I don’t think anyone is claiming the upper classes only had one nice dress. It’s always been my understanding that that was the way it was for the poor. One nice dress you got new (usually at Christmas or Easter), then last years Sunday dress became the daily dress, and last years daily dress became the work dress, and the work dress got reused for scraps or hand me downs. Any lady who has a personal clothing allowance is OF COURSE going to have more than that.
Yeaaa like my parents grew up like this not that long ago (as in, 1 nice article of clothing for special events). Surely feudal peasants had literally NOTHING nice to wear. This reel completely ignores poverty.
it’s wild how everything old feels new again lol, this reminds me of the issue we have posed now as well: with either going into trendy fast fashion or buying a few very well made expensive items lol-super cool, thank you
Scenery and technology changes, people stay the same. I'm convinced part of changing fashion is to convince ourselves that time is passing, the world is changing and so are we (whether we are as a society or not). The other part is we get bored and creative. 😁
@@Here4TheHeckOfItI’ve read so much about that industry I haven’t bought retail in so long. I’m a die hard grifter and when I need something really nice I go to high end resell shops.
The problem is people thinking that because the items our ancestors had were different that everything must be so different, but in reality there are similarities between how society is today & even how society was during biblical times. The fact is, we are all human, and humanity transcends time.
Middle class sixties girl here, we got new clothes and shoes twice a year, the big one was for back to school. Three dresses, five or six pair of pants, five tops, one pair of leather "good" shoes, one pair of tennis shoes for play. When school let out we got a pair of sandles a few pair of shorts and tshirts. Underwear and socks were christmas presents, along with a new winter coat or sweater if needed. Mom sewed and crocheted our clothes when we were little.
I grew up the same way and still pretty much keep it that way. I had roommates when I was younger that had so much clothes, I couldn’t believe it…until that I realized that they we’re basically not wearing more items than I. They had many items bought on impulse, but that didn’t fit with anything or some they liked but never wore because it was uncomfortable. In the end, I realized that buying well thought out pieces that you can wear all your other pieces was the way to go.
My great grandmother was a late Victorian-early Edwardian era society beauty. She had dresses for different occasions, plus clever things like overdresses that could make one dress into multiple dresses. Basically, she had a very clever ‘capsule wardrobe’ that could be mixed and matched. For instance, the short black wool coat could used for regular daytime wear, or paired with a riding skirt for hunting. The blue silk dress could be worn out to tea with girlfriends, or she could layer a black jet beaded overdress onto it for evening. Her white linen dress could be styled various ways to be worn for summer sport like tennis, archery, croquet, or just reading on the veranda. Basicallly, her whole wardrobe fit into one steamer trunk, and took her to every possible occasion. I don’t think your average socialite could do that today! I’m trying to learn to sew and I hope to create a similarly practical wardrobe for myself one day. What I loved about my great grannie was that she was also frugal. Despite having money, she wasted nothing. Bits of fabric would be reused, moved from one garment to the next when the first one became tired or unfashionable. Nothing was considered disposable. I feel like there’s a lot to be learned from that attitude so many of our ancestors had.
I live in a house with a “ custom “ closet from 1930 in the master bedroom. On the ‘womens’ side: The pull out rack has room for 2 ( 1 winter, 1 summer)good dress, 2work( everyday , also1 winter, 1 summer) dress, 2 blouses, and 2 skirts. This was explained to me by the previous owner of the house ( who got the info from the original owner/ builder) And the Man side is shorter: Pullout rack holds: 1 good suit, 1 everyday suit, 1 good shirt, 1 everyday shirt, 1 work shirt.1 pair of work trousers.
I think the people who only had one good dress were working for the people these articles are about. Most poor people don't buy 1 ridiculously expensive designer dress per season **or** blow their whole budget on Shein **or** actually need or even have occasion to wear dozens of cute new dresses every year. We work. We aren't out partying every day, so we have different needs. Just like rich ladies don't need to keep a wardrobe full of work clothes, sturdy boots, high visibility vests, or any other kind of gear that many working class households consider standard. This is very directed at the upper middle class and above, while the concept in question is regarding middle to lowest class. The articles were very interesting, though a little hard to read with the page cutoffs, I'd love to see more content like this.
They would have had several dresses of varying quality and many, many accessories to change the look. Just one church dress, yes, but two or three work dresses for different occasions - the house, in town, and one slightly nicer one for say, a friend's house. Women were out and about, so expecting them to just have house and church dresses, and only two instead of three or four, is a little overkill. Servants would get one new uniform per year, so yes, servants would only have one dress. Non servant working class folks would probably have three to six depending on income. @@KatieBellino
For some, the difference between working dress or casual dress is if she wears apron or not. And if we go more older times, the underwear is just old weary outerwear.
@@KatieBellinoa farmer’s wife would’ve had more pieces than that- it would’ve been utilitarian though. So, older dresses would’ve gotten worn down and needed mending that then became work dresses. But people did dress “nice” when going around in town or attending gatherings as reputation and public appearance was much more important.
My father just told me yesterday the first time he buy his own clothes and the shoes he brought are still expensive (it was plataformas shoes the Jackson five used). He wanted fashioned clothes cause he was young and all his live he had the same clothing as his brothers because his father was a penny pincher. In the way I see it: How much money we have and how we want to be seemed shapes a lot of our taste in clothing and consumption and being poor can put you in either end of the consumption spectrum depending on how you cope with poverty and what you consider most important
My grandmother was the child of a factory owner in the midwestern US. They were very well off and her older siblings had debut balls and grand tours before WW1. She was much younger than her siblings though and just a little child during that war. she attended a private Catholic girls school. (a day school, not a boarding school). As a schoolgirl, before high school, she usually only had maybe half a dozen dresses at any given time. But only 2 NEW dresses each year. A new dress for school in a practical dark color. Over this dress, which she wore every day, she wore a starched white pinafore, there were two of them to allow for stains but also first the nuns and then her step mother rung a peal over her head for having got it dirty, for having spilt food or dripped ink from the required dip pen. Upon getting home from school she changed into LAST YEARS DRESS. Which had been let out at the seams and down at the hem as required, and had most of any lace or trim removed. This dress was for playtime and she wore a black pinafore (a previously white pinafore, dyed black when it was too stained) if she had any chores to do, she was still expected to help with housework in order to learn. Weekdays this mostly had to do with getting supper on the table and cleaning up after. On Saturdays she wore that dress or perhaps an even older and even more untrimmed dress and apron to assist with more heavy duty chores, including laundry. Her white pinafores and the family’s other white clothes had to be treated with blueing and starch, both messy, and ironed, amongst other chores. On Sunday and holidays she wore her Sunday best. A white or pale colored dress that was replaced at Easter. This dress served for important events, dinners and parties and church etc. Last years best was refit and the trim adjusted as needed and worn for days out and day visits to ladies and her married sisters homes with her stepmother. If her married sisters came to dinner she had to change into her 2nd best dress, but if her father’s peers or someone like the mayor or a priest came to dinner then she wore her best dress. A 3rd best dress might be dyed a darker color if it still fit and be another play dress in summer. When she began high school her new wardrobe was a skirt suit and several blouses and a couple of skirts, and 2 shirtwaist dresses. She knit a sweater in her school colors and sone others. She didn’t grow much so accumulated more of the same sort of things in following years. Not a new wardrobe, just another suit or dress or skirt and blouse combo. She had a modest evening gown, with sleeves and a high neckline for nice dinners or formal dances. . Just the one, and another each year, not a new one for every such event. She reached 16, the age of making her debut in 1928 and got a more grien yo looking evening given for that. and should have gone on her tour after graduating high school. But by then the depression had begun. Although her father’s factory survived, her tour didn’t happen that year or the following because her father felt like worldwide financial problems made it too risky over in Europe. When she married, she did have a fluffy white wedding dress. And a new skirt suit. But the rest of her wardrobe was just what had accumulated or been refashioned since starting high school.
When I asked my grandmother about why the closets in the house we live in (that she used live in) were so small. She said because we didn’t need that many clothes. Two work clothes one to wash and one to wear and a nice one for church and special occasions.
Ideally, the upper-middle class clothing budget for a year should get a woman 4 sets of undergarments, 3 sets of sleepwear, 2 quality coats and accessories to reflect the season needed (usually 4 or 6 sets total), 2 (at most 3) fancy dresses, 6 every day dresses (also in various weights and preferably layered for variety), 4 pairs of shoes, and a large variety of sundries that can change the look of the outfit, such as pins/brooches, scarves, ribbons and bows, etc. :)
It would make much more sense to buy more underwear and casual clothes and less nice dresses and acessories every year. Who needs new nice clothes every year besides a child whos growing? Really why would you replace your wardrobe eveey year, but then go with only 4 pairs of underwear 😂 some people are horrible with money omg
@@CHLOCHLOLPto me it’s the coats that seems excessives. But again, we may have different idea of what a coat is and how much it cost. I live in Canada with 4 very distinct seasons and a winter coats are expensive and you need different types for the city and for your sports. I don’t know anyone changing them more than every 5 years. Two nice dresses per year seems right…one for the Christmas season and one in the summertime for weddings and such. As for underwear, that also seems about right as you don’t throw away those bought the previous year.
