Hot Stuff!

[Nick Fiddes]

What follows is personal opinion... with apologies to anyone it offends!

First, on the issue of safety, I have to agree with Mr. MacDougall that most of us don't stand near flames on a daily basis. And I think that is exactly why such garments are so dangerous. We're not instinctively aware of their danger... It's like driving on snow. If we did so daily we'd have few accidents. So it's that time when we're strutting around a trendy nightclub feeling ever so cool as the ladies are admiring our stand-out dress sense. And we forget to be aware that the low table beside us has a candle on it. You get the rest... (remember - 20 seconds!)

As for whether plastic kilts (and let's not kid ourselves, for that's what oil-derived fibres basically are) are 'real' is, I accept, a matter of opinion. If your idea of a kilt is defined by its shape, then indeed anything goes. But if your definition, like mine, encompasses ideas of tradition and authenticity, then there is surely a hierarchy of quality.

Don't get me wrong. I have a collection of kilts of my own that include denim, leather, and one-off overprinted kilt2 specials that no one else on earth has. But these are fashion garments, in natural materials (that just don't burn remotely as easily!) which extend the kilt's heritage in exciting new directions, rather than mocking it. As such they are part of the evolving tradition. Artificial wools to me are very different -- a second-rate copy of the original, designed to deceive; they add little of merit to the tradition but only ape the real thing, and badly in my opinion.

There's also the issue of provenance. Most woollen kilting fabrics are woven in Scotland, by people who understand tartan traditions, and know how to create things like a kilting selvedge. Most cheap substitute fabrics are woven in low-cost economies where no one, frankly, gives a monkey's for all that nonsense. The patterns often look close, but are often just wrong! To anyone that knows about tartan to wear the wrong sett would be a humiliating embarrassment. (Translation: think of an LA Lakers fan shouting support for the "Cakers" if you want to get the feel!) You may well not care about this, but some of us do.

Then there's the fact that by buying imported copies instead of the real thing you are helping to destroy the traditional industry. I admit some self interest here. But I also feel genuinely aggrieved on behalf of my nation knowing that if recent trends continue the culture that not only upholds authentic tradition but is also the wellspring of much innovation will simply be destroyed. Over-dramatising? If you saw the rate at which the genuine producers were collapsing in this country due to the copyists work you might not say so. Again, you may take the view that this is inevitable and saving your cash is all that counts, and so just not care. But I do.

So I doubt I'll ever wear a plastic one as to me they will always look and feel like a cheap substitute. It's the same reason I adore butter and detest margarine, which leaves a nasty acrid taste in my throat. It's like thinking a mass-produced print is as good as the original Mona Lisa, because it looks much the same from a distance. It's like saying a tribute band is as good as seeing the Stones live. It's like... oh, you get the idea.

Artificial fibres are a necessary compromise for anyone allergic to wool (which is why Scotweb / KiltStore sells expertly made polyviscose ones ourselves). But otherwise I can only see them as second best. That's my own aesthetic judgement.

And of course I know not everyone can easily afford a full traditional kilt hand-made for them. This is a luxury product. But, in my own eyes (and I suspect most lovers of Scottish tradition would say the same) I'd have far more respect when I see someone in a slightly moth-eaten second-hand example in any old tartan than in a plastic substitute for the real thing. Same price. :-)

Okay, I'm sure I've made enough enemies now... please flame me nicely!

[Hamish]

............................
Okay, I'm sure I've made enough enemies now... please flame me nicely!

I see no enemies, Nick. In my opinion, every word you have written there is absolutely true. Very well stated, Sir.

[ccga3359]

When you describe acrylic kilts as "plastic" you are correct, however you don't refer to your polyviscous kilts as "plastic" only as an alternative to those allergic to wool. Rest assured PV is also very much plastic. All materials will burn, the problem is that many man-made fibres melt. They also do have a lower ignition point than many natural fibres. Short of wearing Nomex kilts any kilt is in danger near open flame. Then again should the cheaper acrylic kilts have some type of flame retardant in order to be sold to the public? This would be of great public service. However we must ask, is there a a sudden abundance of kilties bursting into flames.

Nick you do however raise an important point and one that should be investigated scientifically. However I feel that this has been clouded by your obvious prejudice/dislike/distrust to the tartan tat/Gold brothers. Seperately both are valid points but should be kept seperate or be lost in some tirade. Might I suggest, all kilt maker/sellers of 'repute' organize and investigate the flammability issues.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I am frustrated by what I see as the tendency to turn any criticism of these "tartan-tat" kilts into a debate over whether or not there is a place in the market for inexpensive kilts.

Of course there is a place for inexpensive kilts. I don't think anyone is arguming to the contrary.

The main issue that most of us in the tartan industry have about these Godl Brothers kilts is the way they are marketed. Look at the labels. They say "authentic woven material" and "designed in Scotland."

