horrid pressing boxpleat to knifepleat

**MacMillans son** · 5th December 13, 06:10 PM

I'm not a kilt maker, but judging from the fell length, it must be near its original length. The distance from where the original fabric stops at the waist to the top of the pleats would be too short for a proper fitted kilt I would think (using the 1/3 +/- of the overall length ratio) I assume that the original kilt waist was very worn or damaged and they patched/replaced it with not so matching material and a new lining which they sewed all the way through.

Perhaps someone heard kilts cost a lot of money and when they found a junk surplus kilt they patched it up in hopes of making some quick cash.

And the mystery continues.

**Tobus** · 6th December 13, 06:37 AM

Still, for 21 quid, someone got a good deal. Enough tartan fabric could be salvaged for something else, not to mention it has the original style military buckles. And heck, it could still be useful as a kilt with some re-pressing and removal of that horrid stitch line. If it were to be worn where the top is hidden by a jacket/coatee, no one would ever know about the added tartan strip at the top.

**OC Richard** · 6th December 13, 07:00 AM

It's a strange one, isn't it? Being a military kilt it would originally have had a very high rise, and a total length of 27".

Seems that at some point somebody radically shortened it by chopping several inches off the top.

Then, later, somebody lengthened it again by adding a strip of tartan around the top. Crazy!

Not only is there no 2nd buckle on the top apron, there's no strap/buckle on the under apron, it being held with tie-tapes.

Yes if the bad pressing was the only issue it would be a relatively easy fix.

As Tobus says, there's still a large amount of extra-heavyweight MOD tartan there which could be used to make waistcoats or summat.

**keith_b** · 6th December 13, 07:09 AM

Who was the lucky buyer?

**Tobus** · 6th December 13, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by OC Richard

Not only is there no 2nd buckle on the top apron, there's no strap/buckle on the under apron, it being held with tie-tapes.

Weren't under-apron ties common in older kilts? I was under the impression that the left hip buckle was a rather new addition on military kilts, as the older ones were either pinned in place or tied with a tape/ribbon similar to this. I'm thinking this is a pretty old kilt.

**OC Richard** · 6th December 13, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Tobus

Weren't under-apron ties common in older kilts? I was under the impression that the left hip buckle was a rather new addition on military kilts, as the older ones were either pinned in place or tied with a tape/ribbon similar to this. I'm thinking this is a pretty old kilt.

Maybe Matt can enlighten us about that. He's examined early kilts.

My understanding is that military kilts, in the old days, didn't have buckles but were pinned with big blanket pins. I would think that it would tear up the kilt eventually, being repeatedly pinned in the same place.

About tie tapes on early kilts, I don't know.

Matt told me that the kilts of the 79th New York had an internal buckle on the under apron (no hole for the strap to pass through).

**WillowEstate** · 8th December 13, 10:53 AM

True, I think. My ex-military heirloom kilt is certainly 70+ years old and possibly as old as 90 and it has only the two right hand buckles. There is no slot on the left and no strap, pin holes or ties, the under apron is just held in place by the pressure of the top apron. I know it doesn't sound very secure but it's never slipped in wearing and that's without a belt, I rarely wear one.