Length of kilt - hunting tartan

[CMcG]

"Interesting letter," thread by Jock Scot
http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...-letter-31533/

In the "Interesting Letter," it suggest that traditionally one's kilt length should be high enough and hose height short enough to show about 6 inches of leg. I suppose this would be, of course, modified based on the height of the wearer.

To my eye, modern kilt wear look best when one shows the same approximate ratio of leg. People often wear scrunched or folded down socks, so the length of the kilt would need to be longer to compensate.

In the world of modern kilts, that isn't a hard and fast rule, of course. But there is an aesthetic explanation for why it looks good. When no leg is shown, the outfit starts to look quite blocky and doesn't emphasize that one is unbifurcated. If too much leg is shown (i.e. kilt and flip flops), I start to see it as heat beating comfort and not a style choice...

[seanachie]

If too much leg is shown (i.e. kilt and flip flops), I start to see it as heat beating comfort and not a style choice...

Colin, spoken like a man from the Great White North. I can honestly tell you when it is 95F or better and you have just worked all day and come home beat, it can combine both style and comfort. (Disclaimer: Never flip flops but decent sandals) That said I have an old beater kilt that I would wear in the house but if I were going for a meal or the like I would wear something much more presentable. By the same token, I went to a wedding recently with an out door reception. It was inland and warm but I did not dress down for such a formal occassion, I maintained the appropriate level of dress kilted. Didn't want to let the old sages down on all the advice they have dispensed so well.