Just a whiney complaint...

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I get this comment a lot, and yes, good quality Highland clothing does cost money. There have been threads on this before about why this is so, and the cost is justified when one really understands what all goes into producing quality kilts, sporrans, hose, etc.

But I would like to deal with an underlying assumption that I see being brought out here, and that is that we are trying to dress like Highlanders from 400 years ago. We are not.

If I may be excused for stating the obvious, most of us are not historical reenactors or living historians. Clothing was different 400 years ago, and that includes Highland clothing. When we put on the kilt, we put on a modern garment, not an historical costume.

And why must we insist on comparing ourselves to the poor Highlander? Yes, the poor Highlander couldn't have afforded most of our Highland kit today, even a lot of the less expensive items. But he also probably only had one, maybe two, sets of clothing. And, I might add, he likely made a lot of what he had, including sporran, shoes, etc.

But who says we are trying to imitate the poorest of our anscestors anyway? There were Highlanders pf different classes, then as now, who could afford more or less finery in their dress.

I think it is a wonderful thing to look at the past to see how the kilt was worn and to draw inspiration from that. But I'm not trying to imitate or replicate anyone when I wear the kilt. I'm dressing as me in the kilt. And I want to dress as nicely and I can afford to with my economic means in 2009.

[Riverkilt]

Think the price difference comes from comparing to "routine" clothing we wear. Looking at the labels of your shirts and pants will verify that the American textile and cut and sew industry has long ago moved overseas. The people who sew up those garments are not Union working 8 hour days with high wages and benefits.

Quite the contrast with the mills that weave the wool tartan cloth and the craftsmen who hand sew the kilt.

I have yet to hear of a wealthy hand sewn kiltmaker. They give fair value.

Ron

[macwilkin]

Think the price difference comes from comparing to "routine" clothing we wear. Looking at the labels of your shirts and pants will verify that the American textile and cut and sew industry has long ago moved overseas. The people who sew up those garments are not Union working 8 hour days with high wages and benefits.

Quite the contrast with the mills that weave the wool tartan cloth and the craftsmen who hand sew the kilt.

I have yet to hear of a wealthy hand sewn kiltmaker. They give fair value.

Ron

Well said, Ron.

Todd

[Pleater]

Of course - if you simply want to dress in a kilt and associated items, rather than buying the posh stuff, set to and make kilts, knit hose, sew shirts and adapt jackets.

If you can't sew or knit then you could try offering to do something you can in return for lessons or for someone else to to the work.

I'd love to have the time to make kilts or hose full time and not charge a proper price for them, but there are bills to pay...

There are cheaper options than the brand new 8 yard worsted wool named tartan hand sewn - exercise the little grey cells and see if you can achieve the objective with less damage to the finances.

Anne the Pleater

[ForresterModern]

I doubt there were many farmers, even in the 19th century out tending cattle or sheep or toiling in the fileds wearing a custom tailored tartan tank with PC or doublet, bow tie or Jabot, fly plaid, color matching hose and flashes, and ghillie brogues, let alone wearing all the finer pieces or wearable art (kilt pins, broaches, cuff links, clan badges, etc...), so I do not believe we can appropriately call what we today are buying as "highlandwear" proper, more like "dress modern highlandwear" meant for what most modern highlanders and other scots use it for these days---special events, dinners, weddings, funerals, etc.....

The probably had one or maybe two leine and maybe a great kilt if any at all, sporran and belt, and whatever other minor accoutrements needed for daily life. Probably a fairly spartan life compared to most of ours today.


When you have to kill what you eat it brings a diffferent level of decision making to fore than making a choice between wearing the Black Stewart or the Black watch kilt today.

[Tartan Hiker]

Well said, Matt. Most folks (at least here in the States) who see us wearing a kilt probably assume we are either trying to emulate the Mel Gibson version of William Wallace or trying to look like a member of a pipe band, because these are, quite frankly, the most likely kilt experiences that the average American has had. It's natural for folks to not understand the use of a kilt as a modern clothing option. We do blur the boundaries, with leather and antler accessories, so it's understandable that some folks are confused at first. I am always quick to explain this to folks who are curious enough to ask, and that is what I would hope that we all strive to do.

And this is why I am loathe to make witty retorts to "the question", or to carry an inordinate number of blades, etc. If we are advocating that the kilt is a modern garment, our actions need to reflect that.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I get this comment a lot, and yes, good quality Highland clothing does cost money. There have been threads on this before about why this is so, and the cost is justified when one really understands what all goes into producing quality kilts, sporrans, hose, etc.

But I would like to deal with an underlying assumption that I see being brought out here, and that is that we are trying to dress like Highlanders from 400 years ago. We are not.

