Hot Stuff!

[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!

[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

[Chef]

I think there is a small point that might be missing here. Many of the kilts the Gold Brothers sells on the Royal Mile are not even available on their sites (that I have seen anyway). The worst ones I saw there made a sportkilt look like a tank, never mind any of the other non-traditionals worn by members here. Honestly they were barely a step up from the Instakilt beach towel. not much more expensive either. And yes they had that same misleading tag on them.

I would never buy from them because many of their items (not just kilts) are tourist crap and are misleading about their origins. It's bad enough they practically avoid real Scottish products but that they try to pass them off as Scottish.

Nick, I hope you stay and post under your current name. You are very upfront about who you are and the forum should be about differing points of view not about total agreement. I wouldn't worry that you may have lost a sale to someone who might be offended by your opinion of his current garment. You may pick up a customer who is pleased with your desire to see tradition and quality maintained.

[Robinhood]

Those who wish to infringe upon my right
to wear the clothing of my choice should
expect an infringement upon their right
to voice their objection. Freedom denied
one is freedom denied all.

[ChromeScholar]

Nick,

I've started to reply to this thread a dozen times. Each time I went back and deleted what I wrote. I have no idea how to fully address the topic without getting a rap on the knuckles from the mods.

I read your opening post with interest, and found myself pretty much in agreement. Then I got to your second post...

I will say only this...

Some of us (myself included) cannot afford to spend $400 to $700 dollars on any piece of clothing. It isn't a case of being cheap. We really don't have the money. As far as second-hand kilts, does anyone really think there are enough second-hand traditional Scottish-made kilts to provide one for everyone who wants a kilt?

I buy what I can afford, not what I feel like paying for.

I was going to add more, but I can't find a decent way to write it. I'll end by saying that you have undoubtedly done your business and cause more harm than you realize with your second post.

[Thomas]

It´s me again
@Chef: I don´t think that it´s the point if anyone feels offended or not. I don´t think people here on this board are that childish.
To me the point (referring to Nick´s initial post) is the fact of burning acrylics. The only thing I tried to say is, that there´s a certain balance missing here. If you condemn acrylic kilts from the Gold bros, you´ve to condemn any acrylic kilts (incl. for example SWK kilts). Please note: I don´t speak of craftmanship, I´m just talking about the fabric itself.
There are lots of companies using inflammable man made fibres, and no none seems to get upset about that.
So this is the initial point to me.

Thomas

[Colin]

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...

<moderator hat off>

Hi Nick,

I understand your dilemna. Personally I have always taken any posts or threads by kilt business owners as personal opinion (as you stated in your posts may times in this thread). The only time I see any business owners posts as business related is when the topic deals directly with their company. You have made it pretty clear that the majority of your posts in this thread have been your own personal opinion, and I strongly believe you are entitled to that. If someone thinks you have done a disservice to your "cause and business" by your personal opinion....well, I don't see that. The sponsors, like the moderators, on this site are members of the forum first. We sometimes feel just as strongly about issues as other members, why would we not participate in those discussions? and can we not take part in those discussions as kilt wearers and forum members without it being seen as a conflict of interest?

I for one am thankful for your first and subsequent posts. This has been an intersting thread, and one which I have passed on to others that I thought may find it interesting. I only hope that members here can follow the advise of Matt (and a few others) and except that we all agree that there is a place for the inexpensive kilts in the market. No one is bashing your kilt of choice.

<moderator hat back on>

Now I would hate to see this thread locked down, so let's ALL be respectful of each other, our opinions, and the kilts that we choose to wear. One person is no better than the other because they have 50 kilts, and I am no better than anyone else because I choose to save for a traditional wool kilt rather than buy 5-10 of the inexpensive ones. Most of us have gotten past this pettiness and own kilts from the whole spectrum. Let's have a nice discussion and debate without anyone getting their pleats in a bunch, okay?

[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.

[rmmcscott]

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.

I've been reading along, and agreeing with some and disagreeing with others... everyone has their right to their own opinion. And, as someone with a business degree, I understand the concept of free enterprise, which is one of the things that makes this country great.

This posting caught my attention, and not in a good way. While other posts were providing some positive spin on things (ie lobbying to change labelling requirements, etc.), they weren't just griping. THIS POSTING, while still his opinion that he is entitled to, just seemed hateful and bitter.

"but I think that if anyone mistakes these kilts for the genuine article, they deserve all they get." That's not even close to the spirit which I think this website is here to encourage! Not everyone on this site can afford a new wool kilt or two every year, and not everyone is as educated in the kilt world as others - newbies can't be expected to know everything right away! If a newbie (on a budget) tried to buy a proper kilt from Scotland, and was mislead, why would anyone say "well, that's what they get"? Why not say, "hey... let me help educate you so you don't get taken again" or "These might be some recourses you have to get this corrected so you can have the kilt you THOUGHT you were buying"...

Just my two cents... I really hate devicivness and snobbery. My theory is if you're gonna complain, offer a positive suggestion to change what you don't like.

Peace!