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

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I suspect that the change over from the kilt as common, everyday clothing to less commonly worn ceremonial garb may have played a role, as well.

When you are wearing the kilt simply as your clothing, the lower yardage kilt makes a lot more sense, both in terms of economy as well as practicality and comfort.

However, when a garment is used for more ceremonial purposes, it tends to become more stylized and exaggerated. Let's fact it, all that extra cloth in the kilt lends quite a bit to the swish and swing of it! And when you are trying to make a kilt from a greater amount of cloth, knife pleating is definitely easier than box pleating.

So as the nineteenth century rolled on, and less and less Highland men were wearing the kilt as their daily garb, reserving the kilt for special occasions (if they wore it at all), there may have been a trend for the kilts to contain more fabric, which could have then contributed to the popularity of the knife pleated kilt.

This is purely speculation on my part. Really, do we know why any fashion changes the way it does? :-)

[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?

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Actually, in the very early 20th century, I would make the argument that pleating to the sett was not all that common. Apparently it was just starting to come into vogue. In 1901, Ruaraidh Stuart Erskine wrote in The Kilt and How to Wear it about a recent novel form of pleating, the name of which he did not know, but he described it as "revealing the whole tartan pattern." He speaks of it as a very new thing, just starting to come into fashion.

[lukeyrobertson]

According to Ken McGoogan's book "How the Scots Invented Canada", 2010., in 1822 King George IV visited Scotland (first reigning monarach to visit Scotland since 1650). Sir Walter Scott was appointed to coordinate the pageantry for the 14 day visit. Scott had requested that any and everyone should wear tartan...and of the over 300,000 attendees, apparently a great number did. McGoogan writes that Walter Scott is remembered as the one who made the kilt and bagpipes icons of scottish identity.

Now for the historians on this forum, I am wondering if that event wasn't pivotal in making the fashion switch from boxpleat to knife pleat complete especially for civilian dress?

[jhockin]

OK, so why the change, exactly? Is it a kind of evolutionary thing? It can't be for economical reasons. Anyone know? Or, was it merely new trends in fashion set in military styling? Thoughts on this, anyone?

Just my own, personal opinion, but I've always suspected that some cany scot decided to make a wee bit more cash from the sasenacks, by "pushing" the knife pleat, to sell twice as much material

[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.

[figheadair]

According to Ken McGoogan's book "How the Scots Invented Canada", 2010., in 1822 King George IV visited Scotland (first reigning monarach to visit Scotland since 1650). Sir Walter Scott was appointed to coordinate the pageantry for the 14 day visit. Scott had requested that any and everyone should wear tartan...and of the over 300,000 attendees, apparently a great number did. McGoogan writes that Walter Scott is remembered as the one who made the kilt and bagpipes icons of scottish identity.

Now for the historians on this forum, I am wondering if that event wasn't pivotal in making the fashion switch from boxpleat to knife pleat complete especially for civilian dress?

I very much doubt it. There is no evidence of knife pleated kilts during the Highland Revival (c1780-1840) and all the kilts that survive from the era of the visit are balanced box pleated ones. The first record we have, as Matt mentioned, is some 30 years after the Levee.