As defined by the Cambridge dictionary, the word ‘clothes’ means ‘things such as dresses and trousers that you weave to cover, protect, or decorate your body.’ Clothes are one of the first things humans made. From the cave-dwellers using animal skins to wrap up to the Romans using sheets to drape royal shapes onto themselves, clothes have always been as much about expression as warmth. Expressing what we think, through slogan t shirts, what we love, through concert merch, and what we do, through work uniforms. From earliest times, the Middle Ages, Georgians, Victorians, the second world war and society today, I will discuss to what extent wealth is reflected in the clothes we wear.
As humans we are psychologically wired to recognise patterns. When we see a sequence of numbers, we unconsciously start to think of any connection between them, when we see four blue cars in a row this is a pattern we store for later comparison. Wealth is another pattern we can recognise. As we grow older and begin to pay for more goods and services ourselves, we learn about the value of items. For example, when we buy clothes the prices of each garment get stored and our brains start building our personal scale of value in our heads. This is because when your brain collects a new piece of numbered information it instinctively orders it with other numbers we have stored in the same category, such as clothes. This can be described as the ‘mental number line’ which is commonly used between professionals when talking about the brain’s organisation of numbers. Therefore, when we look at someone’s clothes they are wearing, our brain automatically starts to place the garment on our own scale. This leads to different people having different views of wealth and why the reflection of wealth through clothes is personal and varies between the population.
In the beginning, Early humans used clothes to protect against weather and signal social status. Before currency existed, clothing value was determined by the danger and effort required to hunt the animal. For example, wearing bear skin instead of rabbit fur proved superior strength and fitness. Consequently, ancient clothing reflected a person’s physical status rather than monetary wealth. In the late Middle Ages, around 1300, clothes were used to indicate your place in society. During the Middle Ages Sumptuary laws were put in place. These laws restricted what clothing different classes could buy. This made it explicitly clear to the population the wealth levels of others. Royalty had no restrictions, although they would turn away from the cheaper materials which were permitted for their servants and peasants. Some colours were reserved for royal use only. Purple was only available to those who could afford the extreme prices because of the rarity of the source and complex manufacturing process. The Gentry and middle class would typically wear high quality wools, linens, and some silver adornments. However, they were prohibited from wearing cloth of gold, purple, as discussed before, and precious jewels. Finally, the lower class would wear coarse wool, often in basic colours like white and black. This was because it was lower cost to produce fabrics with no added dyes to them, as this was reserved for the royalty. The lower class was forbidden from wearing anything that might place them within a higher class such as velvet, furs, any gold, or silver, and even some shoes like poulaines (long and pointed). Therefore, clothes were a visual indicator for somebody’s wealth during the 1300s.
In the 1800s, clothes were manufactured intentionally to show others your wealth. Factories made it explicitly clear of those who had money, for example, corsets made with the lace on the front panel were sold to those in lower to middle classes, as to wear a corset you must cinch the laces, so those in lower classes could not afford a dress, so by having the lace at the front it showed that they would need access to the lace themselves. As opposed to the corsets constructed with the lace in the back, where somebody else would have to lace it up, therefore wearing a corset with lace in the back showed people that you were able to afford a dresser and did not need to lace the corset up yourself. Therefore, during the Victorian period, clothes reflected your wealth to a large extent. As people passing by could immediately tell whether you could afford extra help, directly correlating to your income levels.
In World War 2, clothing rationing was introduced in the UK through the campaign of ‘make do and mend’ where the population was encouraged to patch up their ripped clothes or share within your family by passing down clothes to your siblings. Majority of the population complied with the scheme and reduced their waste, also households were given coupons to spend on clothes as to limit how many new garments could be bought each month. However, some groups were exempt like manual workers. They were given extra coupons to help them pay for their uniform; this led to value of importance being placed on clothes rather than wealth. Those wearing new clothes, while the rest were in handmade clothes, indicated that they were more important, as they were able use the scarce resources for their own clothes instead of for the front-line soldiers. So, clothes reflected the value of the wearer’s importance in the war which was greater than the cost of the clothes themselves.
This heavily relates to the wealth that uniforms carry. Most commonly, uniforms are worn in work and schools. Although uniforms were originally created to create identity within groups, they create a barrier between those with and without. Uniforms can build up and us v them mentality, the greatest example being in public v private schools in America. Where pupils in public schools, 49.5 million, wear their own clothes whereas pupils in private schools, 5.2 million, wear uniforms. When someone sees a pupil in uniform, they do not think about the cost of the uniform instead they think about what it represents: that the wearer is able to afford private school fees showing that they are wealthy. Of course, this is a large generalisation because it assumes that every household that can afford to send their children to private school does, but this is not always the case for a number of reasons like location and the individual child. When wearing uniforms, it is not about how much the garments cost, as somebody could wear £450 Gucci t shirt to public school whilst the entire private school uniform together is worth less than £450, however it is about what the uniform represents. Therefore, uniforms, specifically for schools, can be used a lens through somebody’s wealth can be, even if it not shown on the surface.
