Luxury clothes of the past

[DapperDan15]

In a world where about 75% were lower class making £2 a week I’m not sure how anyone could argue that a majority or large minority were getting good bespoke work done. It’s pure fu*king fiction. Just because something didn’t come off a factory line doesn’t make it bespoke.

Fashion right now is wonderfully available and democratic. Theres no gate keeper making sure you’re worthy. You lose some on the guidance and taste and have to make your own mistakes but everyone’s got access if they want it.

What exactly is "democratic" clothing? Since my suits don't exactly walk out and vote badly on their own, I guess what you mean is something more like "more accessible to the vast majority." But is an apple really that much more "democratic" if I offer it to the world, but at the cost of $5,000 USD?

In 1876, having a normal suit made at a West End tailor would cost 6 pounds 10 shillings. Bear in mind that this price is for truly bespoke, luxury suits from Savile Row or a more or less equally skilled tailor in the city of London. Bear in mind also that this could be purchased on a credit system, which means the cash wasn't even due for years to come.

According to some authorities, this cost represents less than four week's wages for the lower classes of the day. The cost of a suit from a respectable, but not Savile Row, tailor would be even less: 4 pounds, 4 shillings. The cost of a suit of ready-made clothes? 2 pounds, 5 shillings. I don't know about the rest of the forum, but I'm certainly not making $10,000 every three weeks, which is about the cost of a good suit from Savile Row today (and they won't even give you credit).

Would the majority of people back then have saved up enough to buy such a suit, instead of the cheaper ready-made stuff? Probably not. More importantly, the tailors would probably refuse to make for them. But I don't think the idea that "good bespoke" was completely out of reach of many people in the past because of cost is really a tenable position.

Are our "apples" (suits) really that much more democratic because we make them "accessible" but charge $10,000? I'd say they effectively aren't.

 

[JohnMRobie]

What exactly is "democratic" clothing? Since my suits don't exactly walk out and vote badly on their own, I guess what you mean is something more like "more accessible to the vast majority." But is an apple really that much more "democratic" if I offer it to the world, but at the cost of $5,000 USD?

In 1876, having a normal suit made at a West End tailor would cost 6 pounds 10 shillings. Bear in mind that this price is for truly bespoke, luxury suits from Savile Row or a more or less equally skilled tailor in the city of London. Bear in mind also that this could be purchased on a credit system, which means the cash wasn't even due for years to come.

According to some authorities, this cost represents less than four week's wages for the lower classes of the day. The cost of a suit from a respectable, but not Savile Row, tailor would be even less: 4 pounds, 4 shillings. The cost of a suit of ready-made clothes? 2 pounds, 5 shillings. I don't know about the rest of the forum, but I'm certainly not making $10,000 every three weeks, which is about the cost of a good suit from Savile Row today (and they won't even give you credit).

Would the majority of people back then have saved up enough to buy such a suit, instead of the cheaper ready-made stuff? Probably not. More importantly, the tailors would probably refuse to make for them. But I don't think the idea that "good bespoke" was completely out of reach of many people in the past because of cost is really a tenable position.

Are our "apples" (suits) really that much more democratic because we make them "accessible" but charge $10,000? I'd say they effectively aren't.

Democratic =/= political.

Fashion is incredibly democratic right now in the egalitarian sense of the word in that anyone can largely wear whatever styles they want to. Everyone has access to the same makers, the same styles, the same choices. There’s more flexibility in what is socially acceptable. You’re conflating fashion or style choices available with availability and pricing of certain brands.

Beyond that and with regard to accessibility you yourself mention it right in your post that people used to be denied entry to places. For the most part you no longer need to rely on the right introductions or deal with a gate keeper. If you can afford to walk through the door you’re welcome to. You no longer need to live in a specific area to have access to these things. There are makers who have expanded reach and have become well known outside of their communities. These are all good things for consumers and for the makers.

The only things I can think of where this isn’t the case in the fashion adjacent world would be Hermes for quota bags and some watch brands where a relationship is needed to get certain pieces - But these are also available on the secondary market if you can afford them.

 

[DapperDan15]

Democratic =/= political.

Fashion is incredibly democratic right now in the egalitarian sense of the word in that anyone can largely wear whatever styles they want to. Everyone has access to the same makers, the same styles, the same choices. There’s more flexibility in what is socially acceptable. You’re conflating fashion or style choices available with availability and pricing of certain brands.

Beyond that and with regard to accessibility you yourself mention it right in your post that people used to be denied entry to places. For the most part you no longer need to rely on the right introductions or deal with a gate keeper. If you can afford to walk through the door you’re welcome to. You no longer need to live in a specific area to have access to these things. There are makers who have expanded reach and have become well known outside of their communities. These are all good things for consumers and for the makers.

The only things I can think of where this isn’t the case in the fashion adjacent world would be Hermes for quota bags and some watch brands where a relationship is needed to get certain pieces - But these are also available on the secondary market if you can afford them.

Well, I wasn't implying a political spin, just saying that it doesn't seem to make sense in the actual meaning of the word. Calling something "wonderfully democratic" seems to me inherently political in a way that clothing and fashion is not (even though they can be political by association).

