Speaking of 16 oz Poly Viscose...

**Southern Breeze** · 15th January 06, 11:38 AM

Clansman Knitwear has a casual kilt that they claim is 16 oz. polyviscose. However, I have asked for details and couldn't get any.

http://www.scottishclansman.com/Kiltpolyviscos.html

billmcc · 15th January 06, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Southern Breeze

Clansman Knitwear has a casual kilt that they claim is 16 oz. polyviscose. However, I have asked for details and couldn't get any.

http://www.scottishclansman.com/Kiltpolyviscos.html

Heritage of Scotland sells the same heavyweight pv casual kilts for considerably less money and worldwide shipping is free. The only info I could get from HoS about the pv is that it doesn't have a Teflon coating.

http://www.heritageofscotland.com/ci...,USD,index.php

**Southern Breeze** · 15th January 06, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by billmcc

Heritage of Scotland sells the same heavyweight pv casual kilts for considerably less money and worldwide shipping is free. The only info I could get from HoS about the pv is that it doesn't have a Teflon coating.

http://www.heritageofscotland.com/ci...,USD,index.php

Although Heritage of Scotland and Clansman Knitwear claim to use 16oz. poly,neither one will provide info on the mill the get it from. And that is the original question.

**Pleater** · 15th January 06, 04:49 PM

It is a bit worrying that on the website the description of the camoflage kilt is titled 'cotton' and then described as 'poly viscous'.

Doesn't engender confidence.

**Freedomlover** · 16th January 06, 05:30 AM

Poly-viscose is lighter yard for yard than wool. Therefore an ounce to ounce comparison is misleading. 16 ounce PV will, of necessity, be a tighter (higher pick count) weave than 16 ounce wool. Evaluating the two materials on the sole basis of weight is probably not the best way to do it.

**RockyR** · 16th January 06, 08:14 AM

I'd respectfully disagree, Freedomlover...

which is heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks? If they're claiming that the material IS 16 OZ (for a double width, per yard of material), then it HAS to be the same as 16 oz wool (double width, per yard of material). MOST PV that you see out there is of the 11 oz variety and is advertised as such. Ther is some 8 - 9 oz PV (Canadian tartans) and ther could very possibly be 16 oz.

I think I'm closing in on the source and I am 95% positive it's Pakistani. We'll see soon enough.

**The Wizard of BC** · 16th January 06, 08:59 AM

I also may have a source for you Rocky.

I have requested a fabric sample and it should be to me in a few days.

**Freedomlover** · 16th January 06, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by RockyR

I'd respectfully disagree, Freedomlover...

which is heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks? If they're claiming that the material IS 16 OZ (for a double width, per yard of material), then it HAS to be the same as 16 oz wool (double width, per yard of material). MOST PV that you see out there is of the 11 oz variety and is advertised as such. Ther is some 8 - 9 oz PV (Canadian tartans) and ther could very possibly be 16 oz.

I think I'm closing in on the source and I am 95% positive it's Pakistani. We'll see soon enough.

No problem. What I was trying to get at is the idea that since the two materials differ markedly in density "16 oz" in one really isn't equivalent to "16 oz" in the other. The tightness of the weave will be different. At least that is what my professors at Clemson University told me when I was there majoring in textile science. Look at it this way: 16 oz of bricks takes up far less room than 16 oz of feathers. In any event I'm not looking to argue with anyone about it. I simply meant to suggest that if you are looking for an A=B equivalence weight isn't going to produce it.