@@j03man44I mean sure people stole stuff, but it was also a common practice for used pieces from the lady of the house to be part of her maids salary essentially.
@@j03man44 bruh as a chambermaid you didnt want to risk it Stealing meant immediate ejection from the house and destruction of reputation and no reference to take to a new house No reference means no employment, and in those times it means you’re either going to a workhouse for life or you die on the street. They didnt fuck around back then
Some were 'given' old outfits, then when the woman of the house caught her husband leering at the young chambermaid, she'd say she stole it and she could leave quietly or with the police!!....and other interesting stories handed down through generations...
People forget that a lot of women those days sewed their own garments or mend old ones to keep using them for much longer. Most people these days throw away clothes that are damaged or just old and unwanted
They might have known how to sew simple garments but the outside fashion garments were trade secrets the average person even middle and upper class people would not have access to the patterns.
Trying to mend a lot of modern day clothes doesn't extend the life of the clothes for very long because quality has gone down significantly. I try to rescue many of my clothes and most, if I can save them, usually need repatched within 3 months. You can only repatch so many times though especially if they keep getting worn out in the same spots.
@@abrown507 aren't there a bunch of books of the era (and previous ones) directed at women in general showing the basics of how to sew the items? I could swear I have seen them.
I once held into a pair of jeans for a year and a half and only had to finally get rid of it when the seam along the crotch ripped all the way up the back 😂 would have fixed it if i knew how to.
She could buy all those pieces one by one every week. And most of them she can swap on different clothes she already has so its a pretty good investment.
First few months were probably taken up buying work clothes though. Servants were mostly expected to provide their own uniforms. I would imagine the first nice shirtwaist to wear on days off felt like quite an accomplishment.
@@nyphiraexactly that is the reason why she said buy one item at the time... Like this week the blouse next week the skirt and so on instead of buying the whole (rather expensive outfit at ones) this is to make sure to always have money left for food.
Sears brushing off online shopping in the 90s was something I could never wrap my head around. They had been a giant of mail order shopping for so long...
Room and board would often be included for servants who lived on premises. With those expenses covered there might be more in the budget for clothing. Pieces could be purchased over time or sometimes the family might give older clothes to favored servants so they could be made over into new clothing. There were second-hand shops where clothing was bought and sold just like we have today.
Plus the fabric and sewing job was generally of better quality. If you've ever seen some of the 1st pairs of Levi's jeans you could see how much thicker the material was back then.
It was also common practice for the house staff to receive fabric to make their dresses as a Christmas gift from their employers. Its in Below Stairs, a book about a gilded age cook, but I think that had been a practice for a while.
If room and board are included, wouldn't it reduce the wages they received? Also I'm pretty sure that servants wouldn't get paid weekly. At least, not every household would be nice enough to pay on time, everytime
For anyone wondering what this outfit would cost now adjusted for inflation: -Basic Chemise: $9.25 -Corset: $14.80 -Petticoat: $18.50 -Corset Cover: $5.55 -Shirtwaist: $9.25 -Straw Hat: $9.25 -Skirt: $44.02 TOTAL: $110.62 (Edit: I just used an inflation calculator, this is more of a rough guesstimate than anything exact!)
Gosh, imagine. So much for a bit over 100, that's actually nice. A good corset for 15 bucks sounds like a dream. It'd take me the whole budget of that outfit to successfully make myself just the corset. Lol 😔
They would also buy fabric and make their own clothes which was cheaper and repair damaged items of clothing because every woman and girl knew how to sew
@@audreydoyle5268 I totally agree I learned to sew by the time I was 6, it’s very convenient I repair my clothes and my children’s clothes aswell as making them myself, I can crochet but never got into knitting
@@audreydoyle5268 I still hand sew EVERYTHING. Learned how to use a sewing machine but fell out of practice. Hopefully, I'll be able to start making my own cosplays soon, so (or should I say *sew,* lol) I'll be picking the skill back up when I get a new machine for projects. And, yeah, it's still absolutely cheaper to make and mend your own clothing and you don't have to worry about the BS sizing in women's clothing that way. I'm so excited to relearn the skill. My cat will absolutely be my test subject for patterns, though (and we can match!) 😂 Sorry for the ramble, but I'm in love with sewing because it's something my grandmother taught me and something we did together. ❤
My Mom quit school to go to work during the depression when she didn’t own many clothes. She used to just buy one piece of clothing a week until she got an entire outfit. That’s how people did it then!! Good technique and good advice for any era!!😊
On my meager income and raising a child by myself. that is how I added new clothes to my closet all the time. I would wait for the department sores to put thing on sale and I budgeted my disposable income to buying a single item at a time, often putting it on layaway and making weekly payments. Same management was applied to clothing my son. This was during the 1970's and 19080's. and then, once he went off to college, had to continue to do so while he was in college. Never really stopped even after he graduated. I have been trying to get back into making clothes for myself.
