Figure 1.--This is a portrait of the M. Potter family. We have no further information about the family except that they lived in Davenport, Iowa. The seem to be a well-to-do famiy. The studio was J.B. Hostetler. The portrait was undated, but looks to have been taken about 1910. We see a mother seated in a chair surrounded by her three children. The eldest is a girl with long hair, a hairbow, and a light colored dress. She is standing behind her mother's left shoulder. Two younger children are unidentified. They may be boys. They are standing in front of their mother. They have on similar, but not identical sailor outfits.

This is a portrait of the M. Potter family. We have no further information about the family except that they lived in Davenport, Iowa. Thecseem to be a well-to-do famiy. The studio was J.B. Hostetler. The portrait was undated, but looks to have been taken about 1910. We see a nother seated in a chair surrounded by her three children. The eldest is a girl with long hair, a hairbow, and a light colored dress. She is standing behind her mother's left shoulder. Two younger children are unidentified. They may be boys. They are standing in front of their mother. They have on similar, but not identical sailor outfits. The younger child wears a sailor tunic and thus is probably a boy. This is a little complicated. Boys wore bloomer knickers with tunic suits. We have seen girls wearing dresses that looked like tunic suits, but without the bloomer knickers. The other child wears what looks like a middy blouse and pleated skirt. This is an outfit a gir would more likely wear. Both wear white long stockings and black strap shoes. Their older sister seems to be wearing black long stockings. Both have long, curled hair. The gender is ambiguous. Center haor parts usually mean girls, but the center parts here are not prominant. The woman is wearing a dark skirt or dress with vertical stripes. All the subjects have serious expressions. A reader writes, "These two pictures show two boys in sailor dresses with rather intrIcate embroidery on their collars and dickies."

The Family

This is a portrait of the M. Potter family. We have no further information about the family. They seem to be a well-to-do famiy.

Location

We do know the portrait was taken in Davenport, Iowa. Presumably they lived there. The studio was J.B. Hostetler.

Chronology

The portrait was undated, but looks to have been taken about 1910.

The Children

We see a mother seated in a chair surrounded by her three children. Unfortunately we do not know the children's first names.The eldest is a girl with long hair, a hairbow, and a light colored dress. She is standing behind her mother's left shoulder. Two younger children are unidentified. They may be boys. They are standing in front of their mother. They have on similar, but not identical sailor outfits. Both wear white long stockings and black strap shoes. Their older sister seems to be wearing black long stockings. Both have long, curled hair. The gender is ambiguous. Center hair parts usually mean girls, but the center parts here are not prominant. The woman is wearing a dark skirt or dress with vertical stripes. All the subjects have serious expressions. A reader writes, "I think these two portraits ictures show two boys in sailor dresses with rather intrIcate embroidery on their collars and dickies."

The Eldest

The eldest is a girl with long hair, a hairbow, and a light colored dress. She is standing behind her mother's left shoulder. She looks to be about 12-13 years old. Unlike the younger childrem she wears black long stockings.

Youngest child (front left)

The younger child looks to be 4-5 years old. We think the child is a boy. He wears a sailor tunic and thus is probably a boy. This is a little complicated. Boys wore bloomer knickers with tunic suits. We have seen girls wearing dresses that looked like tunic suits, but without the bloomer knickers. Another reader writes, "I think the child on the left is definitely a boy and that the child on the right is probably a girl. Note the difference in hair styles. Isn't the child on the left wearing a white tunic suit?" Well a tunic suit would indicate the chilf was a boy. A tunic suit of course means pants matching the tunic. We see the tunic, but where are the matching bloomer knickers? We have seen girls wearing dresses that looked like tunics, but without the bloomer knickers. And here we do not see the bloomer knickers. The first impage (figure 1) does have a slight indication of bloomer knickers, boys usually wore bloomer knickers that were clearly observeable below the hem of the tunic. A reader writes, "I'm not absolutely certain but I think I detect the edge of bloomers under the tunic at the top of the white stockings. I suppose this could just be underwear, however. rather than bloomer pants." Our reader writes, "I've asked several of my library staff friends and they all agree the figure on the left is a boy. I suspect he is wearing bloomer knickers but of a very brief kind. I recall that we had very brief bloomers (you thought) on a Pittsburgh boy around 1906. They were so brief that I took them for short pants, or rather short knee pants since shorts didn't really exist in the 1900s. So maybe these are unusually brief bloomer pants. Or maybe we just we just see a touch of underwear. The white stockings come up underneath whatever he is wearing and are obviously held in place by supporters." We rather suspect the child was a boy as well, although we are not as certaiun as our readers. It is possible that the mpther was not that interested in having the b;oomer knickers show or the tunic was just longer than most. We are no sure how consciously mother did the child up so the bloomer knickers did not show.

Middle child (front right)

The middle child wears a similar, but not identical sailor outfit. The child is about 6-7 years old. We are not szure about gender, but think the chikld is probably a girl. This child wears what looks like a middy blouse and pleated skirt. This is an outfit a girl would more likely wear. I supose it is not impossible a boy might be dressed likethis in a kind of kilt suit affair, but kilt suits were not very common by the 1900s. An generally an oldr child would not be dressed in an outfit that obnstensibly might be considered more girlish. And we have mot noticed kilt suits being worn with white long stockings. Of course mothers made the decesions on such matters, so there is no way to be absolutely sure anout gender in these old portraits where the children are not identifiedd.

Created: 2:48 AM 3/10/2005
Last edited: 6:33 PM 4/2/2010