traditional vs. classic

[kiltedsawyer]

Comrade Kiltedsawyer: stop waiving your red flag, and turn off the recording of the Red Army Chorus singing "The International" for just a moment, or at least long enough to go back and re-read my post (that your have quoted out of context-- I knew there was a reason why I should have kept you on my "ignore list") as well as all of the other posts in this thread. If you do, you will find nothing in there about rationing kilts to your beloved "proletariat". It's all about people in a free-market economy choosing to buy cheap crap rather than quality goods, and how that has reduced consumer choice in the high street. Whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, this "buy cheap" mind-set has a negative effect on the marketplace. Cheap PCs made in China (at a cost of US$8.00 each and sold in shops for under US$110.00) crowd out better made and more expensive PCs-- along with other styles of jackets-- with the result that there is less choice for the consumer. There may be more of a single item (of highly suspect quality) but there will be far less choice. Limiting choice based on a lack of availability of goods may have appealed to Marx and Mao-- and that's probably one of the reasons that the "proletariat" dumped their philosophies into the trash can of history-- but it is a bad thing for consumers. Now, since this is supposed to be a forum about Traditional Highland Dress, rather than a discussion about free market economics, let me return this to something more on topic with this bit of advice for all you fellow travelers out there: It is considered bad form to wear a Che Guevara tee-shirt with a kilt.

You think me a communist. Gee,... that's funny. Highland attire is for some on this forum a way of life, for most a hobby, and for many, a luxury in the truest definition of the word. People buy what they can afford. It has oft been said; "buy the best you can afford, and wear it proudly." Lesser quality goods sold rightfully at a lesser price do not detract from the sales of higher quality merchandise. If one has only $20.00 to spend, the $400.00 sprorran would remain on the shelf regardless of the availibility of a sporran for $20.00. I resent your implication that garments non-bespoke and not from one of your three or four precious retailers are automatically "cheap crap." Judging from your girth, (talk about not caring about one's appearance,) you have been living "high on the hog" for some time. You may count yourself fortunate, but you may also count yourself in the minority. With all due respect sir; you are a snob. Sincerely, David

[Tobus]

If in the realm of traditional/classic Highland apparel there is a continuum ranging from historical to modern, where is the conceptual division?

I've been reading this thread hoping to find the answer to that very question myself, and I'm glad you posed it in such a concise way.

For those of us who are new to wearing the kilt, it's an important distinction. When trying to piece together our wardrobe, we are often drawn to certain styles but want to make sure we're "doing it right", for lack of a better term. I would like to present a traditional/classic style but not step over that line (wherever it may be) that makes it look like it's a historical costume.

One of the styles I admit being drawn to is the way Josh (of Skye Highland Outfitters) wears a horse hair sporran and diced hose for day wear. To me, that is classic, traditional, as well as being historic (though not so historic as to look like a reenactor's costume).

A belted plaid, though, would be a little too historic for anything but reenacting.

So surely there's a line somewhere. But defining it is tricky and everyone will put the line somewhere different.

I don't really want to get into the argument of price and such, but there's an important point to be made there as well. I don't think anybody chooses to wear "cheap crap" if they could afford high-quality bespoke items. People buy the best they can afford. If it's a choice between wearing cheap stuff or staying at home, people will wear the cheap stuff. Does this harm the industry? Perhaps. But I'd venture to say that the number of people out there in the general population who can afford to spend umpteen thousands of dollars on a nice outfit are pretty low. For the vast majority of people, there simply isn't a choice. You buy what you can afford, and you shouldn't be ashamed of it.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I don't really want to get into the argument of price and such, but there's an important point to be made there as well. I don't think anybody chooses to wear "cheap crap" if they could afford high-quality bespoke items. People buy the best they can afford.

I tend to agree with you, although you might be flabbergasted to discover just how miserly some "rich people" really are, as well as how profligate some "poor folks" can be. I wasn't intending to disparage the purchase of affordable goods, rather to point out that the flood of cheap (in terms of quality as much as price) PCs in the market has done two things: Limited the choice of available styles and killed off what used to reasonably priced quality jackets. As a result, those who would find made-to-measure or bespoke jackets beyond their means are more or less forced to by what is, in my opinion, shoddy merchandise. I don't think anybody sets out to buy cheap crap, or is happy when they do. But if that's all that is available, well it becomes a case of buy it, or do without.

...I'd venture to say that the number of people out there in the general population who can afford to spend umpteen thousands of dollars on a nice outfit are pretty low.

Again, I'd agree with you, although I don't think one has to go out and spend "umpteen thousands of dollars" on a nice outfit. "Umpteen hundreds of dollars" is probably closer to the mark. That said, over time, especially given the durability of quality goods, it is possible to have a fair amount of money invested in Highland attire.

For the vast majority of people, there simply isn't a choice. You buy what you can afford, and you shouldn't be ashamed of it.

That is exactly my point, and I agree wholeheartedly that one should never be ashamed of trying their best to look their best. I'm just sorry that those trying to look their best don't have a wider range of better-made products to choose from.

