Figure 1.-- |
: The authors would be very interested in any
suggestions for time-line indicators to help date old imags.
HBC has compiled some indicators that I think will prove helpful in dating old photographs. This is, however, just some
prelimimary thoughts on the matter. I'd be very interested in your reaction to my thoughts and any additional thoughts that you can suggest. This page deals with dating images in general, not only photographs, but also drawings and paintings. We have stressed dating photographs because in many cases drawing and apintings can be dated. Drawing often appeared in periodcal magazines or other dated publications. Often the date a painter executed one of his works are known. Large numbers of photographs, unfortunately are undated. We note several different ways in which the dates of these photographs can be estimated. These results are of course not definitive, but can be useful in the absence of an actual date. The indicators that we have noted relate to both photography, activity, and fashion. The primary indicators that we suggest are photographic technology, portrait styles, photographic props, activity depicted, clothing styles, and hair styles.
The following guidelines can be used to determine the approximate date of old photographs with a fair degree of accuracy. The authors stress, however, that no foolproof key to interpreting these photographs. Several problems exist in daing old photographs:
Old styles may be worn: Styles and the fashionable tastes of mothers vary widely and there simply is no way of telling with absolute certainty if a specific style was worn when it was fashionable. It probably was, but there are also images when this was not the case. There were in the 19th Century no definitive rules on how to dress older boys as is the case with the modern boys. Many mothers simply did as they wished and the boys did not question their parents as modern children do. Especially boys raised at home could be dressed in what ever outfits pleased his mother. Many mothers used hand me downs. Thus clothes bought for one child might be won several years later for another child.
Countries differ: Not all fashion trends occurred simultaneously in different countries. Thus unless the country involved is known, dating is more difficult. I do not fully understand these differences. Most of the images on HBC are British or American and to a lesser extent French. This there is not yet a significant sampling of German, Italian, and other European images that would permit any valid conclusions on trends in these countries.
Photographhy for most of the 19th Century was static, usually taken in a studio by a professional photographer. Outdoor photos did not become common until the late 1890s and especially appearance of the Kodak Brownie in 1900. The photography of the 19th century offers many valuable clues concerning the date of an image. These indicators include the type of image, the pose, the style of print, and who took the photograph. Like the fashion indicators, these are not precise indicators, but can be very useful, especially in combination with other indicators such as clothing and hair fashions. Here we are just beginning to collect information and would be very interested in reader comments.
The props held by a child are often clues as to gender. I stress that
there are no sure fire rules here. Props are good indicators, but are
not surefire indicators.
Balls: Balls of various types often suggest boys. Girls may be
pictured with balls, but girls were not incouraged in the 19th Century
to engage in strenous outdoor play.
Figure 7.--While dolls are usually a good indicator the child is a girl, boys with older sisters are an exception. |
Photographhy for most of the 19th Century was static, usually taken in a studio. Paintings and drawings, however, could depict action. Children running about, rough housing with each other or being restrained by adults are likely boys. Children sitting quietly chatting with each other are probably girls.
Sometimes information is available identifying the children depicted in drawings, paintings, and photographs or in many instances the precise date a photograph was taken. Such information is extremely
helpful in establishing actual fashions and trends. More often, however, images are available without any accompanying information. The type, quality, and setting of photographs often provide helpful information. The clothing and hair styles worn by the boys can also provide useful information in dating old images. Given the vageries of fashion, the results are not infalable, but they can often help to set guidelines. One problem is
that boys in the 19th Century, in some cases fairly old boys, wore
dresses, skirts, kilts, and long curls. Thus it is often
very difficult to determine the gender of children with any certainty. It hard to establish what younger boys wore simply because it is
difficult to distinguish them from the girls.
The authors have also compiled some gender identification
guidelines.
Short hair on younger children is an indicator suggesting a period
before the 1880s. This is not to say that boys at mid-century did
not have long curls. There are accounts of mothers keeping their
sons in long curls throughout the Century. It was particularly cimmon,
however, in the 1880s spurred on by the Fauntleroy craze. Ringlet curls
in particular on boys are an indicator of a period from 1885-1900.
Short hair was very common for boys in
the early and mid-19th Century. Even younger boys often had short hair in
the early
and mid 19th Century. While short hair is a good indicator, it is not
absolute proof.
Mothers even in the early 19th Century might choose long hair and curls
for their sons,
in some cases even on boys as old as 11 or 12 years. Likewise while long hair was prised on girls, some girls wore their hair short.
