Hot Stuff!

[Sean_the_Kilted]

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.

Very well said. I completely agree.

[berserkbishop]

what he said ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. Well spoken!

[David Dalglish]

I only wear wool kilts, it is my choise to do that & I can aford to buy one or two a year. I would not wear a cheap acrylic kilt, but there is a place for them ie Football--rugby matches etc. where a wool kilt may get damaged. However, as long as people buy these cheap kilts there will be a market for them & the gold Bros being buisness men will cash in on this market. I would like to see then labelled properly so there is no confusion as to where they as made, but I think that if anyone mistakes these kilts for the genuine article, they deserve all they get.

[Nick Fiddes]

I'd just like to apologise sincerely to anyone who feels I've been downing either them or competitors. If you re-read what I've actually said, I've tried all along to make it clear that what I've been writing was mostly either as a personal opinion, or as wearing my 'hat' as a governor of the Scottish Tartans Authority, whose responsibility it is to defend Scottish traditions. Where I've been aware of having a commercial vested interest, I've tried to make it clear that I'm aware of that.

Perhaps people could give me guidance? When I post here, I'm always aware that what I say represents at least three different 'voices': my own personal thoughts; my company; and the STA. I'm of course aware of the risk of this, and it's clear from the above that I've lost Scotweb/Kiltstore at least one customer for my sin of speaking frankly. My aim wasn't to abuse individuals or other companies that think differently, but to explain how I feel on the issue and why. But of course that's a bit naive...

So what do people think? This strikes me as a wonderful debating board, and I'd love to be able to contribute both knowledge and opinions as fully and truthfully as I believe others may find interesting or helpful. But is this simply stupid, given that when I'm speaking as a personal individual rather than representing Scotweb's official stance it will inevitably reflect back on the company, and lose us business?

I'm seriously wondering whether I should register a second login, and call myself by a nickname that regulars will recognise but not identify me with the company, for general chat. Perhaps I need three logins. I'd appreciate advice. :-)

[Jock Scot]

Nick,I have never met you and I cannot recall ever reading a contribution,of yours, to this website before,so I had no previous knowledge of the three "hats" you wear.In my opinion you have been honest and above board during the whole of this thread and provided everyone has read your contributions to this thread ,properly, they will be in no doubt of that fact.

[Pour1Malt]

ai have owed yin polyplastic kilt... it burned oop after touchin a halogen lamp fur a few seconds...

ai will ne'er but yin o' those thin's again... EVER!

ai will save my pennies as lang as a have tae- but...

bacause ai luve Scotland...

because ai respect the history & tradition o' kilts...

because ai support my local businesses an' community...

because ai wear a kilt e'ery day...

bacause ai ken fur a fact- that ya get whit ya pay fur!

....ai will ainly by Scottish made wool kilts...

[M. A. C. Newsome]

MacDougal, I don't think you and I are really disagreeing, but rather focussing on different issues.

I'm a bit sensitive to this because when the STA included an article critical of the labelling of these very kilts in their newsletter some months back, they were virtually attacked in the mainstream Scottish press as being "purists" and "rigorists" and "tartan police" who simply could not tolerate inexpensive or synthetic fiber kilts.

This was despite the fact that in that very same article, the STA specifically stated that this was not an attack on inexpensive kilts and that there was general agreement that there was a place in the market (and indeed a need for) cheaper kilts.

But no one in the media reaction to the article mentioned that. Nor did they mention the actual point of the article, which had to do with incorrect labelling. Instead, they attacked the STA for a position which they did not, in fact, hold.

So I'm a bit sensitive to this happening again. And I think it should be pointed out that Nick has mentioned in this thread specifically that his company also sells a line of synthetic kilts, specifically because he recognizes a valuable place in the market for them.

As for calling non-woolen kilts "secondary" to wool (as beserkerbishop points out), I don't think this is malicious. It's just a statement of fact. And I'd dare say most of the people selling and wearing non-woolen kilts readily admit this! Wool is not only the most traditional fabric for making a kilt, it is also the best in terms of quality. Other fabric choices are not quite as good as wool, but they are offered as a means to provide a less expensive garment. So, while they are "secondary" to wool, this does not make them "bad" per se. My Ford Taurus might be secondary to your Mustang, but it doesn't make it a bad car. :-) That's my point.

That being said, if you choose not to purchase your wool kilt from Dr. Nick because of his malicious attitudes towards anything that didn't come off a sheep's back, might I reccomend you to this fine source for authentic woolen kilts:
http://giftshop.scottishtartans.org/

Sorry, Nick, I couldn't help myself! lol......

[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

[James MacMillan]

If I hold up a green piece of paper and start to talk about it, and I say "This is not a green piece of paper!" that does not make it so. Clearly, it would still be a green piece of paper.

The post I read from Nick, seemed to be very biased. It seemed to be an attack post, regardless of the fact that it was stated that it was not.

We, in this forum, thankfully have people divided have two groups of opinions. That is a good and healthy situation. We learn from it, we grow from it.

Some define the kilt as being of wool, and only of wool! They think that a kilt made from any other fabric is not a kilt.

We have another group that define a kilt by How it is made, not what it is made from! I am in the second group.

I wear kilts everyday, as my normal manner of chosen attire. I own, wear and will purchase again kilts made from man-made fabrics. I own, wear and will purchase again kilts made from wool.

I have also been called cheap, frugal, and many other terms. I am! I try to get the most for my money. Buying and using kilts made from less expensive, man-made fabrics seems logical to me. I get more value for my money.

A well made kilt from man-made fabrics will, in some cases and situations be Better than the similar article in wool. Both fabrics have their use, their benefits, and their detriments.
I will continue to use both.

For someone to say that my kilts that are not wool are not even kilts puzzles me.

[Arlen]

You know, I have a PV kilt from the Gold brothers and I am more than happy with it.
Sure, I prefer Scottish made wool kilts. Nothing comes close to those.
My issue is with the marketing of foreign made kilts as Scottish made kilts.

As far as the flammable aspect, I done with that kilt what I do will all of my flammable clothes. I sprayed it with flame retardant.