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

[M. A. C. Newsome]

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.

John,

That would be true only if you were bound and determined to include a full sett repeat of the tartan in every pleat when making a Black Watch kilt. I'm sure I don't have to tell you there are ways around this problem which allow for pleating to the sett, but don't require you to use the full repeat if you have a very large sett to deal with. You refer to "cheating the pleats" in your post, and even say "anyone would definitely" do this.

Otherwise, every skinny man in an ancient Campbell kilt (or Gordon, or MacKenzie, or Hunting Robertson, or MacLachlan, or MacNab, or Fraser of Lovat, Murray of Atholl, etc.) who wanted it pleated to sett would have to pay an absurd amount for his kilt and would end up walking around in over 12 yards of tartan, per your math.

We all know this is not the case. And certainly army tailors of the nineteenth century were no less clever than kilt makers today. If there was a desire to have regimental kilts pleated to the sett, they could have easily accomplished this while using the same amount of cloth as before.

So I still maintain that the main reason they stayed true to pleating to the stripe was tradition, not economics. The whole argument that pleating to the stripe "saves cloth" I believe is simply one more Highland dress myth.

BTW, I've made box pleated kilts pleated to the sett from as little as four yards of cloth, and knife pleated kilts to the sett from as little as five.

[slohairt]

Matt,

Yes, the twelve-and-a-half yard monster I suggested is just a hypothetical example. (Wouldn't that be fun to make? ) Anyone who wanted a kilt pleated to the sett using such a large pattern (like Black Watch) would realistically have to settle for one of two options:

1) Fewer pleats (say fifteen or seventeen) with a wider reveal but uniform depth throughout the kilt.

2) "Cheating the Pleats". This would be used to maintain the high number of pleats (27) I suggested in my example. However, some elements in the tartan don't repeat themselves so there would not be a uniformity of pleat depth. Every few pleats would require using the full repeat of the sett. Sure, this would drastically reduce the kilt's overall yardage from the aforementioned twelve-and-a-half yards, but you would still need about eight yards to accomplish this. Eight yards is still a lot more than six-and-a-half, especially when dealing with many kilts being made from the same bolt of tartan.

The army is nothing if not frugal and in situations like the Great War, where there was a high 'turnover' of kilts, economy of cloth would become an issue fairly quickly. Almost every detail of a military kilt indicates economy of cloth: no apron fringe, small apron facings, non-tartan waistbands and buckle tabs. (The latter two also make alteration easier.)

Yes, I've made traditional box-pleated and low-yardage knife-pleated kilts to the sett as well, but I'm referring to military kilts that 'require' a high number of pleats. So I still maintain that it was done for both tradition and economics.