How much clothing did they *actually* have back then? 

My mom loved to tell the story of her grandmother (my great grandmother), who was born in 1870 and knew how to do every sort of needlework known to humanity. She had trunks and trunks full of, not only her own dresses from the 1880s - the current day, but also her mother’s old dresses. Those old dresses contained huge amounts of yardage! My mom was a teen during the depression. She’d get the movie magazines, show her grandmother the pictures and ask, “Gram, could you make this for me?” And Gram would say, “Oh, Amelia! I couldn’t possibly make THAT!” And then she’d go into her trunks and a week or two later, she’d have it finished and Mom was dressed in a pretty close copy of whatever Jeanne Harlow or Barbara Stanwyck was wearing! ❤

I happen to know about my late 1800s ancestors in the rural Midwest because they talked about it: they made most of their clothes (except a men's suit, 3-5 dress shirts, and hat) so the women had 7-9 dresses, wearing the oldest ones for everyday including cleaning, gardening, etc. The kids had hand-me-downs as well as newly made outfits 'as needed' so the numbers varied but if a kid showed up to school repeating the same shirt or dress within a week, they were considered 'poor.' Since the wash was done once a week, having just over a week's worth of dress was considered practical. The other way I have of telling how much clothing the ladies had was that I still have their furniture: the chifforobe holds about 7 hanging dresses and 4 stacks of accessories. They also had a 4-door chest of drawers for undergarments, etc.

We mere mortals are not meant to know how many socks we have. The cosmos keeps shifting them in and out of existence to confound us.

I was in a convent for a few years. We each had 2 summer habits (white dresses). We wore one for a week, then it went to the laundry. This is in the Australian summer with no fans or air conditioning. We had 3 sets of underclothes, including a T-shirt to soak up the sweat and a full petticoat with enormous pockets. These underclothes would be washed by hand to make them last the week, then sent to the laundry. In winter, we had one black dress. One. That we wore every single day for the full 6 months, with changes of underclothes the same as we did in summer. It wasn't unusual for a habit to last for 15 years or more, and all were made by hand.

To weigh in on the "poor clergyman's daughter" scenario (as a modern clergyman's wife): clergy are generally expected to fit in with a socioeconomic class far above what their actual income would suggest. Of course this is highly variable by region and denomination, but the community we're in has a large proportion of people who own two homes and they don't quite understand why we can't afford a gardener and something better than an 11-year-old minivan (supporting two young children on a clergy salary and freelancing musician's income). The dynamic of "Though Mrs. Collins has no instrument, she is very welcome, as I have often told her, to come to Rosings every day, and play on the pianoforte in Mrs. Jenkinson’s room" is real and continues today and I am SURE that was a motivating factor behind those two formal silk dresses per year. Not to say that clergyman's family wasn't financially comfortable, just that they may have had a different standard of comparison than other technically middle-class families. If I had more time, I would find actual numbers because I know they're available!

"We're basically just wearing underwear all of the time" was somehow not how I was expecting this to end. I really should have though, since human underwear through time is something I find very interesting. It also served to emphasize why dressing like a cartoon character (basically the same outfit all the time) has gotten slowly weirder with time. Because it's kind of literally being interpreted as underwear in terms of what it means for your personal cleanliness!

I love how this is about looking at data and addressing how we should be cautious of how we interpret it. I’m bored of the “hey did you know every single person in the past did this thing that was mentioned once by a visibly frustrated man?” Thanks for talking about the spectrums of our ancestors and giving them back their singular humanity.

It's also remarkable how much less fabric is in our clothing nowadays. Like, I'm currently wearing a t shirt and a pair of shorts. Two yards worth of fabric, maybe? Compared to a full length full skirt, and a petticoat to match, and a shirt with puffy sleeves, and a jacket over that for a 1900 outfit. I could probably get half a dozen outfits easily out of the same quantity of yardage it took to make one.

My grandfather when he came through Elise Island in 1920 at age 10 had a good suit with 2 good shirts, 3 sets of works clothes, a set of night clothes, a pair of work and good shoes, 8 sets of under things, a toiletry set, picture of his parents, a "repair" kit which included shoe needs and knitting needlrs for socks, a writing/school set, a bible and rosery.

