Traditonal vs. Historical

[Sir Didymous]

This is something that I have been pondering on and looking for clues to the answer for some time now. How far back can one go before a style turns from "traditional" into "historical"? I have gathered that great kilts, no matter how fond of them I may be, are considered anachronistic at best. But what of things like garter ties and sgians on the outside of the hose? Or the use of day plaids? What about shirts with ruffles and box pleated kilts? As someone with an eye for historical fashion, these lines are a bit blurred to me. I have been on here for about a year now and have, I feel worked out a reasonable understanding, but I am trying to find a series of guidelines for use when talking to other reenactors or rennies turned kilties.

[xman]

Traditional is the term we use for 'serious' Highland attire, or what you would think of as such. It's "How it has been done" for over a hundred years.
Historical would be box pleats and great kilts and the change is generally around Queen Vic I think. Reenactors should be interested in this.
Anachronistic is what you see at Ren Faires and includes strange leather vests and pirate shirts that have nothing to do with reality. That's very recent.

[RockyR]

As a shorthand response, I'd say:

Historical means it WAS done in the past, but is no longer in common use / practice.

Traditional means it's been done a certain way for quite some time and continues to be done that way today.

Using this loose definition, Great Kilts would fall under "historical" as they're not seen being worn that way for the most part (except at Renn Faires and costume type events).

PC Jacket / Vest image of a man in a kilt would fall under the "traditional" definition as you can see pictures of that outfit from the 50's as well as today.

The GREY area would be things like the Jabot... While this comment may RUFFLE a few feathers (bad pun intended), Jabots are not COMMONLY worn today, though they do still exist and are worn by select few. IMHO, they're on their way from the 'traditional' category into the 'historical' category.

[creagdhubh]

Historical:



Traditional:

[Gryphon noir]

Definitely falls on the "anachronism" side of the imaginary shifting line of distinction....though not without a couple of twists!

[Geoff Withnell]

And things can go either way. Box pleated kilts were well on their way to being "historical" but with the fair number of kilt makers and kilt wearers going to them these days, maybe they are (at least tartan box pleats) on the way to being "traditional" again.

[TheOfficialBren]

I agree.

The jabot is an example of the shift happening in front of us as we watch.

I would say that the fly plaid might be another example but it could also be considered a another animal--a fashion trend within the kilted world that are neither historical or completely traditional, yet they come and go over the years.

Box pleats...hmm...as much as I like them (I really do like them a lot) I do not see them realistically returning to their former prominance. I know of only a few well-known makers offering them (and those are expensive kiltmakers--although you will get top-shelf quality from them). Many people might never own an heirloom kilt and if they do they'll spend that money on one good 8-yard (a more modern affectation, surely) tank. The additional money they spend will likely go toward a fancy sporran, a nice jacket, some VERY high-end hose, and perhaps a custom sgian dubh (if they even bother with the latter).
Realistically, most men will only ever own one or two kilts (bet your bum that the overwhelming majority are knife-pleated). I fit into that category. I love my kilts but I don't have the "collect them all like trading cards" mentality. I'm not knocking folks who do, it just isn't my thing. Kingussie-Rev-K pleating options, again, historical (and now, according to US Patent law, dangerous territory with regard to proprietary rights in relatin to Utilikilt from what I've read) but not likely to really catch on.

Truthfully, even over here across the pond, we look to Scotland to see "how it's done." if it's considered odd-ball or "just not done" then the majority will say, "oh! Gotcha! It's just not done that way," and move on. I have gathered from other threads that pretty much anything that looks historical (including box pleats [so it pains me to say this] would be considered quite out-of-the-ordinary in Scotland (and treated like a 'costume' porentially earning you a Glasgow Kiss).

Just a few well-meaning thoughts worth the value of the photons expended.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I disagree with anyone who would put box pleated kilts into the "historical rather than traditional" category.

Why?

Well, for one thing box pleats never entirely disappeared from fashion. They remained popular in civilian fashion for much of the nineteenth century, and survived in military fashion for much of the twentieth century.

The amount of yardage used in the kilts did increase during this time, from a nominal four yards c. 1800 to a nominal eight yards by c. 1900. It was in the late 20th century that lower yardage kilts once more started to become popular, and I am including in this both the low yardage "casual" kilts which are generally machine sewn and knife pleated as well as the lower yardage box pleated kilts which were originally revived by Bob Martin in the 1980s.

The kilts Bob Martin made, and which kilt makers such as myself continue to make today, are based on the style of historical kilts, but they are not historical reproductions intended for use among reenactors or in a museum showcase. They are made as modern day kilts, only with certain elements (the yardage used, the style of pleating) that were more common in the past, when the kilt was a work-a-day garment.

If someone wanted a kilt made in the exact same way as kilts were made in 1796 or 1815, I could certainly do that for them. But that's not the kind of kilt I make on a normal basis. The kilts I make are modern kilt, with lining, stabilizers, leather straps and metal buckles, a tapered fit at the waist, etc., with certain stylistic elements based on the past. Call them retro if you like. But they are not historic dress.

The proof is in the pudding. I am wearing a four yard box pleated kilt in each of these photos. I think most people would class these examples in the category of "traditional" not "historical."

[Tobus]

As a shorthand response, I'd say:

Historical means it WAS done in the past, but is no longer in common use / practice.

Traditional means it's been done a certain way for quite some time and continues to be done that way today.

I think that definition is perfect, Rocky. Of course, there will always be squabbles over what defines "common" or "quite some time". But 99% of people probably agree on what those terms mean. It's only the kilt geeks (a term I invoke affectionately) who will disagree on these minor details.

[Liam]

I'd like to suggest that the 4 yd box pleat is in fact a "modern" or as Matt suggested a "retro" interpretation of what was an historic garment. Much the same could be said about 4 or 5 yd knife pleat kilts, pv or acrylic kilts, or for that matter machine sewn rather than hand sewn kilts. It is much the same as defining heritage and culture. Heritage is how one's ancestors lived while culture is how you live.