"Heavyweight"

[Blu (Ontario)]

...Yeah...and respectfully, I don't get the tone that some posters seem to be conveying that "you just gotta get that tank or you're just piddling around with the kilt thing".

I doubt there was anything desparaging meant... probably more excitement in discovering that there is a difference.

...I'm certainly trying to work my way up the ladder and will hopefully acquire a few more from various of the kiltmakers that contribute to the group as well as trying my own hand at putting one together... AA

I started at the top and seem to be working my way down the ladder. I spent close to $1000 for that first kilt package so it was 2+ years before I even contemplated purchasing a second kilt. I'd love another heavyweight but I'll probably go for a utility kilt first. I also hope to build my own traditional kilt one of these days but I need to educate myself first.

blu

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

Blu and Bryan,

I have to agree with Auld, there have been posts by some members, none on this particular thread so far, that made it abundantly clear that the poster(s) in question absolutely did not consider anything other than a traditional 16oz wool tank to really be a kilt. On one particular thread there were days and days of arguments to the point that the thread was finally shut off. Possiblt Auld and I are new enough to this whole experience and XMarks that we interpret posts differently thant thos who have been here a while an dmight have a better handle on the individual personalities of the long time members.

Anyway, not trying to start anything, just wanted to echo Auld's thoughts and that I have felt the same on some threads.

[flyv65]

Anyway, not trying to start anything, just wanted to echo Auld's thoughts and that I have felt the same on some threads.

No, you're quite right, I think I know the thread of which you speak: but I thought that there were only one or two people who were of that mindset. By the way, I don't think I joined the list much before you did: I expect you've got more kilts than me by now, too!

Bryan...but I *am* saving for a formal sporran...

[Rob]

I agree with your (and MANY others) weight characteristics...

16 to 18 oz = Heavyweight
13 to 14 oz = Mediumweight
10.5 to 12 oz = Lightweight

So what should I call my 15 oz? Medium/heavyweight?

Rob (the confused )

[RockyR]

15's are considered heavyweight.

[Barb T]

What is now regarded as "heavyweight" seems to be getting lighter. When I see comments posted about an 11oz or 12oz kilt being "heavy" I have to scratch my head and wonder what it is being compared to.

If you are talking about traditional kilts, I honestly don't think there's been any change in a long time in what is considered "heavy weight". If someone advertises a kilt at 11 or 12 oz as being "heavy", I would respectfully say that either they don't know what they're talking about or they aren't selling a trad kilt.

A kilt doesn't have to be heavy weight (or even medium weight) to be a "real kilt". Anyone who has gone to Highland games has seen Highland dancers, both male and female, dancing in trad kilts that have all the same construction as the heavy band kilts that most band members wear. The dancers simply choose the lighter weight tartan because it's easier to dance in. Still has swing, although it is more susceptible to being caught by the wind. The mill that weaves by far the largest share of tartan that dancers use is D.C. Dalgliesh, and their tartan is 11-12 oz. It makes a beautiful kilt that no one should be ashamed of wearing. And, for someone in a hot climate, or for someone who wants to use a kilt for hiking, it's great. And, honestly, the tartan is still expensive and doesn't make a kilt that costs all _that_ much less than a heavy weight trad kilt for a person of the same size.

The _really_ heavy weight kilts (18-22 oz, commonly called military/regimental weight) are uncommon in large part because the fabric is available only in a few tartans, mostly those that were worn by military regiments. Even if you wanted a really heavy weight fabric, you've never had much choice in what's woven. House of Edgar, for example, does regimental weight tartan in Black Watch, Gordon, Cameron of Erracht, Mackenzie, Hunting Stewart, and Royal Stewart, and they weave to Ministry of Defence standards. Lochcarron doesn't even weave anything heavier than 16 oz (although they refer to their 16 oz as being a "military weight" , it's a bit on the light side for what's traditionally "military"). So, I don't think it's true that lots of tartans used to be woven in much heavier weight and that things have changed a lot in the last 10 or 15 years. Matt, you can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Cheers,

Barb

[bubba]

I recall seeing someplace (damned if I can remember where) that the MoD was switching to the more common 16 oz for their kilts as an economy measure citing the fact that since kilts are only worn for dress and parade there's no longer a need for the heavier and more expensive kilts.

[Blu (Ontario)]

I recall seeing someplace (damned if I can remember where) that the MoD was switching to the more common 16 oz for their kilts as an economy measure citing the fact that since kilts are only worn for dress and parade there's no longer a need for the heavier and more expensive kilts.

People are a very resourceful and creative species. At some point the high cost of worsted wool will surely trigger a responce from manufacturers to provide a more widely available and more economical medium and heavy weight alternative. Something heavier than 11oz. would be nice.

Here's a silly question... is it possible to make a heavy kilt usig lightweight fabric but just use more of it... say 12 or perhaps 16 yards? I imagine that the math for the pleating would be interesting.


blu

[Barb T]

Nope, wouldn't work. The number of pleats that can be put across the back of the kilt is not infinite. Even if you wanted little bitty pleats (say 1/2" at the hips, which would admittedly look odd), and even if you were pretty good-sized (needing a kilt that's 22" across the back), that would be 44 pleats (yikes!!). Light weight tartan typically has setts no more than 6.5" across. 44 x 6.5 = 286, or 8 yards across the back of the kilt. Add another 2 yards for the apron and underapron, and you can see that 10 yards is about the max you cram into a kilt with 44 pleats. If you'd even want to.....

Barb

[bubba]

Here's a silly question... is it possible to make a heavy kilt usig lightweight fabric but just use more of it... say 12 or perhaps 16 yards? I imagine that the math for the pleating would be interesting.

blu

The only way I can see doing that is to double layer the fabric and I expect that would create an entirely new set of headaches.