What is the future of the Kilt?

[RockyR]

Just as there are different types of pants, there are different types of kilts. There are jeans, khakis, fatigue (aka Camo), dress, Tux Pants, and ripped jeans. Are these all pants? Yes. Are they all worn by the same people? No (or at least, not necessarily).

Likewise, there are different types of kilts... UK's, FK's, RK's are like "Jeans" (on the whole) or Fatigues. Union Kilts and 21st Century and USAK Solid 5 yarders both do the matching vest thing (like a suit). LOTS of places do the "full 8 yarder" thing (like a tux). SK, SWK, USAK do the Casual thing (like Khakis). UK, R Kilts (leather ones) and TRIPP do the "punk rock" thing in leather ones and cheap knock around tartan ones.

Are all the items in the first part of this post pants? Yes.
Are all the things in the 2nd paragraph kilts? Yes. are they each different from one another? Yes. SHOULD they be different from one another? You decide, but I will say this... wouldn't it be boring if they were all the same thing? How would any one company make something better if they were all the same thing? Things that are stagnant will die. Things must evolve to survive.

They all have their place. If they ALL succeed, then you'll have people being able to distinguish between the different KINDS of kilts like you have people differentiating between different types of Pants. Does anyone confuse Levis Jeans with Tux pants (except at "country western weddings"... J/K)?

[Kilted Archer]

Are all the items in the first part of this post pants? Yes.
Are all the things in the 2nd paragraph kilts? Yes. are they each different from one another? Yes. SHOULD they be different from one another? You decide, but I will say this... wouldn't it be boring if they were all the same thing? How would any one company make something better if they were all the same thing? Things that are stagnant will die. Things must evolve to survive.

They all have their place. If they ALL succeed, then you'll have people being able to distinguish between the different KINDS of kilts like you have people differentiating between different types of Pants. Does anyone confuse Levis Jeans with Tux pants (except at "country western weddings"... J/K)?

I totally agree with Rocky. I think people who don't have their heads stuck up their rear ends know a kilt when they see it whether it's tartan or uni-color or has pockets or zippers or a sporran. For those who're deriding or looking down your noses at a kilt because it's not traditional enough for your tastes - get over it. As for the idea that somehow non-traditional kilts are going to corrupt the general public's idea of a what a kilt is and somehow dilute our garments history - sheesh! Can we not take this so seriously?! A kilt is a kilt and when a man wears a kilt and it's not pink with lace fringe and high heels, anyone with some common sense is going to see it and know it's a kilt whether it's tartan or black or has pockets or a sporran. Man, just be glad more people are wearing kilts.

[Raphael]

It is good to see we are passionate about the kilt. But don't get carry away and stop being such a bunch of snobs. This Tripp kilt isn't going have any impact in the fashion world. Why are we worrying about this so called 'mass produced' kilt.

[Chef]

Just as there are different types of pants, there are different types of kilts. There are jeans, khakis, fatigue (aka Camo), dress, Tux Pants, and ripped jeans. Are these all pants? Yes. Are they all worn by the same people? No (or at least, not necessarily).

Likewise, there are different types of kilts...

This is where I think the topic gets interesting. The question being is "kilt" a generic term equivalent to "pants" or is it a more specific term like "slacks" or "khakis". If I say pants almost anything comes to mind, but if I say slacks you are unlikely to think of leather pants, fatigues or jeans. If I say kilt to most people my guess is they have an even more narrow image of what a kilt is than they do of the term slacks. By most people I mean John Q, Public, not members of this forum.

Now if you ask members of this forum what a kilt is, I think you will find that many (and I will include myself) don't consider the Tripp garment to be a kilt. Many of course would. I'm sure there are those members that only consider an 8-yard wool tartan kilt the real thing and those that consider any pleated skirt made for a man to be a kilt. Of course most are probably in between like myself) and lean in one direction or another.

If you lump the groups together I think you still have a fairly narrow bell curve ** of what is considered a kilt and if a kilt was to be considered a fairly mainstream garment its use must grow within that bell curve. Don't get me wrong I am not necessarily a proponent of it being mainstream, I think whether it should or shouldn't is a slightly different question. I would bet that just as many people would be upset if it was as those who would like it to be.

So what is my definition of a kilt? My personal feeling is "pants" and "kilts" are not equivalent terms. I personally see kilts as the equivalent a nice pair of chinos up to tux and tails. I don't see them as a jeans or a fatigues etc. There are still plenty of non-traditional kilts that fall in that range, but they tend to be the somewhat less casual ones. I do not consider myself the "kilt police", most of the time and I will say that I have widened my definition since being here (i.e. new fabics, box pleats etc.)


** My idea of the bell curve runs from any male skirt on one end to tartan tank only suitable for military pipe band use on the other.

[pdcorlis]

This is where I think the topic gets interesting. The question being is "kilt" a generic term equivalent to "pants" or is it a more specific term like "slacks" or "khakis."

Interesting... so is the term "kilt" = family, genus, or species?