This is contrasted by the system in the UK. Both state and private schools have uniform, both costing money however not the same amount. To someone unknowing of the UK school system, both the private and state sets of uniforms showcase a school badge, school colours and usually feature a collared shirt, a garment that is often related to feelings of importance and or professionalism, surely then representing the same value? They are often so similar that manufacturers can mass produce the uniforms on large scales that only require the individual school colours to be added through the jumper collar. Even though the cost of the actual clothes reflects equal levels of wealth, instead the badge becomes the store of fortune. Many popular and successful private schools have recognisable badges such as Dulwich College and Wimbledon High School and so by placing their logo onto a garment, it automatically increases the value of that item as it represents the money that those wearing it have, in order to go to that school. So, for UK schools, the clothing you wear does not reflect your wealth, instead the badge does.
Currently, clothes reflect your wealth to a smaller extent than ever before. This is because of the rise of resale sites such as Depop and Vinted, as well as charity shopping becoming increasingly popular, especially amongst generation Z. As a specific example, in France in 2024, Vinted was the leading e-commerce site for the number of clothing and accessories bought. This shows that the French population has grown to prefer shopping second hand online, instead of directly new from the retailer themselves. This may be due to the convenience of Depop and Vinted because consumers are able to browse through multiple brands and styles in one app, across a range of prices. In a survey completed by Kantar in 2024, 11% of the 12,000 questioned exclusively shop second hand for their apparel and footwear. However, this 11% reflects a very small proportion of the French population. Also, this figure fails to mention that French consumers bought 2.4% more apparel items (both online and instore) than in 2023. A total of 2.8 billion items were sold, therefore showcasing the need still for new items and the value that these items hold in people’s mind. Therefore, clothes do reflect our wealth but to a smaller extent than before due to the rise of second-hand clothes. Although many people would perceive shopping second hand to be for those only with small budgets, it needs to be recognised that shopping on sites like Depop and Vinted is a socioeconomic sign of wealth in itself. Lots of people lack the resources to be able to download an app and shop with a credit card. For many people they can only shop second hand because of their budgets, so having the option of new or second hand is a wealth that could equate the cost to shopping new.
Another store of money could be the scarcity feature that is heavily appreciated in second hand clothes. With the rise of vintage shopping, many consumers feel a sense of uniqueness when buying something preloved. This is because of how quickly we turnover our closets and throw out our clothes today, this means that a garment which is older could suggest it is one of the only ones left in the world, as we assume that the rest would have been thrown out. This places a value on the item that is nothing to do with the cost, having the only one of something in the world can be worth more than having an item sold new for £20,000. Therefore, even if the reflection of our wealth in our clothes is becoming smaller, other factors, such as scarcity, can add to the wealth of the item. So, clothes today reflect a bigger picture of our wealth and opportunities because of the many factors including scarcity that now effect the wealth of an item.
As seen in all the examples above, fibre composition of the garment plays an equally important part in expressing the wealth of the wearer. Looking at fibres, natural fibres like silk and cotton are priced higher to manufacturers and then the consumer because of the increased complexity of their making process. Compared with synthetic fibres, like polyester and nylon, which are quick to manufacture and can be made on larger scales. Additionally, the animal or plant source of the natural fibres makes it harder to obtain than the minerals needed to produce synthetic fibres. This reduces the price of the synthetic garment as they can be made in larger batches making it more widely available to the consumer, linking to my scarcity point previously. For example, seeing two people wearing a pyjama set may reflect equal wealth, as both pyjama sets are identical in design. However, looking at fibres would show you that one set is pure silk, whereas the other is nylon, this means that fibre content can be the real reflection of wealth in some circumstances. Therefore, even though the question does not mention composition, it is sometimes the differing aspect in wealth.
Furthermore, clothes are by no means the only way to express wealth. Assets like houses and cars can depict a more linear depiction of wealth through history as people will always need houses, and some mode of transport. The clothing industry itself is relatively inelastic, meaning that consumers are not sensitive to price change however the individual clothes are elastic. Consumers will react to price changes, and this creates competition between supplies to attract their target audience. So, when somebody is trying to flaunt their wealth, we must look at all aspects such as their house and socioeconomic location. Therefore, even though clothes are not the only reflection of wealth they are the most accessible to people. Hence majority of people will place their depiction of your wealth on your clothes. Your house and car are not seen by everyone you meet, but your clothes are.
To conclude, clothes are no longer a clear reflection of wealth as they were historically in the Georgian and Victorian eras, instead clothes reflect only a part of somebody’s wealth. Today, clothes reflect our wealth to a small extent as there are now many more factors that make up somebody’s wealth, that cannot be expressed through clothing. Finally, as clothes will always be produced, I believe that the industry is cyclical and we will eventually reach a point similar to Georgians, where wealth is based solely on our clothes.
