Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
VentureScoutNY

Spats

Recommended Posts

Been looking to form an honor guard for parades and courts of honor. Been looking at getting some old BSA issue leggings. Saw the discussion on spats and leggings. Regardless of "Uniform Police" comments posted, you have to admit, these kids look pretty squared away. I don't see anything wrong with it. 

 

BoyScoutsinLeggings.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of them. But them again I'm am biased. I like simple "plain Jane" dress uniforms without all the pogey cords, lanyards, ascots, chrome domes, etc. But that is me.

We have two groups locally providing honor guard services.  Neither one wears leggings. One wears red berets with the Honor Guard patch on them. They use the white flag belts and gloves like the group above. The other group does not wear covers ( which I wish they did), and wear the black flag belts. Personally I think the black flag belts look a lot better with the BSA's field uniform than the white. Plus they hide any dirt easier ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would find another Troop if I had to wear those. I know all those scouts did not voluntary wear them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they would look more "squared away" if they were all wearing matching footwear.  With different colored sneakers, it doesn't look that good.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎19‎/‎2004 at 2:07 PM, VentureScoutNY said:

For those of you who were scouts during the Uniform change, from green to kahaki... Did you all buy new Uniforms, or trade in uniforms, or insignia?

New uniforms as soon as they were available.  Had to buy several pair of the new shorts, as I was on camp staff that year, and wore them daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2004 at 1:53 PM, NJCubScouter said:

FOG says:

 

A for legality of uniform items, with the exception of the has, you cannot mix and match uniform items from different uniforms. So you shouldn't wear your 1960s vintage leggings with your Oscar de la Hoya designed pants.

 

@NJCubScouter 

Look at that 14 year old typo! Oscar de la Hoya is a boxer, Oscar de la Renta made the 1990s-2000's uniform. =P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

@NJCubScouter 

Look at that 14 year old typo! Oscar de la Hoya is a boxer, Oscar de la Renta made the 1990s-2000's uniform. =P

 

I know.  I was quoting another poster.  The quoting in older posts no longer appears on the screen correctly.  I was actually pointing out that Oscar de la Hoya was a boxer.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I will say, I finally got myself a new pair of shorts to replace the de la Renta :p pair I had inherited from our uniform exchange, and WOW do I like them better! It's a very durable canvas material, they're more comfortable, and a much more pleasant shade of green (I like the undertones of blue and gray far more than the brown and yellow undertones), AND as a young looking person in general, the simple cargo shorts are far more natural-looking on me than the odd pocket design of the 80's. I admit, I am a fan!

As for spats - I think they look very odd in the photo above. From a color standpoint, I do see how it ties together the white of the gloves and flag supporters. I actually love my white NESA neckerchief because the white sets off the colors of the uniform very nicely. But what we see above are spats, and spats don't look at all natural on cargo pants. Spats are made for dress clothing, and are in part decorative in function. The Boy Scout uniform is essentially a practical uniform, and adding spats as an accessory is both aesthetically jarring and antithetical to our purposes.

Gaiters, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter. In the earliest days of Scouting, those are what were worn, and the Boy Scouts wore olive khaki gaiters that matched their pants, which in those times were essentially jodhpurs - wide-thighed, flat-fronted pants. Because they were the same color, they didn't stand out against the rest of the uniform, and for the period it was a very normal thing to wear with outdoor/sporting clothing (this was the post-Edwardian era after all and the English outdoor aesthetic was as much an influence on the military as the military was on early Scoutwear). Gaiters were meant as more of a "heavy-duty" type of leg protection, and unlike spats, which are really meant to protect clothing, gaiters were more practical protection for shins, ankles, and the often-delicate leather shoes of the times. Gaiters were generally produced in thick canvas (such as with the Boy Scout uniforms) or from thicker, stronger leather than was used for shoes. As the Scout pant cut changed over the decades, they continued to produce gaiters to protect the boys' clothing - and they were always the same color because their purpose was not decorative, but practical (speaking for Boy Scouts, not Explorers). As shoe design improved and gaiters became less necessary, they were gradually phased out. Nowadays they are hard to find (I have actually wanted a vintage pair desperately for many months now). If they are worn though, they should be proper gaiters (not mamby-pamby spats), and they should be worn appropriately - with the correct period uniform, and in the same color. What I see above is somewhat akin to gilding the lilies to me - a properly worn uniform, well-fitted and properly sewn up with all the elements, is impressive enough. No need to fancy it up with useless footwear. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

As for spats - I think they look very odd in the photo above. From a color standpoint, I do see how it ties together the white of the gloves and flag supporters. I actually love my white NESA neckerchief because the white sets off the colors of the uniform very nicely. But what we see above are spats,...

Gaiters, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter...

Those are not spats in Eagle101's photo above. Those are leggings. And not the kind that my youngest son's preschool teacher wears to school. I state this based on the fact that I had to wear them for many weeks while Uncle Sam's Navy tried to teach me stuff in boot camp, most of which I'd already learned thanks to Boy Scouts & Explorers (aka Sea Scouts).

Spats are short, cover the shoe, but not the pant leg and are/were worn with formal wear.

Leggings may be considered a type of gaiter, but not all gaiters are leggings. Rain gaiters may go up to the knee & hook over the toe of a boot, such as motorcyclists sometimes wear. Snake gaiters are a thick, tough material such as leather, for obvious reasons. And then there's the extra tall kind that include a boot to go fishing in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the specification - I stand corrected; looking at the photo those are indeed leggings. They go up too high up to be spats, which somehow, manages to makes them look worse. :unsure:

What I find odd, even ironic, is that none of them wear the Honor Guard Emblem, a badge specifically created for events such as the parade in the photo above. The Honor Guard Emblem sets the boys apart in their role; it's a special, "extra" for those who want to dress things up; it's even accented with white, so it will go with their gloves and flag carriers! Why in heavens did they sacrifice money (and their dignity) on those awful leggings when there was a far better and official option already available to them that is both subtler and more appropriate? 

Oh, people. :laugh:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

Thank you for the specification - I stand corrected; looking at the photo those are indeed leggings. They go up too high up to be spats, which somehow, manages to makes them look worse. :unsure:

What I find odd, even ironic, is that none of them wear the Honor Guard Emblem, a badge specifically created for events such as the parade in the photo above. The Honor Guard Emblem sets the boys apart in their role; it's a special, "extra" for those who want to dress things up; it's even accented with white, so it will go with their gloves and flag carriers! Why in heavens did they sacrifice money (and their dignity) on those awful leggings when there was a far better and official option already available to them that is both subtler and more appropriate? 

Oh, people. :laugh:

Well, they probably don't think they are aweful.

I suspect that these boys aren't in the honor guard for much besides the parade. Thus, the lack of interest in the patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honor Guard patch is relatively new, within the past 2 years if memory serves. Looking at the uniforms in the photo, I'd say taken around 2009 or 2010, before the patch. If you look all four have the red loops, and definitely 2 are wearing ODL shirts. Also 2 are wearing Gen 1 Switchbacks, and 1 is wearing Gen 3 ODL pants. Only wear is wearing any CU items, specifically the canvas Switchbacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. Once again I stand corrected. Maybe I should just stop blabbing about things I clearly don't understand fully. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2018 at 11:13 AM, cyphertext said:

I think they would look more "squared away" if they were all wearing matching footwear.  With different colored sneakers, it doesn't look that good.

That's right.  If you're going for a "look", you have to do it right or don't do it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×