Even in the first half of the 20th century people didn't have that many clothes. I had only a few school outfits, a Sunday dress, a party dress and some play clothes plus seasonal garments like coats, hats, boots and a swimsuit. The bedroom closets were about four feet wide. 80 years later even childrens clisets are crammed to the gills with clothes.
My Mother was a child in the 50's and 60's. Her Grandmother made her 3 dresses, 4 times a year. So 12 dresses a year. Her Grandmother also made her prom dress. It was gorgeous.
In the 50s as a child, I got 2 sunday dresses 1 at christmas and 1 at easter. For school in the fall I got 2 dresses each year plus the easter and christmas dress ftom the past year would be rotated in as school wear as the new holiday approached. At easter I got new church shoes and in the fall I got new school shoes. I was the 5th child I wore hand me down which filled out my wardrobe. After school I wore hand me down blouses and coveralls as play clothes.
My elderly neighbor really grew up (in Boston, Mass., in the early 1940s) with only one “good” dress to share between her and her sister. The scale line from poverty to wealth has infinite possible points upon it.
@@deltaflute03but that also shows that it was not the norm to only own two skirts for most of her high school classmates. Of course poor people have always existed and still live among us.
My grandmother was privileged with a single dress for school once a year after picking cotton all summer to afford it. My grandfather, on the other hand, came from a family so rich, he and all four of his sisters were each afforded new cars when they were teenagers and had new clothes every weekend. My grandmother's father abandoned the family. My grandfather's father owned coal mines in Ohio. This was in the 1920's.
I have a friend who grew up middle class in Hungary. She had a Sunday dress, and two school dresses for the week. She told me she wire one dress the first week, then the other the second week. Of course, the dress changed seasonally, but that’s still only about 6 or 8 dresses per year
Early 1940s in the U.S. meant rationing. My father was a kid and only got two pairs of shoes per year, and got so used to his shoes being too tight that he thought they were supposed to be that way and just went with it for most of his life. It was only when he was about 80 that he tried on a pair of my shoes that I was about to get rid of and was surprised to learn that his feet did not have to hurt.
I think looking at closet size in old homes is also a super interesting indicator. All the Pre WWII houses in our community have either closets that are very small or very oddly shaped (tucked into roof eaves). And honestly I love it. My husband and I share one 40 inch wide closet plus two small dressers. I like to say it "Keeps me honest" since we can't have more clothes than fit in there!
In Ireland, in the 1950s andc60s, things were made of wool or cotton and laundered once a week, at most. So a blue or shirt was worn for 6 days before being washed and woollen jumpers, skirts and coats were very seldom cleaned. I can still remember the smell of wet tweed and body odour on a Dublin bus on a wet day even in the early 70s. Oh the glamour!
I wore a lot of hand-me-downs from my sister and my best friend. My friend’s mom was the manager of the childrens’ section of an upscale clothing store. When she outgrew them, I got them
I had friends growing up who were more affluent than I was, and what they didn’t want, they gave to me. A lot of these clothes were new with tags from Neiman Marcus and Sak’s. They would get them and change their minds. I also loved thrift shopping for unique clothing. But there were times when I had only one pair of panties, and shoes with holes in them, and one bra. I had to wash them every day, and either wore my older sister’s shoes with tissue in the toes so they would fit, or put something in my own shoes to cover the holes until my mom got paid
Most of today's fashion is not meant to last beyond a season. The clothes are created to be disposable. That's why they fade and get threadbare after a few washes. Jeans, scrubs, coveralls and other protective workwear are some of the few things that are built to last. Even leathers are much thinner and less durable than in the past. (Today's motto should be "Make it cheap. Make it fast. Charge as much as you can without causing a riot.")
@@hollybyrd6186100%natural fiber clothes are becoming so difficult to find! I have this issue with my sister in law. She thinks of me as a spendrift because I tend to buy clothes at a higher price than she. However, I don’t buy very often and my clothes goes from office clothes, to home and errands clothes, to gardening or night clothes and than rags. She on the other hand buys almost every week from SHEIN and such, half of it doesn’t fit and she gives to her sisters, friends, etc. At the end of the year I am pretty sure she had spent much more. My weight don’t fluctuate much so I wear my pants and skirts 15-20 years in average and my tops 10-15 years.
I live in Pakistan, and most clothing is still made by buying fabric and then having it stitched (either at home) or by a tailor. There is also a difference between “at home” and “going out” clothes. Clothes worn at home are generally old, out of fashion, or generally plain. Whilst going out clothes (to go to the park, a friend or relatives house, to eat etc.) will be embroidered or laced or just in general better condition e.g a fully finished and edged scarf in a matching thread colour vs an unedged scarf. HOW MANY clothes varies wildly between ALOT and someone may even have 2-3 dresses (including one good one) depending on their financial background. My husbands aunt is very poor and has 2 dresses she cycles through everyday and 1 good going out dress.
That's a relief. I was feeling bad for needing to make so many garments as I try to move my wardrobe toward historical stuff. But I get dirty every day, dangit, and I do laundry once a week! And there's different weather!
@@sophiesong8937 Because women with generous clothing allowances wanted an excuse to show off their wealth through clothes more often? They were limited on what they were allowed to own, so different dresses for different random/made up occasions was how they flexed their wealth without risk of being robbed for their jewelry (though too fancy of a gown in the wrong area could get that gown stolen and sold so it could be deconstructed for resale as smaller objects such as purses, bag lining, coat linings, etc. As middle and working class emulated these very wealthy, the garments (in lesser quality) became more common. Which was also a way the article was trying to keep the classes separated. Those that didn't care about being frugal (the wealthy) and those that knew they had to get as much out of their money as possible (the middle class). :)
It’s an odd standard of thinking everyone not rich were dirt poor. Even in medieval Europe, a farmer could’ve had a good bit of money based on reputation and business acumen of the day. It’s just sumptuary laws and availability of certain items that dictated clothing and such. Cloth was also made in a range of quality that dictated different prices. Public appearance and reputation was quite important for a lot of human history.
My grandmother was privileged with a single dress for school once a year after picking cotton all summer to afford it, herself. My grandfather, on the other hand, came from a family so rich, he and all four of his sisters were each afforded new cars when they were teenagers and shopped for new clothes every weekend. My grandmother's father abandoned his family. My grandfather's father owned coal mines in Ohio. This was in the 1920's.
Most of my nice dresses growing up were hand-me-downs from my elder sisters that our mom made. Mom was a professional seamstress and had been making her own, and her mother's, clothes since she was in middle school. By the time I was born, she had amassed a large amount of nice fabric and had a top of the line sewing machine that my grandpa had gotten her when she was in high school. (My parents grew up in different economic brackets from each other and from myself and my siblings.) We were all taught to take really good care of our nice clothes and had some sets of clothes that we could go wild in made of good sturdy material. Honestly didn't know how much clothes cost for a good portion of my childhood because we typically mended things and used things until they were scrapped for rags or pillow stuffing.
Before I retired I worked in an office setting. When I first started I didn't have much money to spend on a wardrobe so I bought two nice suits - One in a taupe color the other in black. I went to consignment shops to hunt out good silk blouses and a couple nice business dresses with matching jackets. I was able to put together a good working wardrobe which I added onto over the years. I'd have the skirts length altered time to time and wear twin sets instead of the suit jacket. Added a couple pair of well made shoes and a good bag and I was set. I looked professional and polished. Now for my off work / weekend clothes? I enjoyed simple cotton sheaths and dresses in the summer and jeans and funky sweaters in the winter.
Same, once I got into the swing of my career I bought one new suit each fall, and one new suit each spring. I kept 5suits per season, the oldest would be donated. I had a variety of tops. Mix and match! When I retired, I kept 2 suits for each season, to wear for events. I may cut that down to one.
Mom dropped out of school in the late 1950's when she went from private school to public school because she had one school uniform and one Sunday dress. She was embarrassed to not have a different dress for each day of the week. 😢
My moms family made their own clothes. That's the only reason they had more clothes. She had 3 school skirts/tops and 1 good church dresses. If she fell while playing and ripped her clothes, she was in deep💩
I absolutely love your scarf! Also I have lived in an old small house by the railroad and can confirm not more than a couple outfits would fit in the one tiny closet.
