Waistband height utility kilt

[Hologenicman]

So, my first kilt ever is a Damn Near Kilt em Greenhorn with a 2.5 inch leather belt.

Utility kilts are not traditional so I consider that most rules are mostly guidelines, however, i would enjoy some feedback on height of the waistband.

I find that the bottom of the belt at my naval puts the sturdy belt above my fat bulge and around my kidneys and spine where it feels extremely comfortable. The top of the waistband ends up about 3 inches above my naval.

I am preparing to order an Angry Bastards War Horse a bit more customized to my dimensions and am trying to firm up my ideas about the way I am wearing the Greenhorn.

Thanks...

[Hologenicman]

BTW, I have a long torso and short legs which gives a 26 inch hang to the kilt.

[KennethSime]

Most will wear their utility kilts at the "trouser," or "jeans waist," with a drop length which puts the hem about mid-knee.

Most wear their traditional tartan kilts 2" above the navel, with a drop length which puts the hem about mid-knee.

Think about what jackets you might wear with the utility kilt - are they cut like a formal Prince Charlie Coatee? Or more like a jacket one might wear with jeans, or trousers?

Up to you, of course. If the kilt is comfortable at or above your navel, and the belt helps to firm up the gut a bit, more power to you.

[Hologenicman]

Most will wear their utility kilts at the "trouser," or "jeans waist," with a drop length which puts the hem about mid-knee.

Most wear their traditional tartan kilts 2" above the navel, with a drop length which puts the hem about mid-knee.

Think about what jackets you might wear with the utility kilt - are they cut like a formal Prince Charlie Coatee? Or more like a jacket one might wear with jeans, or trousers?

Up to you, of course. If the kilt is comfortable at or above your navel, and the belt helps to firm up the gut a bit, more power to you.

Thank you for the feedback!

In reviewing my own habits, I actually usually wear oversized jeans with suspenders at about 2 or 3 inches above my naval as it is. As for jackets and coats, I already have regular coats that fit over my jeans, belt, and EDC at that height without any trouble.

So it sounds like I am comfortable wearing the utility kilt at the height that most would wear their traditional kilt. I didn't understand that before but It sounds good to me.

Thanks

[brendanthetraveller]

Most will wear their utility kilts at the "trouser," or "jeans waist," with a drop length which puts the hem about mid-knee.

Most wear their traditional tartan kilts 2" above the navel, with a drop length which puts the hem about mid-knee.

Think about what jackets you might wear with the utility kilt - are they cut like a formal Prince Charlie Coatee? Or more like a jacket one might wear with jeans, or trousers?

Up to you, of course. If the kilt is comfortable at or above your navel, and the belt helps to firm up the gut a bit, more power to you.

In Scotland I have never seen anyone wearing a "Utikilt" so can someone explain to me why do they call it a utikilt? It is not a Kilt it is a tunic similar to a roman soldier.
The popularity of the Scottish kilt has produced several spin offs. Leather kilts, Plain coloured woollen Kilts, Tweed Kilts and Kilts made with patterns such as thistles or the Scottish St Andrews flag. These are all Kilts. The material may be different but the construction of the garment is the same as the traditional kilt. Nothing added and nothing removed.

The line is however drawn when a manufacturer changes the fundamental construction. The Utikilt adds integrated pockets: The pleats are too wide and do not appear to be stitched up to the waist and the amount of material used is far less than would be used in a traditional Kilt. The cross over front apron is also not the same. Because of these changes it stops being a kilt and becomes a tunic. If the manufacturer of this tunic had wanted to keep it as a Kilt they should have added the pockets as a detachable over apron (see British army regular issue 1914 – 1918). They should also have stuck to the traditional way that a proper Kilt is made.

Words are important because they convey a differentiation. A waist coat is not called a jacket because it is different. Breeches are not called trousers or is it pants in America? Shoes and boots are different so a Kilt is not a tunic.

[Hologenicman]

In Scotland I have never seen anyone wearing a "Utikilt" so can someone explain to me why do they call it a utikilt? It is not a Kilt it is a tunic similar to a roman soldier.
The popularity of the Scottish kilt has produced several spin offs. Leather kilts, Plain coloured woollen Kilts, Tweed Kilts and Kilts made with patterns such as thistles or the Scottish St Andrews flag. These are all Kilts. The material may be different but the construction of the garment is the same as the traditional kilt. Nothing added and nothing removed.

The line is however drawn when a manufacturer changes the fundamental construction. The Utikilt adds integrated pockets: The pleats are too wide and do not appear to be stitched up to the waist and the amount of material used is far less than would be used in a traditional Kilt. The cross over front apron is also not the same. Because of these changes it stops being a kilt and becomes a tunic. If the manufacturer of this tunic had wanted to keep it as a Kilt they should have added the pockets as a detachable over apron (see British army regular issue 1914 – 1918). They should also have stuck to the traditional way that a proper Kilt is made.

Words are important because they convey a differentiation. A waist coat is not called a jacket because it is different. Breeches are not called trousers or is it pants in America? Shoes and boots are different so a Kilt is not a tunic.

True, a utilikilt is not a traditional kilt by far.

As I understand it, they were invented in 1999 in Seattle, Washington near me. They have no tradition and truly no particular rules of wear.