[davidlpope]

If in the realm of traditional/classic Highland apparel there is a continuum ranging from historical to modern, where is the conceptual division?

Examples are welcome but I think I'm trying to elicit more of a guiding principle... as a young, North-American man, I lean towards what seems modern and away from what seems historical.

I'm not sure that I can define it, but I think I can recognize it when I see it (apologies to Justice Stewart).


Classic Traditional Highland Daywear:



Modern Traditional Highland Daywear:



Modern Traditional Highland Evening Wear on left/ Classic Traditional Highland Evening Wear on right




To summarize:

Classic traditional highland dress = what most chiefs wear.

daywear: plain tweed jackets/waistcoats, jacobite cantle/ animal maks sporran, lovat blue, bottle green, claret hose
evening wear: Montrose/regulation, etc. doublets, diced or Argyll hose, hair sporrans, buckle brogues



Modern traditional highland dress = what competing pipers wear/ what is readily available from retailers.

daywear: black Argyll with white metal buttons, white or black hose, black leather sporran, ghillie brogues
evening wear: Prince Charlie, white or black hose, common rectangular white metal buckle kilt belt, fuzzy rabbit fur sporran with common white metal cantle, ghillie brogues

Cordially,

David

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I have always used 1839 as the dividing line between historical and traditional civilian Highland attire. Why 1839? Because that is the year the French perfected the photographic process and from that date we have accurate images-- snapshots, if you will-- of what all classes of society wore. We can see, day by day, the progress or evolution of all modes of attire.

So, by looking at photographs we can tell what people wore. Not only that, we can tell when and where certain items of clothing were worn. We can also tell when those items of clothing ceased to evolve in style, or became discarded by the overwhelming majority of people.

Looking at Highland attire in the century 1839-1939 we see commonality in items of day wear and evening wear. In other words we see a tradition of men wearing tweed during the day and finer cloth-- velvet and barathea-- in the evening. In this same period we also see the style-- that is the actual cut of the garment-- refining itself. In the period of 1919-1939, we see styles becoming "static", in other words they have evolved into something that is perceived as both aesthetic and functional. Trim details may vary, but the basic pattern is now pretty much set. And because this pattern of clothing does not vary, it is considered a "classic" style.

So, how to define traditional? I think that's fairly easy if one accepts that "traditional" refers to when things are worn. Day wear and evening wear have evolved into two different kinds of attire. Traditionally one wears more "rugged" clothes during the day, and more "refined" clothes in the evening. It is the style of these traditional clothes (and those that wear them) that determines whether they are "classic" or "contemporary".

In twenty-nine years we will be able to look back on two centuries of "modern" Highland attire. We will then be able to see what, if any, "contemporary" changes have taken root since 1939, and become accepted as "classic" Highland attire.

[wildrover]

It is considered bad form to wear a Che Guevara tee-shirt.

Fixed it for you .

I'm not sure that I can define it, but I think I can recognize it when I see it (apologies to Justice Stewart).

Classic Traditional Highland Daywear:

Modern Traditional Highland Daywear:

To summarize:

...

Modern traditional highland dress = what competing pipers wear/ what is readily available from retailers.

For me, the photos reinforced what MoR has been saying. The first shows men in various clothing. The second shows some poor sap in business uniform, plus a kilt, and it just simply looks wrong to me...like a costume, or as if someone with poor taste tried to put together a band uniform. Yes, it's the color choices that make all the difference. The third is, like the first, some guys in various clothing.

I figure the problem is lack of supplier selection, in response to a lack of consumer education. It's been discussed here before, definitely.

both aesthetic and functional.

I firmly believe you've got it right there. IMHO, "functional" does not include clothing that does not fit right, and "aesthetic" does not include anything pointlessly overdone...like wearing a "Price" () Charlie to a Highland games, or having Saltires, thistles, and lions rampant on every kilt accessory. The first photo I didn't quote above clearly shows aesthetics and functionality. The second, in contrast, is a joke. The third is back to aesthetics and functionality.

Day wear and evening wear have evolved into two different kinds of attire. Traditionally one wears more "rugged" clothes during the day, and more "refined" clothes in the evening. It is the style of these traditional clothes (and those that wear them) that determines whether they are "classic" or "contemporary".

In twenty-nine years we will be able to look back on two centuries of "modern" Highland attire. We will then be able to see what, if any, "contemporary" changes have taken root since 1939, and become accepted as "classic" Highland attire.

I'll get started right away on making a snowboarding hoodie "classic" daywear with a kilt .

FWIW, someone mentioned men's clothing as being largely an exercise in blending with the masses. I disagree. Appropriate clothing fits with the setting. Good clothing manages to be appropriate, with features that set it apart from everything else. Great clothing does the above, and fits properly. Excellent clothing is all the above, flatters the wearer, and does it without being ostentatious.

