Traditional Solid Color Kilts and Definitions

[Stratherrick]

Bugbear/Ted

Hmmm, lots to think over there, good post!

As for a kilt not being a kilt unless you're wearing a sporran, I disagree with that sentiment. Sure, lots of bits 'n' bobs set off a kilt, including the pin but, to my mind anyway, it's still a kilt on its own.

Slainte

Bruce

[Bugbear]

Bugbear/Ted

Hmmm, lots to think over there, good post!

As for a kilt not being a kilt unless you're wearing a sporran, I disagree with that sentiment. Sure, lots of bits 'n' bobs set off a kilt, including the pin but, to my mind anyway, it's still a kilt on its own.

Slainte

Bruce

That's not for me to decide.

But I have been confused by the many points of view on this subject, so I'm trying to sort through it all or at least get the discussion going.

[The Wizard of BC]

In a hope of clarifying this somewhat I try to look at the garment not from the styling side but from the construction side.

Please note; By using the term "Traditional Style Kilt" I am referring to the Kilts made from between the mid 1950's to the present.
I am also referring only to 8 yard knife pleated Kilts of that era. If you see Matt Newsome's remarks below, the Historically correct Kilts may have used differing types of construction techniques and fabrics.

There is one thing from the construction side that has always and will probably continue to define a Traditional Kilt. It is the Stabilizers and interfacings that are built into the Kilt and hidden behind the liner.

When you open up a Traditional Kilt and look inside the first thing that you see is a liner. It starts up at the waistband and goes down to the bottom of the Fell. It also stretches from the outer edge of one apron all the way over to the outer edge of the other apron. Many people think the liner is there to keep your Kilt clean. But if that were so then the liner would be removable and washable.
So, what does the liner do? It covers the cut-away pleats and the Stabilizer and Interfacing that is built into the Kilt to take the stress of strapping the Kilt on and wearing it. These Interfacings take up all the stress and insure they are not transferred to the stitching of the pleats.

Now I know, some have said that hand stitching is stronger than machine stitching but I'm afraid that that is simply not true. What is true is that a Traditional Kilt will last a very long time if properly cared for. That is because the interfacings take all the stresses insuring that the pleats stitching is never over stressed to the point of failing.

If you remove the Interfacings and Stabilizer what you have now is a Casual Style Kilt. A Casual Kilt may look from the outside exactly like a Traditional Kilt. The same Tartan pattern, the same aprons, the same everything. But due to the lack of interfacings all the stress of wearing the Kilt are taken up by the pleat stitching. This is why many Kilts you see will have a failure of the Pleat stitching in the Fell area. And why many Casual Kilts use machine stitching.

What defines a Contemporary Kilt is also in the construction.
A Contemporary Kilt has all the same Stabilizers and Interfacings that a Traditional Kilt does. All we do is move them up into a regular trouser like waistband. The stresses of wearing the Kilt are taken up by the interfacings in the waistband and never transferred to the pleat stitching.
Why we do this has to do with the addition of the Pockets. The Pockets are not the reason it is defined as a Contemporary Kilt they are only the reason we had to move the interfacing from the Fell area up into a trouser like waistband.

So, if it is hand-stitched, made from 100% Scottish Wool of 16oz per fabric yard weight, in a registered Tartan, has a full width apron with taper and fringe, is worn at Full Rise with a sporran and Kilt Pin, and has the exact same amount of fabric, number of Pleats and amount of Pleat Reveal......but the Interfacings and Stabilizer are hidden in the waistband instead of hidden behind the liner, then it is a Contemporary Kilt and not a Traditional. Even thought to 99% of the world it looks and swishes exactly like a Traditional.

[Bugbear]

Well, I guess that is the line passed which care must be taken in respecting the Highland traditions.

There are styles of contemporary and casual kilts that do not look like traditional kilts., so those are separate from Highland attire.

It makes no difference if the kilt is a solid color or tweed or tartan as to it's traditionalness or non-traditionalness.

I think that sums it up so far.

* Just for reference, the Stillwater wool kilts, without alterations, are an example of a casual kilt that has the look of a fairly traditional kilt going by the Wizards definition. It's almost like the last several steps in making the kilt are skipt and the buckles and waistband are sewn on without the steeking and removing the inside of the pleats above the fell. I do think the pillow butt effect would be noticeable on several body shapes, though...

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I think Steve's definition is helpful if one is speaking strictly of modern-day kilts. However, as a kilt historian, I feel I should point out that a lot of what he mentions as characterstic of "traditional" kilts are fairly modern construction techniques and would not be present on kilts from one or two centuries ago. This, in my mind, does not in any way make these historic kilts any less traditional.