It was also the habit of the wealthy and aristocratic households to offer their ladies' maids and other household staff cast off clothing as an inducement to continued employment. Couple that fact with the habit, then as now, to receive clothing items as gifts for birthdays and Christmas, especially fripperies such as gloves, hats, and ribbon trimmings. Many ladies would only have one or two serviceable outfits for the week and a nicer set for Sunday, with perhaps a traveling outfit in addition. Finally, needlework was a skill that all working class ladies were expected to have, and many were able to purchase inexpensive fabrics and create their ensembles themselves. This skill also allowed them to keep their clothes in good repair, allowing them to be worn until they got so threadbare that they ended up in a rag bag or perhaps as a lovely addition to a quilt.
Your $7 T shirt from Walmart won’t last long but a $20 T shirt from Talbots will last over twenty years and I have the proof. I buy them all on sale and I’ve several which are in great shape! As my mother would say “It doesn’t pay to buy cheap”💕😊💕
Just to add on: Not every working class person would be immaculately turned out all the time, just presentable enough for work, having perfect fitted clothes all the time was (and still is!) the privilege of the comfortably well off. Things lasted longer than they do now and could be repaired, not everything would fit perfectly. That's why we think people look "poor" or "cheap" when their clothes are patched or faded. Hand me downs were common and so was recycling fabric from old dresses for new clothes. You also had multiple chemises and washed them daily, not your outer clothes.
This is earlier, but I know Louisa May Alcott's family bought used clothing, so there must have been a second hand market. Apparently, it was a habit she found difficult to break, even after finding financial success.
And a level of grunge. If you sweat at work even modern cleaners cant prevent discoloration. Her outfit would really be ragged at the edges, stained and discolored. It would also be acceptable middleclass attire looking like that.
@@williamjenkins4913”Middle-class”women would not have worked outside of the home, unless they were unmarried, and then they might work as a governess or teacher. In the UK it was fairly common for middle-class families to employ a servant or two of their own until the 1920’s. Working class women (what this video portrays) probably would’ve had far less items and the requisite grunge
When I worked for Abercrombie it took me a week to make back the money I spent on the clothes they made me buy to wear to work… I wore the same outfit every work day
Considering that people owned very few pieces of clothing at that time, the cost of this outfit seems pretty affordable to me when she would have been taking great care of each piece and wearing them frequently for many years
And she’d already own one corset, the underwear and petticoat, and probably the shoes and the skirt. She’d need a spiffy new shirtwaist (that she’d either save up for and/or make) and she’d undeniably eat bread and butter for a week for a really magnificent hat. Then she could go walking out with her beau.
@@angelicsailor1stfun fact I learned just a couple of days ago and thought I'd share it with you, haberdashery specifically has to do with menswear and men's hats while millinery specifically has to do with women's hats. Haberdashery is strictly male oriented and millinery is strictly female oriented. Also please don't take it the wrong way I am just sharing it out of good nature I love sharing new things I learned with other people😊
@@thegreatmysterylady3221 Aw hey I didn’t know that! Thank you 🙏 (most of my historical education isn’t in this time period I’m used to studying poor areas that had general stores with a little bit of everything so it’s nice to know)
I’d also assume they or their mothers/family members would sew their own clothing, especially undergarments, from discarded fabric or even flour sacks, etc. it’s only been in the last few decades that buying all of your clothing has become the norm.
YES this is what I said too. That they went out and “shopped” for their clothing is quite realistic. Perhaps the hat might be purchased, but everything else could of and most likely would have been made/sewn. And as you brilliantly pointed out, most likely from recycled or inexpensive natural fabrics.
Definitely a good point about longevity of fashion pieces back in the day. We’re so used to fast fashion in our current day, buying items with no exact idea how long we’re gonna actually keep them around or actually wear them on a daily basis.
An 1890s Dollar has the purchase price of $33 in today's money. Probably some items like a skirt, might be hand made at home. And her paycheck still would have been super lousy.
@@strana6875 Room and board were usually covered, as well as at least some pieces of work clothes. She would have likely been spending her money on the occasional clothing or book purchase, food/entertainment when she was out and about on her day off, and either saving up for her future or sending the rest to her family.
