Our Success Might Well Be Hampered Due Kilt Prices

[crfriend]

The problem with [Hotdog's] approach is that you get the current situation: even in that tiny fraction of the population who have or wear kilts, for most of them, a "kilt" is something you only wear on special occasions, like a tuxedo, and only if you have a lot of spare cash to invest in something you rarely wear. 99% of men wouldn't even consider wearing one because it's too much trouble and discomfort and expense, because they're afraid of being made fun of for not "doing it right," and because they'd get tired of being asked "where are your bagpipes?"

I'd posit that better than 98% of the men in the US do not own a tuxedo, and better than 95% have only worn one one or two times (weddings, mainly, but funerals too on occasion) -- and why bother? Why spend big bucks on something that will only be worn a tiny number of times in one's life? That may work for a bridal gown, but guys tend to be a bit more practical than that.

In addition, (at least) US society is becoming so "casual" that it's getting to the point where there is no place for one to really "pull out the stops" and look really good. If you're in much else than the standard uniform you stand out. This goes for the gals as well as the guys -- especially for guys wearing anything other than trousers, and the end result is that everybody looks the same: BORING.

If kilts are to become an everyday garment, then there has to be a place for cheap kilts that you don't mind getting beer and ketchup on, and there has to be a broader definition of "kilt" in terms of design and fabric.

Hear, hear! If kilts are to be accepted as practical, everyday garments they're going to have to lose the image of "formal dress" (and all the costume rules that go with that); they're going to have to be made from practical, washable fabrics (most guys I know are a bit on the slobbish side); and they're going to have to be available "off the peg" at a reasonable price. This won't harm the already extant kiltmaking trade; that's the very high end, and won't be damaged by common casual acceptance -- they have their own clientele, largely in the same class of folks in the US who have their dress clothes custom made.

I know for a fact that I would *not* wear a thousand-dollar tux to my local watering hole; likewise, I would not wear a 500 pound-sterling kilt there. Why is this? It's for two reasons:

1) The risk of damage to the garment is too high for the environment it'd be worn in.
2) It would look completely and absolutely out of place (a tux or any formal garment).

So, I concur with AMM's thesis that it's important to get the notion of a "casual kilt" accepted (at least in the US), and to loosen the restrictions that make kilts a "costume" in most instances.

There's room for both types of kilt (or any other skirted garment for that matter (There -- I've gone and said it!)), just as there's room for dungarees and tuxedos in trouser-land.

[Milfmog]

If kilts are to become an everyday garment, then there has to be a place for cheap kilts that you don't mind getting beer and ketchup on, and there has to be a broader definition of "kilt" in terms of design and fabric.

So you've seen me eat?

Seriously, I resent spending significant amounts of money on clothes that will be worn in potentially dirty environments. I have an expensive suit (for weddings, job interviews etc) but always worry about damaging or marking it when wearing it, I just can't relax properly in it.

The Union Kilt I bought in the summer was just about the most expensive garment I've ever bought if you disregard my "best" suit. I nearly cried a few weeks ago when I caught it and partly tore a pocket off. Fortunately my local seamstress was able to effect a repair that is invisible unless you look really closely.

Companies such as Utilikilts have done kilts a great service by expanding the definition of "kilt," and I think this is the direction we should go. Narrowing the definition will just give people more reason not to wear them.

Agreed 100%. There are two things required to stop Joe Public looking askance at a guy in a skirted garment:

1. Familiarity, the more guys are seen wearing MUGs (of any description) the less it will raise eyebrows and questions.

2. Blur the lines between the accepted (if unusual) kilts and the unexpected skirts. Once it becomes impossible for anyone to say exactly where kilts stop and skirts begin the invisible "line that can't be crossed" will have been erased.

Union Kilts, Utilikilts etc are doing a great job of blending skirts and kilts into a continuum and so are doing all current male skirt wearers a huge favour, as well as providing an easier way in to skirt wearing for those who are yet to discover for themselves why we choose the skirted option.

Have fun,


Ian

[Departed Member]

99% of men wouldn't even consider wearing one because it's too much trouble and discomfort and expense, because they're afraid of being made fun of for not "doing it right," and because they'd get tired of being asked "where are your bagpipes?"

Whilst I'll agree they're expensive, there's very little problem wearing 'em 'casual', i.e., without the fancy jabot and silly little jackets! The ones the football fans wear aren't wildly expensive, and they aren't concerned with frilly shirts - just their team's!

As for groin discomfort(?), it's not 'essential' to wear a sporran, especially if you're driving. I've never received even one adverse comment, even in Scotland. Almost any form of skirted garment is preferable to tr*users, when driving any distance! Not having heard the 'bagpipe' comment in the UK, all I can recommend is to have a few suitable 'put-downs' ready to use!