I think we all agree on the exclusivity of top-shelf craftsmanship of the past. That's not in doubt. But what you said earlier was not just about the exclusivity of luxury in the past. You said that good bespoke was not widely available because (implied) bespoke craftsmen were few, and that the good bespoke that was available was extremely expensive.

But in fact, made to order options are much fewer than in the past due to cheaper competition. Not only bespoke tailoring, but shirtmakers, jewellers, gunsmiths, etc. So I don't think we can claim that globalization and industrialization has made luxury more accessible. If anything, it has contributed to destroying what little craft remains. And as far as price, I think the numbers I posted speak for themselves. It was cheaper by far to have a bespoke suit made in the past, even for the majority.

I just don't buy the argument that luxury is more accessible today because the only barrier is money as opposed to status or charisma. A $10,000 suit (or pair of shoes!) is hardly democratic, in any sense of the term.

 

[JohnMRobie]

Well, I wasn't implying a political spin, just saying that it doesn't seem to make sense in the actual meaning of the word. Calling something "wonderfully democratic" seems to me inherently political in a way that clothing and fashion is not (even though they can be political by association).

I think we all agree on the exclusivity of top-shelf craftsmanship of the past. That's not in doubt. But what you said earlier was not just about the exclusivity of luxury in the past. You said that good bespoke was not widely available because (implied) bespoke craftsmen were few, and that the good bespoke that was available was extremely expensive.

But in fact, made to order options are much fewer than in the past due to cheaper competition. Not only bespoke tailoring, but shirtmakers, jewellers, gunsmiths, etc. So I don't think we can claim that globalization and industrialization has made luxury more accessible. If anything, it has contributed to destroying what little craft remains. And as far as price, I think the numbers I posted speak for themselves. It was cheaper by far to have a bespoke suit made in the past, even for the majority.

I just don't buy the argument that luxury is more accessible today because the only barrier is money as opposed to status or charisma. A $10,000 suit (or pair of shoes!) is hardly democratic, in any sense of the term.

Why do you insist on conflating bespoke tailoring with luxury? Beyond that your pricing is just wrong.

Democratic means if you want to wear suits you can walk your ass into spier mackay and leave with a fully canvassed suit made with fabric from a good mill for like $700 on any day of the week. It also means if you want to wear athleisure you can do that. There’s a million types of SWD you can wear. It’s incredibly democratic.

The good news is that democratic nature means you’re welcome to keep thrifting old tweeds if that’s your thing.

 

[DapperDan15]

Why do you insist on conflating bespoke tailoring with luxury? Beyond that your pricing is just wrong.

Democratic means if you want to wear suits you can walk your ass into spier mackay and leave with a fully canvassed suit made with fabric from a good mill for like $700 on any day of the week. It also means if you want to wear athleisure you can do that. There’s a million types of SWD you can wear. It’s incredibly democratic.

The good news is that democratic nature means you’re welcome to keep thrifting old tweeds if that’s your thing.

Oh, come on. If Savile Row bespoke isn't considered luxury on Styleforum, then I'm not sure what is. That's a silly sort of argument.

My pricing is not wrong. The figures I posted are accurate, and you can read them for yourself. The title of the book is not totally unknown among clothing forums: The Gentleman's Art of Dressing with Economy.

I don't think that Spier and MacKay counts as luxury, nor do I think that's the market they're trying to compete in. And thank you, I certainly will keep thrifting old tweeds for as long as I can find them.

 

[DapperDan15]

According to Thomas Girtin, author of "Nothing But the Best: The Tradition of English Craftsmen from Edwardian to Elizabethan" (1960), the price of a pair of John Lobb St. James shoes in 1960 was just $60 USD.

Even accounting for inflation and purchasing power differences (and granting that it was possibly a very plain pair of calfskin shoes), that seemed to me an interesting statistic on luxury footwear.

 

[JohnMRobie]

Oh, come on. If Savile Row bespoke isn't considered luxury on Styleforum, then I'm not sure what is. That's a silly sort of argument.

My pricing is not wrong. The figures I posted are accurate, and you can read them for yourself. The title of the book is not totally unknown among clothing forums: The Gentleman's Art of Dressing with Economy.

I don't think that Spier and MacKay counts as luxury, nor do I think that's the market they're trying to compete in. And thank you, I certainly will keep thrifting old tweeds for as long as I can find them.

Your prices are indeed wrong. You keep throwing 10 grand around. I’d be happy to introduce you to any number of tailors who aren’t even half that cost. There are even some less than 1/3 of it. I’d be happy to introduce you to some shoemakers who aren’t 1/3 of that cost.

My argument was that bespoke is more accessible. That isn’t the same as “savile row is more accessible” - Hence the entire thing about globalization and access.

My argument about Spier is that as an entry level brand it is significantly better and more available than entry level of the past. Just like the mid level and higher levels.

As I’ve acknowledged the only place there may not be a big leap forward is at the bespoke end. But it also is disingenuous to use Savile Row as the only bespoke to be a benchmark and then to use the wrong prices for them while you’re at it.

