap: you can still see the whole kneecap when moving or seated, but it doesn't swing so low as to be restrictive.

Bryan...no fashion sense; just practical...