Contemporary vs Traditional

[Tony Miles]

Just my opinion but I think you need to ask yourself why you're wearing a kilt? If it's to fly some colors (tartan) like a biker with a 3 piece patch then you need a traditional with some connection for the first kilt - after that, get what you want and wear what you want. If you're just wearing for the style or fun then it really doesn't matter what you get as long as it looks good and doesn't suck

[sathor]

lets look at it a different way. a truck means everything from a pickup truck to a semi. They have a 'ugly stepchild' of a suv.

A hat includes flat hats and ball caps and cowboy hats. They all cover the head, their ugly stepchildren include visors.

a sword includes everything from Kukris to flamberges and claymores. I wouldn't call the daggers their stepchildren, more brethren their.

boats include everything from life rafts to navel carriers. I guess subs would be their ugly stepchildren.

So why should kilt be so narrow a view? Beyond tartan, where it sits, pockets or not (come on, I bet if they figured out how to put in hidden pockets 200 years ago, they would have done it. Or even the removable cargo pockets.)

or in other words, did a hat stop being a hat once they put these clapping hads atop them, or when the cup holder and straw tubes were added to make the beer drinking hat? Why then apply that same set of rules to the Kilt?

[Phil]

So why should kilt be so narrow a view? Beyond tartan, where it sits, pockets or not (come on, I bet if they figured out how to put in hidden pockets 200 years ago, they would have done it. Or even the removable cargo pockets.)

Quite right, although I don't know that pockets don't spoil the shape and hang of a kilt. You have to remember that many here (including myself) have worn kilts for many years and only have one or two which were made before all these new fangled ideas. I'm afraid it's a bit of the "if it was good enough for my father it's good enough for me" syndrome in some cases or, in mine, just too tight to spend more money on kilts. Fashions have to evolve but I do like the more "dandified" jabots, tartan hose, buckle brogues and doublets for special occasions rather than the drab, black and white modern look most people go for nowadays. You know - a black PC, black waistcoat, black bow tie, black hose, black ghillie brogues and a white shirt.

[zeeew]

For me it was easier to start with a wool traditional, as it was specific for piping and formal events, and also more what I personally, at the time, felt a "real" kilt was. Though I now wear a traditional style pv casual far more often (nothing like a swim in the casual kilt), my personal choices still fit true waist, the pant waist styles seem too short to me and feel weird. However a trad style kilt with internal pockets may be in my near future.
I voted for traditional, though I am also happy with my true waist traditional style "non wool" pv for a lot less money, and most people probly wouldnt know the difference. As others have written, a semi-trad from USAK would be a good choice IMHO.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Years ago I bought a "Hill Walker" kilt from a company in Scotland-- for the life of me I can't remember their name, but as I recall they were up in Perthshire someplace, probably Blairgowerie. For all intents and purposes it looked like a regular kilt, but it had pooches (pockets) discretely sewn into the pleats on each side. At the time I thought it was a nifty idea -- what did I know? -- anyhow I only wore it three or four times because it never really looked right, especially if you had anything other than a hankie in your pocket. I ended up giving it to a dear friend who was impossibly short of the readies and could have never afforded a kilt at all.

The point of all of this is that if a bespoke "tank" doesn't look or feel "quite right" with pockets added, I don't see how a mass produced garment could be anything but even less satisfying, aesthetically speaking .

[St. Amish]

Going with the standard that a "traditional" is a kilt with a traditional look, and a "contemporary" is a non traditional look, I have to go with the traditional.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with buying a budget kilt if that's what your wallet and lifestyle call for.

MUGs are not kilts. They are more kilt-like articles. I have nothing against people who choose to wear them, but I kinda feel like it's just an attention grabber if there's no history or tradition behind it. You wanna buck the status quo and not wear pants? Fine. Not having legs on your cargo shorts does not make them a kilt.

[Iolaus]

...MUGs are not kilts. They are more kilt-like articles. I have nothing against people who choose to wear them, but I kinda feel like it's just an attention grabber if there's no history or tradition behind it. You wanna buck the status quo and not wear pants? Fine. Not having legs on your cargo shorts does not make them a kilt.

I feel sooooo ashamed!

[Tony Miles]

I thought the origins of kilt were Norse?

[fluter]

The point of all of this is that if a bespoke "tank" doesn't look or feel "quite right" with pockets added, I don't see how a mass produced garment could be anything but even less satisfying, aesthetically speaking .

I'm not sure whether the hillwalker would qualify as tank---generally the ones I've seen advertised that way were machine made and 4-5 yards.

Then there's the made-to-measure contemporary kilt, in good tartan cloth, in a style that does not offend my eye, with pockets engineered to work better than those in my trousers. I have seen such a beast, and I wants one!

I will also be keeping my tank...

Reverting to the original question: Contemporary "versus" Traditional: no.

Contemporary "or" Traditional: yes.

[Larry124]

I feel sooooo ashamed!

Me too. Think I'll go eat worms.