Just to twist the tiger's tail....

[Jock Scot]

Yes I absolutely agree. Knowing a proper kilt from another is a personal judgement and is almost entirely down to the eye of the beholder and experience. Construction details actually are almost irrelevant, although the end result will have an influence on one’s perception.

[OC Richard]

I don't think defining a "kilt" is a complicated thing.

It only meant one thing from the demise of the great kilt around 1800, until hyphenated/periphrastic quasi-kilts began appearing, what, in the 1980s?

I think if a word means one thing for 180 years, it's not rocket science to know what that word means.

[Steve Ashton]

OK, take a shot at it.

[Jock Scot]

I don't think defining a "kilt" is a complicated thing.

It only meant one thing from the demise of the great kilt around 1800, until hyphenated/periphrastic quasi-kilts began appearing, what, in the 1980s?

I think if a word means one thing for 180 years, it's not rocket science to know what that word means.

Alright Steve, I will have a go at coming up with a definition of a proper kilt and using OCR's observation above as a starting point.

So if we assume that we a viewing the kilt from ten yards. That way we-----well most of us, apart from a kilt maker perhaps?----- cannot see much about the garments construction apart from, perhaps the pleats.

So general kilt construction is not an issue, we can't see the construction details like hand/machine sewn and we can't see if waist band has a stiffener. If the kilt is made from say 13 oz/16 oz, or heavier, so we really cannot tell and the cloth could be of even of heavier weight. However lighter cloths do have a tendency to hang differently and that can be seen from ten yards.

So, is the cloth tartan? Is the tartan made of wool? Well at ten yards' I think the tartan can be seen, but we would all, I think, have difficulty in identifying wool tartan from other tartan cloths.

Then we have tweed in assorted tartans and "country style" patterns made into kilts too.

Then we have linen, and hemp and perhaps other natural fibres to consider.

Then we have non tartan synthetic cloths and leather too.

All the above can and are made into kilts, of that there is no doubt.

Then we have the "cut" and style of the kilt at 10 yards to consider. As I have only ever seen this modern style of kilt in the wild four times so I have to rely on pictures to form an opinion on. But in a way, my ten yard view levels the field pretty well. Most of the kilts of this style are not tartan, and range from Cammo, to multi coloured Hi Viz. But.... BUT, they are cut differently and obviously so. The pleats, the height that they are worn at the waist, the height they are worn above and sometimes below the knee are very different. Straps, studs, buckles, D rings and so on, are also noticeable from ten yards.

ALL OF THE ABOVE are kilts of that there is no question. Actually, I wish there was a technical name for these newcomers to the scene as it would make life easier all round, but there isn't. AND THEN, we have proper(my term) kilts. In fact, if we use my ten yard view point to identify one from another, it is easy.

And before I am taken to task by Steve and others, please note that I am not saying one style, one cloth, one pattern, is better than another and I am not saying that one construction detail, for example , hand stitching or machine stitching is better than another and I am not saying that those wearing any type of kilt are of better or lesser standing than anyone else. At ten yards we won't know anyway!

So yes, I really do think that there are kilts and then there are proper(my term) kilts and by using the ten yard viewing position, to my eye at least, there are obvious differences.

So assuming (fingers crossed) the above makes sense and for coming up with a concise, catchy one line definition, then perhaps, I should leave that to, Steve and the Rabble?

[Jock Scot]

Thinking on what I have written above, (alright its true, I have little to think about at the moment!) I wonder if we substituted my word "proper" and replaced it with Steve's occasionaly suggested word "iconic" for the description of kilts of OCR's last 180 years of pedigree? Would that fit the bill? That would still leave traditional kilts and the modern Utility type kilts resting happily in their respective pigeon holes.

[Scotlad45]

Ladies and gents, this is the kind of discussion I was hoping to spark. I assume it has been discussed at length in the past, but is perhaps worth re visiting from time to time.
I find it interesting that there seem to be some adherents to "proper" or "traditional"- yet without any clearly defined standards....

If a kilt is a skirt like mens garment, with an apron in the front and pleated in the rear- as a basic definition, does it cease to be a kilt if it is mid thigh or mid calf in length?

The concensus seems to be that material is not particularly relevant. However, different materials "carry" differently- does that matter?

