A call to regulate the term "kilt"

[Makeitstop]

Trying to regulate away competitors by making it illegal to call cheap tourist oriented products "kilts" is just a bad idea and really quite pathetic. Trying to ensure that only kilts made in Scotland can be called kilts is blatant protectionism, and that is always a bad idea. Trying to do away with any style of kilt which isn't 100% traditional, as well as the traditional solid color Irish kilt, well, that's just arrogant and snobby.

If they want to distinguish their products from the low quality crap, they should simply have a seal of approval from the national association of kiltmakers (or some such organization) and only give it to products which meet their standards. And if anyone is passing off machine made kilts as being hand sewn, then take them to court. That's why there are laws about false advertising.

Let's face it, there is a place for the cheap kilt. I sure as hell wouldn't be getting a kilt if all I could find was a $700 hand sewn tartan kilt. I'm pushing it by paying as much as I did for a sport kilt (an all black sport kilt). Just as I shouldn't have to be homeless because I can't afford to buy a mansion, or be forced to rely on public transportation because I can't afford the porsche, I shouldn't have to give up on the affordable kilts I like because they don't meet someone else's standards.

It's clear that for the most part, they are just trying to make sure that they have control over the kilt market. But do they really think that the tourists who buy the cheap "tartan trash" are going to pay hundreds more just to get that souvenir? Just be happy that they like the kilt and pump money into the economy, even if they don't care that they aren't getting the fanciest thing on the market.

And as for the quality kilts made outside of scotland, and the contemporary kilts, the answer is to compete, and make me want your product over theirs, rather than trying to force them to call it a man-skirt.

Right now the contemporary kilt industry is in it's infancy, and as it grows it could potentially cause far more wide spread interest in kilts which can only be good for these traditional kilt makers. It would be a shame if they actually succeeded in regulating away the new guys in a short sighted attempt at wiping out the competition.

[Tartan Hiker]

Trying to regulate away competitors by making it illegal to call cheap tourist oriented products "kilts" is just a bad idea and really quite pathetic. Trying to ensure that only kilts made in Scotland can be called kilts is blatant protectionism, and that is always a bad idea. Trying to do away with any style of kilt which isn't 100% traditional, as well as the traditional solid color Irish kilt, well, that's just arrogant and snobby.

If they want to distinguish their products from the low quality crap, they should simply have a seal of approval from the national association of kiltmakers (or some such organization) and only give it to products which meet their standards. And if anyone is passing off machine made kilts as being hand sewn, then take them to court. That's why there are laws about false advertising.

Let's face it, there is a place for the cheap kilt. I sure as hell wouldn't be getting a kilt if all I could find was a $700 hand sewn tartan kilt. I'm pushing it by paying as much as I did for a sport kilt (an all black sport kilt). Just as I shouldn't have to be homeless because I can't afford to buy a mansion, or be forced to rely on public transportation because I can't afford the porsche, I shouldn't have to give up on the affordable kilts I like because they don't meet someone else's standards.

It's clear that for the most part, they are just trying to make sure that they have control over the kilt market. But do they really think that the tourists who buy the cheap "tartan trash" are going to pay hundreds more just to get that souvenir? Just be happy that they like the kilt and pump money into the economy, even if they don't care that they aren't getting the fanciest thing on the market.

And as for the quality kilts made outside of scotland, and the contemporary kilts, the answer is to compete, and make me want your product over theirs, rather than trying to force them to call it a man-skirt.

Right now the contemporary kilt industry is in it's infancy, and as it grows it could potentially cause far more wide spread interest in kilts which can only be good for these traditional kilt makers. It would be a shame if they actually succeeded in regulating away the new guys in a short sighted attempt at wiping out the competition.

YES!!

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Trying to precisely define the term "kilt" is actually quite difficult. I've had conversations about this with the good folks at the STA in the past. I fully understand and sympathize with the need to protect Scotland's national garment and prevent false advertising (more on that later), but attempting to do so by limiting the use of the term "kilt" will create a nightmare.

Here's what I mean. Can you define a kilt by the amount of yardage? No. There is a myth that a "true kilt" has 8 yards, no more, no less. This is simply not true today, nor has it been historically. Even if you get an "8 yard kilt" today, it may have 7, 7.5, 8.5, 9 or more depending on size. It all depends upon the size of the sett and the size of the man. My box pleated kilts contain an average of 4 yards, and these are based on historic examples of kilts, some of which contain barely more than 3 yards, depending upon the size of the wearer. So, even though one kilt firm I talked to in Scotland called any 4 yard kilt a "lady's skirt," this simply is not historically true. Some twentieth century regimental kilts I have examimed have had only between 5 and 6 yards of cloth. So you cannot define a "kilt" by the amount of cloth.

