• Hi, I'm the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

Swampster

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Messages
268
Reaction score
399
I had a play with the wages and costs to see what the equivalent would be today.
The easiest way to do it is simply to add in the inflation rate - this would make his £5 pair of shoes cost roughly £100 today - high end high street - better quality Clarks - but not GYW.

It is more accurate to compare spending power compared to wages. This gets more complicated (measuringworth.com gives a great calculator if you are into that kind of thing) but can be simplified a bit. His weekly wage is £7 and that is more or less the same as an apprentice would get as an hourly rate today*. Assuming a 35 - 40 hour week, his shoes now cost getting on for £200 - which can just about get a pair of English made GYW.
His suit would be closer to £400.

Compared to income value change or labour value change, the amounts above would need to be increased by 50% to 100%.
That would probably fit better with the shoes - a pair of 'Jermyns' from Church's in 1958 ("A mature version of the current taper-toe trend" according to the ad) cost 109/9, so pretty close to the £5 he spends.
Even at the lower rate, a lot more than most people would pay today, even if earning much more.

*a bit of a crude equivalence as tax, social support etc have changed over time.


While I was looking for shoe adverts, I came across this page https://www.rushdenheritage.co.uk/shoetrade/ShoeManufsAssoc1958picAds.html of ads from 1958. It struck me that most of these shoes could still be sold today, whereas a lot from, say, 1974 would look really out of place.
 
Last edited:

Mercman

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
11
I had a play with the wages and costs to see what the equivalent would be today.
The easiest way to do it is simply to add in the inflation rate - this would make his £5 pair of shoes cost roughly £100 today - high end high street - better quality Clarks - but not GYW.

It is more accurate to compare spending power compared to wages. This gets more complicated (measuringworth.com gives a great calculator if you are into that kind of thing) but can be simplified a bit. His weekly wage is £7 and that is more or less the same as an apprentice would get as an hourly rate today*. Assuming a 35 - 40 hour week, his shoes now cost getting on for £200 - which can just about get a pair of English made GYW.
His suit would be closer to £400.

Compared to income value change or labour value change, the amounts above would need to be increased by 50% to 100%.
That would probably fit better with the shoes - a pair of 'Jermyns' from Church's in 1958 ("A mature version of the current taper-toe trend" according to the ad) cost 109/9, so pretty close to the £5 he spends.
Even at the lower rate, a lot more than most people would pay today, even if earning much more.

*a bit of a crude equivalence as tax, social support etc have changed over time.


While I was looking for shoe adverts, I came across this page https://www.rushdenheritage.co.uk/shoetrade/ShoeManufsAssoc1958picAds.html of ads from 1958. It struck me that most of these shoes could still be sold today, whereas a lot from, say, 1974 would look really out of place.
I agree, a lot of those shoes still look quite contemporary.

It's also good see brands like Grenson and Sargent still going today (unlike so much British manufacturing which has now gone to the wall).
 

Swampster

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Messages
268
Reaction score
399
I agree, a lot of those shoes still look quite contemporary.

It's also good see brands like Grenson and Sargent still going today (unlike so much British manufacturing which has now gone to the wall).
Elsewhere on that site, there is a list of the Rushden shoemakers who used to be there. In the 1930s there were over 40. I think it is now down to 4, and much (most?) of their production is overseas.
 

Swampster

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Messages
268
Reaction score
399
So it seems that, while Italian country boys like me were trying to ape young Brits, these latter actually were inspired by Italian fashion.
What a waste of effort on my side ! ...
The attraction of the foreign can often be alluring!

I guess - and I think others have expressed this before with more knowledge and eloquence - that the look in various places, particularly France, Italy, the UK and the USA, was a synthesis of elements coming from other countries and the development of traditional features.
My (probably chauvinistic) take is that from the late 50s, British youth culture and even high street fashion kept pushing the boundaries more than in most areas. This didn't mean that foreign influences were ignored, but they were absorbed and mixed with other influences more than in most places. This often coincided with the various period where British music was particularly influential so a band's apparently British look could be from all over the place. This could reintroduce styles to places where they had once been popular. Other British bands were more obviously similar in look to their overseas contemporaries.
I daresay that if you had been more influenced by Wham then your look would have been more of a typical Italian 80s style. (I hope that isn't an insult!) Though from what I can find of Italian groups of around 1980, they look very mid-70s American.
 

Swampster

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Messages
268
Reaction score
399
Going back to the article, the window dresser made me think of John Simons who did the same thing,though he'd have been about 3 years older than 'Cliff'.
The lease on his shop(in 1964) was £14 and he took £60 in his first day. Comparing that to the numbers above shows how pleased he must have been :)
 

Mercman

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
11
Elsewhere on that site, there is a list of the Rushden shoemakers who used to be there. In the 1930s there were over 40. I think it is now down to 4, and much (most?) of their production is overseas.
Maybe not all Nothampton based but I can think of more English shoemakers than that still on the go. Off the top of my head - Barker, Cheaney, Church, Gaziano Girling, Grenson, Lobb, Loake, Trickers. Maybe a few more, I dunno.

Not sure how much of their production has gone overseas, although I know it's not all.
 

Yorky

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
788
Reaction score
1,375
Going back to the article, the window dresser made me think of John Simons who did the same thing,though he'd have been about 3 years older than 'Cliff'.
The lease on his shop(in 1964) was £14 and he took £60 in his first day. Comparing that to the numbers above shows how pleased he must have been :)
From JS Facebook page
 

Swampster

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Messages
268
Reaction score
399
Maybe not all Nothampton based but I can think of more English shoemakers than that still on the go. Off the top of my head - Barker, Cheaney, Church, Gaziano Girling, Grenson, Lobb, Loake, Trickers. Maybe a few more, I dunno.

Not sure how much of their production has gone overseas, although I know it's not all.
Yes, it's just Rushden that I was talking of.
I've been to Barker, Cheaney, Church's, C&J, Trickers, Loake's and NPS's factory shops. It might be frustrating have wide feet reducing my choice, but at least I stand a chance of coming away from them without blowing my entire bank balance :)
 

Inkss

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
558
Reaction score
1,562
It wasn't as bad as that here in West London, but it was still pretty grim none the less.
A great snapshot of a documentary.
 

Kingstonian

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,128
Reaction score
663
An interesting 1970 Thames TV documentary on poverty in North Islington just appeared on YouTube. Captures the time nicely, and fleeting glances of clothing, footwear and haircuts which may be of interest.
Plummy voiced narrator. Poverty porn documentary.

The Caledonian Road was an area with lots of junkies and prostitutes. Now Kings Cross has been revamped and the bits behind it are moving up in the world. Same across London with gentrification. Hackney and the East End are changing.

In West London, I had relatives in Kensal Rise. They were glad to move out to Rayners Lane/Pinner. Now Kensal Rise property costs a fortune and Rayners Lane is starting to look a bit shabby.

At least the kids were able to play in the street. I have fond memories of doing that.
 

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

Work From Home: What's Your Attire?

  • PJs & Slippers

  • Cozy loungewear

  • Casual outfit (wool cardigan, chinos, etc)

  • Suit or sport coat and dress trousers


Results are only viewable after voting.

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
452,009
Messages
9,786,464
Members
204,224
Latest member
teks
Top