-
18th April 06, 09:15 PM
#11
Does it matter?
I don't think it matters how long the kilt is. A few weeks ago I was at the celebration of Greek Independence day and saw a number of pictures of Greek heros in long skirts!
Men have worn skirts of various lengths for a very long time.
-
-
19th April 06, 08:59 AM
#12
The dimensions of kilts were changed from the high rise of the traditional kilt to the low rise of the contemporary hip-huggers yet here we still call the contemporary products such as Utilikilts kilts. But if you place the two kilts one a flat surface with waistband to waistband the utilikilt would look incredibly short. From my perspective the modern kilts seem to expose too much torso for my tastes, but that doesn't stop me from calling them kilts because of the basic construction (double apron front and pleated back).
It seems to me like the TFCK models mentioned here have simply modified the length from a different dimension. Instead of bring the waistband down, they took the hem or selvedge line down. I would definitely not call the result pleasing to the eye, or something that I would wear. I also would never consider it a traditional kilt or an American contemporary Kilt, but it still does have the basic construction of double aprons and pleated back. So to me it just seems like yet another variant (albeit a rather unsightly variant) of the kilt.
It's not something I would ever consider wearing, but because of the construction I don't think it qualifies as a skirt. If we are going to disqualify it from consideration because of its difference in length from a traditional kilt, then by the same token we should disqualify the use of kilt to describe such things as Utilikilts & NeoKilts. Since there seems to be general agreement that the modern contemporary kilts are still kilts despite their deviations from traditional standards, I would submit that we should view these ankle-length monstrosities as a curious variation that is still a kilt but hopefully a version that won't survive the test of the market.
-
-
19th April 06, 09:39 AM
#13
Originally Posted by GlassMan
It's not something I would ever consider wearing, but because of the construction I don't think it qualifies as a skirt. If we are going to disqualify it from consideration because of its difference in length from a traditional kilt, then by the same token we should disqualify the use of kilt to describe such things as Utilikilts & NeoKilts. Since there seems to be general agreement that the modern contemporary kilts are still kilts despite their deviations from traditional standards, I would submit that we should view these ankle-length monstrosities as a curious variation that is still a kilt but hopefully a version that won't survive the test of the market.
My thoughts exactly.
-
-
19th April 06, 09:41 AM
#14
Originally Posted by Kiltman
I don't think it matters how long the kilt is. A few weeks ago I was at the celebration of Greek Independence day and saw a number of pictures of Greek heros in long skirts!
Men have worn skirts of various lengths for a very long time.
Very true. As long as they aren't wearing "pants" , then it's all good.
-
-
19th April 06, 09:56 AM
#15
Originally Posted by Kiltman
I don't think it matters how long the kilt is. A few weeks ago I was at the celebration of Greek Independence day and saw a number of pictures of Greek heros in long skirts!
Men have worn skirts of various lengths for a very long time.
In my personal opinion, they may be worn by men, but they are not kilts. All kilts are skirts, but not all skirts are kilts. Let's keep the discussions to kilts and leave the skirt talk for the other forums where that is the subject matter at hand.
-
-
19th April 06, 09:59 AM
#16
I like the look of them myself, would be great for clubbing
Rob
-
-
19th April 06, 10:21 AM
#17
Originally Posted by GlassMan
...It's not something I would ever consider wearing, but because of the construction I don't think it qualifies as a skirt. If we are going to disqualify it from consideration because of its difference in length from a traditional kilt, then by the same token we should disqualify the use of kilt to describe such things as Utilikilts & NeoKilts. Since there seems to be general agreement that the modern contemporary kilts are still kilts despite their deviations from traditional standards, I would submit that we should view these ankle-length monstrosities as a curious variation that is still a kilt but hopefully a version that won't survive the test of the market.
You're absolutely right again sir. These bring back to mind the "Man Bag" of the early 1970's which were no more than scaled up versions of womens purses. They were popular with the gay set for a while and then even they stopped using them, perhaps because they were heavier than womens purses, I dunno...
Chris.
-
-
19th April 06, 10:46 AM
#18
You're absolutely right again sir. These bring back to mind the "Man Bag" of the early 1970's which were no more than scaled up versions of womens purses. They were popular with the gay set for a while and then even they stopped using them, perhaps because they were heavier than womens purses, I dunno...
I think it's because us guys like having both hands free -- for eating and drinking beer with one hand while fending off retched foes with the other.
I'm beginning to think that rules about kilts are like rules about love. The rule only applies to the person who made it.
-
-
19th April 06, 11:20 AM
#19
There is a perception in some quarters that men's kilts shouldn't fall below the knee. There were some great pics on British TV recently of Prince Charles and Princess Camilla walking about on their recent overseas tour in matching Balmoral kilts, his knee length and hers calf length and they both looked right for the people wearing them. Earlier this year I bought a couple of self colour lightweight polyester kilts on e-bay which hang to just below the knee on me and I feel that these really do need to be accessorised with a sporran as without it they do look rather similar to the old fashioned skirts which schoolgirls used to wear before they all converted to trousers. Call them skirts if you want, but they do have the correct front overlap, some pleats at the back and the fringe on the wearer's right so I don't think the seller is breaking the Trades Description Acts by calling them men's kilts.
Regional Director for Scotland for Clan Cunningham International, and a Scottish Armiger.
-
-
19th April 06, 11:39 AM
#20
These garments sounds like kilted skirts, not actual kilts. I've heard of many different types of kilted garments that would surely not qualify as kilt in anyone's eyes.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks