Hands Aff Oor Kilts!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

A total of 80 hand-wringing posts, and not one positive suggestion. Until now. The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs should be asked to set guidelines for kilt quality (irrespective of place of origin), and those kilt makers (large factories or home tailors) who meet these standards would then be allowed to place the "Approved By The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs" tag on their kilts.

Buyers would then be able to separate the decent kilts from crap kilts without having to have any arcane "kilt knowledge". All things being equal, most people will choose to buy an "approved" product ahead of one that is not "approved".

The Standing Council already does this on a wide range of products-- everything from kilt pins to wood carvings, with glassware and other sundry items tossed in for good measure.

[McClef]

Well of course it is easier to spot the flaws in an argument M.O.R. than to make suggestions.

The biggest problem in coming up with a list of criteria is that of authority - no matter what we here at X Marks came up with we are more the "end users" but then of course customer research is considered an important exercise.

Definitions by those involved in manufacturing and selling kilts could be seen as based upon commercial considerations as we have seen in comments.

But an seal of approval from a body would only be that - a seal of approval and does nothing to actually define a Scottish kilt as such.

Certainly it's better than nothing but it does not help towards a legal definition that can be legislated upon by the Scottish Parliament.

But it does help towards looking after the interests and workmanship of quality kilt makers who do not reside in Scotland so who checks with the Chiefs as to whether or not they feel able to support it.?

Approving all potential kilt makers sounds like a lot of work investigating and assessing each applicant's work quality and ethos and would it be voluntary or would they expect renumeration or expenses?

[fluter]

A total of 80 hand-wringing posts, and not one positive suggestion. Until now.

Well, I've been playing catch-up on this thread. Here's mine: Let's trademark the term "tartan tat" and sue the Gold Bros. for selling it.

[McClef]

Well, I've been playing catch-up on this thread. Here's mine: Let's trademark the term "tartan tat" and sue the Gold Bros. for selling it.

I doubt that such a term could be copyrighted or trade marked. Besides which I can't imagine that Gold Bros. would dream of using such a term to advertise their wares!

As former Chief Justice Warren Berger once said - he could not define obscenity but he knew it when he saw it!

[Colin]

[Alan H]

Well, this thread was a sobering read.

[Big Homestead]

While there at it, they should copyright big stupids. Then the only people that could have real stupid people would be the ones that also have the only "real" kilt.

[Makeitstop]

I think you can have all the certifications and seals of approval you like, as well as the strictest of labeling laws, and it won't make much difference.

People who are buying cheap acrylic kilts either do so knowingly (like me and many other customers of stillwater) and therefore would not change their minds because they are getting no new info, or they are totally unaware that what they are getting is a knockoff, in which case it is unlikely they will know that somewhere there is a much nicer and more expensive kilt that has some seal of approval and can use numerous terms which are delicately tiptoed around on the cheap kilt's label.

Unless you either require cheap kilts to bear the term "piece of crap" (or some other sabotage in label form) or put up billboards all along the mile explaining that kilts without the seal and "scottish kilt" label are actually cheap pakistani pseudo-kilts and and that they should be avoided because yadda yadda yadda, most uninformed gold brothers customers will probably never know no matter how many rules and regulations there are.

[Phil]

I can fully appreciate Mr Nicholsby's concerns that a prospective customer might say to him that the shop next door is selling the same item for a fraction of the price. Unless that customer is knowledgeable about kilts he is unlikely to be convinced by any explanation put forward regarding the differing quality of material and manufacture, particularly if both items purport to have originated in Scotland. The casual purchaser is not likely to examine a label closely or ask searching questions. He is not going to realise that an authentic garment is not made with a hem nor that it should be made with 8 yards of pure wool material. He is most likely to be a tourist on a tight budget given the relative strength of the £ nowadays and is just looking for something Scottish - and what could be more Scottish than a kilt?
I'm sorry but I really do think it is time that the likes of Mr Nicholsby grasp reality and start importing the same tartan tat for sale in their shops alongside the genuine article. That way they would at least be able to offer what many at the "bottom-end" of the market are after and perhaps use the opportunity for some education about genuine kilts at the same time. Who knows, that customer may return later for the real thing.
As for trying to enact some form of "passing-off" or "palming-off" legislation, you can be sure the likes of the Gold Bros have not got where they are by troubling themselves too much over such niceties and will devise some dodge such as "labelled in Scotland" or "unwrapped in Scotland". None of the reputable kiltmakers endorsed on this site need to resort to such underhand practices. Everyone knows their products and they don't make out they are Scottish (unless they are) so it would make no difference to them anyway.

[McClef]

Unless you either require cheap kilts to bear the term "piece of crap" (or some other sabotage in label form) or put up billboards all along the mile explaining that kilts without the seal and "scottish kilt" label are actually cheap pakistani pseudo-kilts and and that they should be avoided because yadda yadda yadda, most uninformed gold brothers customers will probably never know no matter how many rules and regulations there are.

Nobody thinks it is easy and there are limits on being able to do this kind of thing - Golds themselves tried leafleting outside the Weaving exhibition and were soon stamped down on. What one company is permitted to say about another could soon lead to lawsuits about defamation, restriction of trade etc. It would be unlikely that such a plethora of public notices would be allowed from a city council that will give you a parking ticket in seconds but seemingly let GB do what they want. The good shops could have some educational material in their windows of course, providing it is to do with warnings about certain types of kilt product without naming names...

I'm sorry but I really do think it is time that the likes of Mr Nicholsby grasp reality and start importing the same tartan tat for sale in their shops alongside the genuine article. That way they would at least be able to offer what many at the "bottom-end" of the market are after and perhaps use the opportunity for some education about genuine kilts at the same time. Who knows, that customer may return later for the real thing.

One of the arguments made has been that a cheapie might be a good way of trying out a kilt and inspiring a later purchase of a good quality one. I have argued that there should be choices of off the peg kilts available in such establishments as Howie's at cheaper prices. But I would be surprised indeed if they would have the same tat in their shops. If they believe that such kilts are potentially dangerous to begin with and they feel they have standards to maintain and don't want to be linked with the tat I can't see them descending to the level of GB. That isn't to say that they can't do something with off the peg that doesn't compromise their standards.

As for trying to enact some form of "passing-off" or "palming-off" legislation, you can be sure the likes of the Gold Bros have not got where they are by troubling themselves too much over such niceties and will devise some dodge such as "labelled in Scotland" or "unwrapped in Scotland". None of the reputable kiltmakers endorsed on this site need to resort to such underhand practices. Everyone knows their products and they don't make out they are Scottish (unless they are) so it would make no difference to them anyway.

With tight enough labelling legislation and advertising legislation they would at least find it much harder. GB have got where they are because of the lack of it. At least on this site people have the information they need to make an informed choice and a better understanding of what they are buying.