formal and casual kilt

[Buchanan20]

What's the difference between a casual and a formal kilt?

[Steve Ashton]

Perhaps this article will help you answer this question.

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=43530

The difference is in the construction.

If the Kilt has the full stabilizer and interfacing details built into it behind the liner then it would be considered a Traditional kilt. Or what we around here call a Tank. And what you call a formal kilt.

If the kilt is made without the stabilizer and interfacing, it is usually referred to as a casual.

Casual kilts may be made from Tartan in wool or synthetic. The fabric is usually Tartan but not always. They may or may not have the same amount of fabric as in a Traditional kilt. They may be machine or hand sewn. They may look similar at first glance or may look different.

So the real difference is all in how it is made.

[1oldsarge]

From my experience, weight of the kilt and around $300........
Welcome to the rabble!

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I'll give a slightly different answer. You will, indeed, find something called a "casual kilt" offered by many Highland dress retailers. This is, relatively speaking, a fairly modern innovation. I would say within the last 15-20 years. What this will generally mean is that these kilts will contain less yardage (generally around 4 or 5) and be machine stitched. And, as Steve pointed out, will lack a lot of the internal construction of a more traditional kilt.

While these lighter weight, and less expensive kilts are indeed great for casual wear, my only problem with calling them that is that it tends to suggest to people that the "other" style of kilt (8 yards, hand stitched) is a "formal kilt" and therefore incorrect to wear casually. This would be wrong.

In my opinion, if one acquires a good kilt -- by which I mean one made from good, quality material and well constructed, epitomized by the hand stitched, heavy weight worsted wool kilts we tend to call "tanks" here on X Marks -- then it can be worn with equal ease for casual and formal occasions. What makes the outfit casual or formal is the way the kilt is accessorized. The kilt itself is all-purpose.

That is pretty amazing, in my opinion. What other garment could we wear going on a hike one day, and then to have tea with the Queen on the next? The same kilt I got married in, I have worn to many a highland games. My wife certainly cannot say that about her wedding dress!

I own several kilts. All are made from 16 oz worsted wool. All are hand stitched and made to my measurements. They contain anywhere from 4 to 8 yards of cloth. I own both box pleated and knife pleated kilts. And every one of them can be worn casually or formally.

[jhockin]

I'd like to add that, in my mind/"IMHO", some ( and only some) "causal" kilts are also made to be worn not at the "natural" ( on top of the hips) waist, but at the "jeans waist" (i.e.: below the "love handles") ,( although, I do often see folks wearing what appear to be "traditional" kilts at the "jeans waist") - my point being that some "casual" kilts are designed to be worn lower.

[OC Richard]

To sort of echo what Matt said above, when I started wearing kilts in the mid-1970s there was only one kind of kilt: a traditional handsewn 8-yard wool kilt.

This was the garment that had achieved its "final" form towards the end of the 19th century, and had evolved through an unbroken evolutionary process since its introduction in the 18th century.

It was the only kilt there was, and there was nothing especially "formal" about it. The same kilt would be worn for everyday use, and for the most formal of occasions.

I'm "old school" or a traditionalist in this and all my kilts are traditional wool handsewn kilts. I have no interest in casual/utility/sport kilts. Whether I'm dressing up for a Scottish concert or attending a Scottish rugby match it's the same kilt.

[Spartan Tartan]

All very good (and knowledgeable ) responses. From a non-kiltmaker's perspective, to me it is about the rise. A casual is, as previously mentioned, is usually worn lower. This really makes a visual point if dressed formally. The rise on a traditional kikt or one worn at the natural waist will prevent your shirt from showing below the bottom of a waistcoat. I assume that by "formal" kilt you mean worn in a formal setting...i.e. with a waistcoat of some sort. So all construction, material and other stuff aside, it looks bad or poorly put together if there is a gap between ones waistcoat and kilt.

[ThistleDown]

I mostly agree with Matt and Richard. I have worn a kilt since the mid-forties and until within the last decade or so, didn't know the word "casual" as related to kilts. I wore a kilt at school and at the weekend, for dinner or supper with my family and at weddings and other serious events. I did not wear it to golf, or tennis, or rugby, but I did wear it on long, long treks and many cold nights out there. And in the early days I wore it shooting and milking and mucking out the barn, too.

Same kilt, often sponged, daily brushed. New ones replaced old as I got older. A few were added because I liked the tartans (Isle of Skye is one, Lochaber another, my dad's Seaforth) and needed a break from family-only.

Still nothing that I would call casual. Until I read about UKs and thought about the tattered&torn wool Mackintosh I wore in the garden. I don't think of the UK workman (?) I have as casual, but it has seen some tough going and is still around.

That led me to Freedom Kilts and I have two of them now. Those are what I think of and use as "casual". They are tough, practical, well-made traditionals in non-traditional fabrics. I wear then in North America (not in Scotland) in the heat of a Summer day, in relaxed Fall and Spring afternoons and before the fire in a Winter evening.

[Jock Scot]

Until I joined this website I had no idea that there was any other kilt than the traditional 8 yard knife pleated family tartan kilt for civilian wear. That is not a "Snob" statement in any way, it is just the way it was and is still mainly the way it is in the Scottish Highlands. "Casual" just meant if we were lucky enough to have the choice---although I think we just thought of it as common sense-----that we donned the old beaten up, much repaired kilt for those rather less than public and informal events. We would however, be quite happy to pop into town to post some letters, buy more cartridges etc. and no one who saw would bat an eye.

I can see the sense of the cheaper options for kilt wearers these days though for the more informal events that occur and around the home, but as I have no experience of them it would be unfair for me to make much comment about them, other than, I would worry that the cut, style, materials, weight and general feel of these modern "casual" kilts would not pass muster as far as I am concerned. I really don't know and I don't suppose at my age I will ever know, but it has to be said that an awful lot of people outwith Scotland seem to like them and even in Scotland there are
those that seem happy with them. What I do question though, is the trend of "casual" kilts being worn at inappropriate times---just the same, for example, as me wearing my old beaten up, much repaired traditional kilt to a wedding----------it does no do the event, yourself, or, your hosts justice.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

My kilt making teacher, Bob Martin, had a kilt making career of over 30 years, and during most of that time he wore the kilt on a daily basis. As a full-time kilt wearer who could also make his own kilts, you can imagine he had quite a variety over the years. But during the time he was teaching me, he always wore the hodden grey kilt of the London Scottish. He told me that he had gotten rid of all his kilts but two -- both of them were the same hodden grey London Scottish kilts. One he wore most all the time, for general wear. The second he reserved for dress occasions. That way he always had one clean and in good condition for when he needed it.

Two identical kilts -- one "casual" and one "formal" simply by their decreed usage.