>would have had nicer sets for special functions like church or weddings.
It's likely they would have one set of church clothes at least, but if you ever look at 'old' houses, closets are tiny because even modestly wealthy people didn't have that many clothes.
In 1900 you've have spend something like 15% of your yearly income on clothes, now it's around 3%.
Try wearing a dress shirt and a suit. It's incredible and I totally see how people used to wear that for work. You can sweat for hours in it, it just doesn't smell. It also (mostly) doesn't become dirty beyond something you can wipe away. It's really comfy and you stand straight. I am kind of sad it is now weird to wear that. But it is cool to have something real comfy to wear for festive days.
Clothes lasted longer, yes. The fabric was almost always thicker and less finely woven due to the limitations of historical textile manufacturing. The garments themselves were properly stitched instead of overlocked, with patterns sensibly designed for the usage and size of the garments. People also repaired their clothes and would keep them long past the point most modern consumers would buy new.
Plus, clothes were a considerable portion of the household budget. People couldn't afford them if they didn't last.
It's likely they would have one set of church clothes at least, but if you ever look at 'old' houses, closets are tiny because even modestly wealthy people didn't have that many clothes.
In 1900 you've have spend something like 15% of your yearly income on clothes, now it's around 3%.