"That's not a real kilt"

[Jock Scot]

Then I guess I've made an awfull lot of skirts over the past few years:
http://kilts.albanach.org

And, I suppose, there were an awfull lot of Highland men wearing "skirts" prior to about 1854 when the Gordon regiment became the first to switch from box pleats to knife pleats.
http://kilts.albanach.org/history.html

Here I am in one of my favorite "skirts." :-)


Sorry. I may sympathize with your point of view, but from an historical standpoint I'm afraid your definition is too narrow and would not include many kilts that were quite the norm before the latter half of the nineteenth century (and still being worn today by some of us).

Matt you are, of course, dead right from a historical point of view. I am afraid though that most Scots will not have a clue as to what you are talking about! To them the traditional (tank) Victorian style, wool, tartan, knife pleated kilt is the one they know ,or, have in their minds eye. Anything else, probably will not do!

[Nighthawk]

Hi Jock and welcome back-- and "howdy" (as the Americans say) to heilanner-- I'm in lock step with you guys.

As far as Nighthawk's comments are concerned, well, I think they are a bit OTT-- I doubt anyone would object to a poly-cotton kilt cut along traditional lines any more than we'd cock a snoot at a silk kilt. But, and this is as big a BUT as the lady on the bus who sits next to you has, when you step away from the traditional kilt, it ceases to be a kilt. About the only variations proper kilts have are style of pleating, and number of straps-- 2 vs. 3. When you add snaps, cargo pockets, etc, and make it out of kevlar, naughyde, or some other "fabric" then it really is just a skirt. Comparing a kilt to a sarong?-- well that's just silly.

As far as the "slacks" issue is concerned, MEN wear trousers, and WOMEN wear slacks. Just ask Kate Hepburn. Have men's trousers changed in 100 years? Hardly at all. Are they made "skimpier" than before? Yes, especially when they are retailed in mass market outlets. Does it matter? No, because for most men trousers are a utilitarian work garment unlike the kilt which, by-and-large, is worn in more structured social settings.

(BTW-- a friend in Edinburgh told me about your accident; you are one tough "auld crabbit" to have pulled through. Glad you're back.)

Trousers then. Edited. I had always heard them referred to as the same thing. I learned something new today!

So- you are totally misinterpreting me. If I were comparing the two as garments, that wou be rediculous. You're right. But I'm not. My point is that they're in the same general category of ethinc clothing. But they are still just that- clothes. Were they uniforms, then I would agree with you. However, they're not, and therefore are subject to the laws of fasion- meaning they change. And as Matt has already pointed out, the modern kilt is very different from the kilt that was worn 150 years ago. So even your traditionals are contemporary kilts.

Oh, and wool was one of the requirements in the post i had replied to .

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Matt you are, of course, dead right from a historical point of view. I am afraid though that most Scots will not have a clue as to what you are talking about! To them the traditional (tank) Victorian style, wool, tartan, knife pleated kilt is the one they know ,or, have in their minds eye. Anything else, probably will not do!

Yes, I understand that many hold to this point of view -- probably because their definition of "traditional" is more along the lines of "what I can remember my grandfather wearing," and for the past several generations, the only proper kilt has been knife pleated and made from (ostensibly) 8 yards of fabric.

However, even then a lot of so-called "8 yard kilts" may have actually contained only 6 or 7 yards if one actually took the trouble to measure them out.

When it is pointed out to them that there actually was a signifigant period of history when the "standard" kilt contained not eight, but four yards of cloth, and was box pleated, it does open their eyes the fact that the kilt -- as an artcle of clothing -- has gone through changes in fashion and style just as any article of clothing has.

In fact, to my mind, this is what makes the kilt National Dress and not a National Costume. It is a fashion that is still in development, still being worn, and continues to be acceptable wear in any number of situations. National Costume tends to be a stylized recreation of a folk dress of a particular era, reserved mostly for dancing and other traditional folk activities. The kilt can serve that purpose, but is not limited to it. Scotland should be very proud to have such a thriving, vibrant National Dress.

[dfmacliam]

I think this is what sets this site apart from, others. We have educated, historically researched members , who can pass their knowledge on what was worn in the past, because they have handled kilts made 150,200 years ago, and seen the original construction of an item. Box pleats, kinguisse pleats, knife pleats, home woven, tweed, check, tartan, solid, and everything else.. We are better for the knowledge,and I personally thank all of you for each ones contribution.
Some have different views on what is a kilt, traditional, contemperary, mugs... We wear what we feel comfortable with... It's like cars and trucks... Some prefer sports cars, some like luxury, some like trucks.. They are all different, but all get us from point a to point b. I'll drive my 3/4 ton four door diesel truck and wave at ya on the road, when we pass, and all is good.. Just like kilts... I'll wear my Saffron, or my Leatherneck and if you wear a Uk or p/v it's all good.

