A Question for Weavers. About Weaving!

[KD Burke]

There are actually some useful figures around which give an insight to the cost of cloth in the early 18th century. Wilsons of Bannockburn's 1819 Key Pattern book gave the price for weaving their /Superfine tartan as 8d per Scotch Ell. Only a few years later a weaver was getting a shilling (12d a yard) for tartan.

That is a fascinating fact! That would put the price for a kilt length at something like 5s4d, or a little more than 1/4 of one Pound in 1819 if my conversion in the old units is correct.

If we take an income of £8 per year for a footman as typical of a relatively low wage individual, (Source https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Coinage.jsp) then it would cost the equivalent of about two weeks wages!

[Luke MacGillie]

In the period, the cloth was always the major investment, the tailoring was much cheaper, and you ended up with clothing that fit properly. Today we are used to off the rack clothing as tailoring is expensive. This is a common problem with reenactors, they wear quasi historic garments that do not fit, or even function as intended.

A common issue is that people buy breeches off the rack, or even just made to a pattern that is not laid out properly and the crotch of the garment blows out walking from the parking lot to camp......

[gealach]

I didn't mean to imply that you did, and I'm sorry if my post came across as contentious...

Not at all, don't worry. I just tried to say that I agree on this.

According to PayScale, the average UK salary is around £30'000. So a week's wages is £576 or 780 USD. If we now assume a kilt length of modern, hand woven tartan to cost 1000 bucks or more, the difference in expense is acutally much smaller than I would have expected. Am I wrong again?

[KD Burke]

I don't think you're wrong at all.

Nowadays we see wool tartan fabric as a "luxury good." An expensive indulgence. It is not a necessity.

In days past wool cloth, tartan and otherwise, was just as expensive, perhaps even more so, but it was not an indulgence but a basic living expense. As a result, people had to spend a great deal more , proportionally speaking, of the income that they generated just to keep clothes on their bodies.

Imagine, for the sake of discussion, that a single workaday garment cost you the equivalent of two weeks income! How would that fact impact your life? I'm certain that under those circumstances you would certainly choose the most durable fabric you could (Dyed in the wool? Twill weave?). Perhaps it would affect the nature of the garments you chose as well.

[figheadair]

That is a fascinating fact! That would put the price for a kilt length at something like 5s4d, or a little more than 1/4 of one Pound in 1819 if my conversion in the old units is correct.

If we take an income of £8 per year for a footman as typical of a relatively low wage individual, (Source https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Coinage.jsp) then it would cost the equivalent of about two weeks wages!

Remember, I was quoting the partial production cost (the weaving but not the spinning or dyeing) and not the wholesale of retail costs. There was, as there is today a sizeable mark-up on both. For example, c1780 Wilsons were charging 2s a yard for military tartan. No doubt it was slightly more by 1819.

[Benning Boy]

I see a parallel in the economics discussed here to the price (dare I mention it) of the Colt single action army revolver. In 1873 one could buy the revolver with a $20 gold piece. Today it takes about the same weight of gold to buy an actual Colt SAA. The value of the gun in a way hasn't changed over time. Tartan woven buy the loan craft weaver seems to have been the "same price" more or less since 1819, hasn't It?

[kingandrew]

Benning Boy raises a good point. Some modes of production have remained at a consistently high cost over time.

The key change is that the industrial revolution introduced alternative production methods that have offered much lower costs for similar goods. This has affected the ability of the high-skill producers to retain market share or at least a large enough customer base to sustain their businesses, as Peter noted from experience.

Luke's insight is also true, however. There are differences over time and place in the relative cost of certain parts of the process, in comparison to one another. I live in China, and here tailoring is a much smaller proportion of the cost of a made to measure or even bespoke garment than it would be on Savile Row or in New York. I've had good quality wool suits made for $100 here, but have paid more when I wanted a special fabric, such as a heavy tweed. And there are neighborhood tailor's shops everywhere here that cut and sew clothes from scratch. In the US, most local "tailors" are limited to alterations and repairs, rather than making new items from scratch. So the Chinese market resembles the older US/UK situation Luke described, where the fabric was dear and the labor relatively affordable.

These issues complicate our efforts to make clear comparisons about costs across historical periods and far-flung locations.

Andrew

[The Q]

You've not taken the effect of taxes into account.
Back then there were very few taxes that the ordinary person would pay.

Today in the UK
Roughly £10000 is tax free,
The rest is taxed at 20% (above income of £46,000 40%) and 12% National insurance.
So the average salaried person probably takes home about £23,600.
Added to that just about everything you buy (except unprepared food and literature) is taxed at 20%.

Also note you have taken the average salary , not the median salary where 50% of people earn more or less. The median is nearly £10,000 less. It only takes a few, million income people to move the average a lot.
I earn above the median but below the average....

Someone on Median Salary would take home around £16,800