In the 19th century it was not unusual when a lady spent money on an dress good for several occasions she would have the seamstress use a heavy silk and make a skirt, a high necked bodice with long sleeves and an evening bodice with a low neck and short sleeves. That way she was always prepared for any formal occasion
I think it would depend entirely on the wealth or lack of wealth in the home. In the 19th century, if someone was living in a home where they had enough money to buy a newspaper or magazine and had the ability to read it, it’s a good guess that they were not living in poverty, as much of the population did. Those that were in poverty would be lucky to have a good dress for church.
Newspapers were pretty common. Also, people would get clothes from family members who outgrew them, or died, and “make them over”, as well as restyle their own clothes. Only people in the most abject poverty would only have one outfit to wear.
My mom graduated in the 1950s. She had 1 black skirt, 2 blouses (1 black, 1 white with black polka dots), 1 pair of slacks, 1 flannel work shirt, and 1 church dress. She had 1 pair of shoes for school and church, and 1 pair of hand-me-down work shoes. She made these things last from the age of 14-23. Everyone thought she was a beatnik, but the reality was, they couldn't afford more. She sewed her own clothes, and only had to buy undergarments. She was given a clothing shopping spree when she married my dad. She said she felt like a Queen, having a dozen different mix and match outfits, all store bought, no hand-me-downs. ❤
I think somewhere in between is a good place to be. My mother was into buying quality over quantity when purchasing clothing. I know when I was in grammar school, I only had two dresses to wear during the weekday. Monday through Wednesday, I wore one dress, and then on Thursday and Friday, I wore the second dress. I probably had 4 to 5 dresses in my school wardrobe. I dreaded Mondays through Wednessays because I was wearing the same dress. The other children were very much aware of this. I was always happy on Thursdays and Fridays because it meant I would be seen in the same dress for only two days. I think that is the reason why I have this habit of not wanting to be seen at different outings in an outfit that I have woren before. I had to buy something new to wear each time. I guess I am more like Ann Eilzas.
my grandma born in 1921 said she never had a store bought dress until he mid 20's and she wore the same nursing uniform every day and washed it every night in the sink
It depended on the wealth of the family. Keep in mind that few ppl used credit to buy clothes and clothing was much more expensive in comparison to today, plus it had to be hand made. Clothes werent disposed of or given away, often. They were refashioned according to the new style.
Another variable to consider: You clothes were also a reflection of how well you could sew. Everyone would up-cycle. Every button or ribbon would make it way through several different garments. I remember reading in some old book where the girl had 2 different outfits that shared the same buttons. Nothing went to waste back then.
I love all your videos!!! Very informative, interesting, and fun! Can’t wait for this next video! I can see all the hard work that you put into your projects, unlike some (weird history) *clears throat* . Best, Theo
No one can characterize what everyone did, prior to 1865, it is only slightly consistent. Ten years later, industrial machines, made a leap, in each industry. We built a Stephan King ,Hulu production called Castle Rock.. and in it , used a location, of a sewing machine company, that rivaled Singer, called New Home manufacture. Orange Mass. 1910 ?. In the film we brought in original machines, that collated thread, on a plate platform, for feeding sewing machines. What a throwback..!
I think context and perspective are important here. Depending on where you were in society, upper vs middle class, what counts as the "nice Sunday best" would be very different and what's considered nice clothes would be different
Thank you for mentioning the budget thing. Also, hand me downs. Even if a woman could not afford much in the way of new clothing, many women inherited then altered clothing. I like spending on the basics because I know they will last and I can wear them a lot more. Doesn't mean I don't splurge on the odd trendy piece that's cheaper or will go out of style faster. This feels like such an over simplification of clothing.
Most people really didn't need more than one good Sunday outfit, so I don't really see a problem there. Poor people might not have had one at all. From what I have heard from relatives born before say 1950, having just one good dress was extrmely common but most had several every day outfits. Not tons of them, but say 2-4 per season. The Sunday outfit was usually one that was wearable but a bit hot in summer and wearable but a bit cold in winter. They usually had one pair of winter boots and a sort of all round boot for autumn and spring and for days you needed a sturdy shoe in summer and a pair of more summer like shoes. Some had a dress shoe but not all. They usually had a couple full sets of underwear that was replaced or mended as needed. Usually people had a winter and summer coat and something to wear on their head and hands for both seasons. Autumn and spring they used the summer or winter sets as needed, the winter coat on a cold spring day but perhaps paired with summer gloves and a thin scarf or whatever seemed best.
This is a really comforting video for me. My mum is very minimal in how many clothes she has, yet her mother fills a few rooms with her wardrobe, and sit in between. I've always felt bad about how large my wardrobe beacuse it doubles my mum's.... So to here this is nice
I crave variety. I realize that purchasing well made items is looked at as being somehow morally superior, but I’m making no apologies for loving fashion and having a multitude of choices. I would be depressed if I wore the same outfit every time I went out.
Haha, very similar to our discussions on fashion today! I wonder how many pieces Anne Eliza, the charcter who succumbed to buying lower quality, more trendy clothing actually had, though. I suspect that it's a LOT less than what even the average American human owns today.
If you pause the video at the screen shot of the article, you can see that she supposedly had 19 dresses, not to mention everything else. I think this is the 1871 equivalent of a Shein haul.
in the end, it's only clothing. As a person who loves style, I say wear what makes you feel good. if somebody does not like it they have too much time to waste thinking about you!
I know for a fact that my great-great aunt was a seamstress and sought after for the nicest of dresses in the county. (It was documented by her daughter). I look at pictures of my family and always wonder how many of their clothing items were made by her.
It depends on how far you go back. In the Georgian era in the UK most homes were small with very little storage. It was more common for the middle classes to have a few sets of clothes, perhaps two or three, all of which were hand made and consequently expensive. Those who could afford it would have new clothes quite regularly and sold their old clothes to clothing merchants (which helped defray the cost of the new clothes), who then sold them on to the less well off. If these clothes were durable enough they might be resold again (and again....)
I love the color scheme going on in this video. 💚🧡 I’m sure middle class people had fewer clothes than middle class today- but exponentially higher quality. The rich have always had a lot, in comparison.
also being able to mix/match outfits is relatively new . most 'nice' clothes came in sets you always wore together, if you could only wear your favourite jeans with one tshirt you might own more outfits. working class women were more likely to mix/match to account for things becoming damaged or worn out at different rates .
This is a question of class. I'm from Bavaria. The typical middle class person had one good suit/dress (Sonntagstracht). It was worn to church, weddings, funerals, baptisms, court and other important occasions. The upper middle class would probably have had more than one good dress, but still not many. The rich had loads of dresses.
As a more recent and personal example I often think about the fact I made it through 4 years of uniformed high school with 2 pairs of pants (one fitted, one straight legged), a pair of shorts, 3 white golf shirts and a sweater (which I’m still mad I got paint on the literal last week of grade 12 and ruined). But other people had like long sleeved shirts, golf shirts, blouses for girls, a vest, two different sweaters, more pants, more shorts, etc etc. There’s always a scale even within relatively similar economic classes, not that the school didn’t run the gamut this wasn’t a private school with tuition or anything so there was definitely different economic backgrounds mingling (with one of the uniforms intentions to supposedly have it so people couldn’t show off wealth😒). I also went to high school well into the 2000’s. As an adult, I definitely own too many clothes but I’m also not one taken with truly fast fashion, I’m the kind of person to get kind of middle of the road items (in terms of price and quality) on sale and wear it until I can’t.
Okay. Y'all got me good. I'm working around the house and hear who I THOUGHT was Caitlin Doughty. I wondered why Caitlin was talking textiles instead of mausoleums! Y'all sound almost identical. She's here on RUclips, you should take a keek!
My son was given 6 t-shirts that had been a temporary uniform for a restaurant. They were only worn for maybe a month. He proudly wore them to school. However the teacher noticed he sometimes wore them back to back, or 1 day apart. And suddenly we got a visit from CPS. 😡🤦♀️ This teacher honestly felt it was neglectful for him to wear clean clothes, that were in great condition, to school. The CPS worker actually cracked up when she saw I was literally in the process of folding the freshly laundered stack of same shirts. She thought it was brilliant in fact. And the teacher was lectured about what is and isn't neglect. (I know who the teacher was, because she kept pestering my son and I to find out whether we had a surprise guest recently. 🙄)
it depends on the time period the money you had and where you lived...in the backwoods they used outhouses farmed their own foods they had flour sac dresses when others had all the elegant things...so its really different everywhere and its still like this today
I definitely agree with spending your money on well-made clothing that will last longer. My rule is to never take the budget version with pants and shoes particularly, shirts undies dresses etc, im more willing to go with cheaper stuff.
I am pretty much the same : shoes, pants, skirts amare made to last but I might be a little more frivolous with tops are they tend to become stained more easily. As I grow older, underwear are also becoming important to keep a good silhouette…and socks. When I discovered that there was indeed a difference in quality in socks, a whole new world of comfort opened to me.