I'm a millenial, but was raised by my grandparents and always changed into "play clothes" when I got home from school. Its something I actually still do, because its really useful for keeping nice clothes nice. I even have nicer t-shirts I save for when leaving the house. 😅 I'm way too prone to get stains and rips in my clothing, and this helps with that.

I know most people just want a fast exciting answer, but I live how nuanced this description of history is. 💖

[weeping in modern rent costs]

I appreciate that you mentioned the time aspect. The average woman back then was probably a bit faster at hand sewing than today, just because of practice from early childhood but there’s still a huge difference between sewing a full garment and, say, repairing a tear or letting doen a hem.

This reminds me of the Sam Vimes Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness from the Discworld book Men at Arms by Sir Terry Pratchett. Sam Vimes is the captain of the City Watch and goes through many pairs of boots. The Boots Theory has been discussed in the news recently by social activists and economists. The theory is based on how poor people spend more money over time on cheap boots that wear out quickly than wealthy people who can afford high quality boots that last for years. It is the most well known part of the discussion on income inequality in the book. However, people often overlook the other half of the theory about Lady Sybil Ramkin, Sam's wealthy fiance. Sam grew up in poverty. His salary in the city watch is basically poverty wages. He is engaged to the wealthiest woman in the city. Sam sees how inherited wealth and reusing high quality clothing and home furnishings makes it easier for Lady Sybil to spend less money than poor people over time, thus maintaining her wealth. You've made this point many times in your videos about how purchasing high quality clothing that lasts longer was a practical economic practice. Thanks for this look into history. I always appreciate your thoroughness, diversity in the people you represent, and citation of sources.

Another angle I thought you might mention is the "central heating" aspect. Wearing multiple layers makes sense when heating is not as common ! I know in my grandmother's rural home, the heating was the kitchen stove and a fireplace.

When I started college in 1974 my wardrobe was dramatically different than that of my roommate and suite mates. The sorority pledge had sooooo many clothes. She actually kept much of her clothing in the trunk of her car because there wasn't room for it in our closets. The coolest, hippy vibe girl had lots and lots of things that looked a lot alike. All of her many pairs of low-rise, bell bottom jeans were virtual clones and her many drapey, halter top, poncho tops all gave the appearance of having been stolen from a middle eastern street market. (Turned out that her parents were CPAs with totally suburban style and she had morphed into cool/hippy girl in the summer before university.) Girl 3 was 'normal'. Her style evolved in semester one from double knit to denim with t-shirts from Sears. I was a first generation in college, working class, sewed most of my own clothes - paid for all of them myself so they were very considered choices - 2 pairs of jeans girl. I made super plain basics and added distracting self-crafted accessories.(vests, hats, bags, scarves...) I had plenty of closet space. I even had a powder blue, double knit, shirt/pants/skirt set for wearing to church. I secretly envied their clothes, and they openly envied mine.

I was a Joann’s a couple weeks ago and a lady in the line asked me if I make clothes. She said making clothes is probably cheaper than buying already made clothes, right? I and another person explained that it actually costs a lot more to make clothes. She was surprised.

What surprises me most is that they show the rich spending almost as much on food as the poor. Even if that includes things like chefs, bakers, kitchen staff, etc., you can still only eat so much!

What always comes to my mind when the question of "how many clothing did they own back then" is one section of Les Misérables. Hugo describes how Marius only has two shirts. One that is at the laundry lady, the other one is that he is wearing. This description and others are used to emphasise how utterly poor these characters are! Most of them are the poorest of the poor. (That's why it's also named the miserables.) So yes, unless you were near or actually living in absolut poverty, people owned more than two sets of clothing.

I think you need to consider the possibility that these magazines are telling people to over purchase. I stopped reading magazines years ago. But I remember they tended to give very "aspirational" consumer advice even for people on a budget. For example, magazines from the 00s told you to replace all your bras every year. Something few people actually do.

...I hold onto clothes a lot longer than is apparently normal. I have still wearable clothing that's...17-18 years old? I've had to mend it, obviously, but my favorite pieces will remain until they literally fall apart.

My mother was born in the late 30s and her father was a share crop farmer. Their closet was a nail driven into the wall and clothes were hung on the nail. A trunk held the folded garments. Nicole is talking about middle to upper class families.

This makes me realise that despite my continous interest in fashion, I have likely always had a quite limited wardrobe because I've been thinking about clothing as something that I don't want to replace frequently. By neccessity, because I have a non-standard body shape, but still there's definitely a conscious choice there. It also makes me more conscious of how I think about my wardrobe. Now to go think on that some more.