I can fully understand how that can rub a true kiltsman the wrong way, but as an American it fits my attutude and needs very well. The utilikilt takes a tried and true concept and evolves it into a modern adaptation that server a broad spectrum of uses and situations that would be disrespectful of a traditional kilt. Americans take things and adapt them to serve current needs without holding on to the traditions quite as strongly albeit keeping the name for reference to its origins...

If I understand correctly, the "traditional" kilt is actually an evolution from the Great Kilt worn pleated from a single cloth without any stitching. It is an evolution for function and convenience however it has stayed truer to tradition since it has direct lineage.

Stay Proud,
John L>

[MichiganKyle]

I wear my DNKE Highlander (chosen due to cotton material and detachable pockets) at my natural waist, too. Far more comfortable that way for me.

But, yeah, when I'm wearing it, I'm usually doing some grubby in it and do not get anywhere near traditional kiltwear. I certainly wouldn't want to weld in a nice kilt. Can't say I'd recommend doing it in a utility kilt, either, but I've done it. That's why I wanted cotton - so I can grubby work without worrying about melting it into my skin. I sure wouldn't want to disassemble an engine in a nice kilt, but the anti-seize that got on my utility sporran when I did that doesn't much bother me. Got paint on my utility kilt, and it wouldn't wash out, so I let it dry and colored it in with a blue Sharpie. The utility kilt just works as a comfortable alternative for when I would otherwise have to wear blue jeans or shorts. Whether you want to call it a utility kilt or one-legged shorts, it's still more comfortable than jeans.

[Hologenicman]

I wear my DNKE Highlander (chosen due to cotton material and detachable pockets) at my natural waist, too. Far more comfortable that way for me.

But, yeah, when I'm wearing it, I'm usually doing some grubby in it and do not get anywhere near traditional kiltwear. I certainly wouldn't want to weld in a nice kilt. Can't say I'd recommend doing it in a utility kilt, either, but I've done it. That's why I wanted cotton - so I can grubby work without worrying about melting it into my skin. I sure wouldn't want to disassemble an engine in a nice kilt, but the anti-seize that got on my utility sporran when I did that doesn't much bother me. Got paint on my utility kilt, and it wouldn't wash out, so I let it dry and colored it in with a blue Sharpie. The utility kilt just works as a comfortable alternative for when I would otherwise have to wear blue jeans or shorts. Whether you want to call it a utility kilt or one-legged shorts, it's still more comfortable than jeans.

Funny, I have actually thought of it as one legged shorts also!

I was using a chainsaw to cut lengths of firewood today and it is so much more comfortable than jeans.

I have the DNKE Greenhorn which is 100% cotton and it is not a worry when working.

I wouldn't mind getting a traditional or great kilt eventually, but I would end up using it like a utilikilt for cold weather hiking or camping rather than being refined or following tradition...

John L>

[KennethSime]

In Scotland I have never seen anyone wearing a "Utikilt" so can someone explain to me why do they call it a utikilt? It is not a Kilt it is a tunic similar to a roman soldier.
The popularity of the Scottish kilt has produced several spin offs. Leather kilts, Plain coloured woollen Kilts, Tweed Kilts and Kilts made with patterns such as thistles or the Scottish St Andrews flag. These are all Kilts. The material may be different but the construction of the garment is the same as the traditional kilt. Nothing added and nothing removed.

The line is however drawn when a manufacturer changes the fundamental construction. The Utikilt adds integrated pockets: The pleats are too wide and do not appear to be stitched up to the waist and the amount of material used is far less than would be used in a traditional Kilt. The cross over front apron is also not the same. Because of these changes it stops being a kilt and becomes a tunic. If the manufacturer of this tunic had wanted to keep it as a Kilt they should have added the pockets as a detachable over apron (see British army regular issue 1914 – 1918). They should also have stuck to the traditional way that a proper Kilt is made.

Words are important because they convey a differentiation. A waist coat is not called a jacket because it is different. Breeches are not called trousers or is it pants in America? Shoes and boots are different so a Kilt is not a tunic.

I don't disagree with your assessment - I draw a pretty clear line between traditional kilts, even those made of PV, Tweed, or solid wool twills, and utility kilts. I do have an old Utilikilt, but I don't wear it in polite society. Great for construction work though.

The literal answer is that Michael who started Utilikilts wanted a more "utilitarian" garment. By selling it as a "kilt," rather than a "man skirt," Michael was better able to reach potential customers. I'm not sure the term tunic is any more applicable - to my mind, a tunic is a garment which covers the upper body, from the shoulders to the knees. At least a kilt and a utility kilt cover roughly the same portions of the body. In either case, it's a battle you should have started waging about 20 years ago if you wanted any chance of winning.

[Nemuragh]

Words are important because they convey a differentiation. A waist coat is not called a jacket because it is different. Breeches are not called trousers or is it pants in America? Shoes and boots are different so a Kilt is not a tunic.

Unfortunately for your argument, words have a way of twisting and squirming over time and place. See how ‘jacket’, ‘coat’ etc have changed over the years. Look up the etymology of ‘shirt’ and ‘skirt’. Even the example you specifically mention - ‘trousers’ and ‘pants’ have different meanings in different places.