Cheaper foreign products and labor lead to decline in hat manufacturing...

[Brad Bowers]

...in 1892!

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A03E7DC1238E233A25757C1A96E9C94639ED7CF&oref=slogin

This article talks about the hatters in Orange, NJ, but would also surely apply to NYC, Philadelphia, and Danbury and Norwalk in CT. I wonder how much this has to do with the perceived decline in the popularity of soft felt hats around the turn of the century?

Interesting how the labor argument sounds remarkably like discussions today. History always seems to repeat itself, doesn't it?

Brad

 

[Rick Blaine]

...in 1892!

History always seems to repeat itself, doesn't it?

Brad

"...first as tragedy, second as farce."

 

[Fedora]

I liked the part about, " a cheap grade of hat being turned out"


That part is still alive and well. Most factory hats today, are indeed a cheap grade. It is the norm.


Apparently as time went on, after that article, something happened that allowed American hatters to offer great hats. I think it needs to be repeated with every consumer good one buys today. It really is a matter of national security. If you don't make the essentials, it weakens a nation in a very big way. Something neither political party is smart enough to recognize I am afraid. Fedora

 

[Rick Blaine]

FEDORA!

I liked the part about, " a cheap grade of hat being turned out"


That part is still alive and well. Most factory hats today, are indeed a cheap grade. It is the norm.


Apparently as time went on, after that article, something happened that allowed American hatters to offer great hats. I think it needs to be repeated with every consumer good one buys today. It really is a matter of national security. If you don't make the essentials, it weakens a nation in a very big way. Something neither political party is smart enough to recognize I am afraid. Fedora

GREAT TO "SEE" YOU, STEVE!

 

[Brad Bowers]

It's no wonder hatters were struggling in 1892, between the tariff problems and the devaluation of the dollar caused by the Sherman Silver Purchase Act. Hat manufacturers have always imported much of their raw materials, most notably coney, beaver, and nutria furs, and this was true throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. (Custom hatters today have it good with regard to American-made supplies, but the fur for felt is still imported.)

I liked the part about, " a cheap grade of hat being turned out"


That part is still alive and well. Most factory hats today, are indeed a cheap grade. It is the norm.


Apparently as time went on, after that article, something happened that allowed American hatters to offer great hats. I think it needs to be repeated with every consumer good one buys today.

There was a general focus on quality throughout the manufacturing sector during the first half of the 20th century, and the increasing mechanization and technological improvements offered economies of scale such that companies could affordably balance quality and price. Hat factories employed as much of this technology as they could, but the finishing and trimming processes still required a lot of handiwork by skilled craftsmen that resulted in the quality we see, even in the lowest-priced vintage hats.

But customer demand for quality was, ostensibly, a lot higher back then. Hat companies today could still turn out a really high-quality hat, but customer demand is just not there at the prices they would have to charge. There IS demand for high-quality hats, but it is currently being met by custom hatters, and so the factories have no incentive to do more than they are doing now. It's a sad fact of life that Americans choose low prices over quality most of the time, unless one happens to have the money to be able to afford to choose quality.

Maybe things are starting to turn around, Steve. We can't help but notice the little signs everywhere that the hat industry seems to be enjoying a bit of a renaissance. Only time will tell if it's a fleeting trend or a lasting effect.

Historical note on this article for context: The article insinuates that Republicans are to blame for the McKinley Tariff of 1890, but neglects to mention that a large number of Democrats supported the act in return for Republican support of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890. Both acts, and both parties, shared the blame for much of the woes presented in this article.

Please, let's keep the discussion in the historical realm, and not draw any comparisons to today's political world, since political discussions are off-limits.

Brad

 

[Brad Bowers]

I don't know how this effects this particular article, but I've been doing quite a bit of research in the New York Times archives relating to other turn-of-the-last-century matters, and I've come to realize that the New York Times of that period was not the New York Times that we now know, so that has to be kept in mind.

There's a considerable tabloid component. I guess there was no People and US magazine, and no 24/7 cable TV, so the Times had to fill the void.

There's also a lot of stuff that reads like nepotistic friends-of-the-publisher submitted content.

In addition, stories don't seem to have been fact checked at all. For instance, a half dozen stories about an incident in 1926 printed by the New York Times over a two month period were completely internally inconsistent from a factual standpoint and from a reconstructed timeline standpoint.

You ain't kidding! Actually, what you said applies to just about every newspaper ever published. Always take an old newspaper article with a grain of salt, and if possible, compare against other sources for the same facts. The big problem is when the newspaper is the only source available for certain information, and you have no other recourse but to use it. That's when I include a caveat in my footnotes.lol

Brad