Added to my kilt collection.

[Troglodyte]

I'm pretty sure that all of the modern utility kilt designs are meant to be worn down on the hips like trousers. That is actually one of the appeals to people who prefer them over traditional kilts. That said, there's no reason they can't be worn at the natural waist, and indeed when I used to wear mine (I haven't worn it in nearly 10 years) I would wear it higher up like a traditional kilt. I just find that more comfortable.


You may be taking that a bit too seriously. I'm pretty sure that term started out as a joke. The apparel company 5.11 Tactical that makes all sorts of psuedo-military/tactical gear did an April Fool's prank many years back where they featured a "tactical kilt" on their website on April 1st. There was such a positive reaction and high demand for it that they actually had to start making them and selling them. They still carry this item, labeling it a "commando kilt". No one in their right mind really believes that this is a suitable garment for actual military operations that would normally call for tactical gear.

But I have seen people wear them at the shooting range or other outdoor events where they might otherwise be wearing shorts. The pockets and attachment points are handy for holding gear that would normally go in cargo shorts or cargo pants pockets. And a traditional kilt would be way out of place, not only in terms of fashion choice at an American shooting event (you may not understand the nuances of our "gun culture"), but also in terms of appropriateness to the weather. Folks in Scotland may not fully appreciate why an 8-yard woollen garment wouldn't be comfortable in the hot, muggy climate of much of the USA. As an alternative to cargo shorts that provide utilitarian pockets, while also offering the ventilation of a kilt, these utility kilts or "tactical kilts" are actually not a bad choice for certain activities. Would one want to storm an enemy position wearing one? Well, no.

Thanks for all this - I'm beginning to understand...

[Couper]

My take on the variation in kilts, FWIW, is something I could compare with the trousers in my closet (mostly unworn these days, but still).

I wear my utility kilt(s) as I would a comfortable old pair of jeans - feel good and great for yard work or some sports. My regular trousers, khakis and whatnot, might be similar in usage to the five USA Kilts casuals kilts I have - work quite well for most general activities. My true wool kilts might equate to the dark trousers and/or tux in my closet and serve for more formal uses. The kilts are all more comfortable than the trousers (or in summertime, shorts) for most activities and can be purposed for various activities.

For example, I am taking the wife to the grocery store in a little while and I just put on a black GotKilt utility kilt with a dark green sweater. It looks good (so my wife tells me) and serves the purpose. I might just as well have put on one of Rocky's casual kilts but this black number was hanging in front of the others. Just as I have different styles/fabrics of pants/trousers, I also have different styles/fabrics of kilts. They all serve a purpose - and I need not be concerned about it being worth $79 or $479.

(BTW, my latest 100% wool kilt, Macintosh Tartan, brand new but on "closeout" cost me only $69 plus shipping from Utah to Delaware. I wore that yesterday when we went out to dinner and received two very nice compliments from total strangers. Granted, it does not have the fine pleat structure or sewing craftsmanship of a garment originating in Scotland - but it was several hundred dollars less expensive. While it may influence longevity, I do not believe the cost of a garment is a defining factor in utility, fashion or appearance.)

[Troglodyte]

My take on the variation in kilts, FWIW, is something I could compare with the trousers in my closet (mostly unworn these days, but still).

I wear my utility kilt(s) as I would a comfortable old pair of jeans - feel good and great for yard work or some sports. My regular trousers, khakis and whatnot, might be similar in usage to the five USA Kilts casuals kilts I have - work quite well for most general activities. My true wool kilts might equate to the dark trousers and/or tux in my closet and serve for more formal uses. The kilts are all more comfortable than the trousers (or in summertime, shorts) for most activities and can be purposed for various activities.

For example, I am taking the wife to the grocery store in a little while and I just put on a black GotKilt utility kilt with a dark green sweater. It looks good (so my wife tells me) and serves the purpose. I might just as well have put on one of Rocky's casual kilts but this black number was hanging in front of the others. Just as I have different styles/fabrics of pants/trousers, I also have different styles/fabrics of kilts. They all serve a purpose - and I need not be concerned about it being worth $79 or $479.

(BTW, my latest 100% wool kilt, Macintosh Tartan, brand new but on "closeout" cost me only $69 plus shipping from Utah to Delaware. I wore that yesterday when we went out to dinner and received two very nice compliments from total strangers. Granted, it does not have the fine pleat structure or sewing craftsmanship of a garment originating in Scotland - but it was several hundred dollars less expensive. While it may influence longevity, I do not believe the cost of a garment is a defining factor in utility, fashion or appearance.)

