/fa/ - Fashion

[Anonymous No.18042667]

These are homeless Australians in the 1960s. What's your excuse, /fa/?

[Anonymous No.18042673]

>>18042667
australian lowlife crims in the '20s

[Anonymous No.18042792]

>>18042667
Classic Tramp/Diogenes core is based.

[Anonymous No.18042797]

[Anonymous No.18042821]

>>18042673
oh wow Mr. Moore can lowlife my bum anytime he wants if you catch my drift

[Anonymous No.18042850]

>>18042667
>imagine wearing a suit
And you still wonder why you're a virgin?

[Anonymous No.18042903]

>>18042667
That's because back in the day people weren't a bunch of degenerate consoooomers. They didn't have 50 pairs of cheap clothes at any moment and kept replacing them every couple of months. Most people used to have barely 5-6 set of clothes. A couple of work clothes, a set of clothes to wear at home, their "Sunday clothes" for church, and one set stashed in the closet that was their best and most expensive, reserved for special celebratory occasions. So, they could afford to wear such clothes because they bought them once and wore them of years and decades.

[Anonymous No.18042915]

>>18042667
That's because back in the day people weren't a bunch of degenerate consoooomers. They didn't have 50 pairs of cheap clothes at any moment and kept replacing them every couple of months. Most people used to have barely 5-6 sets of clothes. A couple of work clothes, a set of clothes to wear at home, their "Sunday clothes" for church, and one set stashed in the closet that was their best and most expensive, reserved for special celebratory occasions. So, they could afford to wear such high quality clothes because they bought them once and wore them for years and decades.

[Anonymous No.18043054]

different time
everything must look ugly now
not just clothes

[Anonymous No.18043070]

>>18042673
Walter Smith looked like a low level Chad.

[Anonymous No.18043072]

>>18043054
Cope, suitcel

[Anonymous No.18043073]

>>18043072
i don't wear suits

[Anonymous No.18043091]

>>18043072
damn vanilla ice looked like that chad cartoon

[Anonymous No.18043103]

>>18042915
also, they were always tailored, so fit wasnt a problem

[Anonymous No.18043112]

>>18043103
Not necessarily, hand me downs and second hand clothes existed even back then, people were poorer in general than they are now, the clothes were generally made of thicker and better quality fabric, but that doesn't mean everyone dressed in immaculate well fitting clothes like movie stars. They just look smart compared to people today, but that isn't something what is particularly difficult to achieve, clothes were also made in places like india in the early 1900's and ready made clothes were a thing going into the thirties.

[Anonymous No.18043118]

Clothing catalogues were also a thing, where you sent money in the post along with what you wanted and your size and you would then receive your suit after a few weeks to a month so there would've been room for error. This was cheaper than getting a suit made.

[Anonymous No.18043158]

>>18042915
Those weren't high quality clothes and they aren't tailored.

[Anonymous No.18043164]

>>18043158
They were definitely higher quality than today's slop, because they weren't mass produced with planned obsolescence built into them, even if they weren't tailored. Everything was built to last, because unlike today people didn't consume things just for the sake of it.

[Anonymous No.18043165]

High quality compared to today, considering most things were made of natural fibres and polyester didn't really become ultra popular until the seventies i think, but you are right in saying they prob were not tailored. off the rack clothing has existed for a hundred years at least perhaps even longer.

[Anonymous No.18043166]

>>18043164
Get over your suit fetish already.

[Anonymous No.18044887]

>>18042673
I love skukerman
he looks like reviewbrah

[Anonymous No.18044983]

>>18043118
>Anon discovers online shopping

[Anonymous No.18045652]

>>18043166
not an argument

[Anonymous No.18045682]

>>18043166
YWNBAW

[Anonymous No.18045814]

>>18043112
but your wife or mother or someone would adjust them for you. someone in an ill-fitting suit would be seen as mentally ill or something.

[Anonymous No.18045824]

>>18043118
yeah, dude, we still have catalogues today. I swear every zoomer thinks they're some sort of historian when talking about anything that isn't ticktock.

[Anonymous No.18045896]

>>18045682
I'm a tranny and I lovd vintage clothing <3

[Anonymous No.18047852]

>>18042667
Love me some effortless effay

[Anonymous No.18047890]

>>18042667
It's too fucking hot now to wear that.

[Anonymous No.18048027]

>>18045824
It was an example that not everyone wore tailored well fitting clothes.
>>18045814
>someone in an ill-fitting suit would be seen as mentally ill or something
No, people were dirt poor, even more so than now, you made do with what you could get your hands on, altering clothes could also only do so much and it's bit of an assumption that everybody's wife or or mother or people would be willing to get them altered by a professional which costs money, money which could be spent on food.