@crayonburry its not cheap , prices were cheaper to us back then. But back then ,prices were high. A car cost $200. Dollars back then a small fortune. Bread 5¢ Better quality back then ,clothes lasted longer and were well made and usually tailored to fit your body PERFECTLY. But, dept store prices were expensive to THEM. people didn't make slot of money weekly. They had rent ,morgage, A family etc. to take care of first. Clothes were thought of last.
I have that same book and I highly recommend everyone get a copy. It’s so much fun to look through and see the cost of things. You can literally buy a home from it!
Buying on a credit basis was also more common in certain areas of the world during this time frame too, with folks coming in and paying in installments over time for garments. Also just.... it'd be very common for gals to have just bought the cloth and sewn everything themselves but for the shoes, or to sew at least the under garments or the dress themselves. So many ways for folks to penny pinch and financially plan for important closet pieces like these.
Don't forget they had second hand clothing stores and church clothing rooms then too and I must be in the wrong decade because every item of clothing I own can all fit in a medium large rolling suitcase and I only own two pairs of shoes I'm weird I fix crap till I have to turn them in to dish rags and never go to the thrift store unless I absolutely have to replace something.. haha I'm a 19th century cheapskate in 21st century inflation.. also don't forget most women then knew how to sew and would've inherited clothing and even if it was 20-50 years old they'd still would wear it or sew it to fix the fashion of the time..if it wasn't broke why fix it but I honestly think they had it way better than us tbh
Second hand stores really weren't common yet. There were people who dealt in secondhand clothes piece by piece out of their homes and there were auction houses that people sent boxes of stuff (usually from deceased estate or bankruptcies) to be sold off by the tea chest load. You couldn't just think "oh I've got a spare afternoon and it is business hours I will go to a second hand shop"
@@jericson1109 2nd hand stores were more prevalent than you think. It was common for a lady's maid being given cast off clothing from the woman they worked for, and selling them. This was because most working women didn't have a place to wear the high end fashions of their employers. They'd remake from gowns with fabrics they could use, and sell the gowns in fabrics that they couldn't. This was common as far back as the Regency era, possibly even back in the late 1700s.
@Kahtini you are confusing second hand clothing TRADERS and second hand clothing stores. They had TRADERS. Traders who were out all day trying to source clothes...if they attended an auction that might take most of a day. It wasn't a particularly profitable occupation and they and their customers generally didn't have great transport options so that was incredibly time consuming for them. They didn't run stores because that was more than their profit margins could handle...they traded out of their homes. Communication options were limited...and they certainly were not the early adopters of telephone communication. To do a deal for second clothing required leaving messages, the trader catching up with you and organising how, when and where you were to see some clothing. The traders had only what could be sourced in the local area...no big truck bringing in donated garments from across town. And the traders tried to turn their profit quickly and keep as little stock as possible on hand. It might take a month for someone employed long hours to be able to see the wares of a secondhand clothing trader. I'm old and my family breed late in life My grandmother was born before widespread automobile use and remembered this era...she was so grateful for the dingy little charity shops of the seventies.
I saw the excellent PBS documentary about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire a few years ago and a horrific and tragic a subject as it was it was also an extremely good resource from a costume history perspective as it showed a great number of photos of working class girls in NYC at the turn of the century. These were women who were young, vivacious and professional despite being on one of the lowest rungs of the social ladder and their clothing reflected this to a surprising degree. It’s quite fascinating that the same, relatively new system of mass manufacturing garments that employed and clothed them in a fashion that would have been completely inaccessible to them 100 years previous was also the reason they died in such a horrific accident.
Am sure they'd purchase over time via Sears. An item this month, another one or two next month. You'd have to Mail in your order, then wait awhile to receive your purchase. Maybe they ordered a season in advance ?
I love how you used the old catalog prices to answer the question. You probably could do a whole series of videos on the items found in old Sears catalogs (basically the "Amazon" of that time period).
One more point: if the working class couldn’t afford these garments then who were they being mass produced for? The Post Industrial Revolution era has been flooded with product from the start, yes Victorians owned significantly less “stuff” of all varieties than we do today but they were still overwhelmed with product compared to their pre industrial counterparts. Product was different in those days too in that it was generally divided into price categories by quality and level of decoration so while you might not be able to afford a fancy item there certainty were ‘serviceable’ options in lower priced categories. Also, the working class would have knitted and sewn most of their own basic garments as was usual throughout most of history. These days purchasing fabric and sewing clothing is actually more expensive than buying pre made clothing but this is a relatively new situation.