Interesting, and informative - thanks...

Looking at the subject from a native Scottish point of view, I would say that the need for a kilt in other than wool is novel - our climate rarely gets anything like Mediterranean, but when it does, kilt-wearing is a long way from our minds.

There used to be adverts for garments in 'Cool Wool' which were supposed to be as good in tropical conditions as is linen, as wool is insulating and so keeps the sun's heat off in the same way.

Heat is one thing, but humidity is another, and my time 'Out East' in Malayasia and Singapore has left me with the conclusion that no garment or material is really up to the sultry conditions of tropical rain-forest. You're going to be wet, sticky and uncomfortable whatever...

That said, the Jocks went a-kilted when posted on garrison duty in Singapore and other places, and seemed to fare no worse than the rest of us.

If conditions in the US are similar, you have my sympathy..!

[stickman]

Interesting, and informative - thanks...

Looking at the subject from a native Scottish point of view, I would say that the need for a kilt in other than wool is novel - our climate rarely gets anything like Mediterranean, but when it does, kilt-wearing is a long way from our minds.

There used to be adverts for garments in 'Cool Wool' which were supposed to be as good in tropical conditions as is linen, as wool is insulating and so keeps the sun's heat off in the same way.

Heat is one thing, but humidity is another, and my time 'Out East' in Malayasia and Singapore has left me with the conclusion that no garment or material is really up to the sultry conditions of tropical rain-forest. You're going to be wet, sticky and uncomfortable whatever...

That said, the Jocks went a-kilted when posted on garrison duty in Singapore and other places, and seemed to fare no worse than the rest of us.

If conditions in the US are similar, you have my sympathy..!

I know what you mean about the climate in Singapore. I was working at a chip plant that was air conditioned to the point of being cold. Went outside, to get warm, it didn’t take long. It was 112 degrees and pouring down rain. Within five minutes I had sweat dripping off my fingers. After all Singapore is only 1 degree north of the equator. I have lived in several states and worked in all 50 states. And nowhere have I seen anything as miserable as that, except Prudhoe Bay Alaska in winter. Wouldn’t want to be kilted in either place.

[makfromtazz]

https://1drv.ms/i/s!AvFdYrEPrybghlrA...4GJUG?e=pxmPwB .

Good ol EBAY...

[Hauge]

https://1drv.ms/i/s!AvFdYrEPrybghlrA...4GJUG?e=pxmPwB .

Good ol EBAY...

Outch! I think a Lass would be fit for it...

[OC Richard]

...posts showing pictures of this kind of garment usually described as a utility kilt or the like.

I have never seeon one being worn here in Scotland, so I am guessing it is 'another culture' thing.

Yes indeed they are an "another culture" thing.

A guy in Seattle invented them and dubbed them "Utilikilts". His are the original, all others are copies, or copies of copies.

His intent from the beginning was to create a new "fashion culture" and from the start his models wore Utilikilts with high Doc Marten boots, scrunched down socks, t-shirts (usually black, with the logos of local Seattle punk bands etc), trendy hair, and plenty of tattoos and piercings.



He was absolutely clear from the get-go that Utilikilts were not kilts and had nothing whatever to do with Scotland or Highland Dress. From the start he was bombarded with requests for tartan Utilikilts and he has repeatedly stated that he will never make one in tartan. Hawai'ian fabric yes! Camouflage fabric yes! Leather yes! But never tartan.

Utilikilts quickly became quite popular in their birthplace, The Pacific Northwest, which is well-known for its quirky fashion cultures.

The strange thing is that, despite the clear intent of the inventor, Utilikilts were quickly embraced by the local "Scottish community" and within a decade of their creation had, at our local Highland Games, become as popular than kilts with Clan Society members (who one would think would want to wear their Clan tartans), general attendees, and even the Renaissance Faire people (who one would think wouldn't be wearing a recently invented garment).

People started wearing them as part of Highland Dress, with sporrans and kilt hose and even Prince Charlie coatees, which was diametrically opposed to the intent of the inventor.

