Modern rabbit, vintage rabbit, modern beaver

[ScottF]

My way of finding out how high the quality a felt is, is rolling up the hat and seeing how easily the creases are removed afterwards. If I do this with my Stetson Chatham (in my avatar) the creases take a while to get out by hand, less if I use steam. When I try it with my slightly newer Susquehana Hat Co fedora (modern maker named after an Abbot and Costello sketch) I need little more than a few seconds reshaping in my hands. Both are rabbit felts, but I can only conclude that the Susquehana hat is better than the Stetson (which is still a very nice hat) although thickness may play a role in this too (the Stetson being considerably thicker).

I was going to also bring up the Chatham as an example of poorer quality modern felt. I'm sure that rlk is correct that there are some hats currently being created with felt equal in quality to what was produced in the past, but I also think that if you sat a 2009 hat shop next to a 1940 hat shop, and keeping inflation in mind, compared the hats at various price levels, you would implode the 2009 shop out of disgust.

Using the Chatham as an example - that's a $150 new hat today. Compare that to an equivalent Stetson (price-wise) of the past. I'll say no more.

 

[ScottF]

Edited to remove comments about modern felt

Here's some interesting information from the book "Cowboys at Work". It was published recently, but given these prices, it's obviously a new edition of a much older book. I posted this here because of the second paragraph, which implies that even the 'real nutria' hats were made of blended hare. I have read in other books that 'nutria' and 'real nutria' refer to color.

"Very few riders know much about the quality of hats or can distinguish one from another in respect to quality. The quality specifications given here are those submitted by the Stetson hat company: number-one quality; clear nutria; real nutria; 3X beaver; 4X beaver; 5X beaver; and 7X beaver, which is the finest quality of hat made. It should be borne in mind that the qualities listed run in the order given. (There is no 6X beaver quality.) In order to give the reader an idea as to the price range for hats in the different quality categories, the Laloo shown in Figure 6 is selected and the prices are given for this hat in the following qualities: number-one quality - $14.50; nutria - $17.00; 3X beaver - $20.00; 4X beaver - $35.00.

[...removed comments about price varying based on crown/brim features]

The beavers are made of beaver fur and the others are made of imported English and Belgian hare skins which are blended in different grades. It takes about two weeks to make a hat of the kind referred to above and a lot of hand work goes into it, which accounts for the high price."

I have drawings of the various hat styles as well, if anyone's interested.

 

[rlk]

Belgian Hare-a breed of rabbit

http://www.petplanet.co.uk/petplanet/breeds/Rabbit_-_Belgian_Hare.htm

 

[Matt Deckard]

You can always toss the Xs out unless they are from the same company from the same year.

 

[avedwards]

I was going to also bring up the Chatham as an example of poorer quality modern felt. I'm sure that rlk is correct that there are some hats currently being created with felt equal in quality to what was produced in the past, but I also think that if you sat a 2009 hat shop next to a 1940 hat shop, and keeping inflation in mind, compared the hats at various price levels, you would implode the 2009 shop out of disgust.

Using the Chatham as an example - that's a $150 new hat today. Compare that to an equivalent Stetson (price-wise) of the past. I'll say no more.

The Chatham isn't that bad. My post was just comparing it to a superior modern rabbit hat which surprised me since it only cost £50 (rrp being £55). My Chatham has withstood rain, snow and repeated falling on road from wind (there were no cars at the time). It's not a bad hat, just not as good as they used to be. But a lot better than Dorfmann Pacific fur felts which sound like cardboard.

 

[rlk]

Don't attribute too much to "vintage"quality or even animal specie generalizations. Again, no argument about general higher average quality when there was a more competitive and more efficient market. Finishing, cleanliness and blocking make sizeable contributions to the resiliency and crease-holding qualities of a hat. Thickness is also an obvious factor that has little to do with the age or animal species. I've had hats of all ages that were limp and unable to hold a crease or were rubbery. After a cleaning and reblock some were magically transformed into a totally different consistency(but not all). A couple of 1930's "NOS" hats were seemingly difficult to crease and not that finely finished. As with all things Custom or upscale market you pay more and more for smaller "improvements". These features may not make the object functionally better. How much "better" is a Bentley than a Honda?

 

[ScottF]

The Chatham isn't that bad. My post was just comparing it to a superior modern rabbit hat which surprised me since it only cost £50 (rrp being £55). My Chatham has withstood rain, snow and repeated falling on road from wind (there were no cars at the time). It's not a bad hat, just not as good as they used to be. But a lot better than Dorfmann Pacific fur felts which sound like cardboard.

You and I have had vastly different experiences with the Chatham. I purchased an Akubra for $50 less, and it has withstood MUCH more rain than the Chatham, and the felt still looks brand new, and is now softer than when purchased. The Chatham; however, is now spotted from the rain, has a warped brim, the ribbon is tacked on in the middle and the bow is coming off, and is obviously a far inferior hat.

