Trying to precisely define the term "kilt" is actually quite difficult. I've had conversations about this with the good folks at the STA in the past. I fully understand and sympathize with the need to protect Scotland's national garment and prevent false advertising (more on that later), but attempting to do so by limiting the use of the term "kilt" will create a nightmare.

Here's what I mean. Can you define a kilt by the amount of yardage? No. There is a myth that a "true kilt" has 8 yards, no more, no less. This is simply not true today, nor has it been historically. Even if you get an "8 yard kilt" today, it may have 7, 7.5, 8.5, 9 or more depending on size. It all depends upon the size of the sett and the size of the man. My box pleated kilts contain an average of 4 yards, and these are based on historic examples of kilts, some of which contain barely more than 3 yards, depending upon the size of the wearer. So, even though one kilt firm I talked to in Scotland called any 4 yard kilt a "lady's skirt," this simply is not historically true. Some twentieth century regimental kilts I have examimed have had only between 5 and 6 yards of cloth. So you cannot define a "kilt" by the amount of cloth.

Can you define a kilt by the type of cloth? Well, to most people's minds a kilt should be 100% wool tartan material. But again, this is not true now, nor has it been historically. Solid kilts can be dated to the early 17th century, so they are nearly as old as kilts themselves. As has been mentioned here already, the London Scottish wear the solid hodden grey. We have the solid saffron Irish kilts. John Brown made the black kilt famous. Kilts made from tweed were very popular in the nineteenth century. I don't think anyone would dare tell the soldiers of the London Scottish that they are not wearing "true kilts." So, again, you cannot define a "kilt" by the type of cloth.

Can you define a kilt by where it is made? Kilts are linked to Scotland in most people's minds, and rightly so. The kilt is a Scottish garment. So many people understandably want their kilt made in Scotland. But does it have to be made in Scotland to be a "true kilt?" What about all the great North American kiltmakers? Australian kilt makers? If Kathy Lare, who was trained by the Keith Kiltmaking School by the best Scottish kiltmakers, makes your kilt to the highest standards from Scottish tartan cloth, is it not a "true kilt" because she happens to live in Arizona? Nonsesne. So you cannot define a "kilt" by where it is made.

Can you define a kilt by how it is made? All agree that the highest quality kilts are hand tailored and made to measure. But this is a question of quality, not essense. A kilt that is bought off-the-peg is still a kilt, is it not? A kilt that has been machine sewn is still a kilt. The Cameron of Erracht kilts worn by the 79th New York Highlanders were all sewn on machines by New York dress makers (from Scottish cloth, mind you). It was what they knew how to do. Were these not kilts? What if part of the sewing is done by hand and part on machine, as I have seen in many kilts made today? How do you classify that?

You can see how things can get really tricky if you try to set any criteria to define the term "kilt."

What you have here is a question of quality, not definition. A kilt is a garment, just like pants, jackets, shirts, etc. Like anything else, you have really high quality garments, and really low quality garments, and everything else in between. So you can talk about what makes a good kilt and a poor kilt, but a poor quality kilt is still a kilt.

What is the real issue here, I think, is truth in advertising. Some legistlation may be neccessary to prevent people from misleading consumers. A kilt that says "authentic Highland kilt" and "designed in Scotland" on the label, but that is made from Polyester and imported from East Elbonia, is being passed off as something it is not.

One can make the argument that consumers should know better, that they should know that the low price indicates that this is not the high quality kilt that can be had from the finest Scottish kilt makers. But the truth is that not everyone knows as much about kilts as the members of this forum, and people are being misled.

A lot of the Scottish kiltmaking firms are combatting this with their own labels indicating the Scottish origin and the high quality of their own product, which is a good thing. But is legislation needs to be passed to prevent false advertising and misleading labelling, then so be it. Many other countries have similar legislation.

Again, I don't think anyone is denying that there is a market for lower-cost (and lower quality) kilts. They just want to make sure that people are not being misled, specifically in a manner that adversely affects Scottish kiltmakers (they do have a right to watch out for their own industry, after all).

I mean, really. The Gold Brothers and Geoffrey Tailor should not be competitors. It's like saying Target is a competitor for Armani. The two are just in different leagues. But if people are being misled into believing they can get Armani quality suits are Target............

~M