Kilt lengths

[kiltedtom]

Kiltedjohn,

I fully understand your situation. At 5'8" (and the doc told me at the last physical that I had shrunk an inch to 5'7"; dang him), anyway, at my height, a 24" kilt is way too long. My length measurement is 21.5". When I purchaged my kilt, I ordered 22". And that is almost at the bottom of my knees. Even the slightest difference in a kilt length makes a massive difference in the appearance and the comfort it has. So, unless I have a sudden growth spurt at 57yo, I have to get mine made to fit me.

But, at the same time, all the really great things in life are closer to ground level anyway. So the benefits outweigh the difficulties.

Have a great week, Kiltedjohn and everyone else too.

Tom

[OC Richard]

After wearing it very high on the waist, I finally had it shortened by an inch and a half. What a difference! It's really comfortable - I wish I had had the alteration done sooner.

Not that shortening a kilt is easy- just ask a kiltmaker- but it's easier than lengthening one! That's the problem for taller people.

[OC Richard]

Wow. This makes me feel like I have short legs. I'm 6'7" and the length of my kilts are at 25" and they hang low on my knees.

Though it's sure true that different people have different proportions, and you can have somebody of a given height who has short legs and a long torso (think R E Lee), however oftentimes with Americans new to kiltwearing it's a case of wearing the kilts too low, like blue jeans, and not up at the "natural waist". Think of the difference between modern blue jeans and oldfashioned trousers which come up much higher- that's how kilts are traditionally worn. Feel the bottom ribs- traditionally the kilt would come up to just about that place, because the buckles should be at the "natural waist", the gap between the top of the hipbone and the bottom ribs, and in addition the kilt has a "rise", usually 2", so that the top of the kilt is at least 2" above the waist. If you shove the top of the kilt down to the "natural waist" it will be 2" too long at the bottom.

One sees it at any Highland Games here, American pipe band members who have properly made kilts, made to the wearer's correct length, but they shove the kilt low around the hips resulting in the bottom of the kilt covering their knees.

It goes hand-in-glove with jackets. Traditionally made doublets have a high waist too, up at the "natural waist", not at modern blue jeans height.

Here's a photo which shows how short in the body traditional doublets were made. Note how high-waisted the kilt must be, to be worn with such jackets, which end at the elbow more or less.



So guess what? An American who has his kilt made far too short won't be able to wear a correctly made jacket with it, there being a big gap of shirt showing, so to cater to this some of the Pakistani and Indian firms have begun making jackets absurdly long



For comparison here's a properly tailored jacket

[Tobus]

I do completely understand the cost for "dress wear" and "dress kilts" but, being someone who is totally open to wearing kilts in public on a daily basis this cost is just too high for me to justify attempting to build any sort of respectable wardrobe; which may be a reason why those Pakistani-made kilts are so popular, not to mention that Wool in Texas is not something I find comfortable.

Wool is actually a very breathable material, even here in the Texas heat. I own (or have owned) kilts in wool, acrylic, polyviscose, and cotton 'duck' material (Utilikilt). And between all the different materials, wool is by far the most comfortable in the heat. The synthetic fibers just don't breathe well enough for me. If heat is your concern, you'll likely want to stick with a low-yardage kilt in the 4 or 5 yard range, rather than a full 8 yard kilt. Some folks also think that a lighter wool fabric (10-11 oz range, rather than the 15-16 oz range of traditional kilts) is better for heat too. These can be had at reasonable prices, and needn't be the same cost as a full-blown traditional 'tank'.