What are you saying… 
1 Like
Merely that I haven’t actually had a waist which measures 34" for some years 
1 Like
You also wear jeans very differently to the much more formal and old fashioned style of number 1 trousers, so they shouldn’t be compared.
2 Likes
That depends on how one wears one’s jeans… 
I like mine to sit at my waist… Like where jeans is meant to sit innit.
Though, following your point it is worth mentioning that the current No 2 trousers are notably lower in rise. They do not sit at the correct waist level as No 1 trousers should/would.
The No 1 trousers are actually a fairly modern cut and would (other than the sizing mentioned above) be closely comparable to most modern ‘formal’ trousers.
No 5 trousers are a great example of traditional design with their close fit, high waist, high back. Mess dress really hasn’t changed since the early 1800s.
Turner Virr good quality?
You are having a Giraffe, they are utter rip off merchants! They took over 6 months to Try to get my No1s to fit - even then I had to result to using the local Parent Unit Stn Tailor (who achieved it in no time squared).
In no way, shape, or form, are they anywhere near the quality of my original No1s (for which, as a Regular, I received a grant, and which I bought from a well known Military Tailor).
Didn’t they get caught a few years ago not keeping to the contract, as in not providing what was being paid for to the required standard etc?
Something like that
They screwed my issued set of No.1s up too. Never ever got sorted. Local station tailor said they were beyond fixing and it ended up with them saying they would only deal with it if I took them back to Cranwell and got re-measured - a 10-hour round trip for me. Whenever they are “required” I just point out that nobody has actually successfully issued any to me (on the advice of the local station I did not sign for them) and if Wing wants to sort that out, they are more than welcome to, as I have no time to do it.
In some ways, a removal of the No.1 issue will help me here. Remember there are some of us that can’t afford to spend out on this kind of stuff. I just about scraped enough together for my No.3s over time.
3 Likes
Quite simply no3s should be issued.
1 Like
Interestingly, according to their regulations, that’s still the way that the SCC operates. Their Officers and WOs are given an allowance up to a maximum to buy their own. They also have provision for an allowance to replace them every 5 years if necessary.
I never cease to be amazed by how much more the SCC manage to pay for with far less financial assistance from the RN than we get from the RAF. All their cadets gets No 1 too. Those Royal Marines dress blue uniforms are expensive, but each cadet is scaled for a new set every year I’m told!
If only our Council and Committees could take a lesson from the charitable collections of the MSSC.
3 Likes
Not sure if it’s true they are scaled for replacements.
The CCFRN (used to?) do the same with no. 1s, but there were several cases of officers taking the grant and never actually buying them.
These are the current regulations.
They’ve obviously taken steps to avoid the issue of taking money and not buying uniform. It’s paid against receipts only now. Bit of a no-brainer really.
Though, if you were referring to the scaling of replacements for cadets then I’m going only by what I was told by one of their instructors.
I would imagine that they are a pool item where serviceable kit is reissued as cadets outgrow it.
Probably. CCFRN are not scaled for no.1s and I have sometimes even been told they are not to wear it…
EDIT*… I presume you meant Cadets again…
That’s a shame. It must be all that extra cash that the MSSC rake in. They’re clearly on the ball.
SCC and RMC Cadets are certainly scaled for issue:
Units are also permitted to hold enough uniform in stores for the unit strength plus 20% (10% for ceremonial uniform).
Compare that to our “Thou shalt not hold more uniform than 1 set per 10 cadets” regulation… Crazy