Pleats tied to formality?

[unixken]

Handsome kid. Yours?

Not mine. I should have mentioned I linked to that shot from the Scotweb site. (I'll go back and credit the pic.)

[artificer]

But a tartan in a given sett size may require the pleats to be one width, while a larger sett in the same tartan may allow or require the pleats be a different width. Certainly the amount of fabric used will also have some bearing. These, and the size of the individual wearing the kilt, will all influence the size and number of pleats. Does this then not try to mandate that only people "wide enough", wearing a "properly sized" sett, can call their kilt formal, while relegating everything else to causal status. Does this young child's kilt not qualify as formal, because of the limited number of pleats his small frame can fit in to?


Again, I feel the determining factor in what can be dressed up (and what can't), is not dictated by the technical details of the pleats, but where on the body the kilt is designed to be worn. It's a simpler, more direct definition in my mind, and is less vulnerable to the fractions of an inch that determine a good pleat width for a given tartan, amongst all the other factors that go into the construction of the kilt.

As Jock Scot mentioned earlier- we're definitely in danger of over-thinking things here.

Of course there are multiple situations where sett size, the size of the wearer, etc will help dictate size and number of pleats.

My PRIMARY observation was that **the following for sake of clarity** for adults of average size, and assuming that the sett isn't freakishly large or small there is a world of difference between a handmade 'tank' (which tend to have somewhere between 20-30 pleats depending on the sett and wearer) and a low-yardage, lightweight, casually built kilt which might only have 10-12. I also mentioned that this difference would only be obvious to others who have some knowledge of kilts- In a room full of people with no kilt knowledge or experience a kilt is a kilt is a kilt.

- a really well-made traditional kilt will go ANYWHERE. YMMV with less traditionally made kilts.

[unixken]

My PRIMARY observation was that **the following for sake of clarity** for adults of average size, and assuming that the sett isn't freakishly large or small there is a world of difference between a handmade 'tank' (which tend to have somewhere between 20-30 pleats depending on the sett and wearer) and a low-yardage, lightweight, casually built kilt which might only have 10-12.

So my low-riding, "casually cut" Aberdeen District, with it's freakishly large 23" sett (but dozens of pleats) and pants-waist gap between kilt and waistcoat, would look good with a Prince Charlie? Not to belabor a point, but I just don't see it. ;) Interesting perspective, though! I appreciate the point of view!

[artificer]

As Jock Scot mentioned earlier- we're definitely in danger of over-thinking things here.

Of course there are multiple situations where sett size, the size of the wearer, etc will help dictate size and number of pleats.

My PRIMARY observation was that **the following for sake of clarity** for adults of average size, and assuming that the sett isn't freakishly large or small there is a world of difference between a handmade 'tank' (which tend to have somewhere between 20-30 pleats depending on the sett and wearer) and a low-yardage, lightweight, casually built kilt which might only have 10-12. I also mentioned that this difference would only be obvious to others who have some knowledge of kilts- In a room full of people with no kilt knowledge or experience a kilt is a kilt is a kilt.

- a really well-made traditional kilt will go ANYWHERE. YMMV with less traditionally made kilts.

So my low-riding, "casually cut" Aberdeen District, with it's freakishly large 23" sett (but dozens of pleats) and pants-waist gap between kilt and waistcoat, would look good with a Prince Charlie? Not to belabor a point, but I just don't see it. ;) Interesting perspective, though! I appreciate the point of view!

I think we can consider the point well and truly belabored.
I'd argue that your kilt as you've outlined above (low riding, casually cut) isn't really TRADITIONAL in cut (even if it is handmade), so it wouldn't be quite what my point was, no?

[Father Bill]

What does this mean please?

[artificer]

What does this mean please?

Your Mileage May Vary


Sorry Padre.

ith:

[unixken]

I think we can consider the point well and truly belabored.
I'd argue that your kilt as you've outlined above (low riding, casually cut) isn't really TRADITIONAL in cut (even if it is handmade), so it wouldn't be quite what my point was, no?

Yep. We both get to the same end, I think. We just take different paths to get there. LOL

Great discussion!

[BCAC]

What does this mean please?

Here is a good link for looking up things like that, Bill.

[Father Bill]

Here is a good link for looking up things like that, Bill.

Ha! Thanks Scott and BCAC. I appreciate the help, and I've bookmarked that translator.

... or we could encourage some of the most flagrant offenders (not you guys!) to use plain English more often too!



Bill+

[WillowEstate]

Hi MiKilt, an interesting discussion you started here, no?

Anyway, I'm of the consensus that a formal kilt has universal application, while a casual one may be limited.

But look at it this way, you are already a confident independent thinker (you wear a kilt) so do what YOU want, whether you prefer the alternating stripes of single red is of little consequence if you wear it with confidence in context, the look will be admired!