Pleats tied to formality?

[piperdbh]

All tartan kilts, regardless of pleating style, are equally formal and equally casual. Some are better-made than others, but that's a different thread.

[artificer]

For me the formality of a kilt tends to be more about the number of pleats and it's construction- WITH the caveat that you can always wear a kilt LESS formally, but not always more so.

A kilt which has loads of very fine pleats will go ANYWHERE you want it to, a 'casual' kilt with 10-12 pleats across the back and a less traditional construction will take you most places, but might stand out
a bit in black tie or white tie settings- of course if you're the only chap in a kilt most non-kilties won't know the difference anyway, but at a Highland Society event it might be an issue.

ith:

[unixken]

For me the formality of a kilt tends to be more about the number of pleats and it's construction- WITH the caveat that you can always wear a kilt LESS formally, but not always more so.

A kilt which has loads of very fine pleats will go ANYWHERE you want it to, a 'casual' kilt with 10-12 pleats across the back and a less traditional construction will take you most places, but might stand out
a bit in black tie or white tie settings- of course if you're the only chap in a kilt most non-kilties won't know the difference anyway, but at a Highland Society event it might be an issue.

ith:

I dunno... One of Matt's outstanding 4 yard box pleats would look outstanding with a sheriffmuir.

To my eyes, any well made kilt tailored for, and worn at, the natural waist (not low, at the pants waist), can be dressed up or down through the full spectrum of dress (see the 1 kilt, 10 looks thread.) However, low-riding kilts worn at the pants waist are limited to the types of jackets they can be worn with because of the gap between the top of the kilt and the bottom of the jacket/waistcoat. Thus, they can dress down, but not up.

All this, regardless of the tartan, the color palette, the number or style of pleating, or the fabric the kilt is made of.

[artificer]

I dunno... One of Matt's outstanding 4 yard box pleats would look outstanding with a sheriffmuir.

To my eyes, any well made kilt tailored for, and worn at, the natural waist (not low, at the pants waist), can be dressed up or down through the full spectrum of dress (see the 1 kilt, 10 looks thread.) However, low-riding kilts worn at the pants waist are limited to the types of jackets they can be worn with because of the gap between the top of the kilt and the bottom of the jacket/waistcoat. Thus, they can dress down, but not up.

All this, regardless of the tartan, the color palette, the number or style of pleating, or the fabric the kilt is made of.

Yes, a box pleat or Kingussie would be the exception to this. I was talking about knife pleats.
ith:

[unixken]

Yes, a box pleat or Kingussie would be the exception to this. I was talking about knife pleats.
ith:

But a tartan in a given sett size may require the pleats to be one width, while a larger sett in the same tartan may allow or require the pleats be a different width. Certainly the amount of fabric used will also have some bearing. These, and the size of the individual wearing the kilt, will all influence the size and number of pleats. Does this then not try to mandate that only people "wide enough", wearing a "properly sized" sett, can call their kilt formal, while relegating everything else to causal status? Does this young child's kilt (linked from the Scotweb site) not qualify as formal, because of the limited number of pleats his small frame can fit in to?



Again, I feel the determining factor in what can be dressed up (and what can't), is not dictated by the technical details of the pleats, but where on the body the kilt is designed to be worn. It's a simpler, more direct definition in my mind, and is less vulnerable to the fractions of an inch that determine a good pleat width for a given tartan, amongst all the other factors that go into the construction of the kilt.

[Farmer Jones]

@unixken Now that is smart.

[Father Bill]

Handsome kid. Yours?

[artificer]

But a tartan in a given sett size may require the pleats to be one width, while a larger sett in the same tartan may allow or require the pleats be a different width. Certainly the amount of fabric used will also have some bearing. These, and the size of the individual wearing the kilt, will all influence the size and number of pleats. Does this then not try to mandate that only people "wide enough", wearing a "properly sized" sett, can call their kilt formal, while relegating everything else to causal status. Does this young child's kilt not qualify as formal, because of the limited number of pleats his small frame can fit in to?


Again, I feel the determining factor in what can be dressed up (and what can't), is not dictated by the technical details of the pleats, but where on the body the kilt is designed to be worn. It's a simpler, more direct definition in my mind, and is less vulnerable to the fractions of an inch that determine a good pleat width for a given tartan, amongst all the other factors that go into the construction of the kilt.

As Jock Scot mentioned earlier- we're definitely in danger of over-thinking things here.

Of course there are multiple situations where sett size, the size of the wearer, etc will help dictate size and number of pleats.

My PRIMARY observation was that **the following for sake of clarity** for adults of average size, and assuming that the sett isn't freakishly large or small there is a world of difference between a handmade 'tank' (which tend to have somewhere between 20-30 pleats depending on the sett and wearer) and a low-yardage, lightweight, casually built kilt which might only have 10-12. I also mentioned that this difference would only be obvious to others who have some knowledge of kilts- In a room full of people with no kilt knowledge or experience a kilt is a kilt is a kilt.

- a really well-made traditional kilt will go ANYWHERE. YMMV with less traditionally made kilts.

[unixken]

My PRIMARY observation was that **the following for sake of clarity** for adults of average size, and assuming that the sett isn't freakishly large or small there is a world of difference between a handmade 'tank' (which tend to have somewhere between 20-30 pleats depending on the sett and wearer) and a low-yardage, lightweight, casually built kilt which might only have 10-12.

So my low-riding, "casually cut" Aberdeen District, with it's freakishly large 23" sett (but dozens of pleats) and pants-waist gap between kilt and waistcoat, would look good with a Prince Charlie? Not to belabor a point, but I just don't see it. ;) Interesting perspective, though! I appreciate the point of view!

[Tobus]

My PRIMARY observation was that **the following for sake of clarity** for adults of average size, and assuming that the sett isn't freakishly large or small there is a world of difference between a handmade 'tank' (which tend to have somewhere between 20-30 pleats depending on the sett and wearer) and a low-yardage, lightweight, casually built kilt which might only have 10-12. I also mentioned that this difference would only be obvious to others who have some knowledge of kilts- In a room full of people with no kilt knowledge or experience a kilt is a kilt is a kilt.

- a really well-made traditional kilt will go ANYWHERE. YMMV with less traditionally made kilts.

I concur. When in the company of kilt-conscious people who know the difference between a traditional kilt and a modern "casual" kilt, the higher yardage knife-pleated kilt is perfectly at home in all settings (i.e. all levels of dress). A casual kilt will look oddly out of place in dressy situations.

But the choice of pleating (line/stripe, sett, etc.) really doesn't make any difference.