How much clothing would a man consume in a 70 year lifespan if he had been born in 1795, and spent his young manhood during the Regency era? The following passage is interesting in that it tells as much about the kinds of clothes that ordinary men wore as about the material they used up.
To this we have added the following calculation of the clothing the same man may have used. We estimate that a full-dressed man carries about fifty yards of cloth upon his body, or at least it has taken so many square yards of cloth to make the following garments: one under and one over shirt and drawers, eight yards; vest, with all its inside and out, four yards; coat, overcoat and cloak, 32 yards; the handkerchiefs in the coat and cloak pockets, two yards; pants, lined, four yards. Then we may add a nightshirt, four yards and morning wrapper, 10 yards, and we have 64 yards for a single suit. Allow six of these suits a year––of some garments he will want more, and some less than six, but take that as an average, and we have 384 yards for the gentleman’s wardrobe one year. Multiply that by sixty years, and we have 23,040 yards of cloth, which appears a fair allowance, as we throw out the ten years of childhood. With these garments he will want each year two pair of boots, two pair of shoes, two pair of slippers, two pair of rubbers or overshoes––480 pairs. With these he will wear sixty dozen pairs of stockings and (four hats a year) 240 hats. I will say nothing about the yards of cloth that he will want about his toilet and table, his carpets and curtains, and his bed, with its daily change of bedding; but you can imagine it would make a large spread. The great questions for consideration, in an agricultural point of view, is this: Could such a consumer of earth’s products produce as much as he consumed, with all industry applied during life, or would he be dependent upon the labor of others?
These calculations came from Facts For Farmers: Also for The Family Circle. A Compost of Rich Materials For All Land-owners, about Domestic Animals and Domestic Economy; Farm Buildings; Gardens, Orchards, and Vineyards; and all Farm Crops, Tools, Fences, Fertilization, Draining, and Irrigation – edited by Solon Robinson, 1865. (378)
Jane Austen's World 
Immediately I thought of ironing!!
http://twonerdyhistorygirls.blogspot.com/2010/01/pressing-matters-yes-ironing.html
I used to sew a lot of my own clothes and was stymied by these amounts until I took into account that these were square yards – only 36″ wide. Most fabric purchased today is 45″or 56″ wide. Did the bolts of cloth only come in 36″ widths?
I have a picture of my great grandmother’s wedding dress with a note that there was 5 yards of fabric in each sleeve! They WERE rather pouffy.
Cenya
I have the same background in sewing as you do, Cenya, and I still think there must be something wrong with the amounts for the gentleman’s clothes. The ONLY thing that makes any sense to to me is that they were not SQUARE yards, but rather considerably smaller widths. Regarding your great-gransmother’s dress, I cannot possibly imagine 36″ width x 5 yards in ONE sleeve! Even imagining 36″ width x 2 yards for one sleeve would be a HUGE sleeve — one yard for the front and one yard for the back!
So, it occurs to me that perhaps the yardage was only 12″ or 18″ wide? If 12″ wide x 5 yards, that would STLL be a prodigious sleeve, but considerably more reasonable.
Does anyone know the answer to how many inches WIDE the yardage was woven? I’m very curious! Thank you, Vic, for an interesting topic!
Cathy and Cenya,
Try this link: http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/length.htm
Scroll down until you find the units for measurements for cloth, including bolts and ells.
The glossary of 18th century terminology states: broadcloth 1) (18c) Woolen fabric woven on a double-wide loom. Standard loom width was between around 20 and 30 inches wide, so broadcloth was twice that. 2) (modern) Cheap, ordinary fabric, typically 45 inches wide, typically in a fine, tight weave of cotton, poly-cotton, or polyester.
Another source mentioned that the standard width of their reproduction fabrics was 45″; another stated that muslin was 36″ wide, but it seems to me that these are modern widths too. I found it interesting that source upon source mentioned looms but gave no indication of how wide a cloth they produced. Very frustrating.
Vic, for some reason, there is no “Reply” button above your reply to Cenya and to me, so I’m replying here:
First, thank you for your further research; this whole topic is MOST interesting, and I appreciate your work!