If that same label said, "100% acrylc" and "made in Pakistan," then I don't think anyone would have a reason to complain. But nowhere does it say that.

Correct me if I am wrong, Dr. Nick, but nowhere on that kilt does it mention the actual fibre it is made of, correct?

Acrylic flares up and acrylic melts and this can be very dangerous to any wearer around open flames. As others have pointed out, other man made fibres suffer from the same problems. Does this mean all man made fibres should be banned? Of course not. But it means that at the very least they should be properly labelled.

And I'm surprised that no one has picked up on the fact that this was a children's kilt being tested. As a father of four small children, this concerns me greatly. Grabbing severl items of my children's clothing at random, most of them are 100% cotton. I did find one that was 100% polyester but it specifically said on the label "flame resistant." My point is, though, that by labelling the products I, as a parent, can be aware of any potential risks to my child's safety.

But please, let's not turn this into an "is there a place for inexpensive kilts" argument. Yes, there is. But that is not what this is about.

[berserkbishop]

But please, let's not turn this into an "is there a place for inexpensive kilts" argument. Yes, there is. But that is not what this is about.

Nick's opinion on synthetic fibers being "secondary" to wool and ruining the authenticity and heritage to the kilt clearly show that this is not just a discussion of "wool vs synthetic." My first kilt was a cheap ebay piece of crap. Is it a kilt? IMHO yes. . . a bad one. . . but it has all the trappings of a kilt. My next investment was a SWK in my family tartan. Nothing compares to the pride I feel when I wear that kilt. Being told that it is an abomination really lets the air out of my tires especially when I planned on purchasing 8 yards of Cunningham wool from kiltstore for a "tank" in my other family tartan. The fact is that I have these "unauthentic" "plastic" and I love them, and my love for them has made me want to invest in expensive wool fabric FROM THE VERY STORE WHO IS DOWNING THE KILTS THAT I WEAR. I have a budget. I am alone, single and in college. I guess celebrating my heritage in a way that I can afford is seen as cheapening it to some, but to me I was happy to get in touch with a long lost part of my heritage. Man, I really am rethinking where to order my wool from. . . . Just my two cents! Love it or hate it.

[James MacMillan]

Nick's opinion on synthetic fibers being "secondary" to wool and ruining the authenticity and heritage to the kilt clearly show that this is not just a discussion of "wool vs synthetic." My first kilt was a cheap ebay piece of crap. Is it a kilt? IMHO yes. . . a bad one. . . but it has all the trappings of a kilt. My next investment was a SWK in my family tartan. Nothing compares to the pride I feel when I wear that kilt. Being told that it is an abomination really lets the air out of my tires especially when I planned on purchasing 8 yards of Cunningham wool from kiltstore for a "tank" in my other family tartan. The fact is that I have these "unauthentic" "plastic" and I love them, and my love for them has made me want to invest in expensive wool fabric FROM THE VERY STORE WHO IS DOWNING THE KILTS THAT I WEAR. I have a budget. I am alone, single and in college. I guess celebrating my heritage in a way that I can afford is seen as cheapening it to some, but to me I was happy to get in touch with a long lost part of my heritage. Man, I really am rethinking where to order my wool from. . . . Just my two cents! Love it or hate it.

Interesting take on the situation! I'm with you. Why is there this resistance to progress?

What is wrong with experimentation? If wool is the best? Does that make a wool blend the worst?

But, there are definitly people in this world and members of this forum, that think that anything that is not 100% handmade wool is not a kilt.

I am happily NOT one of those people!

[Mr. MacDougall]

First of all, I'd like to apologize to Matt for helping fuel his frustration... I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, and his opinions, and I'm going to disagree with him, respectfully, anyway. I'm feeling very frustrated, myself, because I should be writing an essay about what tasks a nurse can delegate to assistive personnel, instead of thinking about inexpensive v. cheap. And I'd also like to apologize to Nick, because some of what I have to say may sound like a personal attack, and it absolutely is not intended that way.

Now, it seems to me that there are really two issues, here. The first one is, does the stuff that the Gold Brothers (et alia) sell affect how people perceive what a kilt is / should be? And, if so, what should be done about it? This, as we've debated at great length in the past, could probably be handled by truth in labeling. Rather than letting these folks get away with "woven fiber," and "designed in Scotland," the law needs to be changed to reflect the actual fiber content, and the actual point of manufacture. I am not a lawyer, but I believe there are laws in place in the United States which regulate such labels. With "made of acrylic fiber" and "made in Pakistan" (or Taiwan, or wherever) clearly labeled on the garment, it will go a long way towards educating even us ignorant Americans.