Hair styles changed in the late 19th Century. Long hairs, even ringlet curls, for boys became highly fasionable. Boys up to 8 years might commonly wear long
ringlet curls, an even older boys sometimes wore them. It is likely that a child with very short
hair cut away from the ears is probably a boy. There is, however, no certainty here. Many girls also had short hair, especially in the late
19th Century. One important point. Boys sometimes had some quite severe short hair cut, but this would be very rare (but not unknown) on girls. Thus particularly short hair cuts are a strong indication the child is a boy.
One useful indicator may be the part. Hair styles of course changed
over time. I'm not sure, however, just what those changes were and
over what time period. It is a subject I hope to pursue in detail. If
HBC readers have infornation on this or know of any helpful web sites,
please advise the web master.
Generally American and British children wearing hair bows are girls. There are some, but very few exceptions to this.
Children on the continent, especially late 19th century France, wearing
dresses and hair bows could be boys. Even boys as old as 10 years in France might wear long hair tied back with a hair bow.
Curls were less common for boys in France than in America. Children with really large hair bows are probably girls, but as always one has to consider other clues. Hair bows can be useful time line indicators. In American it almost certainly means a 19th century image, probably before the 1890s. In France it probably means a time period before the 1880s for older boys, but could extend into the 20th Century for younger boys.
Figure 4.--. |
Dresses for little boys were often identical to those their sisters
wore, especially before the 1870s. Boys beyond the todler years kept
in dresses, especially by the 1870s were often outfitted in plainer dresses
with fewer frills and lace--although this was not always the case.
By the 1890s dressed especially styled and marketed for boys appeared. These
dresses were generally plainer than those for girls and often featured a
belt. Some mothers liked the look of frilly dresses whether for their
daughters or sons. So girlishly styled dresses with lace and frills can
not be assumed to be from an earlier period, even in the 1890s and early
1900s. Many of the stylistic features of womens' dresses caried over into
children's dresses so a websites devoted to women's dresses should
be consulted to help date images of boys in dresses.
One frequent feature was front
buttons. By the mid 19th Century the gender convention for wearing buttons was becoming well established. In the early part of the Century
there were no specialized boy dresses. By the late 19th Century, however, specialized boy dresses appeard. Thus if the buttons are observable, they
could provide helpful information on dating photographs. There are many avid button collectors and different styles of buttons can be dated.
Unfortunately few old photographs are sufficently clear to observe more than
stylistic arrangement. The actual buttons themselves are rarely sufficently
detailed to observe.
Low necklines would seem to indicate a child is a girl. It certainly
has a
girlish look to the modern person. One is tempted to think that a child in a dress with a low neckline is
probably a girl. This would be a mistake. Actually I do not believe that
necklines
are good indicators as they usually reflect the fashion of the day
rather than the gender of the child. Necklines were simply
a function of the popular fashion of the day. The neckline
is better indicator of the date than the gender. If the fashion was low
necklines
than the dresses of both boys and girls had low necklines. Thus the
neckline can be extremely helpful in dating old images.
The neckline is not really of great assistance in dating most old
photographs. Neck lines by the 1870s were beginning to
be quite high. This means that most old photographs were taken when
necklines were high. The lower necklines are probably more useful in
dating unidentified paintings. Low necklines were
commonly worn in the early and mid 19th Century. Notably there were no
specialized boy dresses during this period in which low necklines
were popular for small children. Little boys gerally wore the
same styles their sisters wore. In the 1860s necklines began to
raise--but for both boys and girls. It was not until the 1870s that low necklines for children disappeard entirely.
Another helpful indicator is hem length. I have just begun to assess
the hem length in dating old photographs. Here the contemporary
fashion in women's dresses can be misleading. While in the early 19th
Century children's dresses were just as long as women's dresses.
Children's
dresses with shorter hems began to appear in the 1820s and were
common by the 1830s. During this early period they were worn with
lacey
pantalettes as it was considered inapropriate at the time for even young children to have bare legs. After mid-Century, short dresses above the knee, often worn with ankle socks and strap shoes appeared in
England and Europe. I'm less certain about America. Beginning in the 1870s children's dresses began to become longer again. At the same time
pantalettes began to become less fashionable. Stylistic differences between coutries makes it important to identify the country in which the photograph was taken.
A boy wearing an actual dress could often be identified if the dress had a tunic-style belt. (See "Tunics" below.) By the late 19th Century specifically
styled dresses appeared. Many but not all of these dresses were plainer with less lace and ruffles than the dresses specifically for girls. One of the stylistic features of these boy dresses was a belt. So even if the child in an old photograph has long curls, and a nice frock, you can usually identify the child with
a belt as a boy.