Second, the 2 reasons I proposed that possibly yardage was woven in narrower widths in Georgian/Regency times, namely that 5-yards-in one sleeve, if the yardage were 36″ wide would mean the sleeve itself would be 108″ wide for EACH sleeve — in other words 90″ for the front, and 90″ for the back, and I can’t wrap mind mind around THAT, even for a VERY large woman!, and something I saw on a PBS TV special some years ago about “carpet” weaving in the 18th/19th century (sorry I can’t be more specific, but I son’t remember). When I say “carpet” I do NOT mean “Persian carpets” (which are ancient, and are a whole other thing) or “wall-to-wall carpeting” which is a relatively modern invention, and comes literally in many YARDS wide — it’s mass-produced that way on HUGE carpet looms.
What I do mean is that, according to my memory of that PBS show, they said that 18th/19th century “carpet” was produced in 12″ (or perhaps it was 18″) widths, and sewn together to make the “carpet” fit the width of the room in which it was used. They showed it, and pointed out the seams, which were almost, though not quite, invisible. This was something that had never occurred to me before, so it stayed in my memory until now. If they did that with carpets, perhaps they did that with yardage, too, and simply seamed the narrow widths together, when they wanted wider goods. It certainly seems plausible, anyway. More plausible than having two 108″ wide sleeves, to my mind! But who knows? It’s frustrating, as you said, Vic, to not be able to nail down such a simple fact!
Once again, this is most interesting, thank you all, especially Vic.
Cathy Allen
P.S. I’m going to visit “Prinny’s tailor’s 5-great-grandson’s” site — thanks for the link, Charles!
Although this is a very interesting calculation, it is worth noting that it dates from a later period, after the enormous reductions in the cost of clothing materials – especially cotton fabric – which resulted from industrialisation in Britain. I would certainly have thought that most clothing in Georgian times, even for a moderately well-off gentleman, would have been made to last a lot longer than is suggested here, both by being substantially made in the first place, and by being continually repaired, darned, patched and even re-made when necessary. Actually throwing out a complete item of clothing would have been a fairly rare event!
Andrew, I agree, though I would add that the calculation was made for a 70 year old man, which meant that this hypothetical individual would have been born in 1795. I presume (though I might be wrong) that the author calculated the statistics from the early 19th century and on.
I also agree that man-woven clothing was made to last longer, as it cost the earth. Here is a link to the units of measure. Scroll down to find the definition of bolts and ells of cloth. http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/length.htm
Judging by my gggggfr’s accounts with the Prince of Wales it always took 5 yards of cloth to make a frock coat, so that implies a pretty standard width of material. It would be useful to know what that was.
Charles, try this link. http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/length.htm
Interesting…so a Gentleman only had six suits a year? I know he had the accompanying Overcoats, wrappers etc. but basically he had the same six outfits….right? Very informative…I assume this would be for the moderately comfortable income bracket!
Marilyn,
These calculations are for a landowner, perhaps a squire. I doubt that a rich man would be confined to owning so “few” clothes for Town.
Very interesting! I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s comments just as much too! I just got a sewing machine this week and am looking forward to learning all about this too!
I wonder how modern men compare, especially with those who like to dress up all the time.
Steamy Darcy
If you haven’t looked at the link below to my blog “Prinny’s Tailor: The Life of Louis Bazalgette you may find it of interest”. There are a couple of blogs there which give a detailed account of how much material went into the various items of clothing. I have a great deal more of this information as I have detailed accounts covering 11 years!
Having said that, don’t rush – I understand Posterous is moving to a new server today so it’s probably down at the moment.
Unlike the squire ordering six suits a year, Prinny often ordered that in a DAY.
Before about 1801, when the Jacquard loom was introduced, silk fabrics were woven on a drawloom. The width of the cloth you could weave on it was dictated by the length of the warp bar, and it looks as if these were between 4 and 5 feet long on the big looms they used in Spitalfields. The setting up of the loom and draw-bar was such a complex and fiddly process that it would make sense to set it up to weave as wide a cloth as you could. I think an ‘ell’ sounds about right and was what seems to have been used in the 17C, so probably silk was of a similar width in the 18C.
With a background in sewing my own clothes growing up and then my children’s clothes, I read that yardage and was floored. I would love to know the amount of yardage a woman of the same class used. I always thought women used up more yardage but perhaps I was wrong. Imagine wearing all of this AND not having AC. I think of this every time I go to Williamsburg, Va, in the summer and see the interpreters under all of those layers.
Having just reread Sense and Sensibility, I was taken by a comment about Colonel Brandon’s ordering two jackets per year.
@Janeen, Indeed this is an interesting reading and best of luck with your sewing :)