That's a misconception most of us have shared at some point, Brian. I love your observation about fellow board members insisting that some of those individuals featured in Browne's photographs HAD to be from second-class - my own mother, whilst looking at these same snaps, observed slightly ruefully, 'well, it doesn't look as glamorous as I'd imagined!'
But real life, I suppose, is NEVER as 'glamorous' as Hollywood or Merchant-Ivory would have us believe. 'Real' people, then or now, are not professional actors, with hair-stylists, make-up artists and dressers dancing constant attendance to ensure immaculate presentation at all times. Nor are the fashion magazines of the period, with their carefully posed models and couture frocks, necessarily the best representation of what was actually worn back then. After all, when walking down the King's Road today, how many girls does one see who look like they've stepped, chic and pristine, from the pages of latest issue of 'Vogue'? Not many, I can tell you!
Yet...at least where the first-class passengers are concerned, we have to remember that they really DID dress themselves with incredible opulence. This is not mere conjecture - some of the insurance claims filed after the sinking (and yes, I now know that some may have been 'exaggerated') show that many ladies were travelling with enough clothes to make even the wardrobe of Victoria Beckham look sparse. Charlotte Cardeza is the most famous, and the most extreme, example - among her vast array of finery, she had exquisite gowns by Worth, Rouff, Redfern and our very own Lucile. But Mrs Cardeza can't have been all THAT unusual. It would be very interesting to see itemised lists of the clothing lost by the likes of Madeleine Astor, Eleanor Widener and Marian Thayer (who was once acclaimed as 'the most superbly fashionable woman in Philadelphia Society'). Even those of more 'modest' means - and I use the term in a relative sense only - such as Molly Brown and Leontine Aubart were travelling with dresses, shoes and hats by the dozen. I realise that the round of social activities participated in by the wealthy in 1912 called for constant changes of attire, ranging from the casual to the formal, and also that, when they travelled, the rich were often abroad for months...but I would still argue that many of those in first-class would have had very impressive wardrobes (if only we had the opportunity to rummage through their steamer trunks!)
After all, over twenty women were accompanied by personal maids, who had absolutely nothing else to do but superintend and maintain the clothing of their mistresses. Nowadays, we may wonder how they filled their time - but, with corsets to lace, alterations and repairs to make, hair to arrange, suitcases to pack and unpack, gowns to lay out three or four times daily, gloves, shoes and blouses to button, I bet they were kept on their toes!