[Chas]

Originally Posted by Riverkilt

This thread has me beginning to wonder if there is a line somewhere between "imitation kilts" and a real kilt.

Should these low price, poor quality, or few features garments be called kilts, or should they be called "imitation kilts" or "kilt-like?"

Really difficult for me to put a hand sewn 16 ounce wool strome kilt next to a basic acetate low cost kilt-like garment and call them both kilts.

Just saying...my take...your mileage may differ...

Sorry Ron - can't agree at all!

By your own definition above, the leather garments you wear aren't kilts either - nor are the canvas ones.

We do not have an official definition of what constitutes a kilt, so therefore they are all kilts - the contemporary, the traditional and the great kilt.

Either we accept them all or we go the other way and say that to be a kilt it must be made only by the following makers (maybe just one?) ...

Not a route that I would care to follow.

Regards

Chas

[CDNSushi]

Originally Posted by CMcG

Would anyone like to put forth the argument that my two choices for lowest price kilts (The Scotland Kilt Co. poly/acetate and The Frugal Corner custom acrylic) aren't actually kilts? Could be interesting to read their reasoning and what they offer as an alternative...

Okay. I'll bite & play advocatus diaboli for the sake of discussion and as a thinking exercise.

I would therefore argue that what separates REAL kilts from IMITATION kilts can be based on the premise that we are defining a kilt as a Scottish garment, of traditional origins, that embodies the spirit, history, and blood of the nation.

In order to limit our scope, we must exclude the Scottish diaspora, both by virtue of geography and other cultural influences. We must also define the kilt as being something uniquely Scottish, in the sense that it is immediately recognizable and unmistakable for what it is by any reasonable, logical individual, anywhere in the world.

The intention is NOT to dispute the legitimacy of Scots (in language, culture, or material possessions) outside of Scotland, not is it the intention to argue that other cultures, histories or civilizations don't have their own take on the kilt, whether it be influenced by the Scots or not.

Therefore, what separates a REAL kilt from an IMITATION one must be based on three arguments.

1) The kilt must be MADE in Scotland. This is just plain, simple, and uncompromising. If the kilt is made somewhere else, it ceases to be REAL and is now in the domain of the IMITATION. Why? An imitation product may look and feel like the real thing, and quite possibly even be superior to the real thing (quality and appearance are not the argument here), but provenance is critical. Much the same way, NO corn mash whiskey distilled and bottled outside of the state of Kentucky could be called Bourbon... NO brandy distilled and bottled outside of the Cognac region of France may be called Cognac... Ergo, I argue that NO kilt designed, woven, or sewn outside of Scotland may be called a REAL kilt... Here is the criterion: The sheep, (whose original provenance is immaterial) must live IN Scotland when they are shorn. The wool must be likewise processed, and woven IN Scotland, and the kilt must be made IN Scotland. The provenance of the people in the value chain is immaterial, as long as they have legal right to reside and work in Scotland (I'm not going to get into racial arguments).

2) The kilt must be made of wool. No other material is appropriate, because while other fabrics may have the appearance and SOME of the characteristics of wool, NO material other than wool has the exact same characteristics as the real thing. The Scots chose wool to make their kilts. Why? That is also immaterial, but wool does have some interesting properties that make it the ideal choice... That is a discussion for another time, though. Clearly, the Scots would have had a choice of other fabrics from which to make kilts, but they didn't. Once you start allowing other materials to be called "kilts" you may well end up with something that looks, feels, and has none of the characteristics of that which we are trying to preserve.

3) The garment must be of tartan cloth, and it must be pleated. I add this only because if I don't, I will get the inevitable, "by your argument then, <insert weirdo picture of something vaguely kilt-like> is a kilt." I am not trying to argue the ultimate difference between a kilt and a non-kilt. I AM trying to argue the difference between REAL and IMITATION kilts.

Beyond this, all other characteristics are immaterial. Whether the kilt is machine or hand sewn, whether the pleats are sewn down, how and where and by whom it is worn, the weight of the fabric, all do not come into play here. Similarly, using a previous argument, the requirements for an alcohol to be called Bourbon are, actually quite simple... It must be a corn mash, and it must be made in Kentucky. Anything else, recipe, aging, type of bottle, name, etc, etc, are all left to each individual maker to decide... As long as the bare-minimum requirements are met, everything else is moot.