If I may be excused for stating the obvious, most of us are not historical reenactors or living historians. Clothing was different 400 years ago, and that includes Highland clothing. When we put on the kilt, we put on a modern garment, not an historical costume.

And why must we insist on comparing ourselves to the poor Highlander? Yes, the poor Highlander couldn't have afforded most of our Highland kit today, even a lot of the less expensive items. But he also probably only had one, maybe two, sets of clothing. And, I might add, he likely made a lot of what he had, including sporran, shoes, etc.

But who says we are trying to imitate the poorest of our anscestors anyway? There were Highlanders pf different classes, then as now, who could afford more or less finery in their dress.

I think it is a wonderful thing to look at the past to see how the kilt was worn and to draw inspiration from that. But I'm not trying to imitate or replicate anyone when I wear the kilt. I'm dressing as me in the kilt. And I want to dress as nicely and I can afford to with my economic means in 2009.

Absolutely spot on.

[macwilkin]

Well said, Matt. Most folks (at least here in the States) who see us wearing a kilt probably assume we are either trying to emulate the Mel Gibson version of William Wallace or trying to look like a member of a pipe band, because these are, quite frankly, the most likely kilt experiences that the average American has had. It's natural for folks to not understand the use of a kilt as a modern clothing option. We do blur the boundaries, with leather and antler accessories, so it's understandable that some folks are confused at first. I am always quick to explain this to folks who are curious enough to ask, and that is what I would hope that we all strive to do.

And this is why I am loathe to make witty retorts to "the question", or to carry an inordinate number of blades, etc. If we are advocating that the kilt is a modern garment, our actions need to reflect that.

Well said, Matt, Scott and Tartan Hiker, especially the post above!

Not only does the public have a perception of kilts from movies like Braveheart, but so do many first-time kilt-wearers. I think this is why we see folks showing up at formal functions like a Burns Supper armed to the teeth with a claymore over the back, dirks, powder horns, etc.

Like Matt, I'm all for historic reenacting and living history -- but it has its place, just as modern Highland attire does as well.

One final point that should be mentioned -- not every Scot wore a kilt in days of old. For those of us with ancestors from the Lowlands, Borders and/or Ulster, the kilt was associated with the "wild savages of the North". It's only relatively recently that Lowland families have adopted tartans and other trappings of Highland kit.

Regards,

Todd

[Jock Scot]

I couldn't agree more with what the last few threads have said,but there is another slant to this as well. It's the modern(old too) Scots one, alright lets stretch that to the UK and maybe Ireland too. Now, we all know that the kilt is not worn as everyday wear by many Scots and we all know that a small percentage of Scots actually even own a kilt, BUT the kilts they own and their attire is probably the best that they can afford. That means, in general terms, ONE good(expensive) Kilt, possibly ONE good(expensive?) tweed Argyll,probably ONE good(expensive?) evening jacket, ONE good pair of shoes,ONE good day sporran, ONE good evening sporran. Much of the aforementioned may well have been inherited or bought second hand, which does help.

There are exceptions of course,Hamish springs to mind and there are others too, but the small percentage of kilt wearing Scots that own their kit go for the best that they can get and that is it.

Whilst I have been on this website I have heard this cry of angst of the cost of kilt attire many times,mainly from across the Atlantic, and thought to myself "well if they just had one quality kilt ,one quality pair of shoes, two kilt jackets of the best quality instead of umpteen cheap kilts,umpteen cheap jackets,umpteen sporrans,umpteen this that and the others, then I bet the value would not be much different?" Something for new members of the kilt wearing world, in paticular, to ponder, I suggest.

[macwilkin]

I couldn't agree more with what the last few threads have said,but there is another slant to this as well. It's the modern(old too) Scots one, alright lets stretch that to the UK and maybe Ireland too. Now, we all know that the kilt is not worn as everyday wear by many Scots and we all know that a small percentage of Scots actually even own a kilt, BUT the kilts they own and their attire is probably the best that they can afford. That means, in general terms, ONE good(expensive) Kilt, possibly ONE good(expensive?) tweed Argyll,probably ONE good(expensive?) evening jacket, ONE good pair of shoes,ONE good day sporran, ONE good evening sporran. Much of the aforementioned may well have been inherited or bought second hand, which does help.

There are exceptions of course,Hamish springs to mind and there are others too, but the small percentage of kilt wearing Scots that own their kit go for the best that they can get and that is it.

Whilst I have been on this website I have heard this cry of angst of the cost of kilt attire many times,mainly from across the Atlantic, and thought to myself "well if they just had one quality kilt ,one quality pair of shoes, two kilt jackets of the best quality instead of umpteen cheap kilts,umpteen cheap jackets,umpteen sporrans,umpteen this that and the others, then I bet the value would not be much different?" Something for new members of the kilt wearing world, in paticular, to ponder, I suggest.

Hear, Hear Jock!

Todd