A call to regulate the term "kilt"

[Archangel]

I agree totally. A garment that is machine-made of other than true tartan, and not custom made to the wearer's measurements, is not a kilt. Instead of using the word "kilt", they should use the word "garment". Any kilt is also a garment.. but any garment is not always a kilt regardless of how you dress it up. There is simply no comparison between a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen Beetle.

This a taxonomy problem and we'd have to be taxologists.

Here's what you have done: garment would equal vehicle, rolls and vw are both automobiles, more specifically passenger vehicle. At that point, they are the same thing: passenger vehicle. There needs to be further distinction to separate the two vehicles: one is luxury, the other modest. However, you then have to figure in Mexican or German VWs, Bentley's, etc. You haven't even begun to look at other vehicle or automobile manufacturers.

In the same way, we are talking about an article of clothing, that type is called a skirt, that type is called a kilt. Now somebody want to make a case for subdividing that.

If they get their way, what about R-Kilts' black leather kilt? How would he be able to market that? It's not woven, it's not plaid/tartan, it's not made in Scotland, I'm pretty sure the leather doesn't even come from Scotland. How well could Rob market his product if these people get their way? Rob's Leather Skirts for Men probably isn't going to do much for him.

My answer would be to build consumer awareness, there's a lot more choice than they think out there and there's some cautions, too.

[slohairt]

Also, by stating a kilt must be "true tartan" this criteria leaves out the following:

Scottish Tweed Kilts (very traditional)
Irish Saffron Kilts (worn for well over a century; and by military regiments no less)
Hodden Grey kilts (as worn by the London Scottish or the Toronto Scottish)
and last, but not least...
the Saltire kilt!

[ccga3359]

What NEEDS to be regulated is what the label states. It should be "Hand-made in Scotland, or Canada, or America, etc. and it should also state where the material was woven as well. Not this "Designed in Scotland" crap purveyed by the usual suspects. The problem is unscrupulous merchants taking advantage of loopholes and specific wording.

I fully agree there must be truth in advertising. However if I see a label I can tell the difference between "made in..." and "designed in...". It's a sad comment but so many people will buy the cheapest not the best quality regardless of where it's made or even if they know where it's made.

[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.

[ChromeScholar]

I suppose the kilt police could conceivably get such a law passed in Scotland. It would be ignored in the US, as it should be.

[Kid Cossack]

I agree totally. A garment that is machine-made of other than true tartan, and not custom made to the wearer's measurements, is not a kilt. Instead of using the word "kilt", they should use the word "garment". Any kilt is also a garment.. but any garment is not always a kilt regardless of how you dress it up. There is simply no comparison between a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen Beetle.

I guess I'd better call Rocky and tell him he needs to rename his shop USA Garments.

Made-to-measure, yes, but machine-sewn (the models I buy, anyway) and why that poly-viscose isn't quite worsted wool.

Nah! Taxonomic issues can get complicated really quickly.

[Kid Cossack]

One thing that they seem to have overlooked. In the article they listed the examples of Parma ham and Champagne fizzy-water. Umm, isn't Parma a city? And isn't Champagne a region? So aren't we talking about specific geographical locations? Like prohibiting "Arizona beef" being applied as a label to cows from (gasp) Texas?

[demobud]

As Makeitstop stated, the cheap kilt has its place. An inexpensive kilt is a "gateway garment" that opens potential for future customers of the more expensive kilts. Sure some people will never move past an economy kilt but you can't discount the fact that once a man wears a kilt, ANY kilt, he will soon want to move to better and more tailored garments. I wanted to get a kilt for years but never knew about SWK, SK, or USAK or any of the other less expensive models out there; being able to afford some less expensive kilts has cemented the desire for a tailored kilt, and I know I won't get just one. I say label it "Hand made in Scotland" and let it be.

[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