Another thing to emphasize how cost has changed is how much fabric is used in the garment! Like you said, fabric is the main cost in garments back in the day. You need 7-9 yards of fabric to make the average "non working" dress back in the 19th century. (And I'd gander a guess at 4-6 for working dresses) But by the 1930s you only need 3-5. I'd say that that nowadays you need 1-5 yards of fabric for that, because we just cover less. Underwear is much more minimal to. We need probably about a quarter to half of a yard to make your average panties, whereas in the 19th century you'd need like 2 or 3 to make underthings. Plus, the corset. We also have simplified the clothes so you need less notions. Surging ranges supreme. No bias tape, boning, fewer to no linings, no horsehair and less modern day interfacing. Clothing has also gotten simpler and easier to make (on average) too. Sweat pants, leggings and t-shirts have become our "at home and working/relaxing" clothes, and those are very simple to make. But even our public clothing is simpler, though it can get more complex. I'd say the average most complex thing we have in our daily wardrobe nowdays is bras, which can get VERY expensive. Especially for plus sized people. That, with fabric costs going down with the rise of synthetics and knit fabrics, I would argue- clothing *is* cheaper than it was in the past. But we are spending about the same because it wears out quickly, and like you pointed out, we spend more on outerwear because the underwear has become so minimal. Thus our wardrobes *seem* bigger, but really we just have different proportions on what we need to function in society. Honestly, I'd love to see more of a balance. I think that more people investing in quality pieces of clothing is great, especially for staples, but having that cheap available clothing is nice too, especially for those of lower income. Of course, this isn't considering how the people who are making these clothes are being paid and treated... which is a whole other mess.

I did a similar, strictly modern exercise like this a few years ago. I always bought a lower quantity of higher quality clothes. But after about 10 years of "genteel poverty" (very, very low income, but the already purchased inventory of upper middle class), I landed a job that a) paid very well, b) required an "office formal" wardrobe. My "how much things should cost" estimator was set back in the 1980s, so way, way off current pricing. I looked at a lot of those budget spending charts, and found out that if I spent per the charts, I'd buy $2,500 of clothing per year. I then looked at what items I'd need to buy ... and suddenly, spending $200 for a summer dress that could last 3-4 years was NOT too expensive! [I own 3-4 summer dresses for the office, plus skirts, trousers and tops.] This also influenced my fabric purchases for things I sew ... $60 of yardage for a dress is not too much money.

I applaud you for driving deep into household incomes and budgets. This world is my day job. Some comments. One major change in household income that is not accounted for by the numbers is that the households in the 1970s and earlier were based on one-wage earners, while later, a growing share of households consisted of two-wage earners. You see the change in the angle of the graph (timestamp 20:47) around 1970. Households have reduced in size over this period as well. Unlike food, clothing is (somewhat) classified as a durable good. You are aware of this because your discussions include stories on recycling fabric. As a child (and oldest daughter), I got hand-me-downs from older cousins. Statistics are good at measuring non-durable goods like food, but the dollars households spend on clothes are closer to measuring the replacement cost of clothes in their wardrobes. Households with children may require a larger budget for clothes unless they have older cousins and their schools have mandatory uniforms. Changes in non-economic characteristics creep into these household cost numbers. Still, this is an excellent summary.

Finally, some good effing data 😤 This is genuinely one of the best essays on fashion history I have ever seen. Your work continues to amaze, Nicole! In addition to budgets and how we're essentially "wearing underwear as outerwear" now, I am also interested in how our architecture, work, transportation, and even means of communication affect our clothing. Like the theory that car travel reduced the time that men wear structured brimmed hats. Or how I can't practically wear Japanese traditional clothing in most Western buildings because the sleeves get caught on door handles!

My mom was born 100 years ago (1924) and can confirm the two dress rule. You wore😢 one dress all week to school and had one better dress for church or dances.

Homes built into 40's 50's had very small closets. There used to home economists guide on how much clothing a person needed. Usually a marriage trousseau has a number of garments.

16.6% of a budget on housing? This blows my 2024 mind. How was housing so cheap?