 

[DapperDan15]

Your prices are indeed wrong. You keep throwing 10 grand around. I’d be happy to introduce you to any number of tailors who aren’t even half that cost. There are even some less than 1/3 of it. I’d be happy to introduce you to some shoemakers who aren’t 1/3 of that cost.

My argument was that bespoke is more accessible. That isn’t the same as “savile row is more accessible” - Hence the entire thing about globalization and access.

My argument about Spier is that as an entry level brand it is significantly better and more available than entry level of the past. Just like the mid level and higher levels.

As I’ve acknowledged the only place there may not be a big leap forward is at the bespoke end. But it also is disingenuous to use Savile Row as the only bespoke to be a benchmark and then to use the wrong prices for them while you’re at it.

You yourself claimed a difference between "good bespoke" and all the rest. What better way to compare than by using the same calibre of tailoring?

Many of the tailors in this article were around in 1876:

https://www.esquire.com/uk/style/a31209353/savile-row-tailors/

Their suits certainly begin at prices that are at or very close to $10,000, as a starting price for a two-piece suit. That's with no credit system and with no bells and whistles. It certainly wouldn't be hard to get up to that figure once you start selecting vests, extra trousers, special fabrics, etc.

Just because you can find cheaper tailors than Savile Row doesn't mean that they are a valid comparison with the exact same tailors in the past. The fact is that your claim about accessibility was based on an element of its supposed cost in the past. You said that this made it impossible for people to afford bespoke at that time.

Savile Row tailors near the turn of the century cost less than a month's wages for what you claimed was 75% of the population. Unless it is being suggested that Savile Row in 1876 wasn't "good bespoke?"

 

[JohnMRobie]

I’m starting to understand why tailors relied on introductions to decide if they’d work with someone.

 

[Crispyj]

I don't believe Savile Row, as a whole, has been anywhere near the leaders of bespoke tailoring or luxury for the past two decades.

 

[clee1982]

All right let me propose one way to measure...

1. what is your current income percentile

2. teleport yourself to 1900, put yourself in same income percentile (NOT inflation adjust back your current income and find the percentile you land on)

3. is luxury clothe more accessible then or now

 

[JohnMRobie]

All right let me propose one way to measure...

1. what is your current income percentile

2. teleport yourself to 1900, put yourself in same income percentile (NOT inflation adjust back your current income and find the percentile you land on)

3. is luxury clothe more accessible then or now

You forgot numbers 4 and 5.

4. Do you live in London, New York City, Paris or have the ability to buy a ticket on a steamer to get there and take off a month from work to go shop.

5. Do you have someone who is a current customer willing to vouch for you to walk through the door.

 

[DapperDan15]

I'm going to be generous and pretend that you're not actually confusing cost and exclusivity, and simply moving goalposts so that you can claim luxury is more accessible now. But the figures speak for themselves.

I don't believe Savile Row, as a whole, has been anywhere near the leaders of bespoke tailoring or luxury for the past two decades.

I daresay they still qualify as "good bespoke," though, wouldn't you agree?

 

[DapperDan15]

All right let me propose one way to measure...

1. what is your current income percentile

2. teleport yourself to 1900, put yourself in same income percentile (NOT inflation adjust back your current income and find the percentile you land on)

3. is luxury clothe more accessible then or now

This is actually a great way to do it. You'll probably find, in fact, that the percentile a decently paid middle class man (probably many on the forum) winds up in would absolutely allow for an expenditure of 5 pounds every now and then for a suit. I think we'd be hard-pressed to find an average man who could afford the same tailors today.

 

[clee1982]

well going by number here

Luxury clothes of the past

That is my impression to. We hear about quality being downgraded and things are no longer made like how they used to be etc, and this complaint is quite common. Are we imagining it? I don't think so. While the luxury market seems to be in good hands, the midend market seems to be affected as...

www.styleforum.net

annual income

lower classes £30- 75th percentile

the whole chunk here is lumped so not sure
lower middle class £80
middle class £150
upper middle class £300

upper class £1000 - 95th percentile

and going by quote 45 pounds here for a suit 24 years prior to 1900, so just to make number simple call it 50 pounds (~10% higher over 24 years doesn't sound crazy)

Luxury clothes of the past

That is my impression to. We hear about quality being downgraded and things are no longer made like how they used to be etc, and this complaint is quite common. Are we imagining it? I don't think so. While the luxury market seems to be in good hands, the midend market seems to be affected as...

www.styleforum.net

I have no clue what's SF average resultant percentile is but if we assume SF average percentile is top end of middle class (the 300 pound figure), that's 300/50 = 6 suit a year

Michael Brown is absolutely top top top tier and he is 7k GBP (I mean like you would call Steed real bespoke and UK based and he would be 5k GBP?), so 6 suits get you back to 42k GBP annual salary, would assume that's way lower than SF average, i.e. the current SF average income can buy more top tier than the upper middle class can then

p.s. this is b.s. math without adjust for lots of thing, like you need real disposable income else tax blah blah all make things apple orange, but at least just looking at it, ignore transaction cost (i.e. how much it cost to just "get there" unless you happen to live in London as suppose to a reasonable upper middle class in say anywhere random in US) you're pretty clearly no worse off