Questions regarding the price of a suit 100 years ago.

[la_asie]

Hello all,

There are some questions that I would like to know regarding this topic. I have searched the internet and found little to nothing relating to the topic of the history of clothing prices. My point is, high-quality suits are extremely expensive in the 21st century. High-end RTW suits such as Kiton, Brioni, Attolini, or Oxxford have a hefty price tag above $3,000 (retail). Bespoke suits in England cost pretty much the same and maybe more.

My question is if we go back in time to the 1900s, how much did a suit cost back then? Let's say if we go back to the 1900s in London, in a scenario where a working-class man needs to don a suit every day. How much did he have to pay for a suit? I believe that ready-to-wear stuff was still unavailable, so the only option for him was to go bespoke (either British or Chinese tailor I would guess). If the only option for him was to go bespoke, then the price should probably be high?

If anyone has insight, please enlighten me. I desperately need to know.

 

[Stilig]

I couldn't say a price, but there were definitely different tiers of tailoring. Your average working-class man would most likely not buy something that would even remotely resemble a modern-day Attolini in terms of quality, and definitely not something from a top-tier tailoring house. Most people 100 years ago were dirt poor. If I recall correctly the average monthly salary for a carpenter in the US in the year 1900 was around 100-150 USD in today's money, something he more likely than not supported a family on. A clerk in a bigger city would make more, but not enough to afford many luxuries.

I think the closest thing we to compare with would be developing nations today. What does a tailor in non-touristy parts of India charge for a decently made suit if a local would have one made? He wouldn't charge as much as Attolini, but the product wouldn't be as well-made either.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Also bear in mind that 100 years ago, the rag trade was quite commonplace and how many of those in the lower and middle classes were able to dress themselves.

This is an economic question so I’m not sure a $ adjusted formula really works.

 

[la_asie]

I couldn't say a price, but there were definitely different tiers of tailoring. Your average working-class man would most likely not buy something that would even remotely resemble a modern-day Attolini in terms of quality, and definitely not something from a top-tier tailoring house. Most people 100 years ago were dirt poor. If I recall correctly the average monthly salary for a carpenter in the US in the year 1900 was around 100-150 USD in today's money, something he more likely than not supported a family on. A clerk in a bigger city would make more, but not enough to afford many luxuries.

I think the closest thing we to compare with would be developing nations today. What does a tailor in non-touristy parts of India charge for a decently made suit if a local would have one made? He wouldn't charge as much as Attolini, but the product wouldn't be as well-made either.

I understand that. But from what I've seen in the documentaries and such, people wore suits all the time. They were dirt poor, but they had to spend money on clothes. I believe the price for a decent suit made in India with full canvas construction should cost around $500, but I do not think that most local people would be able to afford that. Let alone $500, I don't think that they would be able to afford a $100 suit.

I did some further research and I was able to make a hypothesis... But I am not sure if I am even on the right track.

1900:
Salary: £250/yr (According to Google)
Suit price: £2 (Average; 1888) [Not sure if a fused suit was around back then so I assume most suits were probably full canvas)
Rent: £105 (Average; 1888)

2020:
Salary: £36,000 (2020)
Suit price: £350 (Suitsupply; affordable, full canvas); £100 (cheap fused suit)
Rent: £7,800 (£650 a month)

In 1900, a suit was around 1% of the salary (for a good construction full canvas suit) and the rent was 50% of the average salary.
In 2020, a suit is still around 1% of the salary (I assume the construction would be abstractly on par with ones in the 1900s); and the rent is around 25% of the average salary.

Is it safe to assume that the price of a decently made suit has been similar throughout history?

 

[la_asie]

Also bear in mind that 100 years ago, the rag trade was quite commonplace and how many of those in the lower and middle classes were able to dress themselves.

This is an economic question so I’m not sure a $ adjusted formula really works.

I don't think the formula actually works either.

 

[FlyingHorker]

The suit my dad got for me in India ran around $100 CAD. Polyester and fused, but MTM based off pictures and measurements.

 

[ZRH1]

there is the analogy that in Roman times a good toga cost an ounce of gold, which if we equate a toga to a suit, a nice one today costs the same in todays value.

 

[dieworkwear]

I don't know about the turn of the century. The first ready-made suit was introduced by Brooks Brothers in 1849. Prior the Civil War, most men had their clothes made by a tailor if they could afford one, or they had their clothes made in the home. The development of ready-made tailoring coincided with the Civil War and industrialization, which also helped set up the suit as a symbol of snappy progress. The suit was considered a democratic uniform for a time. Basically clerks wore the suit; "proper" gentlemen wore frock coats.

