How Many Years in the Switch from Box to Knife Pleat?

[Bugbear]

About how many years did the switch from box pleats to knife pleats take in the latter part of the eighteen-hundreds?
How does this time span compare to other changes in highland kilt attire?
Thank you.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

It was a gradual thing, like all fashion changes.

The first real documentation I can cite for the use of the side, or knife pleat is when the Gordon Highland regiment began making their kilts this way in 1853. But that doesn't mean that this manner of pleating was invented in that year!

Nor does it mean that everyone began knife pleating their kilts in 1853, either. In fact, if you look at the famous portraits by Kenneth MacLeay, done in 1865-9, they all show box pleated kilts.

The Book of the Club of the True Highlander, published in 1880, states that the "newer" form of pleating (i.e. knife pleating) is incorrect, and that kilts should properly be box pleated.

And let's not forget that up until the amalgamation of the the Highland Regiments, some still wore box pleated kilts, the Seaforth being one prime example. Though doubtless by the time we get to the twentieth century knife pleating was by far the norm.

[figheadair]

It was a gradual thing, like all fashion changes.

The first real documentation I can cite for the use of the side, or knife pleat is when the Gordon Highland regiment began making their kilts this way in 1853. But that doesn't mean that this manner of pleating was invented in that year!

Nor does it mean that everyone began knife pleating their kilts in 1853, either. In fact, if you look at the famous portraits by Kenneth MacLeay, done in 1865-9, they all show box pleated kilts.

The Book of the Club of the True Highlander, published in 1880, states that the "newer" form of pleating (i.e. knife pleating) is incorrect, and that kilts should properly be box pleated.

And let's not forget that up until the amalgamation of the the Highland Regiments, some still wore box pleated kilts, the Seaforth being one prime example. Though doubtless by the time we get to the twentieth century knife pleating was by far the norm.

As Matt says, it was a gradual thing. Bob Martin is with out doubt the expert on the kilt and its development. Unfortunately he doesn't play on the Forum.

The important thing to realise is that this gradual change involved a change in the style of box pleats first from a balanced box to an unbalanced one, what Bob calls the box-knife, which generally required more cloth 5-6 yards. Although the balanced box pleat can still be seem in some Victorian pictures into the c1860s it probably disappeared in favour of the box-knife at around the same time as the knife pleat began to appear but there would always have been an overlap. This box-knife is what the Seaforths, Argylls etc continued to wear. I'm not sure if the RRS have gone for that style over a knife pleat.

Short answer to the OP? One has to differentiate between civilian and military dress. I'd say 50-60 years for civilian kilts i.e. by the late C19th most if not all civilian kilts were knife pleated. Some of the military kept it in line with Dress Regulations.

[OC Richard]

The first real documentation I can cite for the use of the side, or knife pleat is when the Gordon Highland regiment began making their kilts this way in 1853.

That's very very interesting. Makes me wonder how many early military kilts are sitting around in various regimental museums, and if anyone has ever examined them all to see how they're pleated.

In the 20th century, the kilts of the Black Watch and Gordon Highlanders were knifepleated, outnumbered by the kilts of the Cameron Highlanders, Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders, and Seaforth Highlanders which were boxpleated.

If the Gordons switched to knifepleats in 1853, then when did the Black Watch change? Or were they always in knifepleated kilts?

Today there's just the Royal Regiment of Scotland, which wears the kilt of the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders, meaning that all Scottish infantry today wears boxpleated kilts.

All of this doesn't answer the question why, in the Highland Dress as it came down to us from the early 20th century, were civilian kilts always knifepleated, and nearly always to the tartan? (I now have quite a collection of old Highland Dress catalogues and kilt pleating isn't mentioned- knifepleated to the tartan is assumed, evidently.)

Why did only the military perpetuate boxpleated-to-the-stripe kilts?

[slohairt]

That's very very interesting. Makes me wonder how many early military kilts are sitting around in various regimental museums, and if anyone has ever examined them all to see how they're pleated.

In the 20th century, the kilts of the Black Watch and Gordon Highlanders were knifepleated, outnumbered by the kilts of the Cameron Highlanders, Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders, and Seaforth Highlanders which were boxpleated.

If the Gordons switched to knifepleats in 1853, then when did the Black Watch change? Or were they always in knifepleated kilts?

Today there's just the Royal Regiment of Scotland, which wears the kilt of the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders, meaning that all Scottish infantry today wears boxpleated kilts.

All of this doesn't answer the question why, in the Highland Dress as it came down to us from the early 20th century, were civilian kilts always knifepleated, and nearly always to the tartan? (I now have quite a collection of old Highland Dress catalogues and kilt pleating isn't mentioned- knifepleated to the tartan is assumed, evidently.)

Why did only the military perpetuate boxpleated-to-the-stripe kilts?

