HatsEnough
Banned
- Messages
- 1,142
- Location
- Cincinnati, Ohio
OK, I have been thinking about this for a long time and I'd like as much debate about this as possible.
Everyone keeps saying that any hat that a manufacturer called a "100" (or a "one hundred") was called that not because it was 100% beaver, but because it was priced at $100. I have to say that I just don't believe this as a pat explanation. I just don't think inflation and pricing works that way over the (at least) three decades that 100s were made.
It seems to me that hats makers called a "100" started in the late forties and early 50s (and if I am wrong on any particulars, I hope more knowledgeable Loungers correct from here on out. I want to learn here, I am not saying I know all of this beyond doubt. Hence why I am calling this a debate.).
Now, we most certainly have early 50s advertisements showing Stetson 100s being priced at 100 dollars. That really is beyond doubt. We have also seen other early adverts of other companies saying the same. But the fact is 100s were made at least until the late 60s even early 70s. You simply cannot make me believe that a hat that cost $100 in 1950 would still be $100 in 1970! Inflation simply does not allow this.
I have Stetson 100s and Churchill 100s. I have 7Xs and 10X beavers. They were made spread out from between 1950 and 1970. The earlier ones are better made, granted, but the later ones are no slouches, either! They are all very fine hats.
So, I have a Stetson 100 in the leather trunk from the mid to late 1950s. Maybe I can buy the idea that the hat cost $100 then. But I am guessing the price went up if you also bought the leather hat trunk. I'll bet extra was charged for the trunk. There is no way you'd be able to buy the hat for $100 and get that whole trunk and stuff for free! I say this because I have seen ads for Knox hats where they note in the ad that the deluxe box with the leather belt and Knox logos was a "slight extra charge." If they are charging extra in the 50s to put a $20 hat in a fancy box, there is no way a leather trunk would be free in a Stetson 100. So, in essence, a Stetson 100 was more expensive than $100 if you got the trunk and all.
Now, here is another consideration...
I have a Stetson 10X beaver from the late 60s (it has the black tag with the US hat size and the metric size underneath it). Inside this hat is the original inventory tag with the pertinent info including the fact that this hat was priced at $1050.00.
Now, a 10X beaver is at the very least comparable to a Stetson 100 of the same era, wouldn't you say? There is no way you can make me believe that a Stetson 100 in 1960 was $100 yet only a few years later a 10X beaver was a thousand dollars! This makes no sense at all.
Now, I know we still have no clue how much beaver is in any manufacturer's one hundred hat. After all, those were closely guarded industry secrets. But it just strains credulity that inflation caused every other hat model to gradually raise in prices, but we are supposed to believe that a "100" was always $100! I mean Stetson's low priced hats in the same period crept up from $9 to near $15 and more in that same period of time. How could their top of the line hat always stay at $100! I don't think it did.
So, come on, guys. Enlighten me. How can a "100" always have gone for $100 from 1950 all the way until 1970 when every other item on the planet doubled even tripled in price during that time period?
I think it is more likely that a "one hundred" hat did start as a $100 hat in the late 40s and early 50s. $100 was a LOT of money in 1950. f you had $100 to waste on a hat in 1950 you were well heeled, for sure. In 1950 many cars went for around $2,000. Average houses were something like $6,000. So $100 for a hat was quite a bit of spending. But as inflation and the years rolled upward, there is simply no way that the 100 hat stayed priced only at $100 just because it was called a "100." And while every other hat was going up in price at that. It just makes no economic or manufacturing sense to assume that it did. So the term "one hundred" (or 100) went from a price indication to a quality designation and no longer denoted the price.
Where am I wrong?
Everyone keeps saying that any hat that a manufacturer called a "100" (or a "one hundred") was called that not because it was 100% beaver, but because it was priced at $100. I have to say that I just don't believe this as a pat explanation. I just don't think inflation and pricing works that way over the (at least) three decades that 100s were made.
It seems to me that hats makers called a "100" started in the late forties and early 50s (and if I am wrong on any particulars, I hope more knowledgeable Loungers correct from here on out. I want to learn here, I am not saying I know all of this beyond doubt. Hence why I am calling this a debate.).
Now, we most certainly have early 50s advertisements showing Stetson 100s being priced at 100 dollars. That really is beyond doubt. We have also seen other early adverts of other companies saying the same. But the fact is 100s were made at least until the late 60s even early 70s. You simply cannot make me believe that a hat that cost $100 in 1950 would still be $100 in 1970! Inflation simply does not allow this.
I have Stetson 100s and Churchill 100s. I have 7Xs and 10X beavers. They were made spread out from between 1950 and 1970. The earlier ones are better made, granted, but the later ones are no slouches, either! They are all very fine hats.
So, I have a Stetson 100 in the leather trunk from the mid to late 1950s. Maybe I can buy the idea that the hat cost $100 then. But I am guessing the price went up if you also bought the leather hat trunk. I'll bet extra was charged for the trunk. There is no way you'd be able to buy the hat for $100 and get that whole trunk and stuff for free! I say this because I have seen ads for Knox hats where they note in the ad that the deluxe box with the leather belt and Knox logos was a "slight extra charge." If they are charging extra in the 50s to put a $20 hat in a fancy box, there is no way a leather trunk would be free in a Stetson 100. So, in essence, a Stetson 100 was more expensive than $100 if you got the trunk and all.
Now, here is another consideration...
I have a Stetson 10X beaver from the late 60s (it has the black tag with the US hat size and the metric size underneath it). Inside this hat is the original inventory tag with the pertinent info including the fact that this hat was priced at $1050.00.
Now, a 10X beaver is at the very least comparable to a Stetson 100 of the same era, wouldn't you say? There is no way you can make me believe that a Stetson 100 in 1960 was $100 yet only a few years later a 10X beaver was a thousand dollars! This makes no sense at all.
Now, I know we still have no clue how much beaver is in any manufacturer's one hundred hat. After all, those were closely guarded industry secrets. But it just strains credulity that inflation caused every other hat model to gradually raise in prices, but we are supposed to believe that a "100" was always $100! I mean Stetson's low priced hats in the same period crept up from $9 to near $15 and more in that same period of time. How could their top of the line hat always stay at $100! I don't think it did.
So, come on, guys. Enlighten me. How can a "100" always have gone for $100 from 1950 all the way until 1970 when every other item on the planet doubled even tripled in price during that time period?
I think it is more likely that a "one hundred" hat did start as a $100 hat in the late 40s and early 50s. $100 was a LOT of money in 1950. f you had $100 to waste on a hat in 1950 you were well heeled, for sure. In 1950 many cars went for around $2,000. Average houses were something like $6,000. So $100 for a hat was quite a bit of spending. But as inflation and the years rolled upward, there is simply no way that the 100 hat stayed priced only at $100 just because it was called a "100." And while every other hat was going up in price at that. It just makes no economic or manufacturing sense to assume that it did. So the term "one hundred" (or 100) went from a price indication to a quality designation and no longer denoted the price.
Where am I wrong?
Last edited:
