Quote Originally Posted by RockyR View Post
I think the point is lost a bit here. There is NOTHING WRONG (in MY opinion) with less expensive versions of the kilt / sporran. Ford has cars starting at $10 K and go up to $100K... every industry has a 'good, better, best'.

It's the marketing / way the items are described that is the issue. If a retailer accurately desicribes their product / country of origin / intended purpose, then they're operating with complete integrity. If they try to hide the origins / or purposefully misrepresent something, then they aren't being honest with the consumer.

If Ford was marketing their smallest, cheapest, lightest pickup truck for commercial use for hauling heavy loads and saying it was the same as Chevy's most heavy duty commercial truck (a bit of a stretch, but follow me here), would people be able to trust them on other issues?
I for one strongly agree with this sentiment. I have been wearing kilts for a little less than 2 years. When I started I did know very much, I have learned some and the audience here tends to be a little bit more knowledgeable. But in my early days I saw ads for "heavy weight 16 oz. PV" and other claims that are at best dubious. Advertising that is not representative of the product and clearly intends to decieve is bad. There are vendors here who I have communicated with and have been very forthright, which I appreciate. Rocky is entirely correct, taking a synthetic sub $100 kilt and representing it as every bit as good as a 100% hand sewn wool tartan is wrong. Advertising that kilt as a lightweight knockabout kilt, fine for running Saturday errands and a flag football match but not up to par for formal events is OK by me.