One of the things that triggered my question came from my quest for a new, lighter weight, athletic use kilt- but something better than my admittedly low end synthetic kilts. One of the things I've noticed about these low cost offerings is the (to me) very wide pleats . While my good, 8 yard, wool, "traditional" kilts have pleats in the 3/4" to 1" range, that are visually vertical, my inexpensive synthetics, and to a bit lessor degree my canvas utilities, have very wide- ~3.5"- pleats, that present almost an elongated triangle appearance; significantly narrower at the waist than the hem....

[Jock Scot]

Scotland45.

I think that you will find the Traditional Kilt Wear section well worth a read. Particularly the first thread in I think, 2015

[Tobus]

If a kilt is a skirt like mens garment, with an apron in the front and pleated in the rear- as a basic definition, does it cease to be a kilt if it is mid thigh or mid calf in length?

The concensus seems to be that material is not particularly relevant. However, different materials "carry" differently- does that matter?

On your first question, I would say that yes, it ceases to be a kilt if it's too short or too long. How much is too much? That's debatable just like everything else. A traditional kilt should be worn at the top of the knee, down to mid-knee at most. A little leeway beyond that is understandable, so I'd say anywhere from an inch above the top of knee to the bottom of the knee. Shorter or longer than that, and it just looks odd. But of course, there are historical depictions of kilts being worn much shorter than that and a bit longer as well. So nothing is set in stone.

On your second question regarding materials carrying differently - I'd say yes, it matters. A kilt made out of lightweight silk, for example, would be a different animal altogether, and I would not imagine it looking much like a kilt in the way it lays, swishes, etc. Historically, whichever non-tartan cloth was used for kilts (tweed, etc.), it was at least still somewhat similar to traditional tartan. The twill weave is important IMHO: a canvas/duck-cloth kilt simply does not move like wool tartan. Even denim, being a twill weave, doesn't behave like wool tartan.

[Katia]

On your first question, I would say that yes, it ceases to be a kilt if it's too short or too long. How much is too much? That's debatable just like everything else. A traditional kilt should be worn at the top of the knee, down to mid-knee at most. A little leeway beyond that is understandable, so I'd say anywhere from an inch above the top of knee to the bottom of the knee. Shorter or longer than that, and it just looks odd. But of course, there are historical depictions of kilts being worn much shorter than that and a bit longer as well. So nothing is set in stone.

If we had to always consider an ill-fitting item of clothing to be not that item of clothing because of the fact that it's ill-fitting, there wouldn't be much "genuine" attire out there! I mean, if you took that same garment that is too long on Person A and hence not a kilt, and put it on Person B, who is taller and who it would fit correctly, would it turn into a kilt again? If we took Person B's perfectly-fitting kilt, and lent it to Person C, who is even taller yet and so it would be too short on them, does that turn into not-a-kilt?

I might say someone is committing the crime of not wearing the garment correctly, but that doesn't mean it's not actually the garment. I could wear my kilt on my head and it would still be a kilt... You would say, "why does that idiot have a kilt on her head?" not "Oh what an interesting hat."

[Tobus]

If we had to always consider an ill-fitting item of clothing to be not that item of clothing because of the fact that it's ill-fitting, there wouldn't be much "genuine" attire out there! I mean, if you took that same garment that is too long on Person A and hence not a kilt, and put it on Person B, who is taller and who it would fit correctly, would it turn into a kilt again? If we took Person B's perfectly-fitting kilt, and lent it to Person C, who is even taller yet and so it would be too short on them, does that turn into not-a-kilt?

I might say someone is committing the crime of not wearing the garment correctly, but that doesn't mean it's not actually the garment. I could wear my kilt on my head and it would still be a kilt... You would say, "why does that idiot have a kilt on her head?" not "Oh what an interesting hat."

That's a valid point, and I suppose there is a stage where we have to separate the garment's construction (as inspected by itself on a table, shall we say) from the garment's use.

Take a plain old length of tartan straight from the weaver. Is it a blanket? Is it a day plaid? Is it a great kilt? It could be one of these, or it could be all three. It all depends on what one does with it. Which is to say, yes, an item's definition very much depends on how it is worn.

But specific to the kilt, I hope that we would all agree an ankle-length pleated skirt which matches all the other criteria of a kilt except for its ridiculous length is not a kilt. Or would you say that it IS a kilt, just for a person who is 10 feet tall?

Ill-fitting is one thing. Intent to be worn outside the parameters of what is recognisable as a kilt is something else.