@darkchurchhill Bro, if you have a 3 or 5 wick candle on the table that your wife didn't mention the cost of, just don't ask. Just leave it be. We do have candle costs, you just don't know it yet.
@@thalinororcbreaker2840yes but do you have to use the candle every night/ every time it gets dark? No, so you’re not going through the candles as fast.
They had used clothing shops in those days too. People died, the survivors got their clothes or sold them. People had to sew some things, or make them over (repairs, new buttons, ribbons, etc.) The clothes were probably higher durability as well, especially the shoes.
That was marvelous of looking up the wage scales that correlated to the Sears catalog price to give a good perspective on the percentage of wages it took to be properly dressed.
Yeah, it’s a culture shock to cross the pond and see how differently household servants were treated. The U.S. never had the superabundant servant class of 1700’s-early 1900’s England, so servants had more bargaining power.
umm except for the millions of people held either in slavery or otherwise forced into the lowest occupations due to racial segregation - you're correct @@mrjones2721
Considering the working classes were more resourceful back then, they very likely would have attempted to make their own pieces of clothing or alter it as much as possible. Then there's all the passed down articles of clothing from family and friends
That's of course assuming this theoretical working-class woman was buying all her clothes brand-new. To my knowledge, second-hand clothing stores were fairly common, and it was also pretty common for wealthier people who could employ servants to sometimes give their old clothes to said servants. So if this hypothetical woman didn't mind being a little behind the latest fashions or having to do a little mending or altering, she could potentially be dressed fairly well for even less than that.
We’ve forgotten the concept of body linen, a cheap, easily washed layer next to the skin that absorbed sweat and oils and kept the outer clothes clean. Body linen wasn’t changed nearly as often as we would want it changed-weekly was common-but it was changed and washed on a regular schedule. The outermost clothes often weren’t washed at all, and some of them, like silks, couldn’t be washed. People brushed their outer clothes clean or spot-cleaned them.
The way you speak about girlhood so honestly and earnestly made me burst into tears more than once, I’ve never felt so understood and this video really helped my reconnect with my girlhood. I CANNOT WAIT fro your next videos!!! Thank you for making this fantastic content!!
Yes she could as she doesn't have to buy all the items at the same time. Also it would be very likely she 'lived in' at the house she worked at so she wouldn't have rent, heating or food bills.
I know the clothing looks fancy to us now, but that's like asking if a working-class person today could afford a bra, panties, jeans, and a shirt. Like...an untrimmed white shirtwaist and a plain skirt (cotton, I'm guessing?) was the most basic outfit you could have at that time. We have corset ads guaranteeing the product for about a year, roughly the same amount of time we get out of a bra nowadays- and like with bras, in actuality you could wear it for much longer. Plus, things could be purchased secondhand, too!
I knoooowww pretty much the only thing I daydream about re: the past is going shopping. The 1890s would have been a terrible time to live, but damn the clothes 😩
Yes, women back then wore their clothes for a couple of days before switching to another outifit. Corsets were worn like bras today (ladies we know how we wear them). Clothes were washed once a week. it was back breaking work to wash clothes with a washboard and a very horrible soap. Not every working girl had a person do their laundry
In the UK we had the Rag Man/ Woman who went around getting old clothes or rags and the poorest people of society went to them for second hand clothes. Items could be handed down from family members and even those in your community. Also hats as well as corsets were important items of clothing in this period as they were seen as a must for those wanting to be known as respectable and honest women. It was important to cover your head outside of the home.
Working class folks would also have a lot more under-layers specifically to change those out frequently (to reduce stains & smells from sweat & body oils) while the outer layers were less frequently changed. They would also wear a smock or apron that covers quite a lot of their clothes to help further protect those outer layers from things like mud, dust, and grime, etc.
You can definitely buy cheap shirts for under $10 today though. The cheapest shirt she could find was 25 cents so it's no different from a 9.10$ t-shirt from Walmart or Shein today, only the style has changed.
@@alexandragattoI bet the cheap shirt is not pure cotton or linen though. Polyester and elastin have their advantages but plenty of disadvantages too.
The inflation calculator numbers look off. You can get radically different inflation results depending on what class of goods and services you use as a comparison, and the calculators that have been copied and recopied across the Internet appear to be linked to a measure that gives very low numbers.
