Hot Stuff!

[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......

[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.

[Cawdorian]

There is definitely a place in the kilt market for the various styles of kilts made of different fabrics. Your choice of kilt style and fabric is determined by how and where you wear your kilt and also by how many of your hard earned dollars you are willing to invest in a kilt. It is strictly a matter of personal choice.

Some of us here on X-marks are traditionalists, my guess is that almost to a man we prefer the 13 and 16 oz wool tartan kilts made in the traditional knife pleated or box pleated styles. From my perspective they are a good value as well as a good investment; they are durable, wear well and will provide many years of wearing pleasure to the owner.

The only kilts I have are wool, any I buy in the future will be wool, but that is my personal preference.

[Thomas]

Although being a newbie, here are my 2 cents on this.
I think, no one will deny that the real thing is made from wool.
I myself don´t own a tank yet, but a cheap (inexepensive) one from Heritage of Scotland, owned by the Gold Bros. It´s not made from acrylic but from polyviscose. I did a test with a cigarette on it (very hidden under the apron) and to my surprise I´m still living (the kilt, too)!! I think you´ll be able to destroy everything you want- IF you want to.
Another aspect is that a kilt doesn´t care where or by whome it was made. Am I right?
So where is the difference between an acrylic kilt let´s say from SWK and a kilt from the Gold Bros? Both will go up in flames if you are cruel enough to put fire on it. Even a cotton shirt will do so.
So come on- be honest. Isn´t it only the fact, that it´s from a company that got bad comments in the past?
Those inexpensive kilts brought more people into kilt wearing than anything else- I´m sure.
On the other side its not fair to declare those kilts as real sottish kilts, because they ARE NOT. So total agreement in this point.
I hope it´s allowed to a newbie to take part in this discussion- if it isn´t
Cheers
Thomas

[James MacMillan]

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.

I have to disagree on the above point.

Let's take the activity for today. I will board a plane and fly across the country. For this purpose the kilt I have chosen is a synthetic, man-made fabric kilt. This fabric has been proven, time and again to be superior to wool. It holds up to stains better, hold a crease better, and is a better travel kilt! It is not secondary - it's BETTER!

As to your Ford Taurus, gee it's too bad that you can't drive a real car! They are called Chevy's!

[Chef]

Let's take the activity for today. I will board a plane and fly across the country. For this purpose the kilt I have chosen is a synthetic, man-made fabric kilt. This fabric has been proven, time and again to be superior to wool. It holds up to stains better, hold a crease better, and is a better travel kilt! It is not secondary - it's BETTER!

James, I think PV can be a fine fabric but your statement is opinion about a situation, not fact about the material. Personally I find wool is quite stain resistant particularly if it hasn't been dry cleaned to often. As far as holding a pleat, well I've never had a problem travelling in a wool kilt. I think learning to properly sit in a kilt is more important.

Why is it a better travel kilt? If the criteria be that it is more expendable then OK maybe that is the case, but that doesn't make the PV a better fabric than wool. PV is no doubt a good fabric but it doesn't have the same feel or look and wool will wear better over time. It's pretty good but it isn't wool.

If the main consideration of the fabric is cost then I agree with your idea that PV or even acrylic is better for the situation, and I own a Stillwater Standard for that very reason. It's what I wear to a football game or similar because I won't be too upset if it is damaged. You may want that feature in your travel kilt. I don't find travelling dangerous enough on my clothes that I want to wear a non-wool fabric.