Can you define a kilt by the type of cloth? Well, to most people's minds a kilt should be 100% wool tartan material. But again, this is not true now, nor has it been historically. Solid kilts can be dated to the early 17th century, so they are nearly as old as kilts themselves. As has been mentioned here already, the London Scottish wear the solid hodden grey. We have the solid saffron Irish kilts. John Brown made the black kilt famous. Kilts made from tweed were very popular in the nineteenth century. I don't think anyone would dare tell the soldiers of the London Scottish that they are not wearing "true kilts." So, again, you cannot define a "kilt" by the type of cloth.

Can you define a kilt by where it is made? Kilts are linked to Scotland in most people's minds, and rightly so. The kilt is a Scottish garment. So many people understandably want their kilt made in Scotland. But does it have to be made in Scotland to be a "true kilt?" What about all the great North American kiltmakers? Australian kilt makers? If Kathy Lare, who was trained by the Keith Kiltmaking School by the best Scottish kiltmakers, makes your kilt to the highest standards from Scottish tartan cloth, is it not a "true kilt" because she happens to live in Arizona? Nonsesne. So you cannot define a "kilt" by where it is made.

Can you define a kilt by how it is made? All agree that the highest quality kilts are hand tailored and made to measure. But this is a question of quality, not essense. A kilt that is bought off-the-peg is still a kilt, is it not? A kilt that has been machine sewn is still a kilt. The Cameron of Erracht kilts worn by the 79th New York Highlanders were all sewn on machines by New York dress makers (from Scottish cloth, mind you). It was what they knew how to do. Were these not kilts? What if part of the sewing is done by hand and part on machine, as I have seen in many kilts made today? How do you classify that?

You can see how things can get really tricky if you try to set any criteria to define the term "kilt."

What you have here is a question of quality, not definition. A kilt is a garment, just like pants, jackets, shirts, etc. Like anything else, you have really high quality garments, and really low quality garments, and everything else in between. So you can talk about what makes a good kilt and a poor kilt, but a poor quality kilt is still a kilt.

What is the real issue here, I think, is truth in advertising. Some legistlation may be neccessary to prevent people from misleading consumers. A kilt that says "authentic Highland kilt" and "designed in Scotland" on the label, but that is made from Polyester and imported from East Elbonia, is being passed off as something it is not.

One can make the argument that consumers should know better, that they should know that the low price indicates that this is not the high quality kilt that can be had from the finest Scottish kilt makers. But the truth is that not everyone knows as much about kilts as the members of this forum, and people are being misled.

A lot of the Scottish kiltmaking firms are combatting this with their own labels indicating the Scottish origin and the high quality of their own product, which is a good thing. But is legislation needs to be passed to prevent false advertising and misleading labelling, then so be it. Many other countries have similar legislation.

Again, I don't think anyone is denying that there is a market for lower-cost (and lower quality) kilts. They just want to make sure that people are not being misled, specifically in a manner that adversely affects Scottish kiltmakers (they do have a right to watch out for their own industry, after all).

I mean, really. The Gold Brothers and Geoffrey Tailor should not be competitors. It's like saying Target is a competitor for Armani. The two are just in different leagues. But if people are being misled into believing they can get Armani quality suits are Target............

~M

[Freedomlover]

This seems to me to be a tempest in a teapot. Truth in advertising/labeling solves the problem quite nicely.

[gilmore]

Trying to precisely define the term "kilt" is actually quite difficult. I've had conversations about this with the good folks at the STA in the past. I fully understand and sympathize with the need to protect Scotland's national garment and prevent false advertising (more on that later), but attempting to do so by limiting the use of the term "kilt" will create a nightmare.

Here's what I mean. Can you define a kilt by the amount of yardage? ...
Can you define a kilt by the type of cloth? ...

Can you define a kilt by where it is made? ...
Can you define a kilt by how it is made? ...

Of course you can define a kilt in any of the ways set out above, or any other way that you want to. Legislatures do it every day.

Every law school student has studied the case law that evolved after oleomargarine was invented, and competed in the marketplace with butter back in the early 20th century. Some legislatures were controlled by the dairy interests, some by makers of margarine. Creative laws were passed that protected and promoted sales of each.

Here in Georgia we have a law prohibiting the sale of any onions grown outside of a few counties in south Georgia as "Vidalia" onions. It is all quite legal, has been for years, and we have adjusted quite nicely without the onion market crashing.

As was noted , "champagne" is an appellation controlee, as are the names of dozens of French wines.

The only people having nightmares are those on the loosing end of these legislative fights.

You may not like it, but it can easily be done.

[RockyR]

post deleted... points already covered...