@@mrjones2721I think Philip is looking at a buying power calculator, which factors in the price to live. But, they're all different and look at different factors. The calculator I looked at said a dollar in 1900 would be worth 24.37 today. 🤷♀️
Not to mention you typically lived in your employer's house when in domestic service so room and board were not expenses a chamber maid had to worry about.
No one buys a whole wardrobe in one week, even today. Okay well some people might, but most don't. And this wasn't fast fashion, they lasted for years, so their wardrobe would have been accumulated over a period of time, and there likely would have been gifted and hand me down pieces in there too.
It honestly depends where they worked. Some were given uniforms and some were not. And most of them had at least some skill of sewing so they probably made some clothing items by themselves. But even so they probably had hand me downs and just kept fixing them. And usually they only really had to worry about paying for clothes since they usually got food and a living space from the boss. (At least here where I live which is in Germany)
I live next to an old (abandoned) 1911 Sears & Roebuck building. I’ve tried to envision what it was like when it first opened, and this video offers insight! 🥰
Back then most women Only had 2-3 dresses that wold be mended and turnd inside out too keep them going longer. Its crazy too me that now a Days most peopel have a closet full and by more and often dont even use Most of it
I OWN THAT EXACT SAME CATALOGUE I got it for a set design class, as a more long-term investment (considering how I want to go into set design) Look at the old medicines. They’re hilarious. In general, if you ever look at an old newspaper, look at the medicinal adverts. You’ll find things like “Mrs’s Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound” for a woman’s “monthly sickness” and medical instruments that look like torture devices
It’s amazing to see the way things have changed, when now a decent corset can cost anywhere from $50 - $300 depending on how ornate or what kind of fabric etc.
That’s only if you insist on paying $70 for a pair of jeans. It isn’t essential and there are many ways to be well dressed, stylish, and not spend a large percentage of your net pay on clothing
I find the vintage attire absolutely stunning. I wear vintage clothes (male) and I get some pretty unique looks from folks but mostly positive things. I just wish men had a bit more options today. That why I’ll just stay vintage. Great videos and thank you for posting this amazing content for us vintage clothing junkies 😊
Can you do some videos on shoes, please, the working class as well as upper classes. I'm fascinated with how narrow the shoes were. I know shoes were hand made too.
Let’s not forget that it was very common to make your own clothes as well, clothing brands would release patterns of the latest styles. Both of my grandmas has saved all the clothes they made, always fun to look through on the holidays.
It’s so cool to see the history of fashion, and how quite frankly, beautiful people were back in the day. People had a sense of elegance we just don’t have today.
Worth noting that you used to be able to take a pattern to a tailor and get any fabric you want. So you could get the silhouette you want and pick a cheaper fabric.
I think people forget that they weren't buying internet, phone, cable, 3 streaming services, insurance, gas/car stuff, etc. Your money was pretty much food, clothing, and rent.
Very cool. I had wondered. Thanks. I have a reprint of 1902 Sears catalogue. It's pretty mind-boggling. It wasn't that the items were particularly inexpensive, it was that you could get anything from "marital aids" to anvils delivered anywhere. Like, an entire iron wood stove shipped to Outer Elbonia for like 2(100 now)bucks. They truly were the Amazon of the Age. You name it, Sears had it, reasonably priced, and they delivered it to Saskatchewan or Sonora or deepest Florida for pennies extra.
I'm glad you balanced the cost of each item with the amount of payments they received. Sometimes we look back at the pricing and think it would be awesome to only pay that much money for something like that. But we'd Also have to consider how much the average seller or worker would be making in order for these costs to be that low. Thanks for sharing this piece of history! 😊👍
For a whole outfit, purchased gradually, I can absolutely believe someone now spending 3/4 of a week’s wages- and that’s with people now owning way more clothes and hence those clothes being “worth less” Having the right clothes and looking neat and tidy could make a huge difference on the type of employment you could get and the circles you’d move in, so I can definitely see someone in service viewing a good outfit of clothes as being a necessary investment- particularly something rather plain which they could then retrim occasionally to stay fashionable
Also not to mention older garments are leagues stronger than modern day ones, the seams are sewn so tight and close, also clothes were commonly altered to size up with the person normally with lace inserts (if any of this interests you id recommend Burnadette Banner’s youtube channel on historical dressmaking)
It was also expected that the working girls in the house would have first dibs on the mistress’s discarded clothing. That was part of their compensation. Also I’m not sure but I think I learned somewhere that clothing was occasionally also provided for them, particularly if they were working a service job where the mistress/master of the house wanted them in uniform (at a certain point, having your servicepeople in uniform was a status symbol)