Early forms of the ready-made suits were quite rough. Relatedly, Brooks Brothers got into trouble during the Civil War for outfitting Union soldiers with suits that nearly fell apart. Buttonholes and buttons were missing; the cloth was not what was promised (if I remember correctly, they were asked to produce suits in Army cloth. Brooks negotiated this down to an "equivalent cloth" but ended up delivering something that was a mix of wool and sawdust).

I don't think ready-made manufacturing really picked up until the turn of the 20th century. Michael Zakim's book Ready-Made Democracy may have the answer you're looking for, as he tracks the development of both ready-made manufacturing and the development of America's political economy.

During the Second World War, a Brooks Brothers suit was between $55 and $90, according to thier advertisements. This would be roughly the equivalent of $1,100 and $1,600 today.

I've heard from a friend of a friend that, during the 80s (somewhere around there), a custom-made Brooks Brothers suit was more expensive than some Savile Row houses. I find this hard to believe, but this is what I heard. The friend of a friend went to an SR firm because it was more affordable than Brooks custom.

People's wardrobes were also much smaller at the turn of the century.

 

[la_asie]

I don't know about the turn of the century. The first ready-made suit was introduced by Brooks Brothers in 1849. Prior the Civil War, most men had their clothes made by a tailor if they could afford one, or they had their clothes made in the home. The development of ready-made tailoring coincided with the Civil War and industrialization, which also helped set up the suit as a symbol of snappy progress. The suit was considered a democratic uniform for a time. Basically clerks wore the suit; "proper" gentlemen wore frock coats.

Early forms of the ready-made suits were quite rough. Relatedly, Brooks Brothers got into trouble during the Civil War for outfitting Union soldiers with suits that nearly fell apart. Buttonholes and buttons were missing; the cloth was not what was promised (if I remember correctly, they were asked to produce suits in Army cloth. Brooks negotiated this down to an "equivalent cloth" but ended up delivering something that was a mix of wool and sawdust).

I don't think ready-made manufacturing really picked up until the turn of the 20th century. Michael Zakim's book Ready-Made Democracy may have the answer you're looking for, as he tracks the development of both ready-made manufacturing and the development of America's political economy.

During the Second World War, a Brooks Brothers suit was between $55 and $90, according to thier advertisements. This would be roughly the equivalent of $1,100 and $1,600 today.

I've heard from a friend of a friend that, during the 80s (somewhere around there), a custom-made Brooks Brothers suit was more expensive than some Savile Row houses. I find this hard to believe, but this is what I heard. The friend of a friend went to an SR firm because it was more affordable than Brooks custom.

People's wardrobes were also much smaller at the turn of the century.

Really informative! Thanks for the reply.

 

[comrade]

From the 20s:

 

[FPB]

Very cool ad! It's interesting that those suits wouldn't really look too out of place in 2020.

Also remember that people actually mended things 100 years ago and low earners didn't have a big wardrobe. So, the average working man with a limited budget definitely didn't have 10 Kiton/Attolini grade suits in his closet, but he probably had a few that were probably machine made and were repaired multiple times.

 

[JJ Katz]

I don’t have any hard data at hand but I know for a fact that there is plenty of archival evidence; just not necessarily a google search away.

If we try to compare like with like, anything that retains a large amount of non automated direct labour would have risen in price considerably more than the average / general level of prices. This applies to most tailored garments, even if they are made in a factory, assembly line setting.

 

[comrade]

Very cool ad! It's interesting that those suits wouldn't really look too out of place in 2020.

I am always fascinated by the fact that mens tailored clothing style have been basically the same
for over a century. This was certainly not the case in previous eras: 1720- 1820, 1820- 1920, etc.
If anyone has a theory for this I'd love to hear it.

 

[FPB]

Very cool ad! It's interesting that those suits wouldn't really look too out of place in 2020.

I am always fascinated by the fact that mens tailored clothing style have been basically the same
for over a century. This was certainly not the case in previous eras: 1720- 1820, 1820- 1920, etc.
If anyone has a theory for this I'd love to hear it.

Theory: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It's easy to be a guy!

 

[dieworkwear]

Very cool ad! It's interesting that those suits wouldn't really look too out of place in 2020.

I am always fascinated by the fact that mens tailored clothing style have been basically the same
for over a century. This was certainly not the case in previous eras: 1720- 1820, 1820- 1920, etc.
If anyone has a theory for this I'd love to hear it.

I don't think that's true in practice.

There's a difference between classic and timeless. It's true that some silhouettes are classic, but it's not true that silhouettes are timeless.

When this is discussed, people often point to drawings, like Apparel Arts or Sears catalogs. But in reality, if you choose an average suit from any decade -- 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, etc -- there will often be subtle clues that you're wearing something from a different era if you were to wear it today.