|
-
8th July 05, 05:27 PM
#11
Since the fabrics of those times were mostly homespun, I'd have doubted that weight would have been considered at all, and that they would have varied from one spinner/weaver to the next. Surely, it was just a matter of "we need more cloth so we'd better get weaving", and they would use whatever was available.
I know I am getting on a bit, but I don't actually remember much about that era!! ;) ;) ;)
[B][I][U]No. of Kilts[/U][/I][/B][I]:[/I] 102.[I] [B]"[U][B]Title[/B]"[/U][/B][/I]: Lord Hamish Bicknell, Laird of Lochaber / [B][U][I]Life Member:[/I][/U][/B] The Scottish Tartans Authority / [B][U][I]Life Member:[/I][/U][/B] The Royal Scottish Country Dance Society / [U][I][B]Member:[/B][/I][/U] The Ardbeg Committee / [I][B][U]My NEW Photo Album[/U]: [/B][/I][COLOR=purple]Sadly, and with great regret, it seems my extensive and comprehensive album may now have been lost forever![/COLOR]/
-
-
9th July 05, 04:18 AM
#12
That was just my point about the weight probably varying, Hamish. It would be like asking today "what weight cloth are flannel shirts made in?" Well, whose shirt? I probably have three different weights hanging in my closet right now!
M
-
-
9th July 05, 08:38 AM
#13
Well...
Well we know several things:
The approximate size, 9 yards, which would likely be 4.5 yards of 25 inch wide tartan or solid color wool cloth doubled for about 162 inches by 50 inches.
We know that it was belted.
We can guess that it was NOT ultra heavy as that much material would be too heavy to wear as clothing.
Nor would ultra thin material have the warmth needed to keep a man warm while he slept on the ground in snow as we know they did.
That narrows it down to somewhere between 10oz and 22oz.
Last edited by Sir Robert; 9th July 05 at 08:53 AM.
-
-
9th July 05, 10:51 AM
#14
 Originally Posted by Sir Robert
Well we know several things:
The approximate size, 9 yards, which would likely be 4.5 yards of 25 inch wide tartan or solid color wool cloth doubled for about 162 inches by 50 inches.
We know that it was belted.
We can guess that it was NOT ultra heavy as that much material would be too heavy to wear as clothing.
Nor would ultra thin material have the warmth needed to keep a man warm while he slept on the ground in snow as we know they did.
That narrows it down to somewhere between 10oz and 22oz.
I agree with that. If it was any heavier it would be very unfcomfortable to wear, and any lighter then it would be too cold.
 Originally Posted by M. A. C. Newsome
That was just my point about the weight probably varying, Hamish. It would be like asking today "what weight cloth are flannel shirts made in?" Well, whose shirt? I probably have three different weights hanging in my closet right now!
 Originally Posted by Hamish
Since the fabrics of those times were mostly homespun, I'd have doubted that weight would have been considered at all, and that they would have varied from one spinner/weaver to the next. Surely, it was just a matter of "we need more cloth so we'd better get weaving", and they would use whatever was available.
I know I am getting on a bit, but I don't actually remember much about that era!!
I never really thought about it that way, but it makes alot more sense now. Thanks for the insight.
 Originally Posted by Sir Robert
Okay how about this: Two places and times, Winter in the highlands what would you wear? Heavy? Spring, but might get coolish at night, medium/light weight wool. Summer you might not wear the great kilt at all
Could or would a highlander have a couple different plaids? I often wondered about that but didnt think that they would cuz they were poor. Anybody have an answer to that, I'd really like to know.
-
-
9th July 05, 11:35 AM
#15
I doubt they had more than one plaid. I expect the weather dictated how they wore it though. Col weather, over both shoulders and wrapped around loosely, cool weather, over one shoulder and pinned, warm weather, tucked into the belt and hanging down.
-
-
9th July 05, 10:03 PM
#16
 Originally Posted by Angus
Could or would a highlander have a couple different plaids? I often wondered about that but didnt think that they would cuz they were poor. Anybody have an answer to that, I'd really like to know.
Keep in mind the absolute poverty that most Scots in this time period lived in. There was terrible inflation and instability through the 1600 to late 1700. Few held any wealth and those who appeared rich owed big. Reference is Lynch's Scotland: A New History.
-
-
9th July 05, 10:49 PM
#17
You likely can't duplicate the exact material of the ancient Scots' great kilts and what would be the point if you could? You want a garment that you can wear now. Regardless of what someone 300 years ago wore in Scotland, just find a weight that you're comfortable with and wear that. Someone in Michigan will want something different from what I would wear here in Texas. Both are just as valid.
-
-
10th July 05, 04:24 PM
#18
Re: Great Kilt Weight
 Originally Posted by Planopiper
Someone in Michigan will want something different from what I would wear here in Texas. Both are just as valid.
Excellent point, although I think I would have been perfectly happy with a Texas-weight great kilt yesterday at the Minnesota Highland games. The temperature was about 93 F/34 C. Despite that, I had a great time.
Glenn
-
-
10th July 05, 04:55 PM
#19
 Originally Posted by Sir Robert
Okay how about this: Two places and times, Winter in the highlands what would you wear? Heavy? Spring, but might get coolish at night, medium/light weight wool. Summer you might not wear the great kilt at all.
Sounds logical, EXCEPT I pity the man going bare in a Scottish summer full of MIDGES!
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks