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.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Damn! I read this thread from beginning to end an all I got was a headache.

Come on guys.We have em,so wear an enjoy them.

I could care less if you have ten pockets-made out of Zebra skin-Its pink-or what ever-if I pass you on the street an it looks like a kilt I will give you a thumbs up.

Yeah, you're right... I owe you an asprin!

[ANGELMAN]

I Am New To Kilts, But I Was Drawn To Them As I Am Of Scottish Decent. I Like Them Because They Are Comfortable. For Me Personally I Like The Tartan Choices. I Prefer To Have Them With Family Connections. I Would Say I Am Drawn More To A Traditional Non Pocket Kilt, But In Today's World Pockets Are Almost A Must. I Think Basic Economics And The Law Of Supply And Demand Will Solve This. If There Is No Need The Item Becomes A Fad And Quickly Fades. If It Last There Is A Need And Group That Enjoy The Product. All Kilts W / Wo Pockets, Wool, Or Other Fabric, Solid Or Tartan Serve A Roll In Expanding Our Kilted Community.:d

[Nighthawk]

:crap: And that's all I (a Wolfe and Leddy) have to say on this subject.


Ya know, I bumped into a NATIVE BORN Scot the other day. I was wearing my Black Stewart. I am not a Stewart. He was a Scottish military historian. He had a few interesting things to tell me about my own family name, which had NOTHING to do with any of the tartans I wear, other than the Wolfe family tartan. He (being a native born Scot) thought it was awesome that I was wearing a kilt in public, in America, for no reason other than that I love them. And that has been the reaction of EVERY Scot that I have ever met. So really, why should I care? Why should I care anyway? As was already pointed out, everything we wear came from somewhere else, some other culture, and then evolved. So I will wear it as I please. Thanks a lot for asking the question.

[SteveB]

I have had the same reactions as Nighthawk when walking around downtown Boston and along the "Freedom Trail". Boston sees millions of tourists every year from all over the world. Many come to see and learn of colonial American history. I am always pleased, when a visitor to our city stops me for directions or pointers on the historical sites and museums. I am obviously a local by my Boston Red Sox baseball hat, worn over a T-shirt with one of the local sports team's logo on it over a garment that is widely perceived to be a kilt. Many of Scot, Welsh, Irish and English nationality have told me they think it is great that I wear a kilt because I like to wear a kilt. The same comments are directed at me whether I am in a self colour denim kilt, a tartan P/V kilt, a tartan wool kilt, or a tweed wool kilt. Aprons in the front with a kilt pin displayed properly, sporran, and many pleats to the rear is all it takes to be perceived as a kilt.
I also agree with Matt that after wearing the full wool custom tailored knife pleated kilt, there is nothing better. That said, I still like the other forms of kilt for around the house, and down to the grocer or off at the pub. Much the same as I would wear jeans. Just as denim jeans are not proper for wear to many events, neither is the denim kilt. As Bishop pointed out, there are places one does not want to wear an expensive tuxedo for fear of damage, likewise the Worsted Wool Tartan kilt.
This thread has aired many opinions on what is a kilt. Trews, chinos, dockers, jeans are all pants. Whether self colour, or tartan, - wool, poly viscous, denim or acrylic fiber. The wrap around heavily pleated garment is a kilt. The wrap around tool apron that is marketed by Blacklader, or the modified cargo shorts, that wrap around, for their place in the garment line is hard to associate with anything else other than a man's kilt. I think of them as the pretenders that polyester is a pretend fabric.
People still by it thinking it is cloth. Wool and Cotton are cloth.
--- Steve

[The Wizard of BC]

MacMillan,

Would you define either of these two as "real kilt" by your definition?









And I must correct you on one small point. Here is your statement.

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.

Actually I am the person who coined the phrase "Contemporary Kilt". I did it to clarify a garment with the styling of a "Traditional Kilt" as made by Barb Tewksbury, (The Highland Granite Kilt above) but using some different techniques and with the addition of pockets (as in the X Marks Tartan FK Tartan Model above). Your statement actually describes a MUG (Male Bifurcated Garment) which started as a pair of cargo shorts.

As you can see from the examples above, a Contemporary Style Kilt can stand side by side with one of the finest examples of Traditional Style Kilts.

[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.

[Racer96]

All I have to say is,

1) I have no need to explain why I wear a kilt.

and

2) If it ticks you off (original poster) , well, I feel pity for you.

Mike

[Mike1]

OK, it appears it is time for me to rant a bit.

This forum is made up of individuals that wear only tartan kilts, individuals that wear only contemporary, non-tartan kilts, individuals that wear both styles of kilts and even those individuals that wear no kilts at all.

Scarcely a day goes by without a member posting how he is looking for tolerance from today's society, as he wears his kilt/s.

Yet, every time this discussion crops up (and it seemingly happens all too often, in my not-so-humble opinion), all of these individuals seeking tolerance from others turn into intolerant, bickering nags.

"That's not a kilt, kilts are made from tartan."

"That's not a 'real' kilt, as 'real' kilts are all hand-sewn."

"That's not a kilt, as 'real' kilts are all made in Scotland."

"That's not a kilt, a 'real' kilt costs $600+."

There are days when this place sounds like a hen house with all the clucking going on. Somehow, a community that was designed for men who wear and appreciate kilts becomes a bitch-fest for those that want to cram their personal opinions down another's throat.

We all have our own opinion of what constitutes a good meal, a good evening on the town, good music, good art and every other aspect of our lives that we are blessed to be able to make our own choices about. And from where I sit, that includes the personal definition of a kilt.

I own a charcoal Freedom Kilt that is every bit as much a kilt as my tartan kilts. In my own opinion, of course. Perhaps you have a different opinion, but the truth of the matter is your opinion means nothing to me. <shrug> You're quite entitled to have your opinion, just as I am, myself.

However, when you cross over the line of common courtesy to tell me my charcoal kilt is not a kilt, stand prepared for the equally impolite response you will hear. When you start paying for my garments, then I'll consider wearing what you want me to wear. Until then...

We are all different. That's part of the design process, we were meant to be that way. As such, we all have different likes and dislikes. Get used to it. Or get over it. Either way, learn to get along and tolerate another individual's opinions and choices.

I'm curious about something - every time one of these contentious 'What makes a kilt a kilt' or 'What makes a Scot a Scot' threads shows up on the forum, can you hear the collective groan coming from the forum staff members?

So please take the time to think about any response you want to add to this thread. If you feel it is remotely contentious, then do everyone a favor and keep it to yourself. It's all about tolerance.

[davedove]

I'm curious about something - every time one of these contentious 'What makes a kilt a kilt' or 'What makes a Scot a Scot' threads shows up on the forum, can you hear the collective groan coming from the forum staff members?

I don't think the groaning comes just from the forum staff, Mike. I think a lot of the regular members groan as well.