Where Utilikilts have not got any traction was with the Pipe Band community. Yes this community generally expresses dislike for being required to perform in Highland Dress, but on the other hand they're traditionalists, and have turned up their noses at every sort of "casual kilt" and "sport kilt" and Utilikilt that's come down the pike. They insist on full-yardage traditional hand-stitched wool kilts.

[Jock Scot]

.---------

---------------- They insist on full-yardage traditional hand-stitched wool kilts.

To which I would add that the traditional kilt needs to be tartan and made of wool, or, non tartan tweed.

So where does tweed fit into the traditional definition? Personally I am not a fan of non tartan tweed kilts, but there are plenty of historical precedents about, of traditional kilts being made from non tartan tweed.

Again another personal view. I am not sure that many would know the difference between a hand stitched and a machine stitched kilt at a passing glance at say, five yards. So I think we need to be a bit careful here.

[OC Richard]

Where does tweed fit into the 'traditional' definition?

That's an excellent question, and probably difficult to answer, without doing some research.

My definition of 'traditional' (in clothing, and in material, oral, and musical culture in general) is that to be 'traditional' a thing has to still be in current use and trace its lineage through an unbroken chain of evolution back to an unknown origin.

We know that tweed kilt outfits were popular in Victorian times, the jacket, waistcoat, and kilt made from the same tweed fabric, and they're experiencing something of a popularity boom at the moment.

If tweed kilt outfits have been in continuous use since Victorian times they're 'traditional'.

If they fell out of use for a period of time (went extinct) and have been resurrected in modern times, they're a 'revival'.

I am not sure that many would know the difference between a hand stitched and a machine stitched kilt at a passing glance at say, five yards. So I think we need to be a bit careful here.

That's another good question. Is a traditional thing made in a non-traditional way still 'traditional'?

There are firms making Highland bagpipes out of Polypenco. Bagpipes have been made out of clear acrylic. Kilts are made from Poly Viscose. Are these things 'traditional'?

Setting materials aside, several modern firms make Highland bagpipes with CNC machines. A factory worker simply drops a piece of wood or Polypenco in place and the computer-operated machine does the rest. Many in the piping community reject these products, insisting that proper bagpipes have to be hand-made by a craftsperson.

A CNC made Polypenco bagpipe, and a machine-stitched Poly Viscose kilt, have both non-traditional materials and non-traditional methods of construction. Are they still 'traditional'?

Or indeed is there a "five yard rule"?

[Jock Scot]

That's an excellent question, and probably difficult to answer, without doing some research.

My definition of 'traditional' (in clothing, and in material, oral, and musical culture in general) is that to be 'traditional' a thing has to still be in current use and trace its lineage through an unbroken chain of evolution back to an unknown origin.

We know that tweed kilt outfits were popular in Victorian times, the jacket, waistcoat, and kilt made from the same tweed fabric, and they're experiencing something of a popularity boom at the moment.

If tweed kilt outfits have been in continuous use since Victorian times they're 'traditional'.

If they fell out of use for a period of time (went extinct) and have been resurrected in modern times, they're a 'revival'

That's another good question. Is a traditional thing made in a non-traditional way still 'traditional'?

There are firms making Highland bagpipes out of Polypenco. Bagpipes have been made out of clear acrylic. Kilts are made from Poly Viscose. Are these things 'traditional'?

Setting materials aside, several modern firms make Highland bagpipes with CNC machines. A factory worker simply drops a piece of wood or Polypenco in place and the computer-operated machine does the rest. Many in the piping community reject these products, insisting that proper bagpipes have to be hand-made by a craftsperson.

A CNC made Polypenco bagpipe, and a machine-stitched Poly Viscose kilt, have both non-traditional materials and non-traditional methods of construction. Are they still 'traditional'?

To my minds eye, I never give it a thought when I observe kilted gentleman passing, if they look right then I really don't give tuppence what their attire and pipes are made of. I really cannot be bothered with minute detail. It is only when we dissect these details on a website such as this, does this sort of minute detail ever enter my head.

From on a day to day basis I honestly could not care less, am I alone in thinking as I do? I am pretty certain that my Highland kilted friends think along the same lines. For example, when I check some of my kilted facts with them, the look of total bemusement on their faces is a sight to be seen and comments of, "I have no idea". Or, "...never given it a thought" or "why on earth do you want to know that for? Or "Surely no one in their right mind worries about that!" Or ......., or ........,or..........,or.........

Are we getting mired in detail here? I am afraid to say-----nicely---- that I think we are.