kilt weights

[prattw]

What is it like to be "used" to that kind of heat and to be wearing this weight? Here in SE Florida it feels like it is 105 many months out of the year. I have read both that heavyweighted material is ideal for hot weather and also that it is unbearable in hot weather. I am curious to hear from another hotblooded individual's opinion about it.

"But it's a dry heat" is a charter member of "Famous Last Words", but it does make a difference. Some people never adapt to the dryness; Suzy and I love it; we both feel uncomfortable at 50 percent humidity at any temperature. There's no question, though, that 115 is HOT, regardless of humidity, about as uncomfortable as 95 with 95. At 10 percent, 90 is blissfully cool in the shade and 100 is quite comfortable, for the adapted. Which includes most people, after a year or so. We have come to regard our months of 100+ as our region's period of inclement weather, equivalent to the winter of colder climes, which we escape.

Heavy weight kilts may be fine for brief exposure, as from parking spot to (air conditioned) destination, offering insulation from the heat during the relatively short period. They're hell to wear all day long outdoors in 100+ temps at a games or festival. Especially the rise encasing your mid-torso. The rise on an 11 oz kilt is less insulating, and the wicking effect and evaporation offsets more of the heat gain. (Not ALL the heat gain, mind, it's still too d__n hot. But survivable.) 100+ weather, incidentally, is likely, even probable, from the Las Vegas Games in April through the RenFaire in early October.

As to specifically what it's like in a (light weight) kilt: under the kilt is as cool as anything is going to get, like wide legged shorts but not so confining. The part of the torso encased by the rise is less comfortable, but that's true of any kind of waistband. Sweat tends to evaporate as it forms in our climate, but still the rise of your kilt can get sweaty and for that reason I generally wear a "wash and hang dry" fabric, such as Poly viscose or acrylic for outdoor occasions in summer.

Will Pratt

[cavscout]

Reading a description like that I realise the amount of knowledge I have gathered from this group. A few months ago I would not have questioned much about that kilt but today I'm so much more informed thanks to our discussions.

[billmcc]

I agree with Will Pratt. A lightweight (11 oz.) kilt is much cooler than a heavyweight (16 oz.) kilt.

Also, a kilt with a lower pants-type waist, such as a USA Kilt's Casual, is even cooler than a kilt with a higher traditional waist because there is less torso contact.

[RockyR]

Unfortunetly, that's not a very good picture, so I can't tell too much about the quality. It would be nice to see a picture of the back.

It's not an ex army kilt, though, that's for sure!

MacGregor... I'd trust Matt on this one. If he says no regiment ever wore a MacGregor kilt, believe him!

It IS the MacGregor tartan (or at least is VERY close by the blurry pics he posted). What may have happened is that the person may have been told that it is "MILITARY PLEATING" and took this to mean that the kilt is a "Military kilt".

Ask to see pics of the back... if the kilt is done to the stripe, it's probably what happened... "to the stripe", "Regimental Pleating", "Military Pleating", "to the line".... I've heard all of these terms and they all mean the same thing. Can get a bit confusing to the layperson.

[Archangel]

MacGregor... I'd trust Matt on this one. If he says no regiment ever wore a MacGregor kilt, believe him!

It IS the MacGregor tartan (or at least is VERY close by the blurry pics he posted). What may have happened is that the person may have been told that it is "MILITARY PLEATING" and took this to mean that the kilt is a "Military kilt".

Ask to see pics of the back... if the kilt is done to the stripe, it's probably what happened... "to the stripe", "Regimental Pleating", "Military Pleating", "to the line".... I've heard all of these terms and they all mean the same thing. Can get a bit confusing to the layperson.

Just for fun: As far as an absolute statement of no regiment wearing a McGregor kilt, it might be possible to make one exception. Hint: as a McGregor, there were very embarassing elements but it was also very important for us. Again, it's just a possible exception, we could argue over it but let's not.

Aside from that one occasion, no, no McGregor tartan has never been attached to a military context.

I do have one made to the military pattern. It is very heavy, and does not look like the one in the picture.

[macgreggor]

thanks for the input all,

I got a pic of the pleats today. The quality of the photo is a poor as the pic of the front. I CAN tell that it is pleated to the sett so I am assuming that this is a civilian kilt. such a poor pic that I can't even count the # of pleats.

HMMMMM... makes one wonder.

i guess at the worst I get a nice wool knock around.

I also found this ....http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA%3AIT&rd=1

anybody want to help me use up a bunch of fabric? (assuming I win the auction)

macG

PS Archangel, what embarassing incidents are we talking about...none of you knew me in my college days....

[Archangel]

PS Archangel, what embarassing incidents are we talking about...none of you knew me in my college days....

...everything is on the 'net if you know how to look, you should be embarassed.

Actually, I'm waiting to hear Cajunscot's or Matt's response to the statement.

As far as the kilt on ebay goes, I'd avoid it. Not sure that it's what you want, seeing as you said McGregor. It looks like Sportkilts' McGregor but that particular pattern isn't showing up anywhere else as McGregor. It's similar to some but typically the white stripe is less pronounced (http://www.tartans.scotland.net/index.cfm).

[chasem]

I also found this ....http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...MEWA%3AIT&rd=1

anybody want to help me use up a bunch of fabric? (assuming I win the auction)

macG

oh I'm sure someone would be willing to help you out ;)

[Archangel]

Seeing as there's no answer to my question: here it is. (NB: this is just fun and nothing more. It's really just addressing the absolute of Matt's statement which, to all intents and purposes is correct.)

In 1822, King George IV had a levee in Scotland. A levee is a military function to see how many armed men can be raised. This one was more ceremonial but in the place of honour was Clan McGregor. They marched with the army as a sort of veteran's day honour the enemy thing: all very colourful and nostalgic. The references I can't find right now refer to about 500 and called them something akin to a special bodyguard. It would be like the original form of militia being recognized.

So, for that 15 minutes of fame, were the McGregors actually military, given the loose definition still in use at that time and their role in this exercise?

Of course, it has little value to the question at hand since I don't know of any record of what tartan they wore, or even if the same tartan was worn by all the "troops", a fashion which was still in its infancy.

And so, apart from that trivial possible exception, Matt is correct.

[macgreggor]

now THAT would send shivers sown the enemys spine. 500 MacGregors, all together, with pipes and kilts.

ARRRGH!

sorry the thought and talk like a pirate day overwhelmed me! Think I will go have a little lie down.

macG