Confused....

**argyle24** · 13th January 16, 02:39 PM

Sean,

When you take a kiltwearer's measurements and then sort out how they translate into the measures at the apron and the pleats, it will be unusual for you to find that they'll be an equal split front to back.

Most humans are not equally proportional from front to back. The small of the back curves inwards and our posteriors stick out further than the same area in front. In figuring splits, you would initially make an even figure (e.g. - 34" would be divided out to 17" and 17") and then make adjustments from there. Rule of thumb is to put more of the measure in the apron than the pleats at the waist and then conversely, flip that for the measure of the apron at the fell (fullest part of the buttocks) as you would need more material in the pleats around your butt than in the front.

This shaping is what causes a properly made kilt to 'fit like a glove', snug into the small of the back and then allowing the pleats to follow the shape of the wearer to the fell and then hang straight.

So your finding that the apron at the waist measured 19.5" and 16.5" at the pleats gives you a figure of 36" at the waist. That is bigger than your given measurement of 34" at the waist, so you may have the kilt buckled a hole or two tighter to ensure it feels appropriately tight when wearing (that's completely fine - kilts are flexible garments and often designed to fit the wearer's initially submitted measurements with the kilt buckled on the 3rd hole of the strap) The finding that the back measure across the fell is 20" is also appropriate - if it had the same measure as the pleats across the waist, the kilt wouldn't shape to you and wouldn't fit right! Does that help?

**Sean Wilson** · 13th January 16, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by argyle24

Sean,

When you take a kiltwearer's measurements and then sort out how they translate into the measures at the apron and the pleats, it will be unusual for you to find that they'll be an equal split front to back.

Most humans are not equally proportional from front to back. The small of the back curves inwards and our posteriors stick out further than the same area in front. In figuring splits, you would initially make an even figure (e.g. - 34" would be divided out to 17" and 17") and then make adjustments from there. Rule of thumb is to put more of the measure in the apron than the pleats at the waist and then conversely, flip that for the measure of the apron at the fell (fullest part of the buttocks) as you would need more material in the pleats around your butt than in the front.

This shaping is what causes a properly made kilt to 'fit like a glove', snug into the small of the back and then allowing the pleats to follow the shape of the wearer to the fell and then hang straight.

So your finding that the apron at the waist measured 19.5" and 16.5" at the pleats gives you a figure of 36" at the waist. That is bigger than your given measurement of 34" at the waist, so you may have the kilt buckled a hole or two tighter to ensure it feels appropriately tight when wearing (that's completely fine - kilts are flexible garments and often designed to fit the wearer's initially submitted measurements with the kilt buckled on the 3rd hole of the strap) The finding that the back measure across the fell is 20" is also appropriate - if it had the same measure as the pleats across the waist, the kilt wouldn't shape to you and wouldn't fit right! Does that help?

Thank you. I think that makes perfect sense.

**The Wizard of BC** · 13th January 16, 04:00 PM

Sean,

It's all about taking a two dimensional piece of fabric and making it fit a three dimensional human form.

Add to that some tricks that are learned with experience built on a base of other peoples experiences.

How Barb explains to make a kilt in TAoK, is how Barb learned from Elsie who apprenticed at Gordon's. That is not the only way to make a kilt or the only school of thought about how a kilt should be made. It is one way.

For example in TAoK you will see that the outer apron is not symmetrical. There is an extra inch added to the right side. If you were to use a tape measure to reverse engineer a kilt made IAW TAoK and did not know that it would be confusing.

Another example is that no two guys are alike. A guy with a large belly may have a different apron/pleat proportion than a skinny kid. In the end the edges of an apron look best when they form vertical lines down the side of the wearer.

And finally if your existing kilt was not made by someone using the Gordon's/Elsie's/Barb's method you can't really use the instructions to understand all the details. Does your kilt have reverse flare above the top straps? Does your existing kilt have a full stabilizer, a half stabilizer or no stabilizer at all? Is your current kilt totally hand stitched, partially machine sewn and hand finished or something else?

Yes, if you make kilts in accordance with TAoK you essentially make the same kilt over and over again. The process and the procedures are exactly the same. But no two kilts you will ever make will be exactly the same. A small tweek to accommodate a belly or a small adjustment for something else.

This is why the title of the book is "The Art of Kiltmaking" and not the science or engineering of kiltmaking.

**Sean Wilson** · 15th January 16, 04:51 PM

So working to Barbra's book, with a wait of 34 and a hip of 36 inch, would the following split be ok?

Waist: apron=17.75" & pleats=16.25"
Hip : apron=18.75" & pleats=19.25"

Or is there a better slip?

**Barb T** · 15th January 16, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Sean Wilson

So working to Barbra's book, with a wait of 34 and a hip of 36 inch, would the following split be ok?

Waist: apron=17.75" & pleats=16.25"
Hip : apron=18.75" & pleats=19.25"

Or is there a better split?

So, the splits have to add up to the measurements, unless you want to add a little expansion room. 17 3/4 + 16 1/4" does add up to 34. But 18 3/4 + 19 1/4 adds up to 38", not 36". So, is the hip measurement actually 38"??

**Sean Wilson** · 15th January 16, 05:18 PM

Thank you for the reply Barbara... much appreciated. Yes the hip was 38" not 36". I have the photos of sett, and measurement on my tablet, maybe that's the reason I can not upload. I've been successful before uploading photos from my pc so will try on that instead when I'm back home in the morning.

The tartan is from Lochcarron 16oz wool in Wilson Ancient if that helps? The kilt is laid on a bed which i apreciate is less than an ideal surface, I did measure it at 15.5" it may be 15" if measured on a table.

**Barb T** · 15th January 16, 06:12 PM

Will look forward to seeing the pic. Unfortunately, Lochcarron doesn't post sett size on their web site, so I don't have a way of determining the sett except to look at your pic with a tape measure for scale.

In terms of measurements, here's what you have: waist 34", hips 38"

Your splits:
Waist: apron=17.75" & pleats=16.25"
Hip : apron=18.75" & pleats=19.25"

In terms of splits, 1/2" differential between apron and pleats in the hips is small. The normal split puts 1" more in the pleats than in the apron at the hips. The only time I would put only 1/2" differential at the hips is if someone really has a very very flat butt. Most guys with trim waists really need that full inch in order to pull the kilt in to the small of the back. So, here's what I would do:

Waist: apron 17 3/4 pleats 16 1/4

Hips: apron 18 1/2 pleats 19 1/2

But, whenever I make a kilt, I always add half and inch to both waist and hip measurements in order to give a bit of expansion room but then put the buckles and straps on at the actual measurements. A kilt that is even 1/4" too small is obviously too small because the underapron shows. A kilt can be many inches too big and still look OK because the apron just wraps over the pleats and isn't really noticeable.

Barb

**Barb T** · 15th January 16, 04:55 PM

Sorry to be coming late to the party! I missed this thread when it was first posted.

No one has asked whether the sett size is actually over 15". Very few tartans have a sett this big, and the DC Dalgliesh custom weave page indicates that, if they wove the tartan, the sett would be on the order of about 10". It would be great to see a pic of the tartan, with a tape measure, to confirm that you've measured the sett size correctly.

BTW - you don't "attach" an image to a post. You upload your pic to a web site such as Photobucket or Shutterfly, which provides a unique URL for that photo. In your post, type [img] and follow it with the full URL and then add [/img]. No spaces between the tags and the URL. That way, we'll be able to see your pic.

**Pleater** · 16th January 16, 10:36 AM

That doesn't look like it is pleated to the sett - if it was it would be showing the sett exactly as seen on the front.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

**Barb T** · 16th January 16, 10:45 AM

With a sett this huge, the kiltmaker would have had to "cheat the pleats". In order to have two pleats per sett, it was undoubtedly impossible to pick up the elements needed to reproduce the sett. So, the kiltmaker picked up pleats that would make a pleasing look and give an overall "look and feel" that would require some scrutiny to see the difference with the actual sett.