Even in '60s, we girls sewed our own dresses, etc! Many adults didn't have lots of shoes- as we hv now! I have shoes I haven't worn, yet! My mom a teen in '50s, saved to buy a cashmere/ea yr! (Hip then) Mass production & trade, we are spoiled after 1985!
I love how that article never changes. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, we were also told to invest in good clothes instead of buying the tends. 🤔 Cone to think of it. The same thing came out in the 90s as well. Buy the one nice thing you like instead of the ten cheap things on sale. Interestingly, there is never a rebuttal anymore.
No one is denying the middle and upper class had a variety of clothing for different seasons and occasions. The poor and working class had literal rags even those had to be pawned when times were hard. My grandfather was born in 1900. His family were so poor they had to take it in turns to go to Mass because they had one decent garment, a white shirt, that they all had to share. History, especially the history of fashion and textiles/clothing glosses over the very real poverty that people faced. No one is interested in the history of rags or shoes stuffed with cardboard.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ The built in closets were about size of a bedroom door you couldn’t even get 4 dresses in them you see small closets in old New England colonials first thing modern homeowners try to figure out Tiny closets ❤❤❤❤ Love your video hope you make more 😊 ❤
Those articles could be written today, the same arguments, a classy, ( expensive ) capsule wardrobe vs fast fashion, ( cheap fabrics ). It's quite interesting that the class system is unchanged, sad too.
I don’t think my mum had a lot of clothing growing up (she had a lot compared to other kids as a single kid she got all she wanted) but when she had me she literally built me a huge huge huge wardrobe. My mum was a seamstress and i am not exaggerating when I say at any given point in my childhood I had hundreds of dresses, coats, everything you can think of. Most of my clothes were a one time thing because there was never time to wear it again. This way of being created monsters, I try to be minimalist but on the clothes departments I have way too many. I try to count them and just black ones I had over 250 dresses. I am the pure example of consumerism 😅
My grandmother was born in the 30's, dirt floor poor in the coal fields of South West Virginia. She only had 3 outfits for most of high school, and before she was old enough to have a job she and her sister shared a single pair of shoes. When my grandfather got his very nice job clothes were her favorite thing to spend money on.
Cool 😎! Ok this isn’t a dis! I really like your green tones in your hair, cause it reminds me of a black roster I had had when I was a kid, Blackie was his name.
As someone who will shop for hours in clothes stores and not buy anything, I would rather have a few nice things than a bunch of crap. However, I'm talking Torrid nice, not the super bougie stores~ At a certain point, entities like Balenciaga just produce god aweful, expensive garbage.
Maybe miss Elenore has the personal time or maid to wash her one really nice dress 2 or 3 times a week when laundry was a multi hour several day chore..... Details matter lol
Miss Elenore's nice dress was probably brushed, aired out, and spot cleaned, but rarely washed. But I do agree that someone who can afford *really* nice things can afford a servant to care for them.
@@daisukidatotoro True, I think the details missing are whether this is thrift due to poverty ie can only afford 1 nice thing so personally spending precious limited time to it's up keep, or a demonstration of 'conspicuous leisure' where she can afford to only have one nice thing because she has the either the actual free time or conscripted labor of others to see to the proper care of the garment. The reasonable thing being that most people will be between these two points!
I took care of an elderly woman who was the daughter of a prosperous store owner and she often told us that they only bathed once a week in shared bath water. Poorer families likely washed less often. That dress wasn't laundered as we know it today. But we also don't wear full-coverage undergarments to keep body oil, etc off the clothes and change into "house dresses" or whatnot when not being seen in public.
The dress would only be rarely washed, if ever, depending on the material. It would instead be spot cleaned and aired out. The beauty of layers is that you only need to wash the layer (s) that actually get sweat stained - so, mostly the linen shift - because our bodies are far dirtier and more damaging to clothes than what the outside can throw at us if we don't outright roll in the mud or something. Protective underlayers is something that most of us have forgotten, because we've never had to go through the marathon that was the 19th century laundry day.
Iv always found that well made good tailored classic clothes are timeless. They are unique not really in fashion but never out of fashion. I still have my 18th Birthday dress that my mother bought for me from a very exclusive shop. Its still beautiful to this day and no one would notice its just over 41 years old. I do the same with shoes. Im not rich and neither were my parents they and myself were good savers and spent money wisely. Chep clothes sre a false economy.
I find it interesting how some things never change. It's the exact case with me and my mum. I buy maybe 1-2 things a year and she buys a lot. But I used to do the same, I had to unlearn it. In our case it is that we both grew up in poor families, she was a kid in communist country and a teen in years barely post-communism and I grew up when there was more in shops, but still not a lot (we're only 19 years apart). So it gives false sense of security and feeling of 'I can afford to buy it' while you have so much shitty clothing that will be destroyed in few washes. I got out of that mindset and will just buy better quality things if those ones I have get destroyed, even if they're more expensive, because I prefer to spend once and have it for years. But I also take very good care of my clothing and I find it very important. I have maybe 1/8th of what mum has, she forgets what she has and buys identical thing, just 'because she needed it', no, you wanted it, you have 4 wardrobes full of stuff, you don't need a thing 😂 But do I feel superior? Nope, I just have waaay less laundry to fold 😂
There is another point to be made. If you only had one or two nice dresses "a season" but you got two new dresses EVERY season and never wore the previous ones again (or they were worn out), then it's actually a lot of clothes AND variety over time. I'm still wearing pants and shirts I bought second hand SEVEN years ago. So, if these women made a completely new winter wardrobe every fall and spring... then even if it was only 2 or 3 outfits, that is more extravagant than me, 150+ years later. Wearing only 2 things for 7 months and then never wearing them again is still cycling and never-ending variety.
Good video. I’ve been thinking of buying one of these, and while they’re different years and specs, it’s perfect to have a comparison for me since they’re both available from my phone company
It truly depends on which historical figure you're looking at. Many poorer/frugal women only had a couple nice dresses and a couple work dresses. Maybe even as few as one solid dress that could be both. People with more money obviously had more options.
If you lived in the Wild West, fabric being hard to come by, you didn’t have much to wear. My great gramma made a dark blue wedding dress, but we have only a swatch left. She ripped it up to make rags later.
"back then" in 1942, my mother said they didn't have closets or wardrobes. She and her siblings had a peg on the wall to hang the one outfit they weren't wearing. So, one to wash, one to wear. And one pair of shoes.
A lot of people mixed and matched and had interchangeable pieces. Maybe 3 dresses. And some tops and other skirts. But literally just like now your wardrobe depended on your income.
So moral of the story is …. Go do you booh. It’s your life. Your learning your lessons and it’s you getting to know yourself. So go ahead and express yourself.
I don’t think anyone is claiming the upper classes only had one nice dress. It’s always been my understanding that that was the way it was for the poor. One nice dress you got new (usually at Christmas or Easter), then last years Sunday dress became the daily dress, and last years daily dress became the work dress, and the work dress got reused for scraps or hand me downs.
Any lady who has a personal clothing allowance is OF COURSE going to have more than that.
✔️ Bingo!
This doesn’t allow for income bracket.
Yeaaa like my parents grew up like this not that long ago (as in, 1 nice article of clothing for special events). Surely feudal peasants had literally NOTHING nice to wear. This reel completely ignores poverty.
Yes, but there's not only very and very poor people. What about the people in between? I think that is what she meant.
@@ailiicatthe danger of educating oneself without guidance and input from people who know more.
it’s wild how everything old feels new again lol, this reminds me of the issue we have posed now as well: with either going into trendy fast fashion or buying a few very well made expensive items lol-super cool, thank you
Scenery and technology changes, people stay the same. I'm convinced part of changing fashion is to convince ourselves that time is passing, the world is changing and so are we (whether we are as a society or not). The other part is we get bored and creative. 😁
Extreme waste and exploitation is behind fast fashion. It's rather shocking.
@@Here4TheHeckOfItI’ve read so much about that industry I haven’t bought retail in so long. I’m a die hard grifter and when I need something really nice I go to high end resell shops.
@@AzKarma2010 Thrifter, lmao. Probably a typo, but a grifter is a scammer.
The problem is people thinking that because the items our ancestors had were different that everything must be so different, but in reality there are similarities between how society is today & even how society was during biblical times. The fact is, we are all human, and humanity transcends time.
Middle class sixties girl here, we got new clothes and shoes twice a year, the big one was for back to school. Three dresses, five or six pair of pants, five tops, one pair of leather "good" shoes, one pair of tennis shoes for play. When school let out we got a pair of sandles a few pair of shorts and tshirts. Underwear and socks were christmas presents, along with a new winter coat or sweater if needed. Mom sewed and crocheted our clothes when we were little.
