WW1 Kilt

Discussion in 'Military History and Militaria' started by RCSignals, Jan 18, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Mmm: My tupence worth: Never seen a military kilt with belt loops; Ditto the stitching running across the waist; ditto the sewn in crease on the apron. Could of course be an officers kilt made to spec by his tailor.

    But lets be fair to the vendor he is saying 'WW1 period' kilt not that its a military one. 46inch waist would be very large and unusual for a kilt - I wonder if that 46 inches total length of the kilt (including the length of the bottom apron)
     
  2. Yes, I agree with your observations. One might guess though that the belt loops and odd stitching were added later.
    The black binding at the top is fairly common to WW1 kilts, as is haveing no straps and buckles.

    I'm guessing the 46" stated is total length at the top, which would traslate to about a 30" waist size.
     
  3. I have my great, uncles Kilt from WW1 (he was a pipe major in the Argylls) and will check it for what you described.

    Have to say though - if anything his kilt has got darker and not lighter over the years!
     
  4. That will be interesting L-G.

    I have an old SH ORs kilt, probably post WW1, and it has colour faded, but no where near the one in that auction appears to have. Of course in those days they were worn as Battle Dress.

    Interesting your great uncles kilt had darkened. I have an old Argyll Officers kilt, probably post WW1, and it's colours are quite dark and almost blended, much darker than one would expect for an Argyll kilt.
     
  5. Looks a bit like a faded McKenzie tartan - could it be RSF?
     
  6. the sett is wrong for SH or HLI.
    If it is military at all, I wonder if it is from one of the Commonwealth 'Scottish' Regiments.....I don't believe it matches any Canadian ones though, unless it is Lorne Scots or 48th Highlanders(Davidson tartan)
     
  7. Ooops, didn't mean McKenzie (Seaforths), I meant Erskine...for shame! I blame my recalcitrant bum-grapes which are a dreadful distraction the noo... 8O
     
  8. This looks very short to be a military item.

    If you take the 46" as the waist and the kilt is laid flat, then what you see as the waist cannot be larger than 23". The length appears to be pretty much the same - what height would this make the wearer?.

    Of course I might be wrong (maintaining a fine personal tradition).
     
  9. military kilts do have a high rise. a 24" military kilt would be for someone about 5' to 5'3 or so.
    But if the total lenght at the top is 46", the waist fit would be about 30", not 23.
     
  10. Yeah, wasn't suggesting he had 46" waist, it was just a way of getting an idea of the length from known info. There might be a fold-back of the waist, which would make everything shorter.

    Your suggestion of height supports my view of it being very short for the military .... unless it's been cut down or shrunk. It just looks very girly to me, and I've seen a few Kilts & tartan skirts over the years.

    No idea of the tartan.
     
  11. He's not Gordons, he's Black Watch... and this thread is 8 years old. (FFS)
     
  12. ... and the link makes no shagging sense anymore.