|
View Poll Results: Pockets or No
- Voters
- 55. You may not vote on this poll
-
15th June 13, 06:24 AM
#1
Sorry but I think traditional kilts are more than adequate and I can't understand viewing them as wannabe pants (as in "kilts would be better if they were more like pants in X way and Y way").
When I want the features pants have I wear pants.
No pockets, belt loops, zippers, snaps, buttons, wash & wear fabric, or any other features from pants transferred to my kilts, please.
Proud Mountaineer from the Highlands of West Virginia; son of the Revolution and Civil War; first Europeans on the Guyandotte
-
The Following User Says 'Aye' to OC Richard For This Useful Post:
-
15th June 13, 07:32 AM
#2
It's hard to make a solid thought on something if you've never experienced it. Most who have never had pockets in a kilt are steadfast that they would never need or like them. Then comes the day of enlightenment, when they get a chance to try out a kilt that has been properly pocketed and then they wonder how they ever lived without them. Don't knock it until you've tried it!
-
The Following User Says 'Aye' to kiltedwolfman For This Useful Post:
-
15th June 13, 07:40 AM
#3
Interesting perspective. That said, I have three 5.11 kilts for the range, and a SportKilt that I only wear around the house, among my collection. Each has pockets. But I prefer my wool and PV traditional kilts, without pockets. Perhaps it's the whole MUG vs kilt thing, for me.
KEN CORMACK
Clan Buchanan
U.S. Coast Guard, Retired
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, USA
-
-
15th June 13, 08:29 AM
#4
 Originally Posted by OC Richard
No pockets, belt loops, zippers, snaps, buttons, wash & wear fabric, or any other features from pants transferred to my kilts, please.
I'm with Richard on this one, kilts are kilts, pockets are "pants"!
Regards, Sav.
"The Sun Never Sets on X-Marks!"
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks