I think this is a great example of words that seem to mean a lot, but may not mean much. Granted, TRADITIONAL means made (or styled) after a tradition, i.e., the way it has been done. Classic, though, can mean just about anything. If you like to wear the kilt in a traditional way, ( or for that matter, modern men's Saxon clothing ) you probably have a fairly good idea of a "canon" of items and looks that fit into your notion of traditional. However, someone might come along with an item that is not within that canon and will refer to it as "classic" as in "A classic Nehru jacket" or "A classic bell bottomed disco suit" or even "a classic white rabbit sporran". Can we argue about whether or not the item is "classic"? Sure. Will we get anywhere? Probably not.

Classical refers to the glories of ancient Rome and Greece, as exemplified by columns, etc. Classic is what they call Coca -Cola with vanilla in it, as oopsed to the old "New" Coke.

This kind of wondering has led to the people on another forum having acronyms such as TNSIL, which means "Traditional Natural Shoulder Ivy League" since someone already pointed out that padded shoulders are just as traditional in their own neighborhood as the natural shoulder models are in theirs.

I was surprised to learn how new this particular forum is- It would appear the Traditional forum was created in February 2004, while some part of XMarks dates back to 2003. That was before my time and I would be pleased to hear from my elders. You can search back, though, to the earliest posts in this forum, which is pretty cool.

But I was distracted for a minute, there. While we are throwing around terms like classic and traditional, I would like to suggest that we bear in mind that things like style and fashion do evolve. Military uniforms have changed. Western formal wear has changed. Business suits have changed, even riding clothes have changed-whatever you ride.* If you are familiar with these various kinds of dress, you may have more refined ideas about them than a person who is outside looking in. Sure, you can have your 3 piece suit tailored exactly like your grandfather's, but chances are, if you go to Brooks Brothers or a Savile Row tailor, when you ask for a "traditional" suit, it will be subtly different from the one you would have gotten even 50 years ago.

You don't see people talking about lapel width much here, or collar size, or tie width. Now and then, someone will notice how wide kilt belts are getting, but that is about it. Yet those things are always slowly changing and, yes, so are various aspects of the "traditional" way to wear a kilt. It is a fine thing to hearken back to MacLeay's watercolors, or to 18th century clan chief portraits, or even to great photographs of various kilt-wearing luminaries through time, but to pattern one's kilt kit after the way it was worn 150 years ago is more historical than traditional, in my humble low-rent opinion.

Saxon men wore bell-bottomed trousers in the 1920s throughout much of the western world . And they wore them in the 1970s. And I am sure some guy is wearing them right now. Are they traditional? Not especially. You might argue that they are traditional for sailors, but when is the last time any government issued them to their navy?

Drawing a line in the sand and saying "here is the tradition- what came before was premature and what came after was wrong" is inviting frustration, if not ridicule. I agree with the wise poster who pointed out that there is nothing much traditional about "Jacobite" shirts, for instance, though a person who has worn tee shirts all of his or her life might be excused for thinking they are historical.

I have run on long enough. * Ever since they stopped breeding mammoths, I have had to make do with a horse. Time to go perm his hair for that traditional look.