TRADITION: let's (re)define it.

[piperdbh]

Here's my contribution:

THCD noun def: how Jock does it

How's that?

I doubt there will be any agreement about a certain time period or a certain style being "traditional", and, quite frankly, I don't see the need to redefine "traditional". I say, let's wear what we want, and if we're trying to do it Jock's way, he'll tell us what we're doing right and wrong. If we want to wear t-shirts and flip-flops with our other-than-tanks, then there will lots of company in that boat, too.

10-4, over and out.

[Jock Scot]

Here's my contribution:

THCD noun def: how Jock does it

How's that?

I doubt there will be any agreement about a certain time period or a certain style being "traditional", and, quite frankly, I don't see the need to redefine "traditional". I say, let's wear what we want, and if we're trying to do it Jock's way, he'll tell us what we're doing right and wrong. If we want to wear t-shirts and flip-flops with our other-than-tanks, then there will lots of company in that boat, too.

10-4, over and out.

I do happen to think that the XMTS definition of "traditional" is unsound.

Alright, you are very kind and I know what you are saying is well meant in a lighthearted way and it is probably true, that my kilt wearing attire and style is fairly traditional, BUT, IT IS NOT THE ONLY WAY that the kilt can be worn and STILL be traditional!

[creagdhubh]

I do happen to think that the XMTS definition of "traditional" is unsound.

Alright, you are very kind and I know what you are saying is well meant in a lighthearted way and it is probably true, that my kilt wearing attire and style is fairly traditional, BUT, IT IS NOT THE ONLY WAY that the kilt can be worn!

My sentiments exactly Jock. I too feel the XMTS definition of "traditional" is unsound - perhaps some editing there is in order? I don't know. I am also in agreement with piperdbh in reference to "THCD - Jock Scot", but I would also mention Sandy, David, Matthew, Scott, Todd, Steve, Hamish, myself, and others as wonderful representations of the THCD look, which does have, in itself, an overall, distinctive 'look' in my opinion.

Slainte,

[Nick the DSM]

Traditional: To look snazzy in a kilt.

[Ryan Ross]

Here's my contribution:

THCD noun def: how Jock does it

How's that?

I doubt there will be any agreement about a certain time period or a certain style being "traditional", and, quite frankly, I don't see the need to redefine "traditional". I say, let's wear what we want, and if we're trying to do it Jock's way, he'll tell us what we're doing right and wrong. If we want to wear t-shirts and flip-flops with our other-than-tanks, then there will lots of company in that boat, too.

10-4, over and out.

...if Jock had seen me last Saturday, he might have had a stroke.

[Spartan Tartan]

I'll throw my hat in the ring this time. But instead of trying to decide what others should post where, I will just describe how I decide where to post.

It comes down to my intent. When I'm getting dressed, what is my intention or motivation? If I feel that I am getting dressed with my choices guided toward the traditional, then any post about that outfit would be placed into the "traditional" sub-forum. Accordingly, if I asked for opinions about that outfit, I'd have on my thick skin.

On the other hand, if I think I'm being more modern (it could simply be a modern tie to highlight the outfit, or a UK with boots....), then my posts would be there.

As a still reasonably new member, I have never given too much thought to the forums. If I have a picture, I post in pictures. If I want input about a traditionally inspired outfit, I go to traditional. If I want to talk about kilted Roller Derby outings,I'll likely end up in modern or general discussions sub-forums.

Although I can appreciate long discussions (and do follow many of them) about the finest of details, I do not understand why it matters so much which forum I (or anyone else) posts into. Am I going to be kicked out of the XMTS club if I believe my 8-yd knife pleated kilt worn with full PC get up belongs in a modern forum thread for discussions?

Just my 2 cents..

[MacMillans son]

So if we take the time bracket off of the title all will be right with the world...right?

Restarting this "How do we define traditional" discussion for the umpteenth time is causing the earth to slowly begin to elongate due the increased rate of spinning...around and around and around and......

[WillieMacG]

So if we take the time bracket off of the title all will be right with the world...right?

"Basically."

[Joshua]

The problem is, it is a very intangible definition to begin with.

Jacket styles have changed over the years, however I consider 3 staple outfits to comprise most of "Traditional Daywear":

Dress shirt, 4-in-hand knotted tie, colored hose, low-cut leather shoe (oxford/brogue)

AND:
Waistcoat
OR:
Kilt-Jacket and Kilt Belt
OR:
Kilt-Jacket and Waistcoat.

With minor modification (switching leathers from brown to black, fabrics from tweeds to black, etc... you have switched to "Traditional Eveningwear".

All of these above styles are as "old" as the men's suit and jacket. However, just like the modern "business/dress/tuxedo" suit has only changed in minor detail for the past 110 years or so... so has kilted fashion

My point is... a well made suit from 1930, kept well, would still look good today. That is "traditional". If you could traverse kilt-appropriate areas of time over the last 100 years or so in your attire with only *minimal* differences (please, don't be pedantic and split hairs here over collar styles, etc), I would venture to say that is "traditional".

Because of how long we've had this iteration of the classic "suit", I regard it as "the wheel", as in "it won't be reinvented any time soon". I will wager that my comments above will ring true in another 100 years. And, if we are vigilant in how we dress today, the same could possibly be true of the kilt.