Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AKADriver t1_it6xbio wrote

Before the advent of machine manufacturing for clothes, they were as valuable as jewelry. When they would write back then about some dandy nobleman having 30 pairs of breeches that was like having a closet full of Gucci, Balenciaga etc.

112

Dave-the-Flamingo t1_it7e960 wrote

Apparently people would pawn of their Sunday Best and then buy it back at the end of the week to go to church.

https://visitvictorianengland.com/2019/05/24/victorian-pawnbrokers/

“For the majority of the working classes, pawning was simply a way of life. The only way to make ends meet was to pledge their belongings to raise cash for the week ahead. When in work, they used their clothing, especially their Sunday best, as capital. This was why Saturdays and Mondays were the pawnbrokers’ busiest days. Clothing was frequently pledged on a Monday and redeemed on a Saturday after the breadwinner of the family had been paid. It was worn to chapel or church on a Sunday, and pledged again the next day. This cycle of pledging and redeeming, week in, week out, might continue for years, and pawnbrokers made their profits on the interest charged”

65

sauveterrian t1_it7ti07 wrote

My Nana used to pawn my Grandad's suit to get the family to pay-day. This was very common in poor families in the 1940's.

25

pkgary t1_it86nlk wrote

Excuse me if Im confused, but isnt this a bad thing? Im understanding it as the same concept as a payday loan? Why continuously pawn the same thing every week and buy it back for more, instead of just saving enough for a weeks expenses? If they cant afford to do that then it doesnt make sense for them to buy it back at all right?

10

Dave-the-Flamingo t1_it88stu wrote

You understand perfectly and it is a terrible thing that unfortunately still exists today in the form of payday loans. This is the brutal cost of being poor. They could have slipped into the cycle of pawning clothes, because they had a week/day without wages and then I imagine it is very hard to get out of. Not sure why they didn’t just not buy the clothes back. Perhaps they just still wanted to be part of the community or perhaps they truly believed that the afterlife was a better option for them so attending church was the best security for a good life after the bad one they are in!

23

pkgary t1_it8anql wrote

That's definitely a good point. In the same way you see people spending way too much on car payments for vanity, I'm sure the thought of showing up to church and having everybody in the community clearly see that you cant afford Sunday clothes anymore (when you did before) would be crushing enough to make people enter that cycle of pawning.

9

Sunshinetrooper87 t1_it9r6i2 wrote

Culturally you wore your Sunday best, you kept up with the Joneses.

Quote from Pratchett is useful here:

"He could here his granny speaking.  ‘No one’s too poor to buy soap.’  Of course, many people were.  But in Cockbill Street they bought soap just the same.  The table might not have any food on it but by gods, it was well scrubbed. That was Cockbill Street, where what you mainly ate was your pride."

2

blindeey t1_itait2w wrote

I would've said the Boots quote. Which I haven't really read Pratchett but seen it floating around:

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two
and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could
afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

5

IsHildaThere t1_it6yrpj wrote

While I recognise that it is being merely used as a general graphic, wrist watches were invented in 1868.

27

lightningbadger t1_it73akv wrote

Ah but Queen Elizabeth the 1st had a wristwatch all the way back in 1571, after one was gifted to her by the Earl of Leicester.

15

IsHildaThere t1_it7cffp wrote

>Queen Elizabeth the 1st had a wristwatch

Indeed she did - I learn something new every day - thank you.

12

CL4P-TRAP t1_it8l50h wrote

People in 1867 carrying around a whole ass clock with them

1

MolybdenumIsMoney t1_itecccg wrote

Pocket watches were invented far earlier that the wrist watch and were widespread by the 1600s. They weren't replaced by the wrist watch in popularity until World War 1.

1

TheDeadlySquid t1_it6uicd wrote

776 beds? Is they actual beds or bedding? Where would you store 776 beds?

22

AKADriver t1_it6x2v0 wrote

Probably not much difference at that time. The typical poor scot probably just had bedding, not a bed.

1

melanthius t1_it7vn97 wrote

Build a structure out of the beds to store the other stuff. Including more beds.

1

Equal-Crew-3367 OP t1_it6pvty wrote

Source: Spyer, Patricia. Border Fetishisms; Material Objects in Unstable Spaces. New York and London: Routledge, 1998.

Tools: Canva

11

01KLna t1_it76thh wrote

The difference isn't that big actually, they just broke the men's clothes down into individual items and gave socks and overcoats very "female-looking" icons?

10

vlsdo t1_it810vh wrote

I'm pretty sure those styles of dresses wouldn't have existed in Victorian England.

10

la_straniera t1_it81u8b wrote

I scrolled because I figured I was the only one bothered.

This is really cool, but I think it would be even cooler if it used icons closer to the clothing styles of the time.

6

vlsdo t1_it825kz wrote

Part of what bothers me is I can't figure out what the two categories of dresses are supposed to be. It's like a puzzle with very few hints.

8

la_straniera t1_it83fw9 wrote

Just noticed there's another dress like image that might represent a woman's coat? Even more confusing

3

King-Of-Rats t1_ita9dqx wrote

DePop is not a new phenomenon.

2

Thaplayer1209 t1_itaymsa wrote

The most common miscellaneous item pawned are beds?

2

Error_404_403 t1_itavbk5 wrote

At that time, clothes, especially female clothes, were hard to make and very expensive. One dress with a corset could have been worn easily for 10 -15 years after renovations, fixes etc.

1

[deleted] t1_it74ya3 wrote

[deleted]

−3

[deleted] t1_it7e1hk wrote

[deleted]

4

Laserteeth_Killmore t1_it7z6zs wrote

What sort of Men's Rights Activism is this? Women often used to manage household funds on top of managing the housework which, by the way, was much, much more time consuming before the invention of time saving appliances. With the advent of shift work, men would often be given the money and have to disburse it to the wife, and the wife would have to hope there was enough to manage the household after the husband took what he wanted.

0

[deleted] t1_it80ohl wrote

[deleted]

7

tyen0 t1_it9pjnx wrote

Kids these days don't know that an exclamation point (and context) was used for sarcasm long before "/s". :)

1

Thebitterestballen t1_it8pc12 wrote

I don't know why you have so many downvotes... This is an accurate description of a common domestic relationship for many poor families throughout history.

It even accurately describes part of my childhood in the late 80s, although it was only the two of us kids. Our step-arsehole would get home late with whatever money was left after getting drunk, fall asleep on the carpet and piss himself.

3