Has anyone ever actually measured and compared kilt swing?

[figheadair]

But I'm having some difficulty with some of the claims about issues that seem a bit led by fashion and trends, especially when I consider that the modern full-8-yard kilt is quite a recent (i.e. 20th Century) invention.

This is a key point in the development of the modern kilt that is often overlooked. Many people, including some kiltmakers, believe that the kilt has always had 8yds and that it is 'not a proper kilt' unless it has so.

I cannot recall any pre-1900 kilt I've examined having anywhere that amount. The as to why we have got this amount, apart from the fact that we like to codify and regulate things, probably lies in part in the move from pleating to stripe to pleating to sett. They latter generally requires more material and hence, a tradition is born.

[Beery]

The as to why we have got this amount, apart from the fact that we like to codify and regulate things, probably lies in part in the move from pleating to stripe to pleating to sett. They latter generally requires more material and hence, a tradition is born.

Ah! Good point. That makes a lot of sense. Wait. Does that mean that in some tartans, a 5 yard kilt can't be pleated to the sett? Or is it just a lot easier for the kiltmaker if there's more material?

[Beery]

I think you should consider just getting a nice 16 oz five yarder. I believe it would more effectively fill the gap between the cheap kilts and really expensive ones. I don't personally have an 8 yard kilt, but can assure you there is no comparison between a real 5 yard kilt and a utility kilt,or a cheap kilt.

Yeah. My current thinking is that a five yard kilt is the way to go. Right now I own an old Utilikilt, purchased back in the early 2000s, and an 8 yard traditional tartan UT Kilt made in Pakistan that's supposedly 100% wool (my BS detector goes off whenever I say that last bit, but who knows - certainly not me - maybe it is 100% wool). The latter cost me just $125, and it looks pretty nice.

Part of my problem, and part of the reason I started this conversation, is that the UT Kilt seems very nice indeed. Certainly it has obvious problems: the bottom of the kilt is hemmed and the interior lining is pseudo-silk-polyester, not cotton (I hate polyester linings). I can easily fix the latter problem, but the hem at the bottom is one reason why I'm asking about kilt swing here.

One thing that makes my decision easier is that the Pakistani kilts are made only in a few popular tartans: they don't offer any "reproduction" or "weathered" tartans, and those are where my interest lies when considering a high quality kilt.

[Beery]

I honestly do not think I can support a statement like

especially when I consider that the modern full-8-yard kilt is quite a recent (i.e. 20th Century) invention.

The kilt we have today is actually the culmination of years of refinement and the artistry of many thousands of talented kiltmakers.
It is far less an "invention" than a development. Since the first kilts in late 1700's it has been a process of gradual improvement and refinement.

Yeah, but it's a gradual improvement that seems to have only "developed" to 8 yards in the 20th Century. Also, that development, as I suggested earlier, seems to have happened because 19th Century historians made errors in determining the length of the Great Kilt. The issue is, is it really an "improvement", and if so, why? Assurances that it's "the culmination of years of refinement" and that there is "nothing that will look as good, standing or walking, as the kilt today" sound great, but to be brutally frank, they sound too much like marketing slogans to me, and they really don't get to the meat of "how" and "why" these developments are actually improvements. I started this discussion in the hope that I could get to the "how and why". There have been a lot of really good, helpful and persuasive responses that address the intangibles of how the different types of kilt look and feel, but as far as cold, hard and unassailable facts go, Figheadair seems to have given the only solid reason for an 8 yard kilt being a necessary development.

[Beery]

You're absolutely right, my apologies... I will say, however, that you should probably be more careful before coming on this forum using words like "BS" to describe the reasons why respected kiltmakers, which there are a few of in this forum, charge what they charge...