I grew up the same way and still pretty much keep it that way. I had roommates when I was younger that had so much clothes, I couldn’t believe it…until that I realized that they we’re basically not wearing more items than I. They had many items bought on impulse, but that didn’t fit with anything or some they liked but never wore because it was uncomfortable. In the end, I realized that buying well thought out pieces that you can wear all your other pieces was the way to go.
My great grandmother was a late Victorian-early Edwardian era society beauty. She had dresses for different occasions, plus clever things like overdresses that could make one dress into multiple dresses. Basically, she had a very clever ‘capsule wardrobe’ that could be mixed and matched.
For instance, the short black wool coat could used for regular daytime wear, or paired with a riding skirt for hunting. The blue silk dress could be worn out to tea with girlfriends, or she could layer a black jet beaded overdress onto it for evening. Her white linen dress could be styled various ways to be worn for summer sport like tennis, archery, croquet, or just reading on the veranda.
Basicallly, her whole wardrobe fit into one steamer trunk, and took her to every possible occasion. I don’t think your average socialite could do that today! I’m trying to learn to sew and I hope to create a similarly practical wardrobe for myself one day.
What I loved about my great grannie was that she was also frugal. Despite having money, she wasted nothing. Bits of fabric would be reused, moved from one garment to the next when the first one became tired or unfashionable. Nothing was considered disposable. I feel like there’s a lot to be learned from that attitude so many of our ancestors had.
My mother knitted her own sanitary towels
I live in a house with a “ custom “ closet from 1930 in the master bedroom.
On the ‘womens’ side:
The pull out rack has room for 2 ( 1 winter, 1 summer)good dress, 2work( everyday , also1 winter, 1 summer) dress, 2 blouses, and 2 skirts.
This was explained to me by the previous owner of the house ( who got the info from the original owner/ builder)
And the Man side is shorter:
Pullout rack holds:
1 good suit, 1 everyday suit, 1 good shirt, 1 everyday shirt, 1 work shirt.1 pair of work trousers.
That's super cool :) do you use it?
My brother's apartment in Boston only had 4 hooks. No closet.
I think the people who only had one good dress were working for the people these articles are about.
Most poor people don't buy 1 ridiculously expensive designer dress per season **or** blow their whole budget on Shein **or** actually need or even have occasion to wear dozens of cute new dresses every year.
We work. We aren't out partying every day, so we have different needs. Just like rich ladies don't need to keep a wardrobe full of work clothes, sturdy boots, high visibility vests, or any other kind of gear that many working class households consider standard.
This is very directed at the upper middle class and above, while the concept in question is regarding middle to lowest class.
The articles were very interesting, though a little hard to read with the page cutoffs, I'd love to see more content like this.
Agreed. I think your average farmer's wife had a work dress and a church dress.
They would have had several dresses of varying quality and many, many accessories to change the look. Just one church dress, yes, but two or three work dresses for different occasions - the house, in town, and one slightly nicer one for say, a friend's house. Women were out and about, so expecting them to just have house and church dresses, and only two instead of three or four, is a little overkill. Servants would get one new uniform per year, so yes, servants would only have one dress. Non servant working class folks would probably have three to six depending on income. @@KatieBellino
For some, the difference between working dress or casual dress is if she wears apron or not. And if we go more older times, the underwear is just old weary outerwear.
@@KatieBellinoa farmer’s wife would’ve had more pieces than that- it would’ve been utilitarian though. So, older dresses would’ve gotten worn down and needed mending that then became work dresses. But people did dress “nice” when going around in town or attending gatherings as reputation and public appearance was much more important.
My father just told me yesterday the first time he buy his own clothes and the shoes he brought are still expensive (it was plataformas shoes the Jackson five used). He wanted fashioned clothes cause he was young and all his live he had the same clothing as his brothers because his father was a penny pincher.
In the way I see it: How much money we have and how we want to be seemed shapes a lot of our taste in clothing and consumption and being poor can put you in either end of the consumption spectrum depending on how you cope with poverty and what you consider most important
My grandmother was the child of a factory owner in the midwestern US. They were very well off and her older siblings had debut balls and grand tours before WW1. She was much younger than her siblings though and just a little child during that war. she attended a private Catholic girls school. (a day school, not a boarding school). As a schoolgirl, before high school, she usually only had maybe half a dozen dresses at any given time. But only 2 NEW dresses each year. A new dress for school in a practical dark color. Over this dress, which she wore every day, she wore a starched white pinafore, there were two of them to allow for stains but also first the nuns and then her step mother rung a peal over her head for having got it dirty, for having spilt food or dripped ink from the required dip pen.
Upon getting home from school she changed into LAST YEARS DRESS. Which had been let out at the seams and down at the hem as required, and had most of any lace or trim removed. This dress was for playtime and she wore a black pinafore (a previously white pinafore, dyed black when it was too stained) if she had any chores to do, she was still expected to help with housework in order to learn. Weekdays this mostly had to do with getting supper on the table and cleaning up after. On Saturdays she wore that dress or perhaps an even older and even more untrimmed dress and apron to assist with more heavy duty chores, including laundry. Her white pinafores and the family’s other white clothes had to be treated with blueing and starch, both messy, and ironed, amongst other chores.
On Sunday and holidays she wore her Sunday best. A white or pale colored dress that was replaced at Easter. This dress served for important events, dinners and parties and church etc. Last years best was refit and the trim adjusted as needed and worn for days out and day visits to ladies and her married sisters homes with her stepmother. If her married sisters came to dinner she had to change into her 2nd best dress, but if her father’s peers or someone like the mayor or a priest came to dinner then she wore her best dress. A 3rd best dress might be dyed a darker color if it still fit and be another play dress in summer.
When she began high school her new wardrobe was a skirt suit and several blouses and a couple of skirts, and 2 shirtwaist dresses. She knit a sweater in her school colors and sone others. She didn’t grow much so accumulated more of the same sort of things in following years. Not a new wardrobe, just another suit or dress or skirt and blouse combo. She had a modest evening gown, with sleeves and a high neckline for nice dinners or formal dances. . Just the one, and another each year, not a new one for every such event.
She reached 16, the age of making her debut in 1928 and got a more grien yo looking evening given for that. and should have gone on her tour after graduating high school. But by then the depression had begun. Although her father’s factory survived, her tour didn’t happen that year or the following because her father felt like worldwide financial problems made it too risky over in Europe.
When she married, she did have a fluffy white wedding dress. And a new skirt suit. But the rest of her wardrobe was just what had accumulated or been refashioned since starting high school.
I enjoyed reading this about your grandmother.
It was worth watching this just so that I could read your comment
Fascinating about your grandmother ❤
You described a far more realistic wardrobe of those times than what was presented in the video.
This is SUPER interesting and a LOVELY family history account to have in such detail. Thank you so much for sharing it!
When I asked my grandmother about why the closets in the house we live in (that she used live in) were so small. She said because we didn’t need that many clothes. Two work clothes one to wash and one to wear and a nice one for church and special occasions.
Ideally, the upper-middle class clothing budget for a year should get a woman 4 sets of undergarments, 3 sets of sleepwear, 2 quality coats and accessories to reflect the season needed (usually 4 or 6 sets total), 2 (at most 3) fancy dresses, 6 every day dresses (also in various weights and preferably layered for variety), 4 pairs of shoes, and a large variety of sundries that can change the look of the outfit, such as pins/brooches, scarves, ribbons and bows, etc. :)
It would make much more sense to buy more underwear and casual clothes and less nice dresses and acessories every year. Who needs new nice clothes every year besides a child whos growing? Really why would you replace your wardrobe eveey year, but then go with only 4 pairs of underwear 😂 some people are horrible with money omg
@@CHLOCHLOLPto me it’s the coats that seems excessives. But again, we may have different idea of what a coat is and how much it cost. I live in Canada with 4 very distinct seasons and a winter coats are expensive and you need different types for the city and for your sports. I don’t know anyone changing them more than every 5 years. Two nice dresses per year seems right…one for the Christmas season and one in the summertime for weddings and such. As for underwear, that also seems about right as you don’t throw away those bought the previous year.
Even in the first half of the 20th century people didn't have that many clothes. I had only a few school outfits, a Sunday dress, a party dress and some play clothes plus seasonal garments like coats, hats, boots and a swimsuit. The bedroom closets were about four feet wide. 80 years later even childrens clisets are crammed to the gills with clothes.
My Mother was a child in the 50's and 60's. Her Grandmother made her 3 dresses, 4 times a year. So 12 dresses a year.
Her Grandmother also made her prom dress. It was gorgeous.
In the 50s as a child, I got 2 sunday dresses 1 at christmas and 1 at easter. For school in the fall I got 2 dresses each year plus the easter and christmas dress ftom the past year would be rotated in as school wear as the new holiday approached. At easter I got new church shoes and in the fall I got new school shoes. I was the 5th child I wore hand me down which filled out my wardrobe.
