But is it still a kilt?

[Deirachel]

Actually, this design doesn't look too bad to me. It looks like it's designed for the goth, steam-punk, and emo look. The more narrow apron will fit well with the slim look of each of these groups. I might buy one of them, but the tank comes first.

[ohiopiper]

I vote not a kilt. However, I also figure that while most traditionalists wouldn't be caught dead in one, there are a lot of the goth and steampunk crowd (mentioned above) that will go for it. Maybe I'm an Olde Phart, but I can't seem to completely wrap my head around making something that is definately NOT a kilt and calling it a kilt. I understand the want for pockets in a kilt and the subsequent need to have more unpleated space to put them, hence the original UtiliKilt. But this? No thanks, I'll pass.

[O'Callaghan]

It's a manskirt, but it looks OK. I think Utilikilts are overpriced for what they are, and most of their designs wind up slightly ugly by overdoing the urge to make them look more masculine. I think it looks better where they have shown it with no apron attached, but YMMV. Don't think I would buy one at their prices - maybe a cheap knockoff, LOL!

[Muddy]

Utilikilts are a great product. I have a "workmans" model and it's tops.
These new ones however, to me are butt-ugly.

[OC Richard]

"But is it still a kilt?" is the question...

Call me a stick-in-the-mud or a ultra-traditionalist or summat but for me the only thing that can be called simply "a kilt" (that is, without a prefix) is a traditional wool handsewn kilt.

Anything else for me would require a prefix such as sport- utility- casual etc.

[Muddy]

"But is it still a kilt?" is the question...

Call me a stick-in-the-mud or a ultra-traditionalist or summat but for me the only thing that can be called simply "a kilt" (that is, without a prefix) is a traditional wool handsewn kilt.

Anything else for me would require a prefix such as sport- utility- casual etc.

I dunno, with respect to others right to an opinion, to me, anything with pleats and no pant-legs and at least a semi-traditional looking apron front is a kilt. Just my two cents.

[Joe I]

"But is it still a kilt?" is the question...

Call me a stick-in-the-mud or a ultra-traditionalist or summat but for me the only thing that can be called simply "a kilt" (that is, without a prefix) is a traditional wool handsewn kilt.

Anything else for me would require a prefix such as sport- utility- casual etc.

Hey, Ultra-traditionalist or summat, You said I could call you that. I enjoyed making my woodland camoflage kilt and wearing it. Now you can call me that back, as I think it stops being a kilt when donned by a female ( I apoligize to the ladies here). Women have their choice of clothing. Remember when they stopped wearing skirts in the 70's?

[David Thorpe]

*** Richard.
IMNSHO, the term "MUG" (Men's Unbifurcated Garment) is much more appropriate and descriptive of this type of loin covering. "Contemporary kilt" doesn't work because of the integral implication that traditional kilts are not contemporary -- not currently being made or worn. This is simply not true at all. THCD is very much alive and well, with the kilt (a Scottish garment with a long history) being a central component thereof.
Here on Xmarks the commonly used definitions are well-established and nearly universally understood, but they are far from being accurately descriptive.
I am not trying to crank open a huge can of worms or start a war - just telling it like it is.

[Geoff Withnell]

David,
With the greatest of respect, I fear I must differ with you. I have not been able to find an agreed upon definition of a kilt. If we indeed have such, I would think it would be in the FAQs. I gave the definition I use, in my original post " the minimum definition of a kilt as a wrapped garment, the portion below the waist coming approximately to the knees, with pleats at the sides and back, and overlapping flat aprons in front". I am told some early kilts were pleated all the way around, so maybe the flat apron portion is suspect. However, I think the length of this thread demonstrates we do not have a "well-established and nearly universally understood" definition for the kilt, which considering that is the interest we have in common, is somewhat mind-boggling.

*** Richard.
IMNSHO, the term "MUG" (Men's Unbifurcated Garment) is much more appropriate and descriptive of this type of loin covering. "Contemporary kilt" doesn't work because of the integral implication that traditional kilts are not contemporary -- not currently being made or worn. This is simply not true at all. THCD is very much alive and well, with the kilt (a Scottish garment with a long history) being a central component thereof.
Here on Xmarks the commonly used definitions are well-established and nearly universally understood, but they are far from being accurately descriptive.
I am not trying to crank open a huge can of worms or start a war - just telling it like it is.

[Geoff Withnell]

Truly? An 8 yard, knife pleated, heavy weight Scottish wool tartan kilt, that happens to be machine sewn, is not simply "a kilt"? A difference that is essentially invisible at any normal social distance when it is being worn? Interesting.

"But is it still a kilt?" is the question...

Call me a stick-in-the-mud or a ultra-traditionalist or summat but for me the only thing that can be called simply "a kilt" (that is, without a prefix) is a traditional wool handsewn kilt.

Anything else for me would require a prefix such as sport- utility- casual etc.