I normally don't comment but have to applaud you on the level of economic research that went into this video. PhD worthy and very impressive. 👏

Our relationship with clothing has drastically changed since the 1960s. I have a copy of a 1940s sewing book (reprinted from US Government.) It talks about how to reverse collars, set waists on women's dresses and so on. If you read the Laura Ingalls Wilder books (late 1800s), she talks about what they had. They had one nice dress for Sundays, a second pretty good one as adults and work or house dresses. In the Wilder books, they make Mary a wardrobe for her going away to school. They got patterns from Ladies books as you said. The stay at home wife did a lot of the basic sewing. Makes sense that the woman would get the patterns from the dress maker. The dressmaker was probably on-board with it because she probably had enough people to do plain sewing for her. I also have the idea that you could sell your clothing that no longer fit, at least in Europe As always a wonderful video.

My parents had an old pair of matching wardrobes. My mum still has them. I think they were made in the 1930s. Sometimes I think about how physically huge and deep they are and how big the chest of drawers they also had were. I think in practice they had similar amounts of storage to my modern fitted wardrobes so it makes sense that they had a similar amount of clothes to store as we do now. We just change the kind of clothes we buy.

People talk about the size of the closet in terms of how big the wardrobe was, but commonly worn items would be hung on pegs, and there was probably a trunk or drawers that stored things as well.

Hiring clothing was also a big business in the C18th and C19th. Even members of the English upper classes actually rented their finest clothes. In fact there are C18th portraits of entirely unrelated upper class women wearing precisely the same dress which means they either rented them from the same shop or it was a stock prop in the painter's studio

coordinating your green money piece w/ your shirt & ascot is beyond fierce

22:07 a laundry layer maybe we need more of those for modern clothes like a slip for trousers that can washed?

Wearing 18th century working class today ■ my grandson approached me outdoors in my meadow garden and said, "Your clothes you are wearing look 'finer than all' of your clothes/other combined." He stated this attire appeared to be farming clothes; I added they were/are for washing dishes and clothes, and for vegetable and flower gardening/gathering. M

My Nana had 2 nice pant suits, 2 out of the house wearing dresses , 2 house dresses (made by her), 4 pairs of shoes- flats, mules, snow boots, sneakers. 2 blouses, 1 winter coat, 1 light jacket for Spring/Fall, 1 tweed jacket, 2 button down sweaters, 1 pair of pedal pushers, 2 pairs of walking shorts, 4 summer tops- 2 cotton, 2 dressier, 2 sets of pj's, 1 bathrobe, 1 pair of slippers, 9 sets of bras and panties, 1 slip. 1 pocket book, 1 fancy clutch, 2 bandanas to wrap her hair when she set it, 4 pairs of earrings, 2 necklaces, wedding ring set, grandmother's ring, When she passed, this is what I remember her wearing for years and it's what we cleaned out of her home. It fit into a medium sized suitcase, minus the shoes and winter coat.

Great overall conclusions. I did have trouble comprehending the impacts of war time scarcities and rationing in the data. Reusing and remaking fabric made a lot of sense, but the concept of hand-me-downs, especially for siblings in large families seemed to be mysteriously absorbed in budgets. Perhaps it was so universal that everyone assumed passing around children's clothing within families was too normal to mention. As a younger sister I mostly received new panties, shoes and socks up until I started high school when I got a job and bought my own clothes. In 7th and 8th grade, my sister bought me one full school outfit at the beginning of the school year and my parents bought me one school outfit and one Christmas outfit each year. In 7th grade, I received a windfall of clothing abandoned at a family dry cleaners (lots of nice quality wool skirts). In high school, I learned to sew and creatively raided clothes my parents had grown out of to repurpose and re-sew. I could sew a pair of high waist, wide leg trousers in two hours if I had fabric and a zipper in 1974. Between earning money for fabric and brand new bras learning sewing skills made the world of difference to my self esteem. I was motivated to make a new dress for each high school dance. Simultaneously, Richard Nixon's 1972 trip to China opened up trade that reduced clothing prices over the following decades through our current era of fast fashion. When I graduated from college in 1979, I struggled to find a work dress for under $200 in the clearance racks. Still in 2024, it's easy to buy a dress for under $100 that can be worn to an office job. And it's a shame that so few women learned to sew during that period. If trade with China changes due to trade tariffs, war over Taiwan or more shipping glitches, the cost of clothing could change dramatically. OR, are clothing budgets more determined by funds available after necessities are paid for? E.g., as gas prices go up, do clothing budgets take the hit to compensate? Are clothing budgets more a reflection of expendable income? I wonder if the increase in the 1920s is more a measure of prosperity than inflation. Certainly the smaller clothing budgets after the Great Depression made sense. Flour sack dresses speak to the skills and ingenuity of women compensating for available cash being sparingly spent on necessities. My mother's family ate oatmeal three times a day when they had to. They made all their own clothes, window coverings, table linens, hats. Old shoes were repaired and worn to shreds. Coats Were worn to threads. By the time WWII rationing came around, my mother was wearing shoes made of cardboard and sewing dresses from tablecloths and sheets. Thread pulling was a common decorative technique. Women also crocheted tiny lace doilies, collars and cuffs from cotton string. My grandmother crocheted floor rugs from string. She also used a yard stick, cotton string and cut up strips of pillow ticking and fabric scraps to weave rag rugs. She only hand-sewed two quilts. I am proud of the resourcefulness and skills of the women in my family. They found a way to compensate for lack of cash to fill the fairly constant need for clothing. Gosh, I had not intended such a long comment and I appreciate this space to think things through . I have been thinking about how our relationship with China might change in the future and how that might impact how we budget. Thanks for such a stimulating video . ❤❤❤

