Yes, there are both rules and reasons
It depends a bit on what you consider "any rules". If you are thinking of "did they have rules text describing them", then yes. In particular when it comes to expensive clothing without a game mechanic functional benefit, there are also other reasons. Clothes can "do something", even if they are no giving you a bonus to a roll.
D&D 3.5 for example has a detailed write up for each set of predefined normal clothing about what it contains, and how you can use it. The Cold Weather Outfit even has specific mechanical effects:
A cold weather outfit includes a wool coat, linen shirt, wool cap, heavy cloak, thick pants or skirt, and boots. This outfit grants a +5 circumstance bonus on Fortitude saving throws against exposure to cold weather.
Fifth edition likewise mentions the functional impact of clothing in the rules for extreme weather (DMG, p. 110, Extreme cold and Extreme heat; thanks to @enkryptor for the pointer):
a creature exposed to the cold must succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw [...]. Creatures with resistance or immunity to cold damage automatically succeed on the saving throw, as do creatures wearing cold weather gear (thick coats, gloves, and the like)
When the temperature is at or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit, a creature exposed to the heat and without access to drinkable water must succeed on a Constitution saving throw [...] Creatures wearing medium or heavy armor, or who are clad in heavy clothing, have disadvantage on the saving throw.
First edition did not use the concept of predefined sets of clothing of different values yet. In the DMG, there is just "Clothes (1 set)" listed in the encumberance table on the last page. The PHB under clothing (p. 35) lists individual items like a belt, cloak or robe instead of predefined sets or different qualities. (It also has four different kinds of boots, but hey, Gary worked as a shoemaker to make ends meet while publishing the game, so that can be forgiven).
These clothes did not have any specific rules makeup, because the approach was to just use common sense for what effects things would have in game, rather than formal rules. But other game elements certainly interacted with your clothing — for example when you wore white clothing, you were 80% likely to be mistaken for a cloud when using wind walk (p. 54), and gloves might protect you from exposure to contact poison.
I think the real answer is that beyond functional benefits, a main purpose of clothing is social signaling. You may not be let into a fine restaurant if you wear dirty wretched rags, and without a nobles' outfit, you may cause disapproval when attending a noble's ball. Merchants, guards, servants will treat you differently if your clothing projects affluence and a higher social standing than when you wear a poor man's coarse drab.
For example, we played a 3e campaign, where the players early on needed to access the nobles quarter, and without connections or looking like a noble, the guards at the gate would not let them pass. Procuring those expensive garments became a minor sub-quest for the cash-strapped group.
Lastly, there is the roleplaying benefit. Like in Why would anyone buy a Pony over a Mule?, there are benefits to fabulous clothes that have less to do with generating a game advantage, and more with imagining your character, and how they enjoy their wealth and ability to afford the better things in life.
It's just like spending on a posh room in an inn rather than a simple, plain chamber: both may not make a difference in the mechanics of getting rest so why waste an extra gp? Many players still will do it when they can easily afford it, because they enjoy their characters being wealthy in the make-believe world of the game.