I think denim, for men and women, is rife with examples...there are Wranglers and Levis, then there are department store designer labels and mall designer labels, and then there are the "white labels"...you've never heard of them, the brand logo is tiny or nonexistent, they received a lot more thought to style and cut, and like quality kilt-related clothing, they're also rarely available at every cheap import table at the highland games.

'Scuse all the pants talk .

I think aesthetic functionality is timeless, and when I have the resources, I'll trade my hoodie for something more akin to photo #1.

-Sean

[MacLowlife]

Of the three photos, I expect the middle one shows what most would consider Traditional and/ or Classic, with the exception of the white hose. Granted, it is slightly boring, but (IMHO) is traditional and classic. Coming from a tradition of the navy blazer being slightly more acceptable than the tweed jacket, I would call it typical and supremely appropriate, though some might argue tweed would be more so for highland wear.

In the top photo, we see one gentleman (with the purple hose) with a jacket that, while interesting, is really neither traditional nor classic for the kind of daywear that usually involves a necktie. It might be fine for shooting, even the kind of shooting that usually involves a necktie, but it is not a traditional day dress jacket. If one were to sport such a jacket and tie with trousers, people would call it a "leisure jacket" recalling the 1970s disco era... Standing in proximity to the Duke of Rothesay does not make this man's dress any more traditional.

And then there is the gent in the white PC. I think it is kind of nice- and I am grateful he didn't go for contrast by wearing a black shirt with it, in the Traditional Classic Gangster style, but I spy a too-long kilt, a ruche tie, a daywear waistcoat and a summer tropical jacket. Even by adding "modern" you can't quite stretch this to traditional, can you really?

I believe the other man is the Chief of Clan McPherson. Do you notice he is not wearing a vest at all? He seems to be wearing a formal (in the American sense) shirt, but he is not wearing studs, as would be traditional...

[macwilkin]

In the top photo, we see one gentleman (with the purple hose) with a jacket that, while interesting, is really neither traditional nor classic for the kind of daywear that usually involves a necktie. It might be fine for shooting, even the kind of shooting that usually involves a necktie, but it is not a traditional day dress jacket. If one were to sport such a jacket and tie with trousers, people would call it a "leisure jacket" recalling the 1970s disco era... Standing in proximity to the Duke of Rothesay does not make this man's dress any more traditional.

That would be Lord Semple, and if I remember correctly. It is not a '70s "leisure jacket", but more akin to a sack suit of the mid 19th century. There are a number of photos of the Balmoral Ghillies in the mid 19th century wearing something similiar. I can't find a copy at the moment, but the picture I am thinking of is featured on the back cover of Bob Martin's All About Your Kilt.

It's certainly not from the 1970s though.

T.

[davidlpope]

Of the three photos, I expect the middle one shows what most would consider Traditional and/ or Classic, with the exception of the white hose. Granted, it is slightly boring, but (IMHO) is traditional and classic. Coming from a tradition of the navy blazer being slightly more acceptable than the tweed jacket, I would call it typical and supremely appropriate, though some might argue tweed would be more so for highland wear.

I think you'll find that this particular look (white shirt, solid tie, black Argyll with chrome buttons, white hose) can only be dated back to when pipe bands started wearing this style and, accordingly, cheap foreign imports started flooding the market. A good natured challenge: who can produce a photo showing the earliest that this style was worn as day wear in Scotland? My bet is it's a competing piper in the late 80's, early 90's...IMHO definitely not classic, but de facto modern traditional day wear, because of its prevalence.

And then there is the gent in the white PC. I think it is kind of nice- and I am grateful he didn't go for contrast by wearing a black shirt with it, in the Traditional Classic Gangster style, but I spy a too-long kilt, a ruche tie, a daywear waistcoat and a summer tropical jacket. Even by adding "modern" you can't quite stretch this to traditional, can you really?

I'm certainly not advocating for this gentleman's "style" of dress either. Without sounding too rude, I can say that I find it very (personally) unappealing. I do contend that this particular outfit (with the exception of the white PC) is, in actual practice, what modern traditional dress looks like- a collection of the many ubiquitous accessories that flood the market.

I believe the other man is the Chief of Clan McPherson. Do you notice he is not wearing a vest at all? He seems to be wearing a formal (in the American sense) shirt, but he is not wearing studs, as would be traditional...

Yes, this is Cluny MacPherson. He is not wearing a vest with his regulation doublet, opting instead for a kilt belt. I've noticed a lack of studs with most Scottish evening wear. Not sure about that...

Cordially,

David

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

With reference only to the jacket: This is almost identical to the jacket worn by Loudon MacQueen Doulglas in the photograph opposite page 36 in book THE KILT, A Manual of Scottish National Dress, published in 1914.

If the jacket was made from tweed this would be 100% correct for day wear; made from a finer wool or barathea (as in the photo) it is still correct for day way and perfect for a guest at a wedding, although, perhaps, a trifle too formal for most other outings.

Although the number of button on the front may vary from one to three, the basic Argyll jacket still remains an all-time classic.