Why is a kilt today 8 yards

**PrestonFM** · 25th January 12, 05:58 PM

I've been trying to figure out why a kilt is 8 yards. From what I can tell, soldiers in the 1800's had kilts that were 3.5 to 4 yards. Somewhere from then to now we've turned it into 8 yards.

I can't help but wonder if it's some plot by the mills. Seriously though, the only idea I can come up with is pleating to the set required a longer length because of the numerous deep pleats.

**xman** · 25th January 12, 06:35 PM

Yardage was added throughout the nineteenth century and standardised, likely because it looked better on parade. You hypothesis about pleating to sett is wrong because that happened later.

**sydnie7** · 25th January 12, 06:46 PM

You'd do well to read Matt Newsome's series of articles, here, on "Evolution of the Kilt." Saves time and guesswork.

**pugcasso** · 25th January 12, 07:06 PM

Mine's 8 yards (not wool thought) and I recently tried on a 5 yard modern kilt (with pockets) and felt disappointed in the lack of weight especially in the back and it lacked that swingy feel in the back ... guess I prefer the 8 yard kilt to be honest.

So maybe it's mostly for feel and swoosh-ness

**Ryan Ross** · 26th January 12, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by pugcasso

Mine's 8 yards (not wool thought) and I recently tried on a 5 yard modern kilt (with pockets) and felt disappointed in the lack of weight especially in the back and it lacked that swingy feel in the back ... guess I prefer the 8 yard kilt to be honest.

So maybe it's mostly for feel and swoosh-ness

Don't be shocked, my friend, if after you've spent more time in a kilt, you start to get other ideas. It's been known to happen.

**M. A. C. Newsome** · 25th January 12, 07:09 PM

I also have a pretty good summary here, that does specifically talk a bit about the yardage issue:
http://www.newhousehighland.com/history.html

Preston, you are correct that in the early 1800s, most kilts (civilian and military) were made with a nominal 4 yards of cloth. Over the course of the nineteenth century that gradually increased. It was not a jump from 4 to 8, but rather a gradual change in fashion that increased the yardage used over a period of several decades.

Even when you get to the year 1900 you still see regimental kilts made with 6 yards of cloth. Even today, I, personally, don't use any more than 6 yards in any kilt (unless required for a larger man).

Pleating to sett or stripe really has minimal impact on the amount of cloth used, so that is not the issue. Nor is it some conspiracy by the woolen mills to sell more cloth. :-)

In the early 1800s when the kilt was made with an average of 4 yards of cloth, the kilt was being worn more often as a daily garment by the Highland male. A 4 yard kilt is more economical and more comfortable. Fast forward 100 years and the kilt is being worn mostly for ceremonial wear. This tends to cause a garment to become more stylized and exaggerated, and this is what we see happening to the kilt, today made from 8 yards of cloth.

A well made 8 yard kilt is a thing of beauty, to be sure. But certainly not all kilts are required to be made from 8 yards. All kilts I make contain between 4 and 6 yards, no more, and I find them much more convenient for regular wear.

**cryerelizabeth** · 25th January 12, 08:07 PM

The kilt I made for myself is 8 yards of a kind of PV material. It definately has that "swoosh" that I don't think a 4 or 5 harder would have. I also think it looks better

. But I guess it depends on what someone wants in a kilt

**Blackwolf** · 26th January 12, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by M. A. C. Newsome

I also have a pretty good summary here, that does specifically talk a bit about the yardage issue:
http://www.newhousehighland.com/history.html

Preston, you are correct that in the early 1800s, most kilts (civilian and military) were made with a nominal 4 yards of cloth. Over the course of the nineteenth century that gradually increased. It was not a jump from 4 to 8, but rather a gradual change in fashion that increased the yardage used over a period of several decades.

Even when you get to the year 1900 you still see regimental kilts made with 6 yards of cloth. Even today, I, personally, don't use any more than 6 yards in any kilt (unless required for a larger man).

Pleating to sett or stripe really has minimal impact on the amount of cloth used, so that is not the issue. Nor is it some conspiracy by the woolen mills to sell more cloth. :-)

In the early 1800s when the kilt was made with an average of 4 yards of cloth, the kilt was being worn more often as a daily garment by the Highland male. A 4 yard kilt is more economical and more comfortable. Fast forward 100 years and the kilt is being worn mostly for ceremonial wear. This tends to cause a garment to become more stylized and exaggerated, and this is what we see happening to the kilt, today made from 8 yards of cloth.

A well made 8 yard kilt is a thing of beauty, to be sure. But certainly not all kilts are required to be made from 8 yards. All kilts I make contain between 4 and 6 yards, no more, and I find them much more convenient for regular wear.

So I'm thinking that the gradual change in fashion that resulted in the increased yardage might not have been immediatly noticeable (until you looked back at it over a period). So have any of you kiltmakers had any customers asking for an increase in yardage in their kilts? Or have we reached the limit of what is practical for yardage in a kilt?

**timothyjmcneeley** · 3rd February 12, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by M. A. C. Newsome

Even when you get to the year 1900 you still see regimental kilts made with 6 yards of cloth. Even today, I, personally, don't use any more than 6 yards in any kilt (unless required for a larger man).

That is EXACTLY why! Over time man has gotten bigger and bigger. Back in the 1600's and 1700's obesity was reserved for the rich and wealthy. But, now obesity is as common as the common cold. So man needs more and more cloth to cover oneself.

**warrior** · 3rd February 12, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by timothyjmcneeley

That is EXACTLY why! Over time man has gotten bigger and bigger. Back in the 1600's and 1700's obesity was reserved for the rich and wealthy. But, now obesity is as common as the common cold. So man needs more and more cloth to cover oneself.

There may be something to that. I do not know of any reference material that compares the size of Scotsmen from differing eras. But if my own line can be used as an example it is true. My g grandfather was one of three males and none made it past five foot four. By all accounts my line of McLeods were noted for their small size both in height and girth. Up to that generation, the fourth born on this aide of the pond, they remained "pure" highland scot having only intermarried into other highland scot families. None of these "cousins" were noted for size. It was the next generation with with english and french blood that the giants showed up. My grandfather and his sons fell in the five ten to six foot range. Again an english/french outcross created myself and brothers at six two, six one and six foot. Sad to say an accompanying increase in girth occurred as well.