The Kilt in Crisis

[Riverkilt]

There just HAVE to be a lot of low key behind the scenes kiltmakers sewing up all the kilts for the middlemen who are selling kilts.

[Tobus]

One wonders if there is a bit of snobbery going on in this article. When they use the term "proper kiltmakers", what is the definition?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using non-traditional methods to build a kilt, as long as the end result is the same quality. If someone uses a machine to stitch part of a kilt together, is that "improper" according to them? And if so, why? New technology has long been a source of improvement for any industry (not that the sewing machine is really new technology).

In other words, before we all cry ourselves to sleep over the looming extinction of traditional kiltmaking, I think we need to find out just what is meant by the writer when he invokes that term. One need only look to the sister industry of tartan weaving to see that technology can be good for the country and for their traditions. If people were still weaving tartan fabric on hand looms, would tartan itself have ever taken off like it has? But surely someone along the way whined and cried about how the old-world craft of looming tartan cloth was going to die forever when they saw all these new-fanged machines.

[Lallans]

Perhaps the Scots should support their local craftsmen and make the kilt mandatory golfing attire...? I can forsee a future headline: "Nonkilted American golfer refused play at Troon." Now THAT would make sense!

[Stratherrick]

I wonder if "kiltmakers" means the companies who make kilts?

Each one must have quite a few people actually making the kilts?

Slainte

Bruce

[JerseyLawyer]

One wonders if there is a bit of snobbery going on in this article. When they use the term "proper kiltmakers", what is the definition?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with using non-traditional methods to build a kilt, as long as the end result is the same quality. If someone uses a machine to stitch part of a kilt together, is that "improper" according to them? And if so, why? New technology has long been a source of improvement for any industry (not that the sewing machine is really new technology).

I'll start with this premise: There's nothing "wrong" with partially or completely machine-made kilts. There's nothing "wrong" with kilts not made out of wool. However, the most traditional form of kilt is completely sewn by hand out of pure new wool.

This distinction is really no different from other areas of fashion - a haute couture dress isn't haute couture if it's not made-to-order and at least hand finished, but that doesn't mean that prêt-à-porter (ready to wear) is "wrong". A bespoke suit and an off-the-rack suit are not the same thing, but there's nothing "wrong" with the latter. Ready to wear and machine made clothes lower costs and bring formerly designer articles to the general public - and make design houses, tailors, and presumably kiltmakers - a lot more money than the more traditional article on a profit margin basis. However, they are not the "same". It's not snobbery to appreciate something made in the most traditional way and of the highest quality. In other words, your argument fails because, quite simply, a machine sewn product and a hand-sewn product, while both may be very good, are not of the same quality - a machine sewn kilt can never be hand sewn.

If traditional kiltmaking, or haute couture, or bespoke tailoring, were to end today, we wouldn't all be going about naked, and a lot of people probably wouldn't care, but we would have lost something very important.

While I'm not a Scot, I also think that you have to try and view the situation with at least a nod towards the feeling (which we've seen from numerous articles in the press) that the tradition of bespoke kiltmaking is being overtaken by tat shops selling cheap kilts. Remember that we, here, are an educated audience of kiltwearers. Not so for many other people. It is possible there is a concern that someday in the future, the traditional kilt will be a memory, and all that will be out there is what's sold off the peg at the Royal Mile "Ye Olde Scottish Shoppe" of your choice. Hence the alarm raised in the article that kiltmaking is becoming a dying art.

I don't think things are anywhere near that alarming, since there will always be a discerning audience desirous of what the article seems to deem a "proper" kilt (I won't step into that debate, that we've had here multiple times. For the sake of argument, let's just read "proper" as "traditional" here, or as people might say on this forum, 'a tank'.). I think however, that it's shortsighted to say "machine made equals progress" and to basically write off kiltmaking as it's been done for the last hundred and fifty or so years as an anachronism that machines can do just as well at.

I won't make a straw man argument and compare, say, a 30 GBP off the rack kilt to a bespoke one from Kinloch Anderson. That would be comparing John Lobb shoes to a pair made from pleather off the Payless clearance rack, or a Saville Row suit to one at the 3 suits for $99 store. I won't deny that partially or completely machine finished kilts can be of excellent quality - I have one I'm quite happy with. But the mere fact that they were machine finished to save labor (and therefore cost) is the quantifiable difference.

So, I must respectfully disagree with you.

[Bugbear]

Post deleted.

[Barb T]

...the kilt, though handsewn and in every way tradditionally constructed, must be made by a specific and exclusive group of trained kilt makers.

I really really really hope we don't plow this ground again. It's been hashed over many times on this forum. People have different and strongly held opinions, we don't resolve anything about the issue every time it comes up, and many of us wind up feeling as if we're considered second or third rate at best.

Please let's just close this thread before this discussion gets going again. If anyone claims foul and wants to read the various opinions, someone could just search the forum for the other times this has been discussed.

[Bugbear]

Sorry, Barb, I've removed my post. I'll stay out of the discussion.

[Tobus]

While I'm not a Scot, I also think that you have to try and view the situation with at least a nod towards the feeling (which we've seen from numerous articles in the press) that the tradition of bespoke kiltmaking is being overtaken by tat shops selling cheap kilts.

Yes, I think that's likely what's behind this. But I think some of the purists in the article may be throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. There are many degrees of kiltmaker between the old-school traditionalists and the ones making 'tartan tat' and el-cheapo kilts. That's why I'm wondering how they define a "proper kiltmaker". If they claim there are only 10 left in Scotland, they must be discounting a huge number of perfectly good and respectable kiltmakers on minor technicalities. So what are those technicalities? We need a definition in order to know what the difference is between these 10 remaining kiltmakers and all the rest.

[Alan H]

Interesting article.

I bet it helped sell lots of copies of the paper.