At some point I'll post comparison pics of the Akubra and Chatham - given they were purchased at about the same time and the Akubra has actually had more wear and exposure to the elements, it should be quite enlightening.

 

[ScottF]

Don't attribute too much to "vintage"quality or even animal specie generalizations. Again, no argument about general higher average quality when there was a more competitive and more efficient market. Finishing, cleanliness and blocking make sizeable contributions to the resiliency and crease-holding qualities of a hat. Thickness is also an obvious factor that has little to do with the age or animal species. I've had hats of all ages that were limp and unable to hold a crease or were rubbery. After a cleaning and reblock some were magically transformed into a totally different consistency(but not all). A couple of 1930's "NOS" hats were seemingly difficult to crease and not that finely finished. As with all things Custom or upscale market you pay more and more for smaller "improvements". These features may not make the object functionally better. How much "better" is a Bentley than a Honda?

Maybe I'll mail my Chatham to you - I'm really curious what your opinion would be.

I can't say how much better a Bentley is than a Honda, but I can definitely say how much better a 1940 Stetson is than a 2009 Stetson.

 

[avedwards]

You and I have had vastly different experiences with the Chatham. I purchased an Akubra for $50 less, and it has withstood MUCH more rain than the Chatham, and the felt still looks brand new, and is now softer than when purchased. The Chatham; however, is now spotted from the rain, has a warped brim, the ribbon is tacked on in the middle and the bow is coming off, and is obviously a far inferior hat.

At some point I'll post comparison pics of the Akubra and Chatham - given they were purchased at about the same time and the Akubra has actually had more wear and exposure to the elements, it should be quite enlightening.

I'm not disputing that an Akubra isn't more durable than a Chatham. Just that a Chatham isn't that bad. Compare it to a modern wool felt - the Stetson doesn't instantly lose its shape unrecognisibly. Plus I think they appear to vary from batch to batch, mine evidently came from a good one.

 

[rlk]

Maybe I'll mail my Chatham to you - I'm really curious what your opinion would be.

I can't say how much better a Bentley is than a Honda, but I can definitely say how much better a 1940 Stetson is than a 2009 Stetson.

Its likely some of today's Stetsons may be lesser quality than the most basic Stetson of the 1940's. However, that doesn't necessarily hold true for the entire line or modern hats generally. Poor workmanship and poor materials is not going to produce a fine product at any time. Decent materials finely crafted can produce a product at a high level.

Try sending both out to be professionally cleaned and blocked by the same person--then compare.

 

[ScottF]

Its likely some of today's Stetsons may be lesser quality than the most basic Stetson of the 1940's. However, that doesn't necessarily hold true for the entire line or modern hats generally. Poor workmanship and poor materials is not going to produce a fine product at any time. Decent materials finely crafted can produce a product at a high level.

I didn't say all modern hats are inferior to all vintage hats - please see my Akubra example above. But I am curious what Stetson's best product today is. Think I'll take a walk down to Byrnie Utz in a moment and ask them to show me their best.

 

[ScottF]

I'm not disputing that an Akubra isn't more durable than a Chatham. Just that a Chatham isn't that bad. Compare it to a modern wool felt - the Stetson doesn't instantly lose its shape unrecognisibly. Plus I think they appear to vary from batch to batch, mine evidently came from a good one.

I wore a modern $40 wool Bailey for quite a while, then upgraded to the $150 felt Chatham. The fur felt of course feels much better; however, the wool Bailey has retained its shape wonderfully, despite being exposed to rain, snow, etc.

 

[avedwards]

I wore a modern $40 wool Bailey for quite a while, then upgraded to the $150 felt Chatham. The fur felt of course feels much better; however, the wool Bailey has retained its shape wonderfully, despite being exposed to rain, snow, etc.

Now that you say that, I had a wool Bailey which was surprisingly good as well, though it shrunk over the long term. However I had a Dorfman Pacific woolfelt which tapered, lost its shape and shrunk after one wearing. Shame on me for wanting the officially licenced (and inaccurate) Indiana Jones hat at the time. I switced to copying film noir actors after that with first a Bailey, then the Chatham and recently a Susquehana Hat Co fedora which is the best modern factory hat I've seen so far in terms of finnish, softeness and durability.

 

[rlk]

Is durability the standard for quality? Felt hats are not intended as rain hats.
A plastic bag can outperform a fine vintage felt for water resistance. Resistance to rain is just that. A synthetic fiber is infinitely superior to straw. A thin smoothly finished felt will take less abuse than a thick stiffened hat(depends on the stiffener). Workmanship is a quality not necessarily tied to the felt. What do we mean when we say "better quality" in regards to felt? My 1970's Resistol 75 Western is one of the smoothest finished hats I've ever experienced--like a baby's bottom. It is fairly thick and stiff. Is it good or bad?

