21st Century Ankle-Length Kilts

[Moosehead]

The question might be better served at Tom's Café, not here.

[Ruanaidh]

Oh, oh! Me thinks I hear a dead horse.

[Southern Breeze]

[toadinakilt]

Oh, I don't think we need move this discussion to Tom's Cafe...it's not a Yemini Futah for crying out loud. The thing has an apron, two buckles on the right side, and numerous pleats across the back...I think it's a kilt. And thus it has a place in the discussion here.

[Southern Breeze]

If the hem touches your knees it's a KILT. If it touches your ankles it's a SKIRT.

[Canuck]

In the year 2000 Pacific Opera in Victoria did a New piece called Erewon. The designer for that show was Debra Hansen of Stratford. She designed full length kilts for the men in that show. The kilts were built by Richardson's of Toronto. They were a grey Tartan and were rather stunning. So 21st Century kilts unfortunatly are way behind the times......

[Kiltman]

I don't think it matters how long the kilt is. A few weeks ago I was at the celebration of Greek Independence day and saw a number of pictures of Greek heros in long skirts!
Men have worn skirts of various lengths for a very long time.

[GlassMan]

The dimensions of kilts were changed from the high rise of the traditional kilt to the low rise of the contemporary hip-huggers yet here we still call the contemporary products such as Utilikilts kilts. But if you place the two kilts one a flat surface with waistband to waistband the utilikilt would look incredibly short. From my perspective the modern kilts seem to expose too much torso for my tastes, but that doesn't stop me from calling them kilts because of the basic construction (double apron front and pleated back).

It seems to me like the TFCK models mentioned here have simply modified the length from a different dimension. Instead of bring the waistband down, they took the hem or selvedge line down. I would definitely not call the result pleasing to the eye, or something that I would wear. I also would never consider it a traditional kilt or an American contemporary Kilt, but it still does have the basic construction of double aprons and pleated back. So to me it just seems like yet another variant (albeit a rather unsightly variant) of the kilt.

It's not something I would ever consider wearing, but because of the construction I don't think it qualifies as a skirt. If we are going to disqualify it from consideration because of its difference in length from a traditional kilt, then by the same token we should disqualify the use of kilt to describe such things as Utilikilts & NeoKilts. Since there seems to be general agreement that the modern contemporary kilts are still kilts despite their deviations from traditional standards, I would submit that we should view these ankle-length monstrosities as a curious variation that is still a kilt but hopefully a version that won't survive the test of the market.

[Big Dave]

I don't think it matters how long the kilt is. A few weeks ago I was at the celebration of Greek Independence day and saw a number of pictures of Greek heros in long skirts!
Men have worn skirts of various lengths for a very long time.

Very true. As long as they aren't wearing "pants" , then it's all good.

[Colin]

I don't think it matters how long the kilt is. A few weeks ago I was at the celebration of Greek Independence day and saw a number of pictures of Greek heros in long skirts!
Men have worn skirts of various lengths for a very long time.

In my personal opinion, they may be worn by men, but they are not kilts. All kilts are skirts, but not all skirts are kilts. Let's keep the discussions to kilts and leave the skirt talk for the other forums where that is the subject matter at hand.