formal and casual kilt

[Buchanan20]

What's the difference between a casual and a formal kilt?

[Steve Ashton]

Perhaps this article will help you answer this question.

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=43530

The difference is in the construction.

If the Kilt has the full stabilizer and interfacing details built into it behind the liner then it would be considered a Traditional kilt. Or what we around here call a Tank. And what you call a formal kilt.

If the kilt is made without the stabilizer and interfacing, it is usually referred to as a casual.

Casual kilts may be made from Tartan in wool or synthetic. The fabric is usually Tartan but not always. They may or may not have the same amount of fabric as in a Traditional kilt. They may be machine or hand sewn. They may look similar at first glance or may look different.

So the real difference is all in how it is made.

[1oldsarge]

From my experience, weight of the kilt and around $300........
Welcome to the rabble!

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I'll give a slightly different answer. You will, indeed, find something called a "casual kilt" offered by many Highland dress retailers. This is, relatively speaking, a fairly modern innovation. I would say within the last 15-20 years. What this will generally mean is that these kilts will contain less yardage (generally around 4 or 5) and be machine stitched. And, as Steve pointed out, will lack a lot of the internal construction of a more traditional kilt.

While these lighter weight, and less expensive kilts are indeed great for casual wear, my only problem with calling them that is that it tends to suggest to people that the "other" style of kilt (8 yards, hand stitched) is a "formal kilt" and therefore incorrect to wear casually. This would be wrong.

In my opinion, if one acquires a good kilt -- by which I mean one made from good, quality material and well constructed, epitomized by the hand stitched, heavy weight worsted wool kilts we tend to call "tanks" here on X Marks -- then it can be worn with equal ease for casual and formal occasions. What makes the outfit casual or formal is the way the kilt is accessorized. The kilt itself is all-purpose.

That is pretty amazing, in my opinion. What other garment could we wear going on a hike one day, and then to have tea with the Queen on the next? The same kilt I got married in, I have worn to many a highland games. My wife certainly cannot say that about her wedding dress!

I own several kilts. All are made from 16 oz worsted wool. All are hand stitched and made to my measurements. They contain anywhere from 4 to 8 yards of cloth. I own both box pleated and knife pleated kilts. And every one of them can be worn casually or formally.

[jhockin]

I'd like to add that, in my mind/"IMHO", some ( and only some) "causal" kilts are also made to be worn not at the "natural" ( on top of the hips) waist, but at the "jeans waist" (i.e.: below the "love handles") ,( although, I do often see folks wearing what appear to be "traditional" kilts at the "jeans waist") - my point being that some "casual" kilts are designed to be worn lower.

[OC Richard]

To sort of echo what Matt said above, when I started wearing kilts in the mid-1970s there was only one kind of kilt: a traditional handsewn 8-yard wool kilt.

This was the garment that had achieved its "final" form towards the end of the 19th century, and had evolved through an unbroken evolutionary process since its introduction in the 18th century.

It was the only kilt there was, and there was nothing especially "formal" about it. The same kilt would be worn for everyday use, and for the most formal of occasions.

I'm "old school" or a traditionalist in this and all my kilts are traditional wool handsewn kilts. I have no interest in casual/utility/sport kilts. Whether I'm dressing up for a Scottish concert or attending a Scottish rugby match it's the same kilt.

[Spartan Tartan]

All very good (and knowledgeable ) responses. From a non-kiltmaker's perspective, to me it is about the rise. A casual is, as previously mentioned, is usually worn lower. This really makes a visual point if dressed formally. The rise on a traditional kikt or one worn at the natural waist will prevent your shirt from showing below the bottom of a waistcoat. I assume that by "formal" kilt you mean worn in a formal setting...i.e. with a waistcoat of some sort. So all construction, material and other stuff aside, it looks bad or poorly put together if there is a gap between ones waistcoat and kilt.

[ThistleDown]

I mostly agree with Matt and Richard. I have worn a kilt since the mid-forties and until within the last decade or so, didn't know the word "casual" as related to kilts. I wore a kilt at school and at the weekend, for dinner or supper with my family and at weddings and other serious events. I did not wear it to golf, or tennis, or rugby, but I did wear it on long, long treks and many cold nights out there. And in the early days I wore it shooting and milking and mucking out the barn, too.

Same kilt, often sponged, daily brushed. New ones replaced old as I got older. A few were added because I liked the tartans (Isle of Skye is one, Lochaber another, my dad's Seaforth) and needed a break from family-only.

Still nothing that I would call casual. Until I read about UKs and thought about the tattered&torn wool Mackintosh I wore in the garden. I don't think of the UK workman (?) I have as casual, but it has seen some tough going and is still around.

That led me to Freedom Kilts and I have two of them now. Those are what I think of and use as "casual". They are tough, practical, well-made traditionals in non-traditional fabrics. I wear then in North America (not in Scotland) in the heat of a Summer day, in relaxed Fall and Spring afternoons and before the fire in a Winter evening.