Not real kilts?

[Chris@southerncelt.com]

I'm sure I don't really have to add my 2 cents, but I suppose I will anyway. As some of you know, I have world class kiltmaker training. I have no problem with machine stitching a kilt if it takes away from labor cost. Besides, the fabrics I machine aren't exactly pure wool (When working with pure wool I always hand stitch). The problem with kilts is that they are so freakin' expensive, and if people like Bear and myself can provide a lower cost means of putting kilts on backsides, then this hoity-toity kiltmaker should be thankful. I like to think we're doing our part to promote the popularity of the garment.

[Graham]

Dokatan and Chris, you know I agree with you both.

However i will encourage my friend to wear the kilt often.
He already wants a second kilt but cannot afford it, I'll show him how he can afford it.

[Macwizzard]

I see the word "Real" in this case a translation for the word "Traditional." To me, A traditional kilt, which some other people do consider the only kilt, is made from 8-9 yards of worsted wool tartan, hand sown in Scotland. To me, that's the full deal-as kiltish as it comes. However, I do consider the Bear Kilts, the Utilikilts, and the Amerikilts(and the like) to be kilts as well. However, I don't see them as Traditional, or even by some stretch of language,"Real" kilts. They are casual modern garments, and designed for men, and with the pleats and the classic structure, I see them as kilts.

But, what do I know. I own one kilt (I have a Mountain Hardwear Mountain Kilt-but the structure of that one is questionable-no pleats)-and it's a Traditional one(still waiting for some money to come about to buy a casual one or two), but, personally, to justify to myself(and to convince my skeptic and conservative family) that the kilt could be worn in modern day America, I had to get one of those first. Foolish, yes. Shallow, yes. But, I'm on my way to being a full time kiltie.

So, what I'm really trying to say is that our modern kilts may not be pure traditional, but in essense, not being Scottish hand-sewn garments made from 8-9 yards of worsed woll doesn't make them not kilts. So, I say go for the less expensive alternatives if you want. In the end, a kilt is a kilt.

--Macwizzard

[Chris@southerncelt.com]

Ok Mac, My question is... Why does it have to be hand sewn in Scotland? There are people, namely myself, who have the same tailoring training. Just because I don't live in Scotland, this makes me not a "real" kiltmaker? All a matter of location?

[Mike n NC]

<with the sound of knuckles cracking in the background>
EhhhHemmm! Perhaps this "gentleman" would like to meet this "lady" in a kilt for a "friendly" discussion?

Sales pitch all the way... Of course MY 1903 HUPMOBILE WITH THE ORIGINAL TIRES will serve you BETTER than these modern vehicles. Why they don't even have a back-up steam tank, they aren't REAL CARS!!

Mike

[Harleyhighlander]

I have a few kilts one is a great kilt, the other a traditional that I had made for me in scotland. it took about 3 months to get. The point I think about real kits V. fake kilts would be the same as whiskeys.
take bourbon to be called bourbon it has to be made in Kentucky. a reason Jack Daniels is called sour mash it is made in Tenn. same ingrediants same process. Just as Scotch has to be made in scotland.
If it looks and feels good to you wear it.

[KiltedBishop]

well said

[David Thornton]

I just hope you are not trying to favorably compare JD to a goud bourbon!

David

[F16WarBird]

That kiltmaker is a moron.

End of story.

[NewKilt]

Originally posted by Berry
In the opinion of one who is completely ignorant of such matters, I reckon that if it looks like a kilt, it's a kilt.

Lots of opinions on this Berry. Some say it has to be a 16 oz wool tank made in Scotland. Others consider Utilikilts, Amerikilts, SportKilts to be kilts. There have been several past threads on this with different viewpoints and definitions expressed. One could even argue that the belted plaid is the only "real" kilt.

My interpretation is rather liberal, and many here would disagree with it, but that's OK.

My interpretation: A skirt-like garment designed for men. The front has a top and bottom apron. The bottom apron fastened to the left side of the waist, and the top apron fastens to the right side. The back of the garment is pleated. The length of the kilt is such that the bottom falls anywhere from one inch above the knee to mid-knee. The kilt originated in Scotland, but today is worn by men in many parts of the world.

My interpretation leaves the door open for a wide variety of materials, and designs - pockets, no pockets, etc. Many who are pure traditionalists will disagree with this, and that's fine. There are members here that are traditionalists, non-traditionalists, and others that have a wide variety of kilt styles. It's all cool, it makes Xmarks an interesting place to be.

Darrell