the level of joy i feel when u post a new historical fashion deep dive is unmatched. you are an INCREDIBLE script writer and researcher. i am obsessed with how u present information!

My grandmother had a winter coat a lightweight summer/fall coat a hat, three dress and jacket outfits a pair of slippers, a pair of court shoes and evening shoes a nightie a dressing gown and her hairnets and summer and winter gloves.

I am curious how knitting and crocheting fit this scenario. I know that women knitted and crocheted much more than now and often made many elaborate garments. I have come across gorgeous lacy dress patterns from 1920s, knit skirt and sweater sets from 1940 and 50s, not to mention a plethora of crocheted accesories like purses, hats, scarves, lacy gloves and even jewelry. All women in my family knitted and crocheted clothes using the patterns in the magazines. I recently talked about this to my grandma, and she said that in the 50s and 60s women knitted and crocheted large parts of winter wardrobe for the whole family, and every woman she knew had this skill, which blows my mind.

As a person who wore hand-me-downs, patches, and home made items because I was raised poor and who does well enough for herself now that those same techniques while a money saver are also a comfort as well as hobby, I appreciate this video deeply. While patching or making my clothing is more of a bragging right these days, I love the idea of repurposing fabrics and wearing layers so as to wear out the undergarments first. In fact, I just bought a used flat sheet today at the local thrift store to make pillow cases as one set I have has worn to the point of holes and needs to be replaced. The thirft store didn't have any two matching pillowcases, so I chose to purchase the sheet and do the sewing myself. Plus, there will be extra fabric with which to make something else. Perhaps, I can use it to create a t-shirt or maybe a skirt.

I love how you demonstrate how complex and nuanced figuring out the research, the graphs, the reasoning on why a question like do we own more clothing now can be. Most people want simple "obvious" answers...

I love the want vs need aspect of clothing finances! I live in PA so there is no tax on clothing. Makes so much sense, like you said, cannot function in society without it!

Watched up to about 28 minutes of this, got distracted and rant-daydreamed to myself for about an hour, remembered this existed and finished it, and I can confidently say that I thoroughly enjoyed this video and will probably watch more of your stuff after I go to bed cause it is currently 1:45 am :]

had in-laws visiting over the weekend and a little buzz in the back of my head for TWO days was "Nicole has a new vid!". hurrah, i watched it today... two days late! it was excellent as always.

I'm currently rereading the Anne of Green Gables series and the way in which new clothes are diccussed, and fashion in general, has suggested to me the 'they only owned three dresses' back than narratuve is quite true. For instance, when Anne goes to collage, or when her friend character gets married, they seem to have most pieces of new wardrobe made in prepation, which isn't something you would neccesarily do today. Characters also fairly frequantly dicuss getting a new dress thoughout the book, and it seems to be a point of pride and reputation to make sure you and your family and well dressed.