For the same reason as they perpetuated knife-pleated to the stripe: Economics. It takes much less fabric to pleat Black Watch, Gordon, Hunting Stewart, or Mackenzie to the stripe than to the sett. If you're making many kilts at once, the savings would add up quickly.

[xman]

For the same reason as they perpetuated knife-pleated to the stripe: Economics. It takes much less fabric to pleat Black Watch, Gordon, Hunting Stewart, or Mackenzie to the stripe than to the sett. If you're making many kilts at once, the savings would add up quickly.

But this argument for economy breaks down in that eventually eight yards of cloth would be used because it looked smart, not because it was economical. That's not so economical. I submit that the decision was more likely made to look 'uniform'. Each pleat looks exactly like every other pleat on parade.

[slohairt]

But this argument for economy breaks down in that eventually eight yards of cloth would be used because it looked smart, not because it was economical. That's not so economical. I submit that the decision was more likely made to look 'uniform'. Each pleat looks exactly like every other pleat on parade.

Not really. Very few so-called 'eight yard' military kilts contain eight yards. With the tartans I mentioned only half of the sett is used per pleat. And, yes, uniformity was also a consideration.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

For the same reason as they perpetuated knife-pleated to the stripe: Economics. It takes much less fabric to pleat Black Watch, Gordon, Hunting Stewart, or Mackenzie to the stripe than to the sett. If you're making many kilts at once, the savings would add up quickly.

I've heard this argument, but I've never really bought it. For one, the amount of cloth saved in pleating to the stripe (vs. to the sett) is nominal, to say the least.

For another, pleating the stripe pre-dates pleating to the sett by a good 100 years or more, so it is not as if pleating to the stripe was introduced as a "low cost, easy alternative" to pleating to the sett.

The earliest tailored kilts that survive to this day are military kilts from the 1790s. They contain about 4 yards of cloth (some less) and are box pleated to the stripe.

Civilian kilts from the same period were pleated to NOTHING -- to no pattern at all. So you cannot really make the argument at this point that the military used pleating to the stripe to save cloth. You can argue that it was done for uniformity, though, as pleating to a regular stripe certainly does lend a more uniform look that the random pleating that was seen in contemporary civilian kilts.

Civilian kilts adopted pleating to the stripe sometime around 1815-20 or thereabouts. And for the remainder of the nineteenth century pleating to the stripe was the norm for civilian and military kilts, whether they be box pleated or knife pleated, four yards, five yards, six yards or what have you.

I would argue that the reason pleating to the stripe was maintained by the military - as well as the older box pleating style - is that the military has a built in tendency to hold fast to tradition, much more so than civilian fashion.

[slohairt]

I've heard this argument, but I've never really bought it. For one, the amount of cloth saved in pleating to the stripe (vs. to the sett) is nominal, to say the least.

For another, pleating the stripe pre-dates pleating to the sett by a good 100 years or more, so it is not as if pleating to the stripe was introduced as a "low cost, easy alternative" to pleating to the sett.

The earliest tailored kilts that survive to this day are military kilts from the 1790s. They contain about 4 yards of cloth (some less) and are box pleated to the stripe.

Civilian kilts from the same period were pleated to NOTHING -- to no pattern at all. So you cannot really make the argument at this point that the military used pleating to the stripe to save cloth. You can argue that it was done for uniformity, though, as pleating to a regular stripe certainly does lend a more uniform look that the random pleating that was seen in contemporary civilian kilts.

Civilian kilts adopted pleating to the stripe sometime around 1815-20 or thereabouts. And for the remainder of the nineteenth century pleating to the stripe was the norm for civilian and military kilts, whether they be box pleated or knife pleated, four yards, five yards, six yards or what have you.

I would argue that the reason pleating to the stripe was maintained by the military - as well as the older box pleating style - is that the military has a built in tendency to hold fast to tradition, much more so than civilian fashion.

Concerning the original box-pleated military kilts, I would agree that it was done for uniformity and nothing more. I'm suggesting that the military chose not to adopt the later trend of pleating to the sett for both uniformity and economics.

Sure, if a full repeat is used per pleat than the savings are nominal, maybe only 20 inches or so worth of cloth. However, by only using a half repeat per pleat the saving is considerable.

Suppose two kilts are being made. Both are made to the measurements of 33" Waist and 39" Hips" (My own measurements! ) Both are made from 18 oz. cloth in Black Watch which has an approximate repeat of 13 1/2 inches. Both kilts will also have 27 pleats. Assuming one didn't "cheat the pleats", pleating to the sett using a full repeat per pleat would use roughly 12.5 yards. (A ridiculous number to be sure, and anyone would definitely cheat the pleats.) The second kilt, pleated to the stripe, using only half repeats per pleat would only require about 6.5 yards. So, no, in this the case the savings are quite considerable.

[Bugbear]

Thanks, Matt.

From your article, "The Early History of the Kilt," the earliest example of pleats being sewn in as a tailored box pleated kilt is in the 1790s.
http://www.albanach.org/kilt.html