Just what makes a traditional kilt?

[Jock Scot]

So where does that leave modern kilts stemming from 19th century highland revival and romanticism?

From my point of view THIS is where the traditional kilt starts from. The 19th Century.

We can split hairs all day long with this date or that date and never agree.

We can also split hairs of this historic style or that historic style to eternity and get absolutely nowhere in this discussion. So endless discussion on minute historic detail , though important to some, is heading us straight into the mire.

Come on chaps, we all know what a traditional kilt is without delving into historical attire minutiae . Don’t we?

Well, my plan failed! Its my fault, I should have made myself more clear. Sorry. I am talking more about the end of the 19th century onwards and particularly, the last 75 years

[jhockin]

Just for the sake of encouraging the subject, it has been discussed in this forum before, for example:
https://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/...torical-80072/

[Jock Scot]

Well alright the conversation has not gone at all the way I had hoped. I was attempting not to steer the conversation and had hoped that kilt construction, materials and so on would be a large part of the subject. Particularly as modern materials, pockets and so on seem to be popular subjects and far from traditional. However it hasn't. No worries, it was entirely predictable, although disappointing.

It is very interesting that the two British contributors understood what I was asking, the rest went off at many and different courses!

Mods, perhaps the thread could be closed, please.

[Arnot]

It is very interesting that the two British contributors understood what I was asking, the rest went off at many and different courses!

Mods, perhaps the thread could be closed, please.

I understood what you were asking. For those who don't know, I'm an America living in the UK. I didn't contribute, though, as I thought my views on what is traditional might be influenced by my standards/techniques as a kiltmaker.

[Troglodyte]

Reading the many threads posted here on this website over the years, it now appears to me that the description-----definition---- of a "Traditional Kilt" has been adjusted more than somewhat compared to what I am used to. Am I right?

Sorry chaps, the title of this thread should read," Just what Makes A traditional kilt?"

I think I understand what you are asking, Jock, and I am of the opinion that the term traditional is subjective, and is open to all sorts of interpretations. It is also influenced by convention and fashion.

For my own part, I would say that traditional and conventional are like Siamese twins when it comes to the kilt - they were joined at birth and cannot be separated.

For a kilt to be traditional in my eyes, it needs to be made from a heavyweight woollen fabric with a proper kilting selvedge (preferably a long-established tartan and not a fashion gimmick) of not less than seven yards. It needs to have 30 or more knife-pleats and cut and shaped to fit high on the natural waist with a generous rise, and with a comfortable drop to the knee. Pleating style is a matter of personal preference, or regimental requirement, so other forms are perfectly within the traditional parameters.

I have had the good fortune to examine in detail several kilts by different makers in different cloth weights and weavings, that have dated from about 1870 onwards. The different tartans aside, the kilts all conform to what I said above, and so are constructed in a conventional way. Any differences are only apparent on close inspection, and are the makers' individual style or technique.

All this seems to have been the way until about 1990 when fashion has been brought into play, involving made-made fibre materials, shorter lengths of cloth, lower cut for hip-height wearing, and are sold for curious purposes - a 'beer kilt' or 'football kilt' has to be a gimmick and far from tradtional.

PV kilts, utility kilts, action kilts, combat kilts and the like clearly have a wide appeal to some, but they cannot be seen as traditional - despite the semantic games people play to justify their choice.

Tradition and convention also play in important part in how the kilt is worn, and what is worn with it, but that is, I feel, up to the individual and is governed by what he happens to be doing - ceilidh-going, hill-walking, lunch with the in-laws, etc.

[EagleJCS]

For a kilt to be traditional in my eyes, it needs to be made from a heavyweight woollen fabric with a proper kilting selvedge (preferably a long-established tartan and not a fashion gimmick) of not less than seven yards. It needs to have 30 or more knife-pleats and cut and shaped to fit high on the natural waist with a generous rise, and with a comfortable drop to the knee. Pleating style is a matter of personal preference, or regimental requirement, so other forms are perfectly within the traditional parameters.

What he said. However, the three kilts in my possession, two being traditional kilts per the above - the third being a modern tartan but otherwise in the traditional style, have only 25 pleats. All three are pleated to the sett, so that may be why there are fewer than Trog's '30 or more'.