It's a myth that everybody was extremely well dressed.

[Anonymous No.18048074]

>>18042667
what a difference 50 years makes

[Anonymous No.18049096]

>>18042667
i thought australia was a hot and dry country. why do they dress like its cold?

[Anonymous No.18049185]

>>18048074
fashion is fun to watch pan out. people don't have a monarch/god to emulate so they dress like celebrities, who dress how their managers tell them, said managers usually having direct ties to the fashion industry

[Anonymous No.18049221]

>>18042915
this, and if you go back only a few decades before the period of time we're talking about, most people used to either make their own clothes, have a family member make their clothes, or have their clothes made by someone in their local community. it was a lot less common to buy one size fits all clothes and department stores were just starting to exist.
>>18043158
look at how expensive modern reproductions of these clothes are. and jsyk the brands making that stuff have one of the lowest profit margins in the entire garment industry, used to work at one helping them source textile.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !Ry9RIEstm6 No.18049338]

BEING HOMELESS IN THE NINETEEN HUNDRED SIXTIES WAS, VIRTUALLY, THE SAME AS BEING A YOUNG ADULT IN THE TWO THOUSAND TEENS, AND TWO THOUSAND TWENTIES.

[Anonymous No.18049344]

>>18042673
>ywn be stanley
i will just stop trying

[Anonymous No.18049589]

>>18049096
cause on the east coast for the most part it is fucking cold its sunny only during summer all that shit you heard about it being sunny 24/7 is bullshit its 90% overcast most of the year

[Anonymous No.18049694]

>>18049221
>look at how expensive modern reproductions of these clothes are
It's because it's an incredibly niche product, while in the thirties-forties these clothes were normal. If you want old style clothing brand new, then you are going to have to shell out the big bux.

[Anonymous No.18049703]

>>18049694
>It's because it's an incredibly niche product
no, lower quality clothes are just normalized now.
i used to think that but if you adjust for real inflation and look through old sears and montgomery ward catalogues people used to pay the equivalent of like $100-300 for a pair of jeans. if you consider the fact that the fabrics are much nicer now (in the 30's 12 or maybe 15oz was the upper limit of what could be made and most jeans were 8-10oz) you're actually kind of getting a better value for your dollar.
i designed some made in usa jeans with cone mills denim that got manufactured & sold by a major legacy brand that retailed at 180 and they cost us around 100 or 120 to make package ship etc and that's with stuff like free lifetime repairs in the margin. thats a super super low profit margin % compared to something like say a $10 shein tee shirt or anything from a major fashion house.

[Anonymous No.18049704]

>no, lower quality clothes are just normalized now.
and inflation is just that bad. a subway foot long sandwich is $19 in my city right now.

[Anonymous No.18049710]

>>18049703
I am talking about the cut and style of the clothing, do you see many people in general who like dressing up in thirties or forties suits, hell even sixties clothing? the answer is you don't. If you like a niche style and are not willing to wear second hand clothes, you are going to have to pay higher prices.

[Anonymous No.18049820]

>>18042667
I don't live in the 1960s, so fashion has changed to random shorts and a logo t-shirt

[Anonymous No.18051431]

>>18042667
I love the fact that shoes like that would cost 500 dollars today

[Anonymous No.18052263]

>>18048027
Your image isnt really proving your point. They're well dressed

[Anonymous No.18053684]

1950s Spanish countryside
Family likely close to extreme poverty by today's standards

[Anonymous No.18053689]

Barcelona holidays 1953

[Anonymous No.18053692]

Kids playing in Madrid, 1950
Wed say they're dressing up as adults nowadays

[Anonymous No.18053700]

>>18049710
read my post again. if you adjust for real inflation the $3-10 pairs of jeans from a sears catalogue back then costed about the same as those $500 japanese reproductions of pre-war levi's you can buy today. the expensive niche reproduction in current year isn't any more expensive than a pair of jeans used to cost back then. if anything cheaper because back then they were technologically & skill ceiling capped to lighter weight fabrics.

[Anonymous No.18053767]

>>18049704
Quality equivalent clothes were way more expensive back then relative to average wages. The choices were way more limited too

There's decent research on that afaik.

The only thing nowadays that remains about as expensive or even more expensive is healthcare, education, and housing if I remember correctly

I recommend you check out the tom woods show for economic stuff