[Low-Tech]Question about silk horse armor

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

On a less crunchy level, isn't +19CF for silk kind of unrealistically high? I see 100% silk shirts advertised on LL Bean for about $80 bucks which is certainly not 20x the cost of other shirts.

Nah, it's about 30x instead. Cotton T-shirts sourced from the same kind of Chinese mass production run about $2.50.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Nah, it's about 30x instead. Cotton T-shirts sourced from the same kind of Chinese mass production run about $2.50.

Something isn't matching up. That suggests clothing retailers are willing to take massively smaller margins to carry silk garments.

[ericthered]

So looking at modern prices on modern exchanges for cotton and for silkworm cocoons, there is about a x4 price difference in weight, at least from a quick search.



I hope that gives at least some sort of sanity check on prices. Maybe?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ericthered

So looking at modern prices on modern exchanges for cotton and for silkworm cocoons, there is about a x4 price difference in weight, at least from a quick search.

Probably better to get price per yard, though that seems a similar scale anyway.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by ericthered

So looking at modern prices on modern exchanges for cotton and for silkworm cocoons, there is about a x4 price difference in weight, at least from a quick search.



I hope that gives at least some sort of sanity check on prices. Maybe?

Note that modern pricing of cotton is just as 'off' for historical comparisons as that of modern silk is. A quick look at some fabric stores suggests anything from 1:1 cotton:silk to 1:3 in pricing, and linen costing as much or more than silk, which was really, really not the case in Europe historically.

[DanHoward]

Low-Tech isn't supposed to be Euro-centric. Silk is only +19CF if the product is sourced locally. If it is imported then you add other modifiers on top. Pricing in LT was determined by both historical pricing and utility. If the price was based purely on historical prices then mail would cost a lot more than plate.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Something isn't matching up. That suggests clothing retailers are willing to take massively smaller margins to carry silk garments.

Cheaper items have a greater markup than more expensive items. A retailer would rather sell one $1000 item than ten $100 items. In the latter, the retailer needs ten times more labour and to carry ten times as much stock to generate the same revenue. So, with expensive items, the overheads are comparatively lower so he can have a lower profit margin.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Pricing in LT was determined by both historical pricing and utility. If the price was based purely on historical prices then mail would cost a lot more than plate.

Oh. I'm not sure I like that.* Is it true of High-Tech as well?

A retailer would rather sell one $1000 item than ten $100 items.

But in this case the comparison is a selling a $4 item for $60 vs. a theoretically $80 item for $80.


* Edit: Actually, I'm sure I don't like it. It turns the whole resource into nonsense.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

Oh. I'm not sure I like that.* Is it true of High-Tech as well?



But in this case the comparison is a selling a $4 item for $60 vs. a theoretically $80 item for $80.


* Edit: Actually, I'm sure I don't like it. It turns the whole resource into nonsense.

Every price in Low-Tech is subjective. There is no such thing as a fixed historical price.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Note that modern pricing of cotton is just as 'off' for historical comparisons as that of modern silk is. A quick look at some fabric stores suggests anything from 1:1 cotton:silk to 1:3 in pricing, and linen costing as much or more than silk, which was really, really not the case in Europe historically.

... never mind cotton vs 100% wool.

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Every price in Low-Tech is subjective. There is no such thing as a fixed historical price.

Yeah. One of my biggest bugbears is the shibboleth that "medieval" was some unitary era where prices and availability were all the same, throughout the period, from hardscrabble 9th century Scotland to the glittering city-states of 14th century northern Italy.

And the people who hold to that shibboleth live in an era where just 50 years ago, you could get gasoline in the United States for 29 cents a gallon, and computers with a fraction the capability of a laptop Walmart sells for $300 cost millions of dollars and filled small rooms. Go figure.