Questioning thoughts

[artificer]

I guess this is exactly my point. Why when new to the kilt people show up here are they not given more advice like this? Or why not steer them toward "American"/utility/non dressy kilts? If given this advice they could buy one article of clothing and nothing else.
I know personally in the 7 yrs I have only worn a kilt semi/formal 3 times. Most of us are not going to be attending balls and the like. I wear tshirts and boots with my kilts 99.9% of the time. Why does it feel like forced "traditionalism" and formality? If we really want to see the kilt worn as "normal" clothing we have to quite telling people that you have to wear, for example, a jacket(PC or argyle only)..vest..hose(better be diced, not white)..black knife(made of ebony or stag horn)..ghillie brogues..special hat(tam or any other type that no one has seen in fashion for a century). That is the whole reason UK has become known, they aren't pretentious.

Sorry, SmokinScotsman, but your original post didn't mention enforced traditionalism or being overly precious or formal at all... which is why nobody has addressed it.

Again, why WOULD you advise someone who ISN'T sure that they're going to like wearing a kilt to buy $$$$$$$$$. You wouldn't have a first time driver buy a Bentley.

Nobody here is trying to steer people away from 'good' kilts. PV is usually recommended for starters as they are more affordable, and can look VERY nice.

As for recommending a modern MUG over a traditional tartan kilt, my guess is that it's partly because you can get a VERY well made PV tartan kilt for about the same cost as a Utilikilt. Again, which is more useful? An 8yd PV that can be dressed up, or a MUG, which is basically blue jeans.

To the point of forced traditionalism... sure some traditional kilt wearers here tend to steer people that way. However, there are plenty who wear polo shirts, scrunched hose and boots (or sandals), and no bonnet AT ALL
As you said, a kilt can be dressed up or down.

I also think you'll RARELY find folks here on this board TELLING others that they NEED to wear a jacket (especially a PC), or that a waistcoat, or ghille brogues need to be worn. Please note that there IS a forum for TRADITIONAL HIGHLAND WEAR where this does occur, as people are asking for this sort of advise (but it still rarely involves the PC or Ghillies).

I don't know how long you 'lurked around' before becoming a member, but I can see you've only got 10 posts (two of which are in this topic). You might just want to explore the forum a while longer before condemning
everyone with the label "cheap kilt advising, PC and ghillie brogue wearing-fancy-pants".

I think the longer you're here, the less you'll probably find that label to be true

[macwilkin]

I guess this is exactly my point. Why when new to the kilt people show up here are they not given more advice like this? Or why not steer them toward "American"/utility/non dressy kilts? If given this advice they could buy one article of clothing and nothing else.
I know personally in the 7 yrs I have only worn a kilt semi/formal 3 times. Most of us are not going to be attending balls and the like. I wear tshirts and boots with my kilts 99.9% of the time. Why does it feel like forced "traditionalism" and formality? If we really want to see the kilt worn as "normal" clothing we have to quite telling people that you have to wear, for example, a jacket(PC or argyle only)..vest..hose(better be diced, not white)..black knife(made of ebony or stag horn)..ghillie brogues..special hat(tam or any other type that no one has seen in fashion for a century). That is the whole reason UK has become known, they aren't pretentious.

Different horses for courses...I do several attend black tie functions throughout the year, but I don't see how that makes me "pretentious" because I choose to wear my Highland rig in a more traditional manner?

It's an old chestnut on this forum that somehow if you are a traditionalist, you are automatically a snob --and ironically, that charge is sometimes made by people calling for "tolerance" and making the kilt "normal" clothing. We're a' Jock Tamson's bairns, though.

UK's and other modern kilts just aren't my thing, but more power to you if you wish to wear them and a more casual style. There's a line from one of my favorite poems entitled "The Little Red God" that says:

Wear the garments he likes to wear,
Never dreaming that people stare

And then at the end of the poem:

He is kind and gentle, or harsh and gruff;
He is tender as love -- or he's rawhide tough;
A rough-necked rider in spurs and chaps,
Or well-groomed son of the town -- perhaps;
And this is the little Red God I sing,
Who cares not a wallop for anything
That walks or gallops, that crawls or struts,
No matter how clothed -- if it hasn't got guts.

A well-groomed son of the town is not always pretentious. If you are advocating a more informal style, then good on ya -- but please don't make potentially pejorative comments against those who do not share your style in doing so.

