"That's not a real kilt"

[Rob Wright]

Monkey!! I wasn't going to respond to this thread... but that is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time!



That sounds so hot!

Yes but were the appropriate heels worn?

Rob

[SteveB]

Jock Scot,
First - Welcome back to the forum.
Second - I would never call it snooty. It is you displaying your perception on the posts. And they are spot on. That is not being "snooty" at all.
Slainte

[BroosterB1]

Yes but were the appropriate heels worn?

Rob

Darn, knew I forgot something....lets see where are those 6" stilettos?

[heilanner]

i only read the first page then skipped to the end, so i don't know what the general consensus is relating to the guy's friend, but i think he has a point.

as far as i am concerned if it has pocket's it's not a kilt. if it is made from denim or leather or something, it is not a kilt.

i wouldn't go so far as to say that it isn't a kilt if it's not tartan, but certain members of my family would an in all honesty when i see 'kilts' in pinstripe material i never know whether i want to laugh or cry. nor would i say it's only a kilt if it's made in Scotland.

i think a good rule is this; if it's tartan or plain, has no pockets or zips, knife pleated at the back, fastens with buckles, is made from wool (and tweed) and sits high on the waist and ends at the knees, it's a kilt.

anything else is a skirt.

[Sylvain]

I'd say Utilikilts etc. qualify as kilts by virtue of having pleats at the back and overlapping front aprons.

The first Utilikilts didn't all had overlapping aprons. There were those with the «standard» closure, with a fly. Have a look:
http://web.archive.org/web/200104042...om/Catalog.htm

[Panache]

...as far as i am concerned if it has pocket's it's not a kilt.

The "traditional kilt" in Scotland has evolved quite a bit over the last few centuries. What was once a length of cloth roughly pleated and belted around one's self has undergone many changes.

Because of this I would have to respectfully disagree with you.

Would you like proof?

Well they do say that a picture is worth a thousand words....














The original thread reviewing this Freedom tartan model kilt kilt can be found here:

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/e...443/index.html

Cheers

Jamie :ootd:

[Nighthawk]

i only read the first page then skipped to the end, so i don't know what the general consensus is relating to the guy's friend, but i think he has a point.

as far as i am concerned if it has pocket's it's not a kilt. if it is made from denim or leather or something, it is not a kilt.

i wouldn't go so far as to say that it isn't a kilt if it's not tartan, but certain members of my family would an in all honesty when i see 'kilts' in pinstripe material i never know whether i want to laugh or cry. nor would i say it's only a kilt if it's made in Scotland.

i think a good rule is this; if it's tartan or plain, has no pockets or zips, knife pleated at the back, fastens with buckles, is made from wool (and tweed) and sits high on the waist and ends at the knees, it's a kilt.

anything else is a skirt.

What about the poly-cotton tartan material woven at Martin Mills? Should my son not be able to wear a kilt because he's alergic to wool? What about box pleats? (I agree with you totally on the zips thing...) Reality is this- clothing is like everything else. It undergoes evolution. What trousers looked like 100 years ago is very different from what they look like now. Does that mean that contemporary ones are not trousers? Of course not. What makes the kilt, sarong, or any other garment an exception to this? I'm not trying to be agrumentative- just maybe help you see a different perspective.

[Jock Scot]

i only read the first page then skipped to the end, so i don't know what the general consensus is relating to the guy's friend, but i think he has a point.

as far as i am concerned if it has pocket's it's not a kilt. if it is made from denim or leather or something, it is not a kilt.

i wouldn't go so far as to say that it isn't a kilt if it's not tartan, but certain members of my family would an in all honesty when i see 'kilts' in pinstripe material i never know whether i want to laugh or cry. nor would i say it's only a kilt if it's made in Scotland.

i think a good rule is this; if it's tartan or plain, has no pockets or zips, knife pleated at the back, fastens with buckles, is made from wool (and tweed) and sits high on the waist and ends at the knees, it's a kilt.

anything else is a skirt.

I think this post confirms my thoughts exactly. See my post no. 55 in this thread. Welcome Heilanner and thank you!

[M. A. C. Newsome]

i think a good rule is this; if it's tartan or plain, has no pockets or zips, knife pleated at the back, fastens with buckles, is made from wool (and tweed) and sits high on the waist and ends at the knees, it's a kilt.

anything else is a skirt.

Then I guess I've made an awfull lot of skirts over the past few years:
http://kilts.albanach.org

And, I suppose, there were an awfull lot of Highland men wearing "skirts" prior to about 1854 when the Gordon regiment became the first to switch from box pleats to knife pleats.
http://kilts.albanach.org/history.html

Here I am in one of my favorite "skirts." :-)


Sorry. I may sympathize with your point of view, but from an historical standpoint I'm afraid your definition is too narrow and would not include many kilts that were quite the norm before the latter half of the nineteenth century (and still being worn today by some of us).

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hi Jock and welcome back-- and "howdy" (as the Americans say) to heilanner-- I'm in lock step with you guys.

As far as Nighthawk's comments are concerned, well, I think they are a bit OTT-- I doubt anyone would object to a poly-cotton kilt cut along traditional lines any more than we'd cock a snoot at a silk kilt. But, and this is as big a BUT as the lady on the bus who sits next to you has, when you step away from the traditional kilt, it ceases to be a kilt. About the only variations proper kilts have are style of pleating, and number of straps-- 2 vs. 3. When you add snaps, cargo pockets, etc, and make it out of kevlar, naughyde, or some other "fabric" then it really is just a skirt. Comparing a kilt to a sarong?-- well that's just silly.

As far as the "slacks" issue is concerned, MEN wear trousers, and WOMEN wear slacks. Just ask Kate Hepburn. Have men's trousers changed in 100 years? Hardly at all. Are they made "skimpier" than before? Yes, especially when they are retailed in mass market outlets. Does it matter? No, because for most men trousers are a utilitarian work garment unlike the kilt which, by-and-large, is worn in more structured social settings.

(BTW-- a friend in Edinburgh told me about your accident; you are one tough "auld crabbit" to have pulled through. Glad you're back.)