TRADITION: let's (re)define it.

[CMcG]

I ask this with all honesty is there any photos of this style jacket and waistcoat from the early 1900's?

I'm not sure of the actual dates on these but I suspect they are pre 1950 anyway.

[tripleblessed]

I am trying to bow out of this discussion, as I don't want this to be Jock's "crusade".

Jock, I think it's clear from the other posts no one would accuse the thread of being your "crusade". Clearly many of us agree with you more than you realize, even many who will cross into "modern" wear without blinking an eye.

For me, traditional IS contemporary. By definition, it's still being done that way or has ceased to be a tradition. Modern can echo tradition or go in a totally different direction.

Again, for me, to be traditional means further back than your grandfather,and mine was born in 1875.

[Cygnus]

Isn't one aspect of this debate the idea of tradition as ongoing, that is, those of us who dress traditionally don't always like being stuck in 1980? Or being accused of it?

Wahoo someone gets it!!

It's not that I (and others) don't get it, but DWFII's point was well made. While tradition is evolving and ongoing, the 1900-1980 tag is currently serving as a general guideline of what is or isn't "traditional" - and it's apparent that the powers that be determined that it would take something at least 25-30 years before becoming "traditional".

Having said that, I do feel that the explanatory part of the title is misleading (and makes me think of the neon colours and geometric shapes of the 80's).

But how do you make it better? I don't think that removing the "what is discussed here" label entirely is fair to those who are new to the site, and some definition of what is or is not traditional would certainly help to keep the threads and posts on track, thus cutting down on the mods' and administrators' work.

[DWFII]

Where would a black outfit fall? Standard tank with a black jacket, shirt, tie, hose, garters, and gillies? Not traditional but a hardly the MUG category.

Jim

Exactly! All the more reason for a third kilt topic?

I ask this with all honesty is there any photos of this style jacket and waistcoat from the early 1900's?

The high stance jacket and the notch lapel vest were staples of men's fashion during the late 19th and early 20th century.

Wahoo someone gets it!!

I disagree. Not whether he gets it or not but the idea of a "tradition" being something that is "ongoing" or evolving.

From what I was able to dig up, I think the topic line for this thread was intentional and well thought out. It was about 1980 that the Utilikilt (perhaps not the brand but the concept) began to show up as an alternative to both trousers and (ahem) "real" kilts.

Now if, as some would insist, "tradition" is on going and evolving, and/or if 30 years is enough of a reason to consider something "traditional" (nevermind whether it is being passed on from generation to generation in reverence for the form if not the rationale) then we really only need one thread about kilts because surely, surely, Utilikilts qualify as "Traditional."

[Personally, I think it's twisting definitions to suit one's own desires and expectations. It's a little like insisting that brown and red tartan kilts could have, might have...who can say different...been worn at Bannockburn. "Abandon all hope ye who enter (t)here."]

And for me, one of the critical questions that is implied in all this but not being discussed or asked is: "When do we need to start re-writing the dictionary, so that we can all agree on what basic words, having well-established, centuries old definitions, really mean...just so that we can have an intelligent, civil discussion?"

[O'Callaghan]

I don't think it is likely we will all agree.

I would agree that denim kilts and utilikilts are not traditional.

I don't agree that kilts of man-made fibres are not traditional. No, the fabric may not be traditional, but if it is designed to look traditional, then it is a traditional style. And I think that a 'casual kilt', which I at least would define as a kilt that differs from an otherwise traditional kilt only by using less yardage, is still traditional.

And that is the problem. Everyone draws their own line in the sand, and they are not going to be drawn in the same place. And with 57 definitions for things like a 'casual kilt', for example, it's hard to always even be sure that we are arguing about the same thing.

As for what is worn with the kilt, it gets even harder, not to say impossible. We can all agree (I hope) that kilts have always been worn with casual clothes as well as with more formal ones, but casual clothes have changed even more than formal ones over time.

BTW, one of Mr. Newsome's pics of traditional kilt wearing was not Scottish, but Irish. It shows schoolboys in saffron kilts (although it is a black and white photo, so they might have been green perhaps) and the man on the left is Patrick Pearse, who promoted the wearing of kilts by the Irish probably more than anyone else did, not to mention founded the school in question and was executed after taking part in the Easter Rising in 1916.