Something I never did in the post you initially replied to. When, in replying to your angry post, I did use that term in the same sentence as the cost, I was stating my opinion that "fashion" is BS when compared to function. I did not call the price BS, and I never even mentioned the kiltmakers' motives, and I certainly never thought their motives were bad. As I said in my original post, "I revere the tradition of the kilt and the art of its manufacture" and I said "I'm all for keeping traditional skilled artisans in business". I also called the top-level kiltmakers "respected", as you have. Is that really the sort of talk that comes from someone who is likely to say that what kiltmakers charge is BS? I don't think so. It seems like you're looking for any excuse to cast my posts in a poor light. You clearly think kiltmakers deserve respect (which they undoubtedly do), but you don't seem willing to grant me the basic respect necessary to just assume I'm not a bad guy. That's just weird.

I will say that it's very surprising that I can't start a discussion asking what physical properties make a kilt worth what it costs, without someone taking offense. It wasn't an attack, dude. It was just a question. Chill out!

Anyway, I'm not going to spend more time defending my words. I'm not the one who came into this discussion like the proverbial bull in a china shop. I think you ought to have started out here from the assumption that people have good motives. It's almost always the case. You seem to have started with the opposite assumption about me. I do not understand why you would do that.

And as my wife often correctly reminds me, a qualified apology is no apology. You STILL seem intent on using all sorts of straw man arguments to paint me as a bad guy who has it in for kiltmakers, which is very strange, considering that this discussion is all about my intention to give one of them quite a lot of money in return for a top quality kilt. But that's okay. As my mum used to say, it takes all sorts to make a world.

I haven't posted much at all here, so I'm still gauging the temperature of the forums. I do hope the sorts of responses you've made here are not the norm. I don't think it's healthy to be jumping on people simply for asking questions, even if they like to use the term "BS".

[Tobinn]

Ummmm.....to bring the conversation back a bit (I really thought it was supposed to be a sort of conversation rather than an argument)...I'm just a newbie but I sure noticed a difference in swing between my less expensive kilts and the kilts worn by the folks in the pipe bands at last month's Highland Games here in Dunedin. I've seen myself in shop windows and I could see the "swish differential" (can I trademark that?) when walking side-by-side with my friend )who's a drummer in one of the local pipe bands) who was wearing a "tank" in our shadows. As noted by those who know more than me; it all has to do with the fit of the garment, the number of pleats and type of material (I think wool just has that sort of innate slinkiness or flexibility to it).

One of these days I plan on buying a 5 yd wool. If I ever move back up north I'll probably invest in an 8 yd wool. But, as it's getting hotter down here in FLA I'm appreciating the 5 yd PV and 5yd Poly/wool blend kilts I've gotten so far. I can tell a big difference between the PV and the wool blend, too. I'll trade swish for less weight and ease of cleaning and cooler material for now (although many have extolled the ability of wool to also be cool so I guess I find out when I save up for a 5 yd wool).

Bottom line - my untrained, novice eye can see a difference BUT that was in a literal side-by-side comparison. I suspect that a decent, properly fitted kilt on it's own probably has enough swish to satisfy - it does me anyway (for now).

[The Wizard of BC]

You are absolutely correct Tobinn.

As I said in a previous post which I guess the OP did not see -

Swish is a factor of a few things. The heavier the fabric - usually the better the swish. The longer the pleats are - usually the better the swish. Narrow pleats will usually swish better than wide pleats. (this is why an 8 yard kilt has better swish than a 5 yard kilt).
A well tailored and well fitting kilt will swish better than the average off-the-rack kilt. Where the bottom of the Fell area fits the wearer has a very large effect on swish. (wearing a kilt designed to be worn at the anatomical waist, lower than where it was designed to fit, drops the bottom of the Fell below the crest of the butt, and totally destroys the swish.)
And the fabric the kilt is made from has a lot to do with swish. Twill woven Wool will swish far better than the average Polyester/Cotton fabrics that most utility kilts are made from.

But, from follow on posts I suspect that he was not actually asking about swish. I suspect that his post was trying to find a way to justify his feeling that his imported kilts are just as good as any others. I got a strong feeling that he felt any swish factor was just people bragging about their expensive kilts. I suspect that it was a matter of a pre-concieved idea that higher cost is due only to a designer label. (What he called fashion BS)

I seriously doubt that he has ever seen or worn a good quality wool kilt in his life. He certainly does not understand what goes into the making of a kilt and how those factors effect the resulting swish.