Having said all this then, as much as we may love and enjoy Jerry's Stillwater kilts, or the Scotland CO. kilts, or USA kilts, and even our own Matt Newsome's kilts, or Ancienne Alliance's good wife Lady Chrystal's kilts.... None of these are REAL by this definition, because they violate my first rule of not being made in Scotland. Now before everyone gets out their pitchforks, tar and feathers, again, let me stress that very often the quality, workmanship, appearance, or what have you on an imitation may far surpass that of the original... Much like you can get some of the best-tasting, most expensive single malt whiskys in the WORLD coming from Japan, but as they are not made in Scotland, cannot be called SCOTCH.

What are the alternatives then?

Since the OP is looking for the lowest possible price, and if we are going to confine ourselves to the realm of REAL kilts, we must find something that is a wool kilt made in Scotland.

1. I've had a good experience dealing with Marchbrae (website down for repairs)... They offer off-the-rack wool kilts at VERY reasonable prices.

2. John Morisson. http://www.jmkilts.co.uk/ (Yes, I know who the owner is... But they DO fulfill my 3 requirements above... You're looking at about £117.50 for an entry-level kilt)

3. Scotweb. http://www.scotweb.co.uk/ A 5-yard, wool kilts can be had for about £113 incl. VAT.

Now, if you're thinking that you'll get a wool, made-in-Scotland kilt for under $100, it's highly unlikely... But that's the price you pay for an item that is REAL rather than IMITATION.
.
.
.


*Final disclaimer: In case anyone missed it the first time, my post above is an exercise in thinking and an attempt to play Devil's advocate and does not necessarily represent my true feelings on any issue. Please take it as such, and with a grain of salt. (Just in case anyone still wants to go at me with a pitchfork for saying that their favourite kiltmaker doesn't make REAL kilts... )

[CMcG]

Originally Posted by CDNSushi

Okay. I'll bite & play advocatus diaboli for the sake of discussion and as a thinking exercise.

I would therefore argue that what separates REAL kilts from IMITATION kilts can be based on the premise that we are defining a kilt as a Scottish garment, of traditional origins, that embodies the spirit, history, and blood of the nation.

<snip>

Bravo CDNSushi!

That is indeed an interesting and well reasoned argument. I particularly like how you avoided the issue of race in your specification about a real kilt being made by a person of Scottish nationality.

To apply a reductio ad absurdum to your initial premise, I would say a "real" kilt is more specifically a Highland garment. Notwithstanding national boundaries and the adoption of the kilt by non-Highland Scots, it would then follow that your other arguments should per force be constricted to kilts from the Highlands. This creates such a limited range of options that the majority of kilts would be imitation...

But let's play with CDNSushi's definition of a "real" kilt. Can anyone suggest a lower price than Scotweb's £113 (incl. VAT) for a wool, tartan, made-in-Scotland kilt?

[cessna152towser]

Best deal I ever had was from Union Kilts when I bought one of the acrylic Black Watch kilts which they had offered for £20 about four years ago. A proper kilt with a stitched down fell. I wore it a few times and then washed it and sold it on eBay for more than its original price. I have a Wallace acrylic kilt which cost £14.99 complete with a very basic kilt pin but it lacks a stitched down fell.

[fluter]

Originally Posted by CMcG

Bravo CDNSushi!

Bravo and also

Aspiring curmudgeon and incorrigible pedant that I am, I'd be willing to bet that (at that price point), many of the tartans in your bargain casual kilt originate in

... wait for it ...

Yorkshire.

adding very quickly that I am extremely fond of Yorkshire and all its works, but CDNSushi has rather painted us into a corner with his terms and conditions.

[CDNSushi]

Originally Posted by fluter

Bravo and also

Aspiring curmudgeon and incorrigible pedant that I am, I'd be willing to bet that (at that price point), many of the tartans in your bargain casual kilt originate in

... wait for it ...

Yorkshire.

adding very quickly that I am extremely fond of Yorkshire and all its works, but CDNSushi has rather painted us into a corner with his terms and conditions.

Okay.... Well, I wouldn't be the expert in that area as I've only ever visited the U.K. once, very, very briefly. However my understanding of Yorkshire is that it's still a part of England, albeit the Northern part, with Scotland up even farther.

If what you say is true, I can't see how the companies I mentioned could claim to offer kilts made in Scotland if they in fact came from Yorkshire?

Can you elaborate a bit?

[Jordan]

Originally Posted by CDNSushi

Snip
Beyond this, all other characteristics are immaterial. Whether the kilt is machine or hand sewn, whether the pleats are sewn down, how and where and by whom it is worn, the weight of the fabric, all do not come into play here. Similarly, using a previous argument, the requirements for an alcohol to be called Bourbon are, actually quite simple... It must be a corn mash, and it must be made in Kentucky. Anything else, recipe, aging, type of bottle, name, etc, etc, are all left to each individual maker to decide... As long as the bare-minimum requirements are met, everything else is moot.