For example, there is no cloth cut away in the pleats of a four yard box pleated kilt. This is because there is not enough overlap of the pleats to justify removing the excess material. In an 8 yard kilt, on the other hand, if one did not cut away the cloth inside the pleats, it would feel like one had a cusion strapped to your back.

Not cutting away this material means you will see a very different looking arrangement when were you to peel back the lining of a four yard kilt. And guess what? The original tailored kilts did not have ANY stabilizing cloth or lining of any kind. There was nothing to them but the tartan itself and some thread. :-) I could make a kilt just this way today, and when it was being worn you'd never know it was any different from all the other box pleated kilts I have made.

In my mind, as someone who has approached the question from the perspective of a kilt historian, a kilt maker, and a kilt wearer, these are the things that I would look for in a traditional kilt.
1) be made from traditional kilting material; by which I mean either worsted or tweed wool of a suitable weight.
2) be made with pleats in the rear and overlapping aprons in the front, with the waist being split approximately 50/50 between pleats and apron.
3) be made to wear at the natural waist (not low on the hips).
4) be made to fall at or about the knees.

And that's about as strict as I would feel comfortable being with my definition. Note whether the kilt is tartan or solid does not even enter into the equation, nor does the style of pleating. And I didn't even mention "hand sewn," because, though that is the preferred norm in a traditional kilt, I see no reason why a kilt that is otherwise made in the traditional style cannot be machine sewn by someone who knew what they were doing. The machine sewn USA kilts are good examples. (Historically, the kilts worn by the 79th NY Cameron Highlanders were machine sewn).

[davedove]

I think you are going to have a hard time pinning down the definition of a "traditional" kilt. Most everyone will agree that a kilt that has features A through K (or whatever) is a traditional kilt.

But what if a particular kilt only has features A through J. Is is still considered traditional?

How about a kilt that only has A through I, or H, or G?

Where people draw the line is going to vary so that not everyone will agree.

For example, for a lot of people, a traditional kilt has to be tartan. But, as Matt has pointed out, solid colored kilts can be just as traditional.

For some, only the 8-9 yard, knife-pleated kilt is the only truly traditional kilt. But again, the box-pleated style has an even longer pedigree.

There is not really a definite bold line between traditional and non-traditional, but rather a hazy grey area.

[KiltedSurveyor]

Matt,

Not to highjack this thread, but are there any historical examples you know of concerning kilts of material other than wool? As a 18th century re-enactor, I know the fondness of the upper classes for silk and other materials.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

In my mind, as someone who has approached the question from the perspective of a kilt historian, a kilt maker, and a kilt wearer, these are the things that I would look for in a traditional kilt.
1) be made from traditional kilting material; by which I mean either worsted or tweed wool of a suitable weight.
2) be made with pleats in the rear and overlapping aprons in the front, with the waist being split approximately 50/50 between pleats and apron.
3) be made to wear at the natural waist (not low on the hips).
4) be made to fall at or about the knees.

And that's about as strict as I would feel comfortable being with my definition.

I noticed just now that even my loose definition above is too strict, for I forgot to mention the possibility of saxony wool as an acceptable kilting fabric!

Not to highjack this thread, but are there any historical examples you know of concerning kilts of material other than wool? As a 18th century re-enactor, I know the fondness of the upper classes for silk and other materials.

I have heard it stated that silk kilts were once all the rage in the Victorian era for formal events. However, I have not personally seen an example of this. What I have seen are examples of nineteenth century kilts where a stripe of the tartan was woven in silk, and the rest in wool. Usually this was a narrow stripe of white or yellow.

[Bugbear]

I think you are going to have a hard time pinning down the definition of a "traditional" kilt. Most everyone will agree that a kilt that has features A through K (or whatever) is a traditional kilt.

But what if a particular kilt only has features A through J. Is is still considered traditional?

How about a kilt that only has A through I, or H, or G?

Where people draw the line is going to vary so that not everyone will agree.

For example, for a lot of people, a traditional kilt has to be tartan. But, as Matt has pointed out, solid colored kilts can be just as traditional.

For some, only the 8-9 yard, knife-pleated kilt is the only truly traditional kilt. But again, the box-pleated style has an even longer pedigree.

There is not really a definite bold line between traditional and non-traditional, but rather a hazy grey area.

I'll just go with Matt Newsome's definition; he has more than enough credibility.

[Bugbear]

The gray area and issue is in someone not being able to tell a PV kilt, or something like that, from the traditional wool kilt when someone else is wearing it.

For example, someone is wearing a tartan PV kilt with sandals and without a sporran. Someone else sees this and is then offended because the first person is disrespecting the traditions of Highland attire, and the national dress of Scotland.

If the person is instead wearing a canvas kilt of some sort with sandals and no sporran, there is no disrespect to Highland attire and the national dress of Scotland. That doesn't mean the second person won't be offended, but the non-traditional canvas kilt is not Highland attire.