Wearing a dirk casually

[kingandrew]

Steve,

Thank you for your note. seing it was not connected to the site, I did a quick Google search on how to turn off any auto-correct feature in MacOS and have unchecked the box in my keyboard preferences. Testing it out on this message, I can now safely type not just "sgian dubh," but all sorts of HP Lovecraft-style gibberish (ry'leh, cthulu, ajfla;jd, etc.) without any "corrections" interfering.

My typing may occasionally veer into weird territory, but it will make it much easier to operate on the internet.

Thanks,
Andrew

[tripleblessed]

I wear a dirk on formal occasions. But a kirk is too large to wear comfortably just casually.

Geoff, I've known some pretty big guys, but I'm with you - a kirk is just not gonna be comfortable on the average guy.

[Tobinn]

I own a dirk (Revolutionary War re-enactor) and outside of mayhem I have no idea what I'd use it for. I carry a folding pocket knife which I find very useful for cutting apples and getting a start in an orange. It also has a bottle cap opener in the handle - double win. As in engine size, I believe that, outside of wearing one for re-enacting or ceremonial purposes and the like, there may be an inverse proportionality between size and...size.
On the other hand, I freely admit I could be wrong.

[Bruce Scott]

Here's a clip of the owner reviewing his dirk, which is apparently a "Deepeeka Brand Bollock Dagger" purchased from Kult of Athena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knlwhW2X1w4&t=57s

[OC Richard]

If we exclude the military, pipers and the occasional re-enactor, I think for many experienced day to day kilt wearers in Scotland the sight of some one wearing a dirk with their day or casual kilt attire is almost a sure signal of ignorance of how things are done. Pure Brigadoonary if you like. There is the occasional exception!

You might on very rare occasion see a Laird dressed in day attire(tweed jacket, tie etc..)carrying a dirk. He might be wearing it on a whim, or more likely representing the estate or Clan at some minor function. These cases are very few and far and between and should not be regarded as normal practice for the majority of kilt wearers.

Again, a very few dirks will be carried on dress occasions either and care must be taken in making assumptions from pictures on the internet on how "normal" it is. Suffice to say it isn't normal, but some experienced kilt wearers might on a rare occasion wear a dirk and usually for a very specific reason.

Thanks Jock, that is exactly my impression of the situation.

I'm late to this thread because the title of the thread itself struck me as a bit odd.

I'm interested in the history and tradition of things in general, including Highland Dress, and with Highland Dress I tend to take the long view on things, placing things I see today in their context.

Even in Victorian times civilian Highland Dress was sorting itself into two categories, Outdoor/Day Dress and Evening Dress, though these weren't as rigid as they were to become later.

Weaponry of any sort had already become rare with Victorian Day Dress. Evening Dress was the polar opposite, with a full repertoire of weaponry being worn (sword and sword-belt, dirk and dirk-belt, sgian, two Highland pistols, and powder-horn).

Around the beginning of the 20th century Highland Dress underwent a thorough transformation and the wearing of all these accessories was discarded. The new Evening Dress had a simple, sleek elegance. Only the sgian survived.

So if we're talking modern traditional civilian Highland Dress, Day or Evening, Casual or Formal, dirks are not part of it. (As Jock says there are the rare exceptions.)

As a working piper doing weddings and funerals and such I wear no blades at all, not even a sgian, because many venues have a "zero tolerance" policy.

I do have a dirk and a sgian which I only wear when doing re-enacting. Actually I have a basket-hilt sword as well, which I very rarely wear, when in Full Dress piping for US military functions where the other men are wearing swords, such as military weddings.

There are some interesting Victorian photos the dress of which falls in between the strict Day and Evening categories of the 20th century



But usually if it's Day/Outdoor Dress there's no dirk



With Evening Dress the dirk is usually worn in Victorian times, whether in this fairly plain version



or the ornate version with full panoply of weaponry and belts



With modern traditional civilian Highland Dress, no dirks.
(Note the ex-Army fellow wearing his old kilt, sporran, and Glengarry.)
(Also note that 3 of the 4 aren't wearing waistcoats, and 2 of those 3 have their neckties tucked into their kilts.)

[OC Richard]

On the other hand I do recall seeing a photo of what appeared to be a Victorian vintage full dirk with knife and fork, all three handles being deer's feet. I would think it was intended as a Hunting Dirk, intended for Outdoor Dress.

[Jock Scot]

On the other hand I do recall seeing a photo of what appeared to be a Victorian vintage full dirk with knife and fork, all three handles being deer's feet. I would think it was intended as a Hunting Dirk, intended for Outdoor Dress.

OCR.

I have seen a couple of those too, but in a glass case! I doubt that they were built for any practical use whatsoever-----they really have/had no practical use, or even, some visual use -------but they may have been worn by some poser or other, but for certain sure the dirk has never been a tool for genuine Victorian sportsmen (remember hunting in the UK means horses and hounds and the kilt has never been hunting attire). Or maybe, some knife maker made them as show pieces. I think just because they were made, does not mean that we should jump to conclusions about common usage.Much like internet kilt attire pictures with no explanations, we need to be careful that we are not led in the wrong direction!

[Tobus]

...but for certain sure the dirk has never been a tool for genuine Victorian sportsmen (remember hunting in the UK means horses and hounds and the kilt has never been hunting attire).

Your response reminded me of this painting of Cluny MacPherson, circa 1873, by John Frederick Tayler (I believe this painting resides in the British Museum, London). Given his choice of attire and weaponry (his dirk is clearly visible on his right hip), and the presence of his dogs, I can't say whether he was engaged in outdoor sportsmanship or simply posing for a portrait.



Here's another that I had saved, though I'm unsure of the exact period/date. At any rate, they are engaged in deer stalking (hunting to us colonists), and a dirk is clearly being worn.



Not that either of these images prove anything vis-a-vis dirks being part of the tradition of "genuine Victorian sportsmen". Just thought they were interesting enough to share in the discussion. The subjects apparently thought they were relevant enough to wear for the portraits, at the very least.

[Jock Scot]

In my honest opinion I regard those pictures as romantic eye candy. In those days you had to get pretty close to ones quarry(red deer) for an effective shot and a dirk would be a damn bother to do that. Without going into details, sights, ballistics and bullet design were not like they are today although nonetheless, still pretty effective. The Deer hound in the second picture was used to "run down" any injured beast. I am not sure but the dogs in the first picture look like some sort of Setter or Pointer used for walking up grouse, so I cannot fathom the practical need for a dirk there either.

[Luke MacGillie]

"Cluny MacPherson, chief of the Clan Chattan," watercolour, touched with bodycolour (over graphite), by the British painter and printmaker John Frederick Tayler (1802-1889). 267 mm x 182 mm. Courtesy of the British Museum, London.