If kilts are to become an everyday garment, then there has to be a place for cheap kilts that you don't mind getting beer and ketchup on, and there has to be a broader definition of "kilt" in terms of design and fabric. Kilt advocates will have to stop sneering at $20 acrylic or polyester kilts and stop verbally tarring and feathering those who wear right-over-left or longer-than-knee-length kilts or wearing underwear with them or otherwise failing to observe the ridiculously rigid "kilt code."

Sorry, I'm already collecting my pet's redundant feathers and boiling up the tar! Left-over-right has been an unwritten rule of 'menswear', whether it's a Kilt or nae. From before Kilts were 'invented'. Otherwise, it's a 'kilted skirt', nothing more, nothing less. Below the knee, such a garment tends to feel cumbersome. As for underwear, that's (unless you were in the military) purely personal choice. It's a very modern presumption, that 'no underwear' is the 'norm'.

If you want men to even consider wearing them in winter, a "winter-length" kilt will have to be allowed as a "real kilt." And you'll need kilts with pockets, .....

Trad Kilts ARE "winter-length"! As others have pointed out, there's nowt wrong with adding a pair of tights under Kilt & sock (but, may your G*d forbid, not leggings!). Pockets? Well, a 'Breacan' is a Kilt-with-pockets, considerably cheaper than the' real thing', too! There's no reason why these cannot be produced in a much cheaper, and more resiliant material.

[sapphire]

At the risk of having the Wrath of the Clan rained down on me, a kilt is a skirt, a pleated skirt that is a wrap around and does not have pleats in front.

It could be made out of paisly if you wanted [egads] {wait, that sounds good}

The two cost factors are materials and labor. Bulk costs for fabrics would be compariitivly equal across manufacturers. Labor costs are all over the place from Asian sweatshops to low wage domestics factories to tailors.

[Ray]

Some confusing and contradictory comments here.

I'll try and add to the mayhem!

1. There seems to be some price creep here. First £400, then £500. No - kilts are typically £250 - £300. At £400+ you are into bespoke garments. That's that one sorted.

2. Kilts are expensive as a piece of clothing, but they outlast almost any piece of clothing you wish to mention. Thus while they are expensive, they are very good value for money. The two are not mutually exclusive.

3. I cannot reconcile the fact that a right over left kilt is verboten, but wearing black tights underneath is okay. A traditionalist would say "eh?" and a freestyler would say, "eh? dude?" What if you are left handed? Left over right - silly rule! Bet nobody notices. They'll notice the tights though!

4. I agree that the utilikilts etc are doing a grand job to get the awareness up. Good for them. I also don't have a problem with the adrylic ones worn by footie fans. Same point - it's spreading the use of MUGs.

5. Sporrans hurting? Not in my experience - unless you're dancing or jogging.

6. And another th...oh stuff it; I'm off to get a nice Scottish real ale.

Ray

PS I have a kilt for my wine bottle(s). No, seriously! It's a green/blue tartan...and it wraps left over right. That's okay, then.[/i]

[mugman]

Much as I admire the sentiment of supporting our own professional kilt makers, there is no way I could afford a full price top quality kilt - much as I'd like one. I've found both acceptable and poor items on ebay, being a case of trial and error. Ebay is the accessible way I can afford to indulge in kilt wearing on a meagre carer's allowance, and I have a few hanging in my wardrobe I can choose from. Few people on the street know the difference between a £400 one (correction, from £400 at Houston Kiltmakers if unlucky enough to need a particular tartan) and a £40 one anyway. Obviously kiltwearers know the difference, but my granny doesn't. Or the farmer next door. I would sooner be seen regularly, daily, in a cheaper kilt, and help promote the general notion of kilt wearing, than just save a costly one for special formal occasions, where kilts might not be as unexpected a garment anyway.
As with most products, there are always going to be cheaper alternatives, according to supply, demand, and budget. The difference between a hamburger and a four course meal at the Ritz.
I think it's a case of the higher wage earners naturally purchasing from higher quality outfitters that makes the world go round...and long may it continue, for the sake of maintaining quality. As soon as I win on the lottery , I shall be joining them.

[Ray]

Ebay (with some care and diligence) is a great source of second hand kilts, not to mention general MUGs.

I take the point that kilts are not exactly affordable, but that doesn't stop me wearing my £300 kilts. On the contrary; the more I use them, the more the cost per wearing drops.

I think most people in Scotland would tell the difference between a £40 and £400 kilt (assuming both are new). Maybe not from 20 yards, but from 2 yards - yes! Of course, that's not to say the cheaper alternative does not have its place - as has been pointed out above.

[AMM]

While I'm sure the kilt lovers here are having a great time debating the fine points, I can't say that if I weren't already an occasional kilt-wearer it would make me any more inclined to wear a kilt at any time.

It's the usual problem: the folks that like <X> hang out with like-minded folks, and they all agree that <X> are wonderful and folks who don't like <X> the way they do are just daft. Then they sit around and ask each other why more folks don't seem to go ape over <X>. Then they conclude that most folks are just daft, and then they go get another pint and congratulate one another for being the only intelligent folk on the planet.