After school I wore hand me down blouses and coveralls as play clothes.
My elderly neighbor really grew up (in Boston, Mass., in the early 1940s) with only one “good” dress to share between her and her sister.
The scale line from poverty to wealth has infinite possible points upon it.
Yep. Until fast fashion, it wasn't unusual for that to be the case. My mom went to hs in the 60s with someone who only had 2 skirts and several tops.
@@deltaflute03but that also shows that it was not the norm to only own two skirts for most of her high school classmates. Of course poor people have always existed and still live among us.
My grandmother was privileged with a single dress for school once a year after picking cotton all summer to afford it. My grandfather, on the other hand, came from a family so rich, he and all four of his sisters were each afforded new cars when they were teenagers and had new clothes every weekend. My grandmother's father abandoned the family. My grandfather's father owned coal mines in Ohio.
This was in the 1920's.
I have a friend who grew up middle class in Hungary. She had a Sunday dress, and two school dresses for the week. She told me she wire one dress the first week, then the other the second week. Of course, the dress changed seasonally, but that’s still only about 6 or 8 dresses per year
Early 1940s in the U.S. meant rationing.
My father was a kid and only got two pairs of shoes per year, and got so used to his shoes being too tight that he thought they were supposed to be that way and just went with it for most of his life. It was only when he was about 80 that he tried on a pair of my shoes that I was about to get rid of and was surprised to learn that his feet did not have to hurt.
I think looking at closet size in old homes is also a super interesting indicator. All the Pre WWII houses in our community have either closets that are very small or very oddly shaped (tucked into roof eaves). And honestly I love it. My husband and I share one 40 inch wide closet plus two small dressers. I like to say it "Keeps me honest" since we can't have more clothes than fit in there!
In Ireland, in the 1950s andc60s, things were made of wool or cotton and laundered once a week, at most. So a blue or shirt was worn for 6 days before being washed and woollen jumpers, skirts and coats were very seldom cleaned. I can still remember the smell of wet tweed and body odour on a Dublin bus on a wet day even in the early 70s. Oh the glamour!
I wore a lot of hand-me-downs from my sister and my best friend. My friend’s mom was the manager of the childrens’ section of an upscale clothing store. When she outgrew them, I got them
I had friends growing up who were more affluent than I was, and what they didn’t want, they gave to me. A lot of these clothes were new with tags from Neiman Marcus and Sak’s. They would get them and change their minds. I also loved thrift shopping for unique clothing. But there were times when I had only one pair of panties, and shoes with holes in them, and one bra. I had to wash them every day, and either wore my older sister’s shoes with tissue in the toes so they would fit, or put something in my own shoes to cover the holes until my mom got paid
Most of today's fashion is not meant to last beyond a season. The clothes are created to be disposable. That's why they fade and get threadbare after a few washes. Jeans, scrubs, coveralls and other protective workwear are some of the few things that are built to last. Even leathers are much thinner and less durable than in the past. (Today's motto should be "Make it cheap. Make it fast. Charge as much as you can without causing a riot.")
And it's all a polyester or a blend. Even the designer pieces are cheaply made now.
@@hollybyrd6186100%natural fiber clothes are becoming so difficult to find! I have this issue with my sister in law. She thinks of me as a spendrift because I tend to buy clothes at a higher price than she. However, I don’t buy very often and my clothes goes from office clothes, to home and errands clothes, to gardening or night clothes and than rags. She on the other hand buys almost every week from SHEIN and such, half of it doesn’t fit and she gives to her sisters, friends, etc. At the end of the year I am pretty sure she had spent much more. My weight don’t fluctuate much so I wear my pants and skirts 15-20 years in average and my tops 10-15 years.
I am building a wardrobe of cashmere and merino sweaters from thrift and consignment stores.
Well said😊
Womens jeans are most definitely not built to last.
I live in Pakistan, and most clothing is still made by buying fabric and then having it stitched (either at home) or by a tailor.
There is also a difference between “at home” and “going out” clothes. Clothes worn at home are generally old, out of fashion, or generally plain. Whilst going out clothes (to go to the park, a friend or relatives house, to eat etc.) will be embroidered or laced or just in general better condition e.g a fully finished and edged scarf in a matching thread colour vs an unedged scarf.
HOW MANY clothes varies wildly between ALOT and someone may even have 2-3 dresses (including one good one) depending on their financial background. My husbands aunt is very poor and has 2 dresses she cycles through everyday and 1 good going out dress.
That's a relief. I was feeling bad for needing to make so many garments as I try to move my wardrobe toward historical stuff. But I get dirty every day, dangit, and I do laundry once a week! And there's different weather!
Also, if you have so few garments, why would garments develop names like 'tea gown' 'afternoon dress' 'house dress' etc etc etc
@@sophiesong8937 Because women with generous clothing allowances wanted an excuse to show off their wealth through clothes more often? They were limited on what they were allowed to own, so different dresses for different random/made up occasions was how they flexed their wealth without risk of being robbed for their jewelry (though too fancy of a gown in the wrong area could get that gown stolen and sold so it could be deconstructed for resale as smaller objects such as purses, bag lining, coat linings, etc. As middle and working class emulated these very wealthy, the garments (in lesser quality) became more common. Which was also a way the article was trying to keep the classes separated. Those that didn't care about being frugal (the wealthy) and those that knew they had to get as much out of their money as possible (the middle class). :)
People had more undergarments than outer clothes, and they covered their outer clothes with aprons, sleeve covers etc. They changed these more often.
I love the odd modern standard of assuming everyone was wearing court clothes but couldn’t eat more than a single turnip a day as their only food. 😂😂😂
It’s an odd standard of thinking everyone not rich were dirt poor. Even in medieval Europe, a farmer could’ve had a good bit of money based on reputation and business acumen of the day. It’s just sumptuary laws and availability of certain items that dictated clothing and such. Cloth was also made in a range of quality that dictated different prices. Public appearance and reputation was quite important for a lot of human history.
Still is. If not people won't buy designer purses for thousands of dollars and expensive cars@@Tayuya129
My Mom was a Kansas farm wife in the 50’s she had one dress for good and an every day dress for working around the farm.
My grandmother was privileged with a single dress for school once a year after picking cotton all summer to afford it, herself. My grandfather, on the other hand, came from a family so rich, he and all four of his sisters were each afforded new cars when they were teenagers and shopped for new clothes every weekend.
My grandmother's father abandoned his family. My grandfather's father owned coal mines in Ohio.
This was in the 1920's.
Most of my nice dresses growing up were hand-me-downs from my elder sisters that our mom made. Mom was a professional seamstress and had been making her own, and her mother's, clothes since she was in middle school. By the time I was born, she had amassed a large amount of nice fabric and had a top of the line sewing machine that my grandpa had gotten her when she was in high school. (My parents grew up in different economic brackets from each other and from myself and my siblings.)
We were all taught to take really good care of our nice clothes and had some sets of clothes that we could go wild in made of good sturdy material. Honestly didn't know how much clothes cost for a good portion of my childhood because we typically mended things and used things until they were scrapped for rags or pillow stuffing.
Before I retired I worked in an office setting. When I first started I didn't have much money to spend on a wardrobe so I bought two nice suits - One in a taupe color the other in black.
I went to consignment shops to hunt out good silk blouses and a couple nice business dresses with matching jackets.
I was able to put together a good working wardrobe which I added onto over the years. I'd have the skirts length altered time to time and wear twin sets instead of the suit jacket.
Added a couple pair of well made shoes and a good bag and I was set.
I looked professional and polished.
Now for my off work / weekend clothes? I enjoyed simple cotton sheaths and dresses in the summer and jeans and funky sweaters in the winter.
Same, once I got into the swing of my career I bought one new suit each fall, and one new suit each spring. I kept 5suits per season, the oldest would be donated. I had a variety of tops. Mix and match! When I retired, I kept 2 suits for each season, to wear for events. I may cut that down to one.
Mom dropped out of school in the late 1950's when she went from private school to public school because she had one school uniform and one Sunday dress. She was embarrassed to not have a different dress for each day of the week. 😢
My moms family made their own clothes. That's the only reason they had more clothes. She had 3 school skirts/tops and 1 good church dresses. If she fell while playing and ripped her clothes, she was in deep💩
I absolutely love your scarf! Also I have lived in an old small house by the railroad and can confirm not more than a couple outfits would fit in the one tiny closet.
In the 19th century it was not unusual when a lady spent money on an dress good for several occasions she would have the seamstress use a heavy silk and make a skirt, a high necked bodice with long sleeves and an evening bodice with a low neck and short sleeves. That way she was always prepared for any formal occasion
I think it would depend entirely on the wealth or lack of wealth in the home. In the 19th century, if someone was living in a home where they had enough money to buy a newspaper or magazine and had the ability to read it, it’s a good guess that they were not living in poverty, as much of the population did. Those that were in poverty would be lucky to have a good dress for church.