[somecallmeTim]

....

I seriously doubt that he has ever seen or worn a good quality wool kilt in his life. He certainly does not understand what goes into the making of a kilt and how those factors effect the resulting swish.

The afternoon I spent in your shop educated me on what goes into a good kilt, and what a good kilt is. Add to that all the reading / learning here. Whew! Will have a delay in purchasing. Our HVAC system needs replaced (so very much not planned) and that is not a small chunk of change by any means. Wife is very much looking forward to the improved swish.

[kingandrew]

I would say that swish factor is typically going to increase with wool over other materials, with heavier-weight fabric, and with more fabric. The "deluxe" 8-yard tank will give you a combination of all three elements in a package that most of the Rabble find comfortable to wear under many circumstances. However, your mileage may vary.

I am a Florida boy and have never had any trouble wearing a 5-yard wool kilt in our hot weather. However, my kilts have been of lightweight tartan (11-12 oz.). So a 16 oz. fabric might be warmer. I have recently ordered an 8-yard kilt of 13 oz. fabric from USA Kilts, so I will be able to report on the difference when I receive it.

When I am running a race, which is typically a hot, sweaty experience, I wear my cotton "comfy kilt" from Sport Kilt. It is very comfortable and cool, but certainly has much less swish than my wool kilt. The pleats also tend to get a little sloppy. However, when I am running, swish and perfectly-creased pleats are not as important as staying cool and the Comfy Kilt certainly looks neat enough for athletic/casual events. I would not be wearing it to a Burns Supper, though.

My impression wasn't that the OP was looking to justify his budget Pakistani kilts as being equivalent to a fancier model. I thought he was looking for real reasons that 8-yards has become such a standard, wondering what it was that made higher-priced kilts worth the cost. And based on the comments here, we can see that swish is better on the fancier kilts. We also know that the higher-end kilts are constructed in a much more complex and sturdy manner, with canvas reinforcement in the waistband and other features to enhance durability and performance.

However, it does seem like there is still a bit of mystery about how "8 yards" (which often measures out differently) has come to be the "gold standard" measurement. I wonder if some of OC Richard's old catalogs can shed light on when kiltmakers began promoting the 8-yard model over other designs. As Figheadair notes, the box-pleat 4-5 yard style was the standard in the pre-1900 period. So I am guessing the change may be part of the "codifying" of Highland dress that took place in the Edwardian and World War 1 era, creating the day wear and evening wear categories we still use today.

Andrew

[Terry Searl]

The bit below is only part of the new thread posted, but to me, it is the heart of a post that was made and the part I agree with. It appeared that some here should have paid more attention to what the post actually said BEFORE they put their own spin on it


"My impression wasn't that the OP was looking to justify his budget Pakistani kilts as being equivalent to a fancier model. I thought he was looking for real reasons that 8-yards has become such a standard, wondering what it was that made higher-priced kilts worth the cost. And based on the comments here, we can see that swish is better on the fancier kilts. We also know that the higher-end kilts are constructed in a much more complex and sturdy manner, with canvas reinforcement in the waistband and other features to enhance durability and performance.

However, it does seem like there is still a bit of mystery about how "8 yards" (which often measures out differently) has come to be the "gold standard" measurement. I wonder if some of OC Richard's old catalogs can shed light on when kiltmakers began promoting the 8-yard model over other designs. As Figheadair notes, the box-pleat 4-5 yard style was the standard in the pre-1900 period. So I am guessing the change may be part of the "codifying" of Highland dress that took place in the Edwardian and World War 1 era, creating the day wear and evening wear categories we still use today.

Andrew / QUOTE]

Some times people stop "listening" or "reading" and are just too quick at formulating an answer to what they perceived was the statement they are responding to......this is not the first time I have noticed this here