Respectfully,

Todd

[Jock Scot]

I guess this is exactly my point. Why when new to the kilt people show up here are they not given more advice like this? Or why not steer them toward "American"/utility/non dressy kilts? If given this advice they could buy one article of clothing and nothing else.
I know personally in the 7 yrs I have only worn a kilt semi/formal 3 times. Most of us are not going to be attending balls and the like. I wear tshirts and boots with my kilts 99.9% of the time. Why does it feel like forced "traditionalism" and formality? If we really want to see the kilt worn as "normal" clothing we have to quite telling people that you have to wear, for example, a jacket(PC or argyle only)..vest..hose(better be diced, not white)..black knife(made of ebony or stag horn)..ghillie brogues..special hat(tam or any other type that no one has seen in fashion for a century). That is the whole reason UK has become known, they aren't pretentious.

I suppose that is the trouble with asking advice. Well meaning people offer a genuine opinion from their particular point of view and based on their experiences and sometimes that opinion is bound to be not what the questioner wants to hear. If that is the case and if, the questioner is going to be so sensitive about the advice given , then perhaps it might have been better not to ask the question in the first place.

[RockyR]

Some things are worth saving up for... the difficulty is that we live in a society which is prone to the demands of instant gratification, hence the availability of cheap (and sometimes shoddy) merchandise. In this instance one may be gratified by the acquisition of a cheap kilt, but is unlikely to be gratified by the possession of a cheap kilt. However, the desire that spurred the initial purchase remains and often leads to the purchase of yet another cheap item which in the long term still results in disappointment with the possession.

In an age where many people feel entitled to much, and responsible for little, the demand for gratification seems to outstrip the concept of true value-- be it in the construction of a kilt, or the quality of a meal.

I, for one, would never tell anyone to buy a cheap kilt because, at least in my opinion, that is bad advice. I would tell them to save up to buy a good kilt-- or a good sporran, or what ever it is that they feel they need at the moment -- because that will give them the sort of gratification/satisfaction that only comes from having "earned" something which is perceived to be of value.

I would also remind people that if you have one good kilt you only need two sporrans and two jackets to go on a pub crawl, be a guest at a wedding, or attend a formal event. Since the kilt is the lynch-pin of Highland attire, it makes sense to save up and buy a good one.

While I agree that more gratification is received from a nicer garment, I do not agree that a less expensive garment is "unlikely" to give the wearer gratification. So long as the product is accurately described at time of purchase, I think that the end user will be happy with their purchase. It's when their expectations are set too high (falsely, either by their own fault or by the fault of the seller) when they are disappointed.

By the logic you listed above, most people on this board (myself included) would not own a kilt. While at my previous job (making $30 K per year), spending $500 + on a kilt was out of the realm of financial responsibility. I wanted to "try" wearing a kilt in a few different scenarios before investing a large portion of my hard earned money on it (pretty much a week's pay at that point). If I was told that I needed to buy a $500 kilt (and didn't see a less expensive alternative), I would have been put off from kilt wearing altogether and never have purchased any.

Now, I own 40+ kilts (and HAVE OWNED over 80 in my 7 years wearing them), the majority of which are 8 Yard Wool kilts. Do I still wear my Casual, "contemporary" and other models? Yes, when the occasion requires something less formal or it may "get dirty". Do I cherish my 8 Yard Wool kilts? Yes. Would I ever have gotten to cherish them were it not for my less expensive entry? No.

As I have told everyone who has asked my opinion, "buy the best kilt you can afford and you won't be disappointed."

To equate this argument to vehicles (this is NOT a debate on which vehicle is better or worse, just used to prove a point)...

You should ONLY buy a Rolls Royce as it's the top car in class (in many people's opinion).

What if you need to tow someone else's car... would you use the Rolls or a tow truck?
What if you need to haul mulch, would you use the Rolls or a pickup?
What if your salary is that of an average citizen. Should you buy the Rolls if you can't then afford to eat or would you buy a "Taurus" or "Cobalt"?
What if you drive 6 hours per day and put 40,000 miles on your car per year. Would you buy the Rolls or a smaller less expensive car that was better on gas?

For me, the Rolls Royce would be for nicer occasions. I'm not saying ONLY for nice occasions, but I would have ANOTHER vehicle for other purposes.

Would I have to save up for it? Yes. Should I NOT buy another car in the meantime while I'm saving? No.