Of course, I am sure I am not the only one who recognises this photo. Perhaps he sneaked that one in to see if anyone would notice! It is interesting that it doesn't really stand out from the others.

[Cowher]

Traditional:characteristic manner, method, or style

Characteristic: A feature that helps to identify, tell apart, or describe recognizably; a distinguishing mark or trait.

Manner:method of artistic execution or mode of presentation

Method:a way, technique, or process of or for doing something

Style: the state of being popular

Therefor traditional is Afeature that helps to identify amethod of artistic execution or mode of presentation.
Or
A way of dressing in a popular way.

Not twisting words. Not misunderstanding. Using the definition of the words used in the definition of the word being discussed.
Is there any thing in that that would put a end date to traditional kilt wear. NO

In 100 years will alt/utili/whatever kilt be considered traditional? If they are still around and are still being worn in the same way then YES!! It may not be a Scottish tradition rather a north American one but either way a traditional form of unbifurcated mens wear.

The issue I have is that a date of death has been engraved on the tombstone of something that is clearly ALIVE!!!

[macwilkin]

BTW, one of Mr. Newsome's pics of traditional kilt wearing was not Scottish, but Irish. It shows schoolboys in saffron kilts (although it is a black and white photo, so they might have been green perhaps) and the man on the left is Patrick Pearse, who promoted the wearing of kilts by the Irish probably more than anyone else did, not to mention founded the school in question and was executed after taking part in the Easter Rising in 1916.

Apologies for the slightly OT post.

The man in said photo is not Pearse, but Cornelius "Conn" Colbert, an instructor at Pearse's St. Enda's school and fellow member of the IRB and Irish Volunteers. To my knowledge, there is no documentation of a green kilt being worn by St. Enda's students; there are, however, surviving saffron kilts from the school. Information on this photo and Colbert may be found in earse's Patriots: St Enda's and the Cult of Boyhood, by Elaine Sisson (Cork University Press, 2005).

V/R,

Todd

[tripleblessed]

Twenty-five or thirty years is by no stretch of the definition enough time to be considered traditional. I own clothes older than that, and they certainly aren't "traditional". They have ceased to be novel, but that's all. Another hundred years of use will give them legs enough to ask that question again.

On the question of black shirt and tie, black jacket and hose with a standard kilt, black or tartan. If your mother is a Scot, and your father is from certain parts of the Mediterranean, OK, we'll take that ride with you. Or if you are very conservative clergy. If not, file it under "things I pray there are no pictures of thirty years from now". And this from someone who wore electric pink shirts with electric blue hip-hugger bell-bottoms with tie-dyed silk scarves instead of ties to his job as an accounting clerk at the Federal Reserve. Thankfully, no pictures exist, so per the rules, it never happened. At least, not to anyone I might know. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

It was the 60s.......can I plead "flashback"?

[fluter]

This is going to come as a shock, lads, but I believe we're over-thinking this.

Someone asked (rhetorically, I hope?) who decided on the "offensive" verbiage. ( Assume Church-Lady voice, vintage 1970's) Could it be... the Kilt Kops?!?

Well, no. IIRC, it was Steve. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, might have been a collaborative decision of the mods et al. Why was the offending date chosen? Not because it's a generation past, or because no one dresses that way now, but because things were simpler then. The traditional style was exemplified rather well by Highland dress from 1900-1990. No big deal, certainly no attempt to disenfranchise any living kilt-wearer.

After that decade, Steve went about inventing the contemporary kilt, and some other folks were inventing other variations on a theme, and Howie re-invented the kilt suit, and things got really interesting. And like most of life, much more difficult to sum up in twenty-five words or fewer.

Q.E.D. :ootd:

[fluter]

Where would a black outfit fall? Standard tank with a black jacket, shirt, tie, hose, garters, and gillies? Not traditional but a hardly the MUG category.

Jim

I dunno, but whenever they start pulling out those black-on-black outfits to go with the grey-scale tartans, I think of these two gents:


Black kilt outfits by arcturus1997, on Flickr
To fill in the reference, they were two old Western characters who famously wore black hats and shirts. Richard Boone(L) played Paladin in the TV show Have Gun, Will Travel. William Boyd played Hopalong Cassidy, who originated in Western novels and was "cleaned up" for movies.