Snip
What are the alternatives then?

Since the OP is looking for the lowest possible price, and if we are going to confine ourselves to the realm of REAL kilts, we must find something that is a wool kilt made in Scotland.

1. I've had a good experience dealing with Marchbrae (website down for repairs)... They offer off-the-rack wool kilts at VERY reasonable prices.

2. John Morisson. http://www.jmkilts.co.uk/ (Yes, I know who the owner is... But they DO fulfill my 3 requirements above... You're looking at about £117.50 for an entry-level kilt)

3. Scotweb. http://www.scotweb.co.uk/ A 5-yard, wool kilts can be had for about £113 incl. VAT.

Now, if you're thinking that you'll get a wool, made-in-Scotland kilt for under $100, it's highly unlikely... But that's the price you pay for an item that is REAL rather than IMITATION.
.
.
.


*Final disclaimer: In case anyone missed it the first time, my post above is an exercise in thinking and an attempt to play Devil's advocate and does not necessarily represent my true feelings on any issue. Please take it as such, and with a grain of salt. (Just in case anyone still wants to go at me with a pitchfork for saying that their favourite kiltmaker doesn't make REAL kilts... )

Now im not sure about Scotweb but I had a quick squint throught John Morrison's site and aside the fact that some of the tartans cost extra the £116 is good for the ones which i would presume are in stock. That said if you walk into a shop in Scotland nine times out of ten when you ask for a kilt it will be something mor like a tank than a beater kilt, I got one from Mccalls in Elgin and it was aroung the £300 mark.

Slightly off topic what sort of quality are we looking at from John morrison?

Jordan

[CMcG]

Originally Posted by CDNSushi

<snip>
What are the alternatives then?

Since the OP is looking for the lowest possible price, and if we are going to confine ourselves to the realm of REAL kilts, we must find something that is a wool kilt made in Scotland.

1. I've had a good experience dealing with Marchbrae (website down for repairs)... They offer off-the-rack wool kilts at VERY reasonable prices.

2. John Morisson. http://www.jmkilts.co.uk/ (Yes, I know who the owner is... But they DO fulfill my 3 requirements above... You're looking at about £117.50 for an entry-level kilt)

3. Scotweb. http://www.scotweb.co.uk/ A 5-yard, wool kilts can be had for about £113 incl. VAT.

I did some comparisons between options #2 and #3 (#1 is still down for upgrades). John Morrison (or Scotland Shop Direct, Heritage of Scotland, etc) and Scotweb would be priced as CDNSushi stated above for U.K. residents. Those prices include VAT and free Royal Mail Shipping.

For North Americans, however, the situation is a little different. Scotweb will only ship via courier to Canada and the U.S.A., which costs $44 and will most likely incur both a "brokerage fee" and the full taxes/duty. With the Xmarks discount and shipping, their price is $187 USD. I'll estimate a $35 brokerage fee (that's what I paid last time I had the misfortune of using an international courier service) and $42 for HST/duty in Toronto, Canada. Grand total: $264 USD.

I couldn't calculate shipping on the John Morrison site, so I used Scotland Shop Direct instead because they carry the same kilts. They offer free shipping by Royal Mail on some orders and this one qualifies. Regular mail may or may not incur tax/duty... Grand total: $155 USD without tax/duty or $201.5 USD with tax/duty. Also, there is a %20 off sale at Scotland Shop Direct for the next 5 days (although I calculated based on regular price).

Caveat empteor.

[fluter]

Originally Posted by CDNSushi

If what you say is true, I can't see how the companies I mentioned could claim to offer kilts made in Scotland if they in fact came from Yorkshire?

Can you elaborate a bit?

I said the fabric came from Yorkshire, not the kilt! I was simply poking fun at the perennial attempt to define a real kilt. The attempt is pretty well doomed from the outset, but it's always enjoyable.

FWIW my definition is that it has pleats in back, and it wraps in front.

To elaborate as requested, some of the bargains in fabric come from Marton Mills and Batley, both in Yorkshire. I'm working on a box-pleat in Marton's 16 ounce Jura fabric. The cost of 2 yards double-width, delivered to the US, was under $100 when I bought it, and possibly less now.

[biblemonkey]

Though I don't have one I have seen good reviews for Stillwater Kilts "Thrifty". If you are just looking for a beater or around the house kilt then get one of those, toss on a kilt belt, and noone will notice that it's velcro instead of buckle. For an average of $30 for an acrylic kilt that's not too bad. Being light acrylic I just wouldn't use it for anything in high wind or near flames. Two definitions of "whoosh" come to mind.