Please explain...

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

But what you're doing here is defining whether a garment is a kilt or not based on how traditional it is.

Yes, I am. Any definition has to have a starting point. For purposes of this thread I am starting with the physical kilt itself; of the type and style available to the general kilt buying public in 1950.

My point is that I don't really think you can do that, I think you have to look for the unique characteristics of the garment. I agree completely about the pleats as a defining characteristic, but "thickly pleated" is very much open to interpretation, as it depends on the amount of material used, which is, as we've seen, anything from 4 yards and up.

As I said in my original post, this is hair splitting-- obviously a 4 yard kilt will have less substantial pleating that an 8 yard kilt; the difference is that across the broad range of all kilts made a "real kilt" will be more thickly pleated than a "quasi-kilt".

My own contemporary kilt is a 6-yarder with 28 2-inch pleats, so I'm not sure how self-evident it is that contemporary kilts are not "thickly pleated" either.

I haven't seen your kilt, so I can't comment. If you have a 30-inch waist then your kilt will be more thickly pleated than if you have a 54-inch waist. But let me reiterate this: the thickness of the pleating is only one of several criteria used in defining the kilt, and broadly speaking real kilts will have heavier pleating.

I do think the aprons are one of the defining characteristics of the kilt, especially taken in conjunction with the pleats.

I agree.

As for pockets, I'm not sure whether they matter in this connection at all, since most of the pockets I've seen are simply sewn and/or riveted on the outside of the kilt, and don't really make any difference to the construction of the garment as such.

Presumably you are taking about the pockets on a "contemporary" or "quasi-" kilt. The pockets are the single biggest difference between the kilt, and the quasi-kilt. And here's why:

The quasi-kilt is the direct modification of a pair of trousers, not a modification of a kilt. The "inventor" of the "utility kilt" started out by modifying a pair of pants with cargo pockets.

And yes, pockets do affect the construction of a standard kilt. To place the pockets on the side of the kilt would require some significant alterations to the garment.

It's the same way with trousers, you can have them with or without pockets, the style and number of pockets may vary, the legs may be long or short, wide or narrow, straight or bell bottomed, and the material can be anything you like, but they're trousers just the same, because they have two legs. That's the defining characteristic of trousers.

Absolutely. And when you attach a pemanent top to the trousers it becomes a boiler suit, a totally different garment. Or, if you split the legs and then sew them into one long tube, it becomes a skirt. Or, if you split the legs of a pair of cargo shorts, then sew them together, you get a different kind of garment (i.e. a quasi-kilt), but you don't get a real kilt. Now you can re-design your modified cargo shorts to be more like a kilt, but that still doesn't make it a kilt, because it wasn't a kilt in the first place.

However, I think much of the disagreement here stems from the fact that the kilt is both a general type of garment and a very specific piece of formal wear, and that these things over time have become more or less synonymous. Now I quite agree that strict rules should apply to formal wear, that's what "formal" means, after all. But that doesn't mean that casual or non-traditional kilts aren't kilts, they just aren't acceptable as formal wear.

The real kilt provides a basis for casual wear, day wear, and evening wear. It has not become restricted to being merely an item of gentlemen's formal attire. The kilt is vastly more versatile than the "contemporary" as it can be worn to more places and on more ocassions.

The "contemporary" is a recent phenomenon; the result of an enterprising guy modifying a pair of worn out cargo shorts. Like I've previously said, that doesn't mean they're not likeable or useful. It just means that they're different, and shouldn't be judged by, or held to, the same standard as the traditional kilt. Likewise, they should not be compared to the traditional kilt because they have vastly different origins. They are fine for messing about in the great out of doors, mowing the lawn, or doing any sort of task that you would do in jeans-- and that includes going to the pub for a pint.

But they're not a "kilt".

Perhaps the greatest virtue of the "contemporary" is that sometimes it may encourage a guy to buy a real kilt. And that has to be a win-win situation for all involved.

[JakobT]

Yes, I am. Any definition has to have a starting point. For purposes of this thread I am starting with the physical kilt itself; of the type and style available to the general kilt buying public in 1950.

That's where our difference of opinion starts. My contention is that while a definition should have a starting point, it should be as neutral as possible, and start with the thing itself. A definition such as the one you've put forward will never be neutral.

The quasi-kilt is the direct modification of a pair of trousers, not a modification of a kilt. The "inventor" of the "utility kilt" started out by modifying a pair of pants with cargo pockets.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The term "contemporary kilt" obviously applies to the Utilikilt, but is not restricted to it. There are plenty of contemporary kilts out there, including my own, which have no such origins as the one you describe.