My family has always worked with a budget. My Grandmother’s budget, which I have framed in my office, is my guide. My Grandfather was a Senior Military Officer and my Grandmother owned an Interior Decorator Company. The budget I have has nothing about clothing, but I knew my Grandmother always had a fine wardrobe. Her monthly income was $300. This is 1940’s. The top line was on Temple Dues (Tithe) $30. The next line was Savings and Stock at $30. Her favorite stock was AT&T. Household budget was $50, which was food, wine, entertainment fund and “children’s needs”. She also spent $75 to buy items for her supplies and items for her Interior Decorating Company. After these major budget lines, was just set aside for future use. My current budget may have larger numbers as income (based on inflation) but the %’s are still the same. I don’t buy AT&T, but I still do invest. My family has always tried to avoid debt, which has made generations live comfortably. We were never ashamed to admit we could not afford XYZ, and stuck to our budgets.

I remember as a kid we used to get a catalog where you could order a package of 7 pairs of underwear, each one with a different day in the week written across the butt.😂

I was born in 1955 and until high school, I had school clothes, play clothes, and good (church) clothes. Also school shoes and play shoes. We usually got a pair of sandals for summer.

Your colour composition - your clothes, hair, makeup, and set - is perfect and gorgeous!

A very interesting view of history. Thank you. The more things change, the more we are the same.

I'm fascinated by the percentages of how much different items in a budget cost in different eras... Sure we spend a much smaller perportion of our income on clothes now, but in the pie charts you offer, they spent under 15% on rent in 1919... Now you're lucky if you're only spending a third, and in my area it's not uncommon to spend 50-70% of your total takehome pay on housing

My first house was built in 1887 and the closets were super tiny. But still, big enough for several outfits.

I thank you for bringing up the CW estate inventory search! I have never come across that before and will be a big help in my research and understanding in that regard.

I love that the conclusion of this is basically "we wear underwear as outwear now".

For me one of the things that this highlights the most, probably bc it's a personal peeve, is you can see the exact moment at which the nation or at least its lobbyist turned against wealth tax. That moment in the 1960s where the average working class family went from 4% taxes to 13% taxes. And that even in the industrial period there was a concept of the living wage for "minimal comfort." It's a more honest phrasing IMO--"if you pay people less than this, you are denying them comfort," vs minimum wage that says "you're generous if you pay more than this."

You are my superhero, this is the video I never knew to ask but have been looking for all along

All through the 1970s our clothing always had that ILGWU tag, was made in the U.S. and very expensive. We had a few school outfits, a couple pairs of loafers, and play clothes. We wore everything until it wore out or we outgrew it. Grandma sewed us our special clothes!

Yay! I cannot get enough of this topic

It was interesting to see how Princess Kate had a "old" dress revamped for the Trooping of the Colour on Saturday...

Good God, what fantasy land do modern budget makers live in where 25% of income is sufficient to cover the cost of housing?

I grew up in the 1960s. I remember when we moved to a new house and they had separate closets in the master bedroom. It was a luxury. My dad commuted to NYC and had several expensive suits, as he was a corporate executive. My mom had her closet, in what we would consider a small closet today. We have more clothes today, but they are not well made unless you spend a fortune. Skirts were always lined and the stripes on garments had to match. I had sweaters from the Shetland Islands. Pants for women didn’t really come in until 1969 or so. Yes, we had pants (lined), but they were for sportswear, not town clothes. What I want to know is why wool now itches. I grew up wearing wool. Now I can’t wear it. Is it that I’m older, or is the wool not of good quality?

It takes me seven hours to make myself a full length linen tunic with pockets. Because pockets. Including the shirttail hemming.

The depth and nuance of your videos are always such a refreshing standout in a world of "shorts" and reels and attention-grabbing but often simplified at best, inaccurate at worst content. Love your work, Nicole. (and the way your hair, shirt, and the lighting on the back wall all match! Rock that arsenic Scheels green 😁)

This reminds me so much of my fashion history classes! I just graduated uni and took a minor in fashion, and I learned so much. I realised that fashion history is my passion but idk how to get a job in it haha. But love the video!

My mother went to college in the late 1930s with four blouses and two skirts. They were all hand-me-downs from her two older sisters who did not go to college. Her family was not terribly well off (her rich aunt paid for her college). She had to wash out her undies in the sink every night in order for them to dry fast enough for her to have enough to get through the week. She and all three of her sisters sewed, and could restyle the hand-me-downs, but they couldn't afford much cloth.

I just love your content! Thank you for all the sources and pictures- your channel is a true gem!!!❤❤❤

Loved this! You’ve included so much great info. Thanks so much for sharing your vast knowledge!

Nicole, thanks for being so amazing! I've been watching you for 2yrs, your content amazes me every time. You also (constantly) influence me to move back to my sewing projects, so I cannot thank you enough ! :)

I love your historic deep dives, they're always both fun and informative!

What wonderful research you do! 💖💖💖

What a wonderful job you've done researching the topic and making the video. I appreciate the effort and hours it took you to read and compilate all the information. The montage is great as well, I really enjoyed all the pictures from old catalogues and vintage videos. Thank you for the great content!

I love the way you bring us fashion history and found myself pausing on the charts multiple times. I'm always curious as to how one does research like this. I would love a video on your favorite sources, so I can explore more on the topic! Thanks again for a well-researched post.

Your presentation is both captivating and extensive research-thanks ❤

I love your capsule videos for the cruise you took! Please do some capsule wardrobe instructional videos please!

Excellent study! Thank you for sharing your fascinating research.

This was utterly fascinating and i love how you tackled this topic!

Just love love love this video! So very interesting and I love you explaining your methodology and reasonings and assumptions.

super great presentation!

This was so interesting, thank you very much!

So going with the concept of wearing underwear as outerwear - according to historical benchmarks, most dresses would be automatically lingerie dresses? Makes me think about the Outlander books (not the series, I decided I'd already imprinted enough on the books, the series would feel obtrusive to my imagination) where Claire is treated radically differently the first time she time travels because she's seen as being out and about in her underwear

When we see the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's", we see the beautiful Audrey Hepburn wear the same Givenchy dress 4 times. Every time it is "fashioned" into 4 completely different styles, and the accessories change with the style. You just don't notice it at the time. When looking at the past records that Nichole displays, it is sad to see that rent (over 100 years) was about 15 % of income.

Another great video; always interesting to understand how perceptions change with culture. So many moving pieces. Geography, rural vs. cosmopolitan resources, supply and demand all affect changing norms. I love the name Ann Eliza. What a great name for an analytical character in a morality play!

I knew I would get a very thorough analysis on your channel.❤

I absolutely love this analysis!

Thanks for the great video! I appreciate your high quality research and materials work!

👍👍 really fascinating insight here, thank you for this one!

Really interesting and must have taken you a lot of time to research! Thanks for the insightful look at this.

Exceptionally informative. Thank you.

I have a capsule wardrobe but I still have some redundancies in there. Also for layering in the winter. Going completely minimum is a problem the moment the tinyest problem happens

Not me finally having time to listen to this while doing stitching on our research day at the Tailor Shop. 🤣

My dad grew up in the 1940's in a poor family in the American Midwest. His mom sewed their clothes. He had 2 shirts, 2 overalls, 1 pair shoes, 1 pair boots, 1 heavy coat, mittens, socks, a hat, 1 pullover sweater, 1 cardigan. His mom sewed the clothes in the late summer. At the end of the school year his shirts got made into short sleeves and the overall got chopped into shorts unless it was the right size for little brother. Dad was the middle brother so he got hand me downs. Oldest brother got the new clothes

The comment of a fridge being possibly part of minimum comfort threw me. My German 1952 school cookbook chastises high school age girls with such lofty dreams as marrying someone who would provide them with a kitchen that had such lavish things as a fridge. (This 3 paragraph guilt trip was followed by advice on how to store raw meat up to ten days in a household pantry.)

A new winter coat every fourth year?! I only have one winter coat which is at least 12 years old. For underwear I dangerously close to doing the Seinfeld method, wear it until you can open the window and let the remains of the underwear go out like dandelion spores. I'm one of those that dream of a small clothing collection of such a high quality that it can last for decades. After watching this video I guess the forever lasting high quality wardrobe is just an unattainable fantasy.

Faboulous video!! Lovely graphs!!

At 16:40 you incorrectly mention that the US median household income is 75,000. That is actually the mean or average income. Median income is closer to 35,000 and would make the $1500 on clothing a lot closer to the 5% budget frame. Thanks for the great video!

I'm going to be teaching a class in the fall on visible mending (I work in the arts department of my city), and I'm curious to see what kind of participation we end up with. The lower quality clothing is, the harder it can be to mend it and have that mending extend the life of the garment for a decent amount of time (a lot of stretchy fabrics have that problem), but basic repair can still make a big difference for quite a few things.