Redundant or affectation?

[James Hood]

As one of the "not allowed to wear the kilt to work" crowd, the more-oft after-hours style, out of practicality (am a NOT-EVER blue jeans person and favour cargo trousers), is the "Cargo Kilt," particularly the 5.11 Tactical Duty Kilt.

Which brings up a query-topic-at-large on the continued evolution of our favoured garment....

Because it has as many pockets and in the same places as cargo trousers, wearing a sporran with a TDK seems at best redundant and at worst, possibly an affectation.

Furthermore, if the sporran is "forsaken," there is no reason not to wear a Saxon-cut rather than kilt-sporrran-cutaway jacket.

Thoughts are solicited from some of you pensive, more knowledgeable / experienced folks, thank you.

[Father Bill]

A very personal, and quite possibly improper perspective is that as we stray further from the original, it ceases to be as much an actual kilt and becomes a whole new kind of similar but different garment. That doesn't mean that it's wrong for the individual who prefers it, merely that the word "kilt" ceases to have its original meaning and starts to include all sorts of "skirty" male things.

The underlining is because I'm not excorciating such garments, merely indulging in an etymologically based linguistic excursion, so please save the rotten eggs and tomatoes for someone else.



(Ducks and runs.)

[cessna152towser]

I don't usually wear a sporran while wearing a non traditional kilt which has pockets.
I feel that this is a matter for the personal choice of the individual.

[MacMillans son]

Since the utility type "kilts" have no basis in Scottish tradition, I wouldn't think it necessary to apply traditional Scottish accessories to their use. It may be more appropriate to look to Seattle clothing traditions for inspiration and direction.

[Scout]

While it may not be necessary, I like to at least make a nod to the tradition and frankly I prefer the look of wearing a sporran with my TDKs. I wear mine with a black nylon "Nightstalker" from SWK.

That being said, a sporran is the only item of traditional Highland wear that I wear with my TDKs. I personally don't like the look of combining a TDK, Utilikilt or other non-traditional, pocketed kilt with other traditional accessories like flashes, kilt pins, kilt jackets etc. That look however, was very much in evidence at the recent NH Highland Games.

As has often been said here, there are no Kilt Police, so to each his own I guess!

[The Wizard of BC]

A non-Tartan kilt can be worn without a sporran if you choose.

At this Highland Games no one even noticed that I did not have a sporran.



But please notice that I am wearing this "as you would wear a kilt" and not as an alternative garment.

I have no personal experience with the 5.11 product but from the reviews I think it would be difficult to pull off the same look with a 5.11.

In my early kilt making days I experimented and tried a lot of different looks and combination. I never found a jacket designed for trousers that looked good with a kilt. It is not the sporran cut-away it is the length. A suit coat is cut to come down to the bottom of the buttocks (To hid the wrinkle formed by the trouser legs.) where a jacket cut for a kilt comes down only to the crest of the buttocks. This small length difference of about 3-4 inches makes all the difference in the world.

[Geoff Withnell]

I wear a contrasting color cloth sporran with my TDK kilt. Something like the sporran that comes with an Amerikilt. I like the appearance, it looks to my eye more like a kilt; and I am used to having my wallet and stuff at hand in a sporran. Also, it does hold down the kilt front.

[OC Richard]

Let's not forget that ordinary traditional tartan kilts were worn without sporran in the Army not only during the Napoleonic Wars but as recently as WWII.



When Utilikilts blew onto the scene here (and they blew in quickly and strongly) it was not in isolation but as part of a complete "fashion culture" which included heavy high-lacing Doc Marten style boots, scrunched-down socks, wide leather belts, black t-shirts, and (usually) plenty of hair and a compliment of piercings and tattoos.

Things which were noticeably absent from this "look" were ghillies, kilt hose, Scottish headdress, and sporrans.

Of course one occasionally sees odd blends, like people at a Ren Faire in full Renaissance costume but with a black canvas Utilikilt, or people in full traditional Highland Dress with Utilikilt... but these remain the exceptions rather than the rule (around here anyhow).

So to my "eye" a sporran with a Utilikilt looks out of place somehow.

[kiltedwolfman]

Not to derail this thread but I have to admit that I love the head dress on the chap in the above picture; back row second from left. Now that is a hat that has personality!

[CDNSushi]

If we're going to treat the kilt in the light of progression or evolution, as both James (the OP) and Fr. Bill have alluded to, then there are certainly a number of possibilities in how to approach it. While I can see Fr. Bill's etymological exploration of some of the hyper-modern incarnations of kilts becoming increasingly removed from the definition, I tend to favor a more "Linnaeal" explanation... In fact, that is something that I proposed in another thread a while back. So maybe I can just re-post it here, since it seems apt. This was posted in regards to a new product from the Utilikilt(tm) company, but to me, all of the following still holds true, whether it's a UK, or 5.11, or what-have-you.

Utilikilts have never tried to pretend they were traditional kilts. They say so themselves. As such, to judge them with the same yardstick seems rather moot. It will never be a traditional kilt, but neither does it want to be.

Is it a kilt though? Yes and no. It's really not a fair question, because by answering 'yay' or 'nay' we are categorizing it using pre-existing definitions of what our concept of a kilt should be.

It is a new garment. It has been invented recently, as an unbifurcated, men's covering. It certainly isn't trousers, nor is it a ladies' skirt. I would use the word "kilt" in the descriptive sense rather than in the definitive sense... Otherwise put, I would describe it as a kilt in speaking about it, but wouldn't call it a kilt... I think I might be the only person for whom that actually makes any sort of sense whatsoever...

Let me try again... In the taxonomy of clothing, it resembles a traditional kilt more closely than it does, say, a pair of trousers... So using the terms of Carolus Linnaeus, it is likely in the same family as the traditional kilt, but most likely a different genus, and certainly an entirely different species.

Maybe something like this: (please excuse my butchering of Latin)

Kingdom: Vestiae
Phylum: Masculinis
Class: Pessum
Order: Non-bifurcatae
Family: Kiltae
Genus: Modernus
Species: neo-utilikiltus