To alter, or not to alter

[crash]

What your friend said is basically true. The bottom edge of your kilt is the finished edge of the cloth it was made from so the "proper" way to raise the hem is to deconstruct the kilt, trim material from the top and put it back together. Just about as much work as making it from scratch. All that said I have a kilt that I spec'd out just an inch too long and even hiking it up didn't work for me. So my choices were hem the kilt for $50 or rebuild the kilt for $250 (basically the origional cost of the kilt). I have a hemmed kilt now. The only way to tell is to notice the sett does't go all the way to the bottom now.

[Jim Murray]

Thanks everyone! Lots of good advice here, and so quick as well! So I will eventually go ahead and have it taken up just a little, but meanwhile I won't worry too much about the length looking dorky.

[Domehead]

...but we are talking "heirloom" here...

Jock is spot on. This particular kilt has intrinsic value far beyond the dollar amounts per alteration. IMHO, either wear it "hiked" a bit, or not at all. But, respect the garment for what it is.

My sgian dubh is actually a Rehwappen Solinger Rostfrei. Standard model, small dagger. My grandmother bought it in North-Perthshire, 1950 while visiting cousins around Breadalbane-area (I have the diary entry to prove it). She intended it as a sgian for my father. Now I have it.

A great Uncle filed one side of the horn handle to lay close to the leg. The Solinger coin was removed in favor of a brass furniture tack. It is not my place to alter it further. Nor am I obligated to wear it, as it does dig into my leg. But, I do - as is, because of what it is.

Just my two cents.

[Dixiecat]

...but we are talking "heirloom" here...

Jock is spot on. This particular kilt has intrinsic value far beyond the dollar amounts per alteration. IMHO, either wear it "hiked" a bit, or not at all. But, respect the garment for what it is.

My sgian dubh is actually a Rehwappen Solinger Rostfrei. Standard model, small dagger. My grandmother bought it in North-Perthshire, 1950 while visiting cousins around Breadalbane-area (I have the diary entry to prove it). She intended it as a sgian for my father. Now I have it.

A great Uncle filed one side of the horn handle to lay close to the leg. The Solinger coin was removed in favor of a brass furniture tack. It is not my place to alter it further. Nor am I obligated to wear it, as it does dig into my leg. But, I do - as is, because of what it is.

Just my two cents.

Jock may be 'spot on', but putting in a hem is not going to alter the value, monetary or sentimental of this kilt. Your personal example is of an item to which permanent alterations have been made. A hem, especially on a kilt, can be a temporary alteration. I would also say that a hem (as the OP has just chosen to do) would increase the sentimental value of the garment. With a hem, it will allow the wearer not to feel 'dorky' and get it out of the closet more than it otherwise would have been.

[Domehead]

If you agree that Jock is 'spot on', then you must have issue with me personally. Otherwise, the remainder of your comment is moot.

The fact that my "item's" alterations are permanent isn't relavent, due to the fact that I didn't make them. My "item" was presented to me as is. My sgian, like the kilt in question, was my father's. I then, am always wearing my father's sgian - NOT MINE. If / when I wear it, I do so as he did.

As well, unless one is a kilt maker, one doesn't know what a hem may do to a kilt. Obviously, I defer to Rocky, M.A.C. Newsome, Bonnie Heather, Pleater Annie, et al:

My young son owns a kilt made by Burnett's & Struth. Very nice, knife pleated rental. Very well maintained and re-pressed before shipping. The bottom hem was opened up to give maximum length for my boy. At cursory glance one cannot tell anything about the kilt. But, should you inspect closely, you will see a shadow line where the stitching existed which held the hem in-place (inside apron). Not to worry.

Alas, there is a slight discoloration where the fold-up was at the bottom (front apron). Again, barely noticable, but it is there. Perhaps this is a difference in quality tailoring. However, the fact remains things can and do happen.

As Jock also stated, the OP is only talking two inches. Vintage military kilts were constructed with much wider distance between "waist" and "hip" or longer fell's or...well, you know what part I'm talking about. It is only comparatively recently that kilt construction has seen a shortening of this distance - with deference to our experts.

By the by, I was simply expressing one's man's opinion at the behest of the OP.