Newspapers were pretty common. Also, people would get clothes from family members who outgrew them, or died, and “make them over”, as well as restyle their own clothes. Only people in the most abject poverty would only have one outfit to wear.
My mom graduated in the 1950s. She had 1 black skirt, 2 blouses (1 black, 1 white with black polka dots), 1 pair of slacks, 1 flannel work shirt, and 1 church dress. She had 1 pair of shoes for school and church, and 1 pair of hand-me-down work shoes. She made these things last from the age of 14-23. Everyone thought she was a beatnik, but the reality was, they couldn't afford more. She sewed her own clothes, and only had to buy undergarments. She was given a clothing shopping spree when she married my dad. She said she felt like a Queen, having a dozen different mix and match outfits, all store bought, no hand-me-downs. ❤
I think somewhere in between is a good place to be. My mother was into buying quality over quantity when purchasing clothing. I know when I was in grammar school, I only had two dresses to wear during the weekday. Monday through Wednesday, I wore one dress, and then on Thursday and Friday, I wore the second dress. I probably had 4 to 5 dresses in my school wardrobe. I dreaded Mondays through Wednessays because I was wearing the same dress. The other children were very much aware of this. I was always happy on Thursdays and Fridays because it meant I would be seen in the same dress for only two days. I think that is the reason why I have this habit of not wanting to be seen at different outings in an outfit that I have woren before. I had to buy something new to wear each time. I guess I am more like Ann Eilzas.
I recall Jane Eyre had 2, maybe 3. She had to pick the "nicer" for the party she was made to attend.
my grandma born in 1921 said she never had a store bought dress until he mid 20's
and she wore the same nursing uniform every day and washed it every night in the sink
It depended on the wealth of the family. Keep in mind that few ppl used credit to buy clothes and clothing was much more expensive in comparison to today, plus it had to be hand made. Clothes werent disposed of or given away, often. They were refashioned according to the new style.
Another variable to consider: You clothes were also a reflection of how well you could sew. Everyone would up-cycle. Every button or ribbon would make it way through several different garments. I remember reading in some old book where the girl had 2 different outfits that shared the same buttons. Nothing went to waste back then.
I love all your videos!!! Very informative, interesting, and fun! Can’t wait for this next video! I can see all the hard work that you put into your projects, unlike some (weird history) *clears throat* . Best,
Theo
Elinor’s one dress probably stank to high heaven by the time Spring came. Anne Eliza’s the smarter of the 2
Your whole look is so beautiful. The hair. The background. The shirt. The scarf. Green is truly your color. 💚
No one can characterize what everyone did, prior to 1865, it is only slightly consistent.
Ten years later, industrial machines, made a leap, in each industry.
We built a Stephan King ,Hulu production called Castle Rock.. and in it , used a location, of a sewing machine company, that rivaled Singer, called New Home manufacture. Orange Mass. 1910 ?.
In the film we brought in original machines, that collated thread, on a plate platform, for feeding sewing machines. What a throwback..!
“Only Slightly Consistent” is my new band name.
In 1960 when we were kids we had one good church outfit one pair of boots and maybe five other pieces of clothing including jeans and shirts
I think context and perspective are important here.
Depending on where you were in society, upper vs middle class, what counts as the "nice Sunday best" would be very different and what's considered nice clothes would be different
Thank you for mentioning the budget thing. Also, hand me downs. Even if a woman could not afford much in the way of new clothing, many women inherited then altered clothing. I like spending on the basics because I know they will last and I can wear them a lot more. Doesn't mean I don't splurge on the odd trendy piece that's cheaper or will go out of style faster. This feels like such an over simplification of clothing.
OT but the hair! That looks so good!
What we can all agree on is they weren’t like Bridgerton, wearing a new dress any time they went outside.
Most people really didn't need more than one good Sunday outfit, so I don't really see a problem there. Poor people might not have had one at all. From what I have heard from relatives born before say 1950, having just one good dress was extrmely common but most had several every day outfits. Not tons of them, but say 2-4 per season. The Sunday outfit was usually one that was wearable but a bit hot in summer and wearable but a bit cold in winter. They usually had one pair of winter boots and a sort of all round boot for autumn and spring and for days you needed a sturdy shoe in summer and a pair of more summer like shoes. Some had a dress shoe but not all. They usually had a couple full sets of underwear that was replaced or mended as needed. Usually people had a winter and summer coat and something to wear on their head and hands for both seasons. Autumn and spring they used the summer or winter sets as needed, the winter coat on a cold spring day but perhaps paired with summer gloves and a thin scarf or whatever seemed best.
This is a really comforting video for me. My mum is very minimal in how many clothes she has, yet her mother fills a few rooms with her wardrobe, and sit in between. I've always felt bad about how large my wardrobe beacuse it doubles my mum's.... So to here this is nice
I crave variety. I realize that purchasing well made items is looked at as being somehow morally superior, but I’m making no apologies for loving fashion and having a multitude of choices. I would be depressed if I wore the same outfit every time I went out.
Haha, very similar to our discussions on fashion today! I wonder how many pieces Anne Eliza, the charcter who succumbed to buying lower quality, more trendy clothing actually had, though. I suspect that it's a LOT less than what even the average American human owns today.
If you pause the video at the screen shot of the article, you can see that she supposedly had 19 dresses, not to mention everything else. I think this is the 1871 equivalent of a Shein haul.
So people have always been people
in the end, it's only clothing. As a person who loves style, I say wear what makes you feel good. if somebody does not like it they have too much time to waste thinking about you!
I'm off topic, but OML, I love your hair!!
I know for a fact that my great-great aunt was a seamstress and sought after for the nicest of dresses in the county. (It was documented by her daughter). I look at pictures of my family and always wonder how many of their clothing items were made by her.
It depends on how far you go back. In the Georgian era in the UK most homes were small with very little storage. It was more common for the middle classes to have a few sets of clothes, perhaps two or three, all of which were hand made and consequently expensive. Those who could afford it would have new clothes quite regularly and sold their old clothes to clothing merchants (which helped defray the cost of the new clothes), who then sold them on to the less well off. If these clothes were durable enough they might be resold again (and again....)
Your hair looks great! ❤
Hence the term “your Sunday best”! Still very common in many part of the developing world
I love the color scheme going on in this video. 💚🧡 I’m sure middle class people had fewer clothes than middle class today- but exponentially higher quality. The rich have always had a lot, in comparison.
also being able to mix/match outfits is relatively new . most 'nice' clothes came in sets you always wore together, if you could only wear your favourite jeans with one tshirt you might own more outfits. working class women were more likely to mix/match to account for things becoming damaged or worn out at different rates .
If you notice in old houses, closets were tiny. My first house was a cottage built in 1946, closets where really small.
The ability to do or pay for laundering the clothes would be my limiter. So grateful for my machines.
Fashion and social media back then in articles with people's tea
This is a question of class.
I'm from Bavaria. The typical middle class person had one good suit/dress (Sonntagstracht). It was worn to church, weddings, funerals, baptisms, court and other important occasions.
The upper middle class would probably have had more than one good dress, but still not many.
The rich had loads of dresses.
As a more recent and personal example I often think about the fact I made it through 4 years of uniformed high school with 2 pairs of pants (one fitted, one straight legged), a pair of shorts, 3 white golf shirts and a sweater (which I’m still mad I got paint on the literal last week of grade 12 and ruined). But other people had like long sleeved shirts, golf shirts, blouses for girls, a vest, two different sweaters, more pants, more shorts, etc etc. There’s always a scale even within relatively similar economic classes, not that the school didn’t run the gamut this wasn’t a private school with tuition or anything so there was definitely different economic backgrounds mingling (with one of the uniforms intentions to supposedly have it so people couldn’t show off wealth😒). I also went to high school well into the 2000’s.
As an adult, I definitely own too many clothes but I’m also not one taken with truly fast fashion, I’m the kind of person to get kind of middle of the road items (in terms of price and quality) on sale and wear it until I can’t.
Okay. Y'all got me good.
I'm working around the house and hear who I THOUGHT was Caitlin Doughty. I wondered why Caitlin was talking textiles instead of mausoleums!
Y'all sound almost identical. She's here on RUclips, you should take a keek!
