[OC Richard]

I always thought that "real" kilts had 8 yards of tartan in them, and just assumed that kilts "always' had 8 yards in them.

Then I did some reading about the dress of the Highland regiments and discovered that ORs kilts in the early 19th century had only around 4 yards.

I can't find the passage now, but somewhere in a book there was a table showing the dates which the tartan allowance for soldiers was increased to six yards then to eight. As I recall the increase to six yards was in the mid-19th century, to 8 yards late in the 19th century.

After wearing my massive "tank" made of nearly 9 yards of heavyweight tartan, and then feeling how much more comfortable I am with my other kilt which has around 6 yards, I wonder why on earth the Army kept upping the amount of tartan.

Is there any documentation on this process? What reasons were given for the increase in yardage?

[HarborSpringsPiper]

Good question. I wonder what if any documentation exists. I always thought it was just an upshot of going for a fuller looking kilt with a better "swing". An evolution from belted plaid to philabeg to tailored 4-yard kilt, then just adding more material with deeper pleats for the look. More a case of tweaking a uniform for appearance instead of function.

While I think I still like my "tank" best, I must admit that the 4-yard box pleat is extremely comfortable, even in regimental wgt tartan.

[BEEDEE]

See this article by our own Matt Newsome: http://albanach.org/yardage.htm

Brian

[Smayniac]

Originally Posted by HarborSpringsPiper

Good question. I wonder what if any documentation exists. I always thought it was just an upshot of going for a fuller looking kilt with a better "swing". An evolution from belted plaid to philabeg to tailored 4-yard kilt, then just adding more material with deeper pleats for the look. More a case of tweaking a uniform for appearance instead of function.

While I think I still like my "tank" best, I must admit that the 4-yard box pleat is extremely comfortable, even in regimental wgt tartan.

I had the opportunity to observe the swing of my own kilts at Christmas as I walked out of the sun on a paved hillside driveway. I was pleased that the xKilt seemed to have nearly as much swing as my most recent six yard knife pleat. I don't think I have anything with eight full yards in it yet.

Bob

[QMcK]

Very interesting. You could almost go so far as to call an 8 yard kilt 'costume'. It is a silly amount of material, meant for show and not practical use.

Having said that, I don't see anything wrong with people wearing a 'costume' when ever they want to.

[OC Richard]

Originally Posted by HarborSpringsPiper

...then just adding more material with deeper pleats for the look.

All of the Scottish Highland regimental kilts were pleated to the line, so that adding yardage increased the number of pleats and made the visible portion of each pleat narrower, but didn't appreciably increase the depth of the pleats.

On pleated-to-the-line kilts what would make for deeper pleats would be to use a larger sett size, and in fact this happened too: Napoleonic kilts had a rather small sett size, but by the mid 19th century the sett sizes had got quite huge.

I did read Matt's article and other things which document that kilts originally had less yardage. But they don't address WHY the Army kept increasing the yardage as the 19th century wore on. That's what I wonder: whatever purpose was served by having more and more yardage hanging on your backside, making the kilts less and less balanced?

[HarborSpringsPiper]

Originally Posted by OC Richard

But they don't address WHY the Army kept increasing the yardage as the 19th century wore on. That's what I wonder: whatever purpose was served by having more and more yardage hanging on your backside, making the kilts less and less balanced?

So, you don't think it was for looks? I understand you are looking for documentation, but I wonder if that exists. I know government entities love to document things, though I'm not sure things like the "why's" of a uniform change get recorded.

[OC Richard]

Yes I suppose it had to be for the look... though I myself think the older kilts with less yardage look just as good, if not better, than the later kilts with more, narrower pleats. The "swing" doesn't seem to be that different between my 9 yard and my 6 yard kilts.

The way that the various Highland regiments fiercely guarded their "tribal" distinctions, one wouldn't expect that all the kilted regiments would increase the yardage in lockstep, but they seem to have done.

[Semiomniscient]

I have a 4 yard box pleated Cameron of Erracht in a medium weight that Matt Newsome made for me. I have never worn a kilt so comfortable or fit so nicely--albeit I'm gaining weight since marriage, but that has nothing to do with the kilt!
Four yard kilts are better balanced and I've never had any problem with the "swing"--but I'm a dancer so I get a little more swing than the average kiltie anyway.
I've recently read Bob Martin's booklet which discussed the matter--and I've been to the Scottish Tartans Museum in NC to see the 4 yard box-pleats dating back hundreds of years. So, it's not a matter of what's "right" but rather what's "right for you." I have come to prefer the look of box pleating as cleaner--showing off more of the material.
Beyond kilts that I might inherit, I will NEVER go back to knife-pleating. I will always purchase a 4 yard box pleat. (Besides, buying 2-4 yards LESS material will give your wallet a breather and you can afford other such niceties as kilt jackets, beautiful hose, etc.)

[thescot]

The first two kilts I bought were both custom as follows:

*8 yd. 13 oz. from Edgar of Scotland
*5 yd (or so) 13 oz. from MacIntosh

I like both, but there's nothing that looks or feels like the 8 yarder.

I like the lighter kilt, but I love the 8yarder best.