My $.02

[RockyR]

I guess this is exactly my point. Why when new to the kilt people show up here are they not given more advice like this? Or why not steer them toward "American"/utility/non dressy kilts? If given this advice they could buy one article of clothing and nothing else.
I know personally in the 7 yrs I have only worn a kilt semi/formal 3 times. Most of us are not going to be attending balls and the like. I wear tshirts and boots with my kilts 99.9% of the time. Why does it feel like forced "traditionalism" and formality? If we really want to see the kilt worn as "normal" clothing we have to quite telling people that you have to wear, for example, a jacket(PC or argyle only)..vest..hose(better be diced, not white)..black knife(made of ebony or stag horn)..ghillie brogues..special hat(tam or any other type that no one has seen in fashion for a century). That is the whole reason UK has become known, they aren't pretentious.

While I agree with you, you (and other new poster on XMARKS) have to realize that there are different "mindsets" about wearing the kilt.

Some people want to see the kilt worn as everyday wear. They want to see kilts walking down the street on a regular basis.

Others DO NOT. They want to keep kilts for formal situations or for "special activities" and don't think kilts should be worn in all scenarios, every day.

Still others think that 1 or 2 less expensive kilts, worn to a festival once or twice a year, is all they need / want.

With these different ways of thinking, there are BOUND to be differing opinions on what style / how many / how expensive a kilt someone should have.

As Jock said, we can't ask for other people's advice and then be upset when the advice isn't what we wanted to hear. Now if someone gives UNSOLICITED advice, you can gladly tell them where to cram their opinion. We're pretty good up here of only giving feedback when it's requested though.

That being said, there was a question posed and many people responded, all from their point of view. Do we all agree? HEAVENS no. That's part of the beauty of XMARKS. You get different flavors, all of whom love the kilt, which is why we're here.

The perfect example is my post above. I don't agree with MacMillan of Rathdown's point of view, but I respect him for it and can openly disagree without "picking a fight". It just shows that differing views can co-exist.

[jkane]

I own a suit for when I want to go formal. At one point in my life, I owned 5 suits since I was wearing them every day. Even at that time, I also owned some shorts and blue jeans! Did I care where they came from? No, I just wanted somethign cheap to wear when I was out and about.

Today, I own a very cheap kilt. I wear it as often as I can. I have not coughed up the money for a very nice expensive dress kilt. I have it on my holiday wish list to my wife though. We'll see if it happens this year or not.

In the mean time, I can wear a kilt whenever I want, and not worry about it getting ruined by my making of merry! I do like to drink and dance in my kilt. Spilling and getting it messy is not just possible, it is LIKELY.

I see good reasons to own both.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I don't disagree with much of what Jeff has posted, except that he seems to have the perception that the 8-yard "tank" isn't suited to the rigors of everyday life. Rocky compared a kilt (albeit somewhat indirectly) to a Rolls-Royce and I think that comparison brilliantly shows the difference in mind set between those who say "save up and buy a good kilt" and that of the "buy cheap" crowd (of which Rocky is most certainly not a member).

As a Rolls-Royce/Bentley owner for more than 40 years I can tell you that the vast majority of us who own and drive what others call "The Best Car In The World" tend to view them, first and foremost, as transportation. I have towed cars with my Bentleys, hauled the dogs to a shoot, driven down dirt roads, forded streams, and handed the keys to parking lot attendants. For 15 years the car in my avatar was my only car... eventually it was replaced with a pre-war Rolls-Royce, which was driven in exactly the same manner, until I sold it when I moved to the USA three years ago.

When I bought my first new kilt (in 1965!) there was no option-- you bought a "tank". I wore that kilt more or less continuously for almost 10 years. During that time I hiked, camped, shot, danced, got stocious drunk on more than one occasion, and pub crawled my way through university, launched my career, and probably attended more tartan balls than I can remember. In short, I treated that kilt no differently than any other garment in my wardrobe.

I think what's overlooked is the tendency of some people to regard a traditional kilt as "precious" when, in fact, there is a very good reason that they have been nick-named "tanks". Proof of that is the fact that I still have my first "new" kilt and 45 years on I wouldn't hesitate to wear it to a tartan ball-- if I still had a 30 inch waist!

And yes, I'd go to the ball in my old Bentley.

[Cygnus]

In support of what MacMillan of Rathdown has said, here's a link to a wonderful thread by wildrover about what a well-made kilt can handle:

20 Miles in an Heirloom

[Jock Scot]

I could not agree with you more there MoR, on both your views on kilts and cars. In passing, Rolls Royce have made some very good armoured cars in their long and illustrious history.

[piperdbh]

And yes, I'd go to the ball in my old Bentley.

When you get ready to trade that "old Bentley", I have a 13-year-old Ford for you.