Question for Barb, or any of the other fine kilt makers here

[Barb T]

I think Barb T says that you can make a kilt smaller but not larger

It's possible to make a kilt both smaller or larger. If a kilt is too big, it is a relatively simple matter to move the apron edge buckles and the underapron strap so that the kilt fits tighter. If a kilt is too small and needs to be made larger, on the other hand, it's a big project that involves taking the kilt partly apart and remaking the the apron, underapron, and first pleat on both sides. The reason that you move the buckles to make a kilt smaller but take it apart and re-do it if you need to make it much bigger is explained below.

Here's something I posted last week in Kilt Advice:

If a kilt is too small, it is _really_ obvious, because it's not just a question of where the buckles are. If the kilt is too small, some of the underapron shows along the fringe edge of the apron, and it looks dreadful. On the other hand, if a kilt is too big and you move the buckles over a little so that the kilt can be buckled tightly, the apron will overlap the pleats a little, but, unless someone looks _really_ closely, no one will ever notice.

One of our band members has lost 70 pounds, and she's still wearing the same kilt. I've now moved the buckles and underapron strap over _5"_, and it's still not noticeable. Granted, the apron is proportionately a bit big, and the center back stripe isn't centered anymore, but you really have to look to notice. In the case of a few of our band members who have "gone the other direction", shall we say, even 1" too small shows 1" of underapron, and it is really glaring.

So, I always say have a kilt a little too big and move the buckles and straps if you need to, rather than risk having one that is even 1/4" too small, where the underapron would show and look ugly.

Below, I've posted a few pics. The first two show kilts that are too small and have the underapron showing. Ugh. The third one is _way_ too big and has the buckles moved so far that the center back stripe is way off (the double pale blue stripes). But, unless you look closely, you're not going to notice.

BTW - the first two kilts are modeled by dancers who not only outgrew their kilts around but outgrew them in length as they got taller. Both kilts had had the hems let down, but neither had had the pleats stitched down farther. So, on both kilts, the bottom of the fell (the stitched part of the pleat) falls well above the max curve of the butt (which is where it should fall). These kilts were made properly for shorter girls, but each of them grew about 5", and that's another odd-looking aspect of these kilts. With the rule of thumb of the fell being 1/3 the total length of the kilt, lengthening a kilt 3" means that the fell _should_ be stitched down an extra inch on all pleats. In reality, young dancer's kilts are sold and re-sold, with the hems going up and down like the stock market, and virtually no one bothers to stitch fells when lengthening a kilt unless a dancer is going to keep the kilt.

B

[Jerry]

Barb, thanks for the help. From what Jimmy says, I think the 44 might be right. 45 would fall right in the middle of the adjustment range if they are truely sized with the straps at their tightest.

[Barb T]

Again, it depends on where they've put the buckles. If, when buckled into the tightest hole, the fringe of the apron just covers the edge of the underapron, buckling the kilt into the middle holes will allow the underapron to show. You don't want that. So, you really need to know where the apron edge falls when the kilt is buckled into the tightest hole.

Barb