 

[avedwards]

Is durability the standard for quality? Felt hats are not intended as rain hats.
A plastic bag can outperform a fine vintage felt for water resistance. Resistance to rain is just that. A synthetic fiber is infinitely superior to straw. A thin smoothly finished felt will take less abuse than a thick stiffened hat(depends on the stiffener). Workmanship is a quality not necessarily tied to the felt. What do we mean when we say "better quality" in regards to felt? My 1970's Resistol 75 Western is one of the smoothest finished hats I've ever experienced--like a baby's bottom. It is fairly thick and stiff. Is it good or bad?

Felt hats were intended to protect the wearer from the elements among other things. That's why John B Stetson invented the cowboy hat. That's why you see Bogart walk into the rain wearing a fedora and a trenchcoat, not an umbrella. Therefore durability is one way of determining quality IMO.

Then again, the quality of the craftsmanship also comes in as you say. Art's hats have very fine quality if you look at the delicacy with which he makes welted brims. At the same time I think Art's hats would hold up admirably in the rain.

I'd therefore say quality can be different for different people, just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[jamespowers]

Is durability the standard for quality? Felt hats are not intended as rain hats.
A plastic bag can outperform a fine vintage felt for water resistance. Resistance to rain is just that. A synthetic fiber is infinitely superior to straw. A thin smoothly finished felt will take less abuse than a thick stiffened hat(depends on the stiffener). Workmanship is a quality not necessarily tied to the felt. What do we mean when we say "better quality" in regards to felt? My 1970's Resistol 75 Western is one of the smoothest finished hats I've ever experienced--like a baby's bottom. It is fairly thick and stiff. Is it good or bad?

Nope, felt hats were never intended as rain hats:

Nope, you'll never make me believe that felt hats were meant to be worn in the rain. They were made purely as props for the film industry.

 

[marvelgoose]

Using the Chatham as an example - that's a $150 new hat today. Compare that to an equivalent Stetson (price-wise) of the past. I'll say no more.

http://www.measuringworth.com

ahh, the numbers tell a different story. I pulled my birth year for comparison. A $140 hat (which is what you can buy a Chatham using current discounts) is in the range of a $12.00 hat. That just takes in the consumer price index.

There is another factor that pushes the hat price even lower: economy of scale.

Felt Hat production was a capital intensive industry. The more customers you had, the larger the base over which to spread the costs. The economists use a mathematical curve and it is a steep one. Dress hat felt production fell 50% during WWII and continued falling causing the old $5 hat to become a $10 hat by 1954. Remember, there was no post war inflation. The cost increase came mostly from loss of scale.

My thumb in the eye estimate is that you take a $4 hat in 1954 allow for massive loss of scale and inflation and you get a $140 hat today. By the same numbers, a high quality $10 hat becomes a $350 - $500 hat. with only $80 of that increase coming from inflation.

Now you can see why a $140 hat does not measure up to a $10 hat from 1954.

 

[jamespowers]

I am not quite sure there. It really just depends on what measuring stick you use. For instance, a $20 hat in 1940 yileds $306.92 in today's dollars. However, if we use the unskilled wage rate then it runs that $20 up to 631.37. Not many average workers back then could well afford a $20 hat. They were stuck with a 5 and 7.50 hat. I won't even go into our relative share of the GDP yardstick coming in at $2,848.40.
Your cheap $5 hat, which would likely be a Champ or an Adam would run out to be about 76.73 CPI adjusted. The Unskilled Wage about $157.84. This is the cheap hat of the golden era. Start there and you will be comparing apples to apples; I think.

 

[Matt Deckard]

We can go over cost later... that's another thread. Let's go on with what we learn from felt from observation.

Regardless of price... back to quality.

I've taken brim trimmings from vintage Stetsons that have been altered, and brim trimmings from modern and noticed how loose the felt itself is felted nowadays. I could easily pull apart the modern where as the vintage was ... well darn tough to tear. Maybe it's fiber content, yet I'm pretty sure most hats from Stetson are just looser in their felting nowadays.

Modern Borsalino is even looser seeing as you can see the hairs and pull them out one by one if you like. They also end up drooping the worst over time.

 

[ScottF]

Is durability the standard for quality? Felt hats are not intended as rain hats.
A plastic bag can outperform a fine vintage felt for water resistance. Resistance to rain is just that. A synthetic fiber is infinitely superior to straw. A thin smoothly finished felt will take less abuse than a thick stiffened hat(depends on the stiffener). Workmanship is a quality not necessarily tied to the felt. What do we mean when we say "better quality" in regards to felt? My 1970's Resistol 75 Western is one of the smoothest finished hats I've ever experienced--like a baby's bottom. It is fairly thick and stiff. Is it good or bad?

Okay, the Chatham covers the top of my head exactly as well as any other hat I've ever owned, so I guess it's actually tied for best hat in my collection.

Regarding your last point about the Resistol 75 - 'good or bad' has to be determined by the wearer. I personally didn't care for the clear beaver that I owned temporarily, but I could tell it was great quality. Okay, to be fair - I'm walking down to Byrnie Utz now to try one of their higher end Stetsons, and to have them look at my Chatham.