New Kilt

[CBH]

My new USAKilts 5 yd wool kilt arrived today, in American Dream tartan.

It is my first wool kilt, and the only one not made in Pakistan.

The differences are interesting and many.

First, it is much more snug than I expected. The waist is accurate to what I specified, but the Pakis apparently add another 1 1/2 to 2" to theirs.

Just learned that "p a k i" is apparently a bad word that gets censored out.

I also specified that I would wear it on my hips, like I would pants/jeans. I know it's heresy , but they accommodated. The pleats start 6" below the very top of the kilt, where the Pakis kilt starts 8". The Pakis measurements include a fell dimension, which I specified as 6". USAKilts do not accept a fell measurement, but I explained I expected it to be the minimum possible based on my wearing position.

Finally, I ordered with waist and hip the same size, thinking that the minimal fell would allow the pleats to allow for all the space/movement I needed. This may have been a mistake, as there is noticeable tightening when sitting down. I specified hip measurement 2" larger than the waist on the Pakis kilts and they exhibit no such tightness.

The amount of pleating also differs substantially. USAKilts 5 yd wool only has 14" of pleated area, which is barely over 1/3 of the total 36" waist length. The Pakis kilts, OTOH, was pleated 2/3, at 24" of the total. The Pakis shops did not indicate the amount of material used in their kilts.

Is the size of the pleated area the difference between 5, 7 and 8 yard kilts ? Is it expected to only get 1/3 of the total when using 5 yards of material ?

Even though the Pakis kilts start the pleats 2" below the USAKilt, apparently the additional pleated area is what prevents it from binding.

Any thoughts from more experienced kilt buyers would be appreciated.

[Jock Scot]

Well, if you like it, then, that is all that matters.

[Pleater]

Commenting just as an observer, I think that a man's kilt worn higher up than hip level is more flattering, even if it is still below the waist it gives a different outline and better proportions on the body.

The maker of your kilt seems to have done a fairly good job with the measurements and instructions given. The width of pleating seems about correct for traditional kilts, though it is normal to find that kilts with more fabric have more pleats in the same or just a little more width. To have 24 inches of pleats in a 36 inch waist is, I suspect, because that is the standard they work to and just about every kilt will be made to that specification with the finer points of fitting left until further down the assembly line.

Some shorter length kilts have 'cheat pleats' which are made smaller but still keep the visible repeat correct in order to squeeze a few more pleats from the length.
Some methods of pleating are awkward on shorter lengths, or with particular set sizes - a maker can only do so much.
The tightness when sitting might be due to sturdier construction of the fell, though you might find that it softens a bit with wearing as it settles in, or if you get caught out in the rain.

Anne the Pleater

[Father Bill]

If you learned that it is a word that is unacceptable, then please stop using it, even in its plural form or any other form. It's a derogatory insult, so stop.

[Troglodyte]

My new USAKilts 5 yd wool kilt arrived today, in American Dream tartan.

It is my first wool kilt, and the only one not made in Pakistan.

The differences are interesting and many.

First, it is much more snug than I expected. The waist is accurate to what I specified, but the Pakis apparently add another 1 1/2 to 2" to theirs.

Just learned that "p a k i" is apparently a bad word that gets censored out.

I also specified that I would wear it on my hips, like I would pants/jeans. I know it's heresy , but they accommodated. The pleats start 6" below the very top of the kilt, where the Pakis kilt starts 8". The Pakis measurements include a fell dimension, which I specified as 6". USAKilts do not accept a fell measurement, but I explained I expected it to be the minimum possible based on my wearing position.

Finally, I ordered with waist and hip the same size, thinking that the minimal fell would allow the pleats to allow for all the space/movement I needed. This may have been a mistake, as there is noticeable tightening when sitting down. I specified hip measurement 2" larger than the waist on the Pakis kilts and they exhibit no such tightness.

The amount of pleating also differs substantially. USAKilts 5 yd wool only has 14" of pleated area, which is barely over 1/3 of the total 36" waist length. The Pakis kilts, OTOH, was pleated 2/3, at 24" of the total. The Pakis shops did not indicate the amount of material used in their kilts.

Is the size of the pleated area the difference between 5, 7 and 8 yard kilts ? Is it expected to only get 1/3 of the total when using 5 yards of material ?

Even though the Pakis kilts start the pleats 2" below the USAKilt, apparently the additional pleated area is what prevents it from binding.

Any thoughts from more experienced kilt buyers would be appreciated.

It is not a bad word.

But it sometimes gets used in a perjorative way that makes people feel uncomfortable, in just the same way as 'Brits' or 'Yanks'.

I know some Pakistanis who refer to themselves as 'Pakis' and think nothing of it, as the name of the country is formed from the initial letters of the regions that went into forming the country at the time of Partition. P - A - K - istan.

It is only as offensive as 'Brits' which is often used by Britons as a shorthand for themselves, or 'Yanks'. Offence can be taken when none is intended, and often by third parties not directly concerned.

[Father Bill]

It is not a bad word.

But it sometimes gets used in a perjorative way that makes people feel uncomfortable, in just the same way as 'Brits' or 'Yanks'.

I know some Pakistanis who refer to themselves as 'Pakis' and think nothing of it, as the name of the country is formed from the initial letters of the regions that went into forming the country at the time of Partition. P - A - K - istan.

It is only as offensive as 'Brits' which is often used by Britons as a shorthand for themselves, or 'Yanks'. Offence can be taken when none is intended, and often by third parties not directly concerned.

Can’t agree. I know the etymology and I know that some Pakistanis use it. Nonetheless, it is generally offensive in use by others, so let’s just stop.

Period.

[Jock Scot]

Can’t agree. I know the etymology and I know that some Pakistanis use it. Nonetheless, it is generally offensive in use by others, so let’s just stop.

Period.

Alright chaps, if I may? Can I point out that this is an international website and some phrases and words have different meanings to different people all around the world. Perfect the situation, it is not, but its the way it is. Lets not get too wound up about it as its only going make a poor situation worse.

[Father Bill]

This is not a personal quarrel, Jock. It is a violation of a position taken by the forum.

Rule #2
–-We believe in fostering polite discussion. Posts which provoke quarrels, escalate contention, or are hostile or insulting, are subject to removal.

The word is considered by many to be insulting and therefore unacceptable on XMarks and is not to be used here. End of discussion.

[Jock Scot]

This is not a personal quarrel, Jock.

With the greatest of respect I did not say it was, Bill. That thought had not even crossed my mind.

[CBH]

If you learned that it is a word that is unacceptable, then please stop using it, even in its plural form or any other form. It's a derogatory insult, so stop.

Sorry about that. Was unaware...........