Fringe or no fringe

[Skiballa]

It needs the fringe in my opinion as well, strange that the ragged edge contributes to the finished look of a kilt, but there it is.

[Domehead]

I'd ask what style will you construct first? If box-pleated, I'd say no fringe. The MacDuff c.1800 from the Museum had no fringe. I'd like to see the Gordon Highlander c.1796, but I can't imagine it did either. If you are doing something more "contemporary" (relative, of course) then have at it.

[piperdbh]

I'd say go ahead and add the fringe, and if you don't like it, you can rip out the stitches and take it off.

[Tobus]

I agree with those who say a kilt looks 'right' with the fringe. Plus, I would think it would be easier to hide errors that way. If you just have a plain edge, you'd need to get a really straight line, whereas with the fringe it can be a little wavy. All you have to do is trim the fringe straight to hide it. But I'm not a kiltmaker, so that's pure conjecture on my part.

[sydnie7]

I agree with those who say a kilt looks 'right' with the fringe. Plus, I would think it would be easier to hide errors that way. If you just have a plain edge, you'd need to get a really straight line, whereas with the fringe it can be a little wavy. All you have to do is trim the fringe straight to hide it. But I'm not a kiltmaker, so that's pure conjecture on my part.

Well, not really. . . it goes on the shaped edge of front apron. But it's not hard to do and I agree with all above who say it just adds that certain touch!

[Grizzly]

Count me in for the fringe vote. We are so used to seeing it, it might look a bit odd without it.

[Domehead]

Just curious, and in know way judgemental...are you all saying all your kilts contain fringed edges?

[Dani Mac]

I'd ask what style will you construct first? If box-pleated, I'd say no fringe. The MacDuff c.1800 from the Museum had no fringe. I'd like to see the Gordon Highlander c.1796, but I can't imagine it did either. If you are doing something more "contemporary" (relative, of course) then have at it.

They will be traditional with knife pleats.
Okay, the rabble has spoken. I will be doing fringe. Thanks everyone. I appreciate your experience and expertise.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I'd ask what style will you construct first? If box-pleated, I'd say no fringe. The MacDuff c.1800 from the Museum had no fringe. I'd like to see the Gordon Highlander c.1796, but I can't imagine it did either. If you are doing something more "contemporary" (relative, of course) then have at it.

The Gordon kilt being referred to is the oldest known surviving tailored kilt for which we have a date for. The aprons on that kilt were self-fringed. That is, there was no tailoring or shaping to the apron edge, it was just cut straight and fringed. So yes, it was fringed, but not in the same way modern kilts are fringed.

The MacDuff kilt you mention which is a civilian kilt from the same era also has no shaping to the outer apron edge -- it's just straight -- but in this case the edge was finished with a hem, and there is no fringe.

The oldest kilts I have seen that have any kind of shaping to the apron edge have no fringe. I try to base the stylistic features of my kilts as much as possible on early tailored kilts, so that's why most of the kilts I make have no fringe. However, I'm glad to make kilts with a fringe upon request.

Looking back through Bob Martin's All About Your Kilt, which has a catalog of many of the older kilts from museums and other collections that we know about, he doesn't really mention whether any of them have a fringe or not, with one or two exception -- for example, both the Gordon kilt previously mentioned as well as a Forbes kilt c. mid-19th century he mentions are self-fringed. In a few of the kilts he has photographed, one can easily see the apron is finished with no fringe, though in most of the photos the apron edge is not visible. In the photos where one can clearly see the outer apron, most have no fringe -- examples would include a MacLean of Duart kilt c. 1820, and a Fraser kilt, post 1829.

The Munro tartan kilt on display in the Scottish Tartans Museum, from the early 19th century, has no fringe.

The oldest kilt I am personally aware of in which the apron fringe was added as a separate peice, the way most modern kilt fringes are done (as opposed to simply being an extension of the cloth in the apron) is from the 79th NY Cameron regiment, c. 1860. Bob Martin has photos of one of these kilts, which were made by NY City dress makers, and you can see the pattern of the tartan in the fringe does not match the pattern of the tartan on the apron, which would only be the case if the kilt makers were sewing in a separate piece of tartan for the fringe and were not careful in matching the pattern.

Doing a quick scan through all the MacLeay portraits c. 1865, I note that the outer apron edge is clearly visible in many of these portraits, and there seems to be no preference for fringe or no fringe. I didn't do a formal count, but it seems that there is just as many of one as the other. Though I do note that on the kilts which do sport a fringe, it is a rather simple affair -- just a single fringe, not overly long, which is exactly the way I make my apron fringes when asked to do so. None of this double or triple fringe affair which is the norm on most modern kilts today.

As for my personal preference, I would say I have a slight bias towards no fringe, though I do own and wear kilts of both varieties. When I am making a kilt for myself, whether I add a fringe or not really just comes down to what mood I am in and a personal judgment of what I think would look good on that particular kilt. I will say that none of the four yard box pleated kilts I have made for myself have had a fringe. When making kilts for myself with higher yardages, whether box pleated or knife pleated, I've included a fringe maybe half the time.