Scottish Kilts

[Robbie]

Those interested in the Scottish kilt may find the following comments of help/interest (or may think it a load of rubbish) and is based on my own experiences/learning/observations. I cannot comment on utilikilts, amerikilts etc as I have little or no knowledge/experience of these.

Ignoring the great kilt, which I have only ever seen worn at historical re-enactments etc and which is frankly not a particularly suitable garment for modern day living, there are basically 3 types of Scottish kilt.

The first is the original traditional kilt, beloved by kilt makers the world over. This is the longest of the 3, hand-sewn from around 8 yards of at least 13/14oz wool and has a high waist reaching up to just under the ribcage. When worn formally it is usually matched with the Prince Charlie jacket and vest, which covers the top of the kilt (no belt is worn here), and the bottom edge is on or just above (but definitely never ever below) the centre of the kneecap. Army kilts are always this type.

The second is the "modern" (ie over the past 20 years or so) version of the traditional kilt. Hand-sewn from 6-9 yards of wool (dependent on hip size), this is currently the most popular. The wool weight is usually 13/14oz but 16oz is widely available to order. Designed to sit at normal trouser level (ie covers the navel) and when worn formally is popularly paired with the Argyle jacket and worn with a belt. The bottom edge will be somewhere between top and mid kneecap. This type lends itself much more readily to be worn semi-dress/informally than the original.

The third is the casual kilt. Machine-sewn from 4-6 yards of wool which can range from 11/12oz up to 16oz. Also designed to sit at normal trouser level and is generally worn slightly shorter than the previous 2, ie just touching the top of the knee or up to an inch above. Most popular use is for hiking/camping/outdoor pursuits or just general casual wear.

The first 2 are obviously the most expensive, but it has to be remembered that top quality materials are used and the labour costs are high - it takes around 21 hours for a skilled kilt maker to make one of these, but with a reasonable amount of care and attention it will outlast the owner. Whereas a casual kilt is made in a day and has a life expectancy similar to trousers ie 2-5 years dependent on usage. Interestingly (or maybe not), here in Scotland only the first 2 are referred to simply as "kilts" - the third is always qualified in some way eg casual kilt, hiking kilt, sports kilt, drinking kilt etc.

If you've managed to get to the end of this I hope there was something (anything!) of interest, and I should give advance warning that I may give in to temptation and submit further Scottish viewpoints on the rest of the kilt outfit ie hats/jackets/sporrans/socks/shoes, even (shock horror) what is (or isn't) worn underneath.

[elijah]

There is a huge difference between a casual kilt and a regular one. As the husband of a casual kilt maker, I'll concede the truth of it.

It's not to say the 8 yard wool is the only kilt to own, but it is in a class by itself in terms of it's strength and weight that most casual can't compare to.

I think that now finding myself in the kilt biz, that there's far too much bashing of the 8 yard kilt to make the point that casual kilts are less scratchier, etc.

I take a different tact. The tartan wool kilt isn't appropriate for every occassion. The casual kilt as Robbie's indicated is worn for a variety of reasons. This, I believe is the main selling point and reasons for casual kilts.

As a proud Scottish American, I never want to see the end of the 8-yarder.

[Blu (Ontario)]

Robbie, this is a great post. It pretty much sums up the basics and should probably be made a sticky.

Blu

[Dakotan]

Robbie, I personally quite look forward to "further Scottish viewpoints on the rest of the kilt outfit ie hats/jackets/sporrans/socks/shoes, even (shock horror) what is (or isn't) worn underneath."
Although I harbor a bit of trepidation where "what is (or isn't) worn underneath" is concerned.

-Dakotan

[al' Sporrano]

Robbie, I personally quite look forward to "further Scottish viewpoints on the rest of the kilt outfit ie hats/jackets/sporrans/socks/shoes, even (shock horror) what is (or isn't) worn underneath."
Although I harbor a bit of trepidation where "what is (or isn't) worn underneath" is concerned.