[heilanner]

i don't have a problem with it being made of less material than 8 yards (i know the 8 yard idea is relatively new. and that even the 'big kilt' was only ever 4 yards). i also don't have a problem with lighter weight material being used for warmer countries than Scotland.

... and i suppose there's nothing wrong with using an alternative to wool if there is a genuine reason such as allergies.

i looked at the pictures on that albanach site and the box-pleat just looked... wrong somehow.

i stand by my 'no pockets, pinstripes or zips' comment though.

but y'know, i've seen worse things than utilikilts. i saw a programme on tv not long ago with a guy wearing a kilt with running shoes, a jacobite shirt and an argyle jacket all at the same time. i almost choked on my supper.

[macwilkin]

i looked at the pictures on that albanach site and the box-pleat just looked... wrong somehow.

Maybe from a personal viewpoint, but from a historical standpoint, they are very much correct.

T.

[Nighthawk]

i don't have a problem with it being made of less material than 8 yards (i know the 8 yard idea is relatively new. and that even the 'big kilt' was only ever 4 yards). i also don't have a problem with lighter weight material being used for warmer countries than Scotland.

... and i suppose there's nothing wrong with using an alternative to wool if there is a genuine reason such as allergies.

i looked at the pictures on that albanach site and the box-pleat just looked... wrong somehow.

i stand by my 'no pockets, pinstripes or zips' comment though.

but y'know, i've seen worse things than utilikilts. i saw a programme on tv not long ago with a guy wearing a kilt with running shoes, a jacobite shirt and an argyle jacket all at the same time. i almost choked on my supper.

Dear gods!! That almost made me lose my lunch!

I forgot to mention one other thing I agree with you on- the waist line! I've hada kilt or 2 all my life- trad ones from my parents- and am so accustomed to wearing them at my natural waist. I got a standard Amerikilt a couple years ago, and I can't stand wearing it because it's meant to be worn on the hips, and I naturally want to pull it up to where it should be. That leaves it way too short. So I solved the problem by getting a second one made to standard kilt measurements, and am extremely happy with it.

OH YEAH!! And one more thing- Jaime, you make that kilt great. It's beautiful. I want an IoS one of these days... but if it's a contemporary, I want it to look like a contemporary. That's another area where I think Heilanner will see eye to eye. But as I've always said, each to his own. Just because I wouldn't get a contemporary that looks like a trad doesn't mean I have a problem with others getting them. And really, that's the point of this discussion, in my eyes- acceptance of the views of others. If you don't like the contemporaries, great! Don't get one. But don't tell the rest of us that we're just wearing skirts because we do happen to like them. And really, Heilanner and Jock (echoing what other have said, brother- it's great to see you posting agai!), the traditions of Scotland and Scots are just that. I'm an American. My grandmother was a Scot, and the traditions were hers, and are yours- not mine. I hold to my roots, but I am still an American, and am not bound by the traditions of my ancestors. I stay true to them in formal settings- I wouldn't wear an Amerikilt to a Burns Supper- but in my every day life, I don't see a problem with being comfortable. (I say this while sitting on my liunch break wearing my wool Colorado state tartan kilt- just to throw a small wrench in my own works!)

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

And as Matt has already pointed out, the modern kilt is very different from the kilt that was worn 150 years ago.

No, it's not "very different". A kilt made in 1859 is as near as the same as the one Barbara Tewksbury made for me a couple of weeks back. Where it is "very different", so different as to suggest there is no relationship at all, is if you compare the 1859 kilt to one of the leather "man skirts" or canvas quasi-kilts seen today.

So even your traditionals are contemporary kilts.

Contemporary only in the sense that they were made now, using better manufacturing techniques. Stylistically traditional kilts are just that. Traditional. Whether box or knife pleated they wouldn't look out of place 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or 150 years ago. But a gentleman in a "contemporary" man skirt would look as out of place as a Salvationist at an orgy.

Look, people have been generally free to dress however they choose (except in Maoist China), and that includes wearing all manner of sarongs, skirts, and kilts. It's just that when one says "kilts", one is universally understood to be referring to the traditional dress of the Scottish Highlands, not some studded leather man skirt that owes more to Hollywood's glorification of men dressed up like gladiators than it does to a Scotsman's "Sunday best".

[Paul]

They are kilts - but you can certainly tell the difference. I think it's good that those who dont have the money (£200+ normally?) to spend on a "real" fitted kilt with their choice of tartan can go into a shop and purchase one that looks the part (depending on the occasion) for a lot less.

[Nighthawk]

this debate rarely ends well here. You can bet that by the end of it, someone in one camp or the other will decide xmts is too [narrow-minded|iconoclast], and will never return. This forum is littered with dead threads on this subject locked down because all they generated after two or three cycles was all heat and no light.

In my opinion, the only thing that matters here is that now you know what his requirements are, and if he's serious about getting a kilt, you can use the wisdom found here to guide him to a kiltmaker who will satisfy.

Regards,
rex.

ssdd