Can it be Modern?

[CMcG]

The leather kilt sans sporran definitely takes the rest of the outfit squarely out of the traditional. Looks good!

With or without the sporran the leather kilt in question, in my humble opinion, cannot in any way be described as traditional.For a start it has a pocket! Come on chaps don't let our already slipping standards slip any more! Nice it may be, modern it is, historical maybe, traditional never! I think that the OP should be congratulated for being realistic.

Please let us not complicate things even more by using, yet another, heading of "semi-traditional", whatever that is supposed to mean.

Sorry for not being clear enough Jock. I meant that the rest of his outfit still looks rather traditional. I agree that the leather kilt instantly makes it modern. That was in fact my point. By changing one item, an otherwise traditional outfit is made modern

[Jock Scot]

Sorry for not being clear enough Jock. I meant that the rest of his outfit still looks rather traditional. I agree that the leather kilt instantly makes it modern. That was in fact my point. By changing one item, an otherwise traditional outfit is made modern

I agree the top looks instantly recognisable as traditional and so does the kilt in the first picture. The other pictures do not rest easily in my mind as I think that the two styles do not mix well. Thank you for clearing that up.

To the OP, I say what I say not out of disrespect to your choices, but solely as an illustration for a subject of discussion and I hope that you understand that no criticism of you, or your attire, is intended in any way.

[CMcG]

As an aside, could the OP change the typo in the title of the thread? I assume he meant "Modern" and not "Morden."

[Electrickilt]

To the OP, I say what I say not out of disrespect to your choices, but solely as an illustration for a subject of discussion and I hope that you understand that no criticism of you, or your attire, is intended in any way.

I understand and no disrespect taken. The post was a subject for discussion.
Thanks everybody for the feed back.

[Lyle1]

With or without the sporran the leather kilt in question, in my humble opinion, cannot in any way be described as traditional.For a start it has a pocket! Come on chaps don't let our already slipping standards slip any more! Nice perhaps, modern it is, historical maybe, traditional never! I think that the OP should be congratulated for being realistic.

Please let us not complicate things even more by using, yet another, heading of "semi-traditional", whatever that is supposed to mean.

The "slipping standards" comment was uncalled for. The opinions voiced here were not meant as a personal affront to you or to your perception of what is right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate. This thread is posted in the Modern sub-forum. Can't you post here without reminding everyone that the opinions voiced here do not reflect the THD code?

[Jock Scot]

The "slipping standards" comment was uncalled for. The opinions voiced here were not meant as a personal affront to you or to your perception of what is right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate. This thread is posted in the Modern sub-forum. Can't you post here without reminding everyone that the opinions voiced here do not reflect the THD code?

I actually was/am talking about the "definitions" and how they are applied.If you look at Trefor's post(posted before mine so I did not bring the subject of "traditional" up) he is of the opinion that the subject in question is "traditional", others are talking about "semi traditional" others are venturing their own opinion of which we are ALL entitled to voice. What I meant that the standards of the definitions are slipping NOT the standared of attire.

I hope that is now clear that I have meant no offence whatsoever and that has been recognised by the OP.

[piperdbh]

Everything below is based on the assumption that the leather kilt is dark brown, as it appears to be on my monitor.

If you take everything in picture #2, but exchange the shirt for one the color of the straps on the leather kilt, I think it would be a really good, really modern look. To my eye at least, the browns would work well with each other and create an overall stylish look. We've seen this done with black kilts; why not brown?

Mr. OP, I think you've taken elements of "traditional" and added the "non-traditional" leather kilt, to create something that is really in neither category, and I for one am alright with that. Congratulations!

[Spartan Tartan]

The OP reminds me of the various "1 kilt, 10 looks" thread....except the other way. I'd love to see the "10 kilts, 1 look" thread

Of course, ten tartan kilts would be far less exciting in such a thread than say....any randomly selected ten Kilts from the kloset of Hamish!

[seanachie]

I actually was/am talking about the "definitions" and how they are applied.If you look at Trefor's post(posted before mine so I did not bring the subject of "traditional" up) he is of the opinion that the subject in question is "traditional", others are talking about "semi traditional" others are venturing their own opinion of which we are ALL entitled to voice. What I meant that the standards of the definitions are slipping NOT the standared of attire.
I hope that is now clear that I have meant no offence whatsoever and that has been recognised by the OP.

Well that is way I interpreted your remarks as well sir.

[Nighthawk]

Sorry Trefor, no it can't.

Agreed! When I say "semi-traditional," what I mean is that it has that touch of class that a traditional outfit would have, with a lot of traditional elements, while at the same time sitting well with modern sensibilities.