The thing I hate is that nowadays if you can’t wear the same thing twice (in a row or whatever rule that is)
My son was given 6 t-shirts that had been a temporary uniform for a restaurant. They were only worn for maybe a month. He proudly wore them to school. However the teacher noticed he sometimes wore them back to back, or 1 day apart. And suddenly we got a visit from CPS. 😡🤦♀️ This teacher honestly felt it was neglectful for him to wear clean clothes, that were in great condition, to school. The CPS worker actually cracked up when she saw I was literally in the process of folding the freshly laundered stack of same shirts. She thought it was brilliant in fact. And the teacher was lectured about what is and isn't neglect. (I know who the teacher was, because she kept pestering my son and I to find out whether we had a surprise guest recently. 🙄)
it depends on the time period the money you had and where you lived...in the backwoods they used outhouses farmed their own foods they had flour sac dresses when others had all the elegant things...so its really different everywhere and its still like this today
My grandmother said it doesn't matter how many garments you have, it matters how well you take care of it.
Depending on area, period and status.
I definitely agree with spending your money on well-made clothing that will last longer. My rule is to never take the budget version with pants and shoes particularly, shirts undies dresses etc, im more willing to go with cheaper stuff.
I am pretty much the same : shoes, pants, skirts amare made to last but I might be a little more frivolous with tops are they tend to become stained more easily. As I grow older, underwear are also becoming important to keep a good silhouette…and socks. When I discovered that there was indeed a difference in quality in socks, a whole new world of comfort opened to me.
Even in '60s, we girls sewed our own dresses, etc! Many adults didn't have lots of shoes- as we hv now! I have shoes I haven't worn, yet! My mom a teen in '50s, saved to buy a cashmere/ea yr! (Hip then) Mass production & trade, we are spoiled after 1985!
I love how that article never changes. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, we were also told to invest in good clothes instead of buying the tends.
🤔 Cone to think of it. The same thing came out in the 90s as well. Buy the one nice thing you like instead of the ten cheap things on sale. Interestingly, there is never a rebuttal anymore.
It's funny that these kinds of things haven't changed at all over the years since we still have similar issues today.
I am a historical reenactor. Women had 2 chore dresses, 1 go to town dress and 1 church dress. This is factual.
No one is denying the middle and upper class had a variety of clothing for different seasons and occasions. The poor and working class had literal rags even those had to be pawned when times were hard. My grandfather was born in 1900. His family were so poor they had to take it in turns to go to Mass because they had one decent garment, a white shirt, that they all had to share. History, especially the history of fashion and textiles/clothing glosses over the very real poverty that people faced. No one is interested in the history of rags or shoes stuffed with cardboard.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
The built in closets were about size of a bedroom door you couldn’t even get 4 dresses in them you see small closets in old New England colonials first thing modern homeowners try to figure out
Tiny closets ❤❤❤❤
Love your video hope you make more 😊 ❤
Whoa you rock thqt hairstyke and dye
I love it!
Those articles could be written today, the same arguments, a classy, ( expensive ) capsule wardrobe vs fast fashion, ( cheap fabrics ). It's quite interesting that the class system is unchanged, sad too.
Oooh! 😻😻I love that beige/tan dress! Definitely my kind of style.
I don’t think my mum had a lot of clothing growing up (she had a lot compared to other kids as a single kid she got all she wanted) but when she had me she literally built me a huge huge huge wardrobe. My mum was a seamstress and i am not exaggerating when I say at any given point in my childhood I had hundreds of dresses, coats, everything you can think of. Most of my clothes were a one time thing because there was never time to wear it again. This way of being created monsters, I try to be minimalist but on the clothes departments I have way too many. I try to count them and just black ones I had over 250 dresses. I am the pure example of consumerism 😅
Laura Ingalls Wilder talks about growing up with one play dress and one church dress. Her family was poor, but its still the right time period.
My grandmother was born in the 30's, dirt floor poor in the coal fields of South West Virginia. She only had 3 outfits for most of high school, and before she was old enough to have a job she and her sister shared a single pair of shoes. When my grandfather got his very nice job clothes were her favorite thing to spend money on.
Cool 😎! Ok this isn’t a dis! I really like your green tones in your hair, cause it reminds me of a black roster I had had when I was a kid, Blackie was his name.
As someone who will shop for hours in clothes stores and not buy anything, I would rather have a few nice things than a bunch of crap. However, I'm talking Torrid nice, not the super bougie stores~ At a certain point, entities like Balenciaga just produce god aweful, expensive garbage.
Maybe miss Elenore has the personal time or maid to wash her one really nice dress 2 or 3 times a week when laundry was a multi hour several day chore..... Details matter lol
Miss Elenore's nice dress was probably brushed, aired out, and spot cleaned, but rarely washed.
But I do agree that someone who can afford *really* nice things can afford a servant to care for them.
@@daisukidatotoro True, I think the details missing are whether this is thrift due to poverty ie can only afford 1 nice thing so personally spending precious limited time to it's up keep, or a demonstration of 'conspicuous leisure' where she can afford to only have one nice thing because she has the either the actual free time or conscripted labor of others to see to the proper care of the garment. The reasonable thing being that most people will be between these two points!
I took care of an elderly woman who was the daughter of a prosperous store owner and she often told us that they only bathed once a week in shared bath water. Poorer families likely washed less often. That dress wasn't laundered as we know it today. But we also don't wear full-coverage undergarments to keep body oil, etc off the clothes and change into "house dresses" or whatnot when not being seen in public.
@@victoriajankowski1197 very good point
The dress would only be rarely washed, if ever, depending on the material. It would instead be spot cleaned and aired out. The beauty of layers is that you only need to wash the layer (s) that actually get sweat stained - so, mostly the linen shift - because our bodies are far dirtier and more damaging to clothes than what the outside can throw at us if we don't outright roll in the mud or something. Protective underlayers is something that most of us have forgotten, because we've never had to go through the marathon that was the 19th century laundry day.
I know I should be happy with a full wardrobe (t-shirts and stretchy pants if you're interested) but laundry day is such a drag. 😂
Little House on the Prarie, Ma and the girls had two dresses a piece.❤
Iv always found that well made good tailored classic clothes are timeless. They are unique not really in fashion but never out of fashion. I still have my 18th Birthday dress that my mother bought for me from a very exclusive shop. Its still beautiful to this day and no one would notice its just over 41 years old. I do the same with shoes. Im not rich and neither were my parents they and myself were good savers and spent money wisely. Chep clothes sre a false economy.
I have so much clothes damn i love to shop and sell overtime I learned styling amd I became MORE SELECTIVE
I find it interesting how some things never change. It's the exact case with me and my mum. I buy maybe 1-2 things a year and she buys a lot. But I used to do the same, I had to unlearn it. In our case it is that we both grew up in poor families, she was a kid in communist country and a teen in years barely post-communism and I grew up when there was more in shops, but still not a lot (we're only 19 years apart). So it gives false sense of security and feeling of 'I can afford to buy it' while you have so much shitty clothing that will be destroyed in few washes. I got out of that mindset and will just buy better quality things if those ones I have get destroyed, even if they're more expensive, because I prefer to spend once and have it for years. But I also take very good care of my clothing and I find it very important. I have maybe 1/8th of what mum has, she forgets what she has and buys identical thing, just 'because she needed it', no, you wanted it, you have 4 wardrobes full of stuff, you don't need a thing 😂 But do I feel superior? Nope, I just have waaay less laundry to fold 😂
There is another point to be made. If you only had one or two nice dresses "a season" but you got two new dresses EVERY season and never wore the previous ones again (or they were worn out), then it's actually a lot of clothes AND variety over time. I'm still wearing pants and shirts I bought second hand SEVEN years ago. So, if these women made a completely new winter wardrobe every fall and spring... then even if it was only 2 or 3 outfits, that is more extravagant than me, 150+ years later. Wearing only 2 things for 7 months and then never wearing them again is still cycling and never-ending variety.
Good video. I’ve been thinking of buying one of these, and while they’re different years and specs, it’s perfect to have a comparison for me since they’re both available from my phone company
It truly depends on which historical figure you're looking at. Many poorer/frugal women only had a couple nice dresses and a couple work dresses. Maybe even as few as one solid dress that could be both. People with more money obviously had more options.
If you lived in the Wild West, fabric being hard to come by, you didn’t have much to wear. My great gramma made a dark blue wedding dress, but we have only a swatch left. She ripped it up to make rags later.
"back then" in 1942, my mother said they didn't have closets or wardrobes. She and her siblings had a peg on the wall to hang the one outfit they weren't wearing. So, one to wash, one to wear. And one pair of shoes.
A lot of people mixed and matched and had interchangeable pieces. Maybe 3 dresses. And some tops and other skirts. But literally just like now your wardrobe depended on your income.
My great grandad didn’t have boots til the factory provided them for him age 132 - ALL his family worked.
So moral of the story is …. Go do you booh. It’s your life. Your learning your lessons and it’s you getting to know yourself.
So go ahead and express yourself.
If Bridgerton is anything to go by, they’re at the modiste every other day. Ooh the scandal of wearing a gown twice! 😩🪭
They both own wayyyy more than me.
The size of the bedroom furniture is a good measure
Some things never change! I feel like were still having this argument today lol