The second question really is, whether Matt cares to admit it or not, "is there a place for inexpensive kilts." The complaint that Nick and others have, seems to me to boil down to, "these foreign people with thier inexensive foreign kilts are pushing us out of business!" Well, um, gee. I wonder why that is? Let's take a look... Let's say I'm a tourist, in town to see the sights. Heck, for the sake of argument (and because I am) let's say I'm an American. Maybe one of my grandparents was Scottish, and I'm interested in something of the Old Country to take back with me.

Now, strolling up the street, I can see Store Q, and Store U. I go into Store Q first. They have these amazing garments made of wool, hand-sewn by a bespoke tailor, and my god, they're wonderful! But they're... let's see... multiply by two, and oh! They're five hundred dollars! Wow... that's a lot. And really... when would I wear it? Um... there's a highland games in my town, I guess I could wear it then... and, um... no, that's about it.

Now, I walk across the street to Store U, and oh, look, they have kilts, too. Yes, I can see that the fabric isn't as nice... in fact, it's kind of stiff and plasticy. But they're only $50. I can afford that. And heck, I'm only going to wear the thing once a year, anyway, and probably not even that, if I'm going to be honest with myself. Okay, I'll buy one of these!

Now, there's a phrase for what has just (in this hypothetical situation) happened. It's called "free enterprise." Now, maybe correct labeling would help with some of that, but probably not all of it. Because the reason the Gold Brothers (et alia) are pushing more traditional kilt makers off the mile is that they're making money, and the other lot aren't.

Now, I don't think this is an entirely gloomy thing. One in fifty, maybe, of those fellas who buys that plastic kilt is going to say, "Hey, I kind of enjoy this... it feels good." And he'll get back home, and think, "maybe I should look around on the internet, and find out more about this kilting thing." Or maybe, the next time he goes to those highland games in his home town, he'll think about buying another kilt, maybe something with some nicer fabric. And that guy is the audience you're talking to here on X-Marks.

Let's be honest, here... how many of us bought as our first kilt a SportKilt, or a Stillwater, or even (whisper the name with dread though I may) a Utilikilt? I know McMurdo got his first kilt from his dad, and probably some of you other lads did, as well, but for most of us, a kilt was something we shelled out for, with our hard-earned money, thinking we probably wouldn't wear it all that often. That we got bitten by the kilting bug, later, was fortuitous, and has led us to give our support to kilt makers like Kathy Lare, Matt Newsome, and Barbara Trewksbury, who, despite living in America, are traditional, hand-sewing kilt makers. I, myself, gave Matt Newsome one dollar out of every three I made this summer, and I'm thinking about following that up by making a similar investment in a tank from Kathy Lare.

But none of that would have happened without that first, $100 SportKilt. And I really don't think I'm alone in that situation.

So, you want the "plastic" kilts labeled properly? Lobby for the laws to make it so. I'm 100% behind you. You want to get rid of the Gold Brothers, and anyone who would pull business away from the "proper" kilt makers? I'll shake my head, and think it can't be done, unless those "propper" kilt makers start offering an entry-level product of their own... and having looked at the economics of it, I doubt it can be done.

And now, I have said quite a bit more than I should have, no doubt, and will no doubt provoke some violent disagreement, but I think I've also said everything I have to say on the subject, and will henceforth (at least for the life of this thread) hold my peace.

If you've read all the way down here, thank you for your attention, and your time.

[Fox]

Then again should the cheaper acrylic kilts have some type of flame retardant in order to be sold to the public? This would be of great public service.

No! I for one am uneasy with flame retardants and even Teflon for their affects on the environment and health.

[ccga3359]

No! I for one am uneasy with flame retardants and even Teflon for their affects on the environment and health.

A valid concern but what is the lesser of two evils?

[MartinGrenoble]

I can't help feeling that there are two standards here (and I am not referring to Nick's diatribe, but a to the writings of a number of Xmarks members over the years.

It seems to be fashionable here to trash anything coming out of the east, however wearable and however acceptably made. On the other hand, if it is made in USA, of equally non-traditinal materials, than it is wonderful.

I have bought kilts of both origins.

One with the "Scottish design" label, is fine and has had plenty of use. It is surely "mixed fibres", but the feel and appearance are acceptably wool-like and it hangs well. After a couple of years, the stitches are still in place, and the kilt has kept its shape.

Another kilt, from across the ocean, had to be sent back, it was so poorly mounted. The manner in which the upper half was stitched up bore no ressemblance to the careful tapering of a traditional kilt. It was remade and returned to me. It still did not look or feel right. I finally unstitched the whole thing and made it up again myself. It is all cotton, feels and looks good in summer.

If you are, or have been, in Edinburgh, you may well know what you are talking about, and be rightly saddened that more cheap kilts are bought than good ones. If, however, you live the other side of the Atlantic, I wonder how accurately you can make comparisons.

Note that I am thinking more of the quality of the workmanship than of the fabrics used.

Are we taking our loyalties a little too far sometimes?

Martin