-Dakotan

Hi Dakota,

Although not a Scot, I'm probably the nearest non-Scot to Scotland on this board, living just south of the border. If Emporer Hadrian had had his way I could very well have been born a Scot. As it happens I'm satisfied with being a Geordie.

There is a great myth about what to wear under the kilt. The military allegedly wear nothing - hence regimental. This traditon is carried on through normal 'civilian' kilt wearing. The Scots would have you believe they all go regimental. Truth is, has anyone tried to find out for sure. We only have their word for it and a Scotsman's word is worth ......

I prefer to be regimental, but started off with a black brief which was pretty discreet. I feel that formal occasions demand a bit of modesty. And I would say, unless you thrive on exhibitionism, break dancing demands a little something as well.

At New Year I went regimental. A very, very, large, burly Scotsman (unkilted - shame on him) came up to me and struck up a conversation about my kilt. He had no problems with the fact I was an Englishman, but 'pinched' the top of my kilt with his thumb and fore finger, and smiled. He then confirmed to everyone present (very loudly as it happens) that I was wearing my kilt like a true Scot. (This was very close to midnight so we had had a few by then).

I got some quip from another guy who asked, "What's with the skirt". Before I could answer my new found friend came to my rescue and verbally flattened him. I then bought 3 double malts and we toasted in the New Year together.

So, some respect is gained if you go without, but ultimately the choice is yours. If anyone asks, you don't have to tell them. That's part of the fun.

Al

[Donnie]

thanks Robbie;
Some of us still like to hear a Scotsman's view. I find everything related to wearing the kilt interesting. I'll just be glad to see the day that no one has a second glance or thought about one of us in a kilt!

[al' Sporrano]

thanks Robbie;
Some of us still like to hear a Scotsman's view. I find everything related to wearing the kilt interesting. I'll just be glad to see the day that no one has a second glance or thought about one of us in a kilt!

Oh, I dunno. Would you REALLY want the kilt to be common place? There is something about a kilt that sets it apart from everything else. That's how I like to see us. Kind of set apart from the mundane.

We're a bit of a special breed, we kilt wearers.

Oh oh. Time for my medication..............

Al'

[Graham]

Well I rather liked the idea that the English invented the "little kilt"(being English born myself), my Scottish colleague, Ross Cameron, dismisses the notion as a Sassenach conspiracy, but it's fun to tease him with it.

As a lover of history, it's interesting to know the origin of the kilt, but my primary concern in enjoying it here and now.

Thanks Robbie for your insights, tell me this tho', do Scots have a view on non-scots wearing the kilt?
Is there a general approval of it or do they feel that only scots should wear a kilt?

[bubba]

Kilts will never be commonplace. People in general are very conformist. Those of us that do break away from the herd will always get odd looks and comments.On the up side, the women do seem to love us nonconformist types

[Robbie]

Hi Graham -


Re your query about what we Scots think of non-Scots wearing kilts, I think the honest answer would be slightly puzzled admiration but secretly pleased. Pleased because, as the old saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so we take it as a compliment that others like our national attire so much that they want to wear it too.

Slightly puzzled because we can't fathom out where some of them got the idea from in the first place. Ok England/Wales/Ireland we can understand, and anyway there are Cornish kilts in England and Wales/Ireland have their own national versions. Canada, Australia, New Zealand we can also understand because there are historical migration links with Scotland but, for example, the American Mid-West?

Admiration because of the sheer amount of nerve it must take. As a Scot I can go anywhere in the kilt without any hassle (apart from the usual idiots found in any country) but for someone in, say, middle America without any Scottish connections to appear in a tartan kilt must take a massive amount of courage - these guys really are true bravehearts!

The only thing we object to is when the kilt is worn badly, ie too long/short. Yes, I know it's a garment, not a costume, but nevertheless we feel a sense of ownership. Like all garments you should wear the proper length for your height which for the kilt means showing a bit of knee. There are those who claim that they feel more comfortable with the kilt covering the knee (modest souls), but I'm sorry, I have to say you look a right prat and you're only getting away with it because those looking at you know even less about how a kilt should be worn! As for too short ie halfway up their thighs, let's just be pc and say I'm not going to sit beside them.