Actually, I was reacting to viewpoints posted earlier in this thread:
Why is it more satisfying to have a kilt made from a "certified Scottish kilt maker" than any other tailor?
Personally, I like knowing that my kilt was made by someone who was trained and certified in Scotland, since the kilt has its origins there. But that won't stop me from ordering a kilt from someone who has a good reputation for making kilts and is not certified in Scotland either.
While the second one is a pretty balanced statement, both indicate a view that places less value (downgrades) kilts made by someone who is not certified. These are not views by kiltmakers but by fellow X-Markers. To me, these statements need to be balanced on X-Marks by knowledge of the current state of certification (recent and very limited access) so that people can make a decision about whether _lack_ of certification really means what it implies - that kiltmakers who aren't certified make lower-value kilts and ought to be certified in order to prove that they can make high-value kilts. I would argue against the latter because of the current state of certification. I felt it was important to clarify how recently and by whom the idea of certification was developed and that the process for certification is currently so limited in accessibliity that most kiltmakers can't contemplate it, even it they would like to be certified.

Notice that I _haven't_ said in any of my posts that we shouldn't value kilts made by certified kiltmakers, just that we shouldn't _undervalue_ kilts made by those who aren't certified. By all means value the kilts made by those fortunate enough to be able to afford the time and the money to go to the Keith School or by those who are employed by Hector Russell. But it hardly seems fair to kiltmakers for consumers to downvalue kilts made by those who cannot meet those very narrow requirements.

Barb