Boys were often dressed in tunics in the early 19th century. The tunic was a popular choice for many mothers, which like kilts and kilt suits, eased the transition from dresses to trousers for
the young boy--at least in his mother's eyes. Tunics were similar to
dresses, but were much simpler--usually without elaborate lace and
ruffle trim. Tunics were almost always made from solid colored material.
They also always had belts of some kind. Tunics were popular for boys
throughout the 19th Century. Even school-age boys wore tunics in the
early 19th Century in an era when public education was just beginning to
develop. Younger boys continued wearing tunics until, after the
turn of the century. Through the 1870s, younger boys commonly wore
tunics with pantalettes--but older boys always
wore knickers. This was a major difference as boys did not wear
knickers (in the American sence) when wearing dresses.
One popular style for boys in late 19th Century America was the kilt
suit. These contrasted with dresses because they were two piece garments.
Also the materials were often muted colors. These were much more commonly
worn by boys than girls and were most popular in America for some strange
reason. They were most common from the 1870s through the turn of the
Century.
Mrs Benett's book Little Lord Fauntleroy was published in 1885.
While velvet suits with lace collars were worn by boys before 1885, most
available photographic images probably are images from the late 1880s, 1890s,
and early 1900s. Lace collars were commom until the turn of the
century after which ruffled collars become increasingly important.
The Buster Brown suit was based on the characteric red suit worn by the
main character in a cartoon that first appeared in 1902. Presumably
the artist picked up on a style being worn by boys at the time. Its
appearance in the popular comic strip, however, must have added to its
popularity. Most photographs of boys in Buster Brown suits were probably
taken in the 1900s, 1910s, and to a lesser extent the early 1920s.
The older boy's coat is not very stylish. Much better styles clothes were worn by
boys in the 80s & 90s.
As for striped socks, that is a subject I haven't pursued yet, but belive that they had become
much less fashionable (especially for dress occasions) by the mid-1880s and 90
Collars for all the children are small. Small collars were common in
the 1860s and early 1870s, but quite large collars for boys and girls were
introduced in the late 1870s and remained popular until well after
the turn of the century.
Belts began appearing on dresses in the 1880s and were a prominent
stylistic feature on dresses by the 1890s. This was especially true
on the dresses made specifically for boys. Thus belts on dresses and
tunics probably an image taken in the 1880s, 1890s, or early 1900s. Incidetally the converse can not be taken
as a good indicator. This is because many mothers selected the frillier
styles for their sons out of fashion preferences. In addition a boy might
well wear hand me down girls dresses without belts if he had older sisters--
thus making dating such information more difficult.
Plaid is a particularly good indicator. Especially after Queen Vctoria
popularized Scotland and the kilt, plaid became a popular material for
children's clothes. It was particularly popular for boys. Because of the material
was similar to some material used in Scottish kilts, many parents
considered it appropriate for boys not yet old eough for a kilt. By
the 1870s, plaid had become less popular for girls and children in plaid
dresses were even more likely to be boys.
Srriped socks
White stockings
The modern viewer is acustomed to seeing girls wearing boys clothes.
Indeed modern boys and girls are often indistinguishble dressed in T shirts, j
swearshirts, jeans, and sneakers. Modern boys would of course not
consider wearing anything perceived as girlish. This was not always the case.
As we have seen, in the 19th and early 20th Century many boys were outfitted
in dresses, but girls would never have thouht about wearing pants or
knickers. Thus a child with long, girlish-looking ringlets if wearing
knickers or kneepabnts is almost surely a boy.
Colors are helpful indicators and can be particularly useful with
paintings which display colors . Black and white photography does show
white outfits and some indication of color can be assessed based on the shades
of grey showing in the photograph.
I'm not sure just what white dresses suggest. Girls may have been most likely to wear white
dresses, but t hese requires more reseach. The best clue on white dresses would
be the color of the accesories such as waist sashes and decorative ribbons.
Blue sashes would of course suggest a boy, although I am not sure when this convention
first appeared. Blue has apparently become associated with
boys because it was the cheapest dye available in the 17th Century.
Colored dresses provide some clues. It seems likely that girls would
wear brighter colors than boys who were more commonly dressed in muted
colors.
White dresses have always been popular dreesup atire for children.
Sometimes the only destinguishing clie was a colored ribbon. We now think
of blue as indicating boys. I'm not sure how this color conventiion
came about. However it is not a perfect indicator. Some girls wore
blue also. In additun there has not always been perfect agreement about
what color repesenrd which gende. Differences exist over time and between
countries.
Another color factor was the hue. Girl's outfits tends (I stress tended) ]
to be more coloful tham boys garments. Boys dresses were sometimes rather dark,
muted fabrics.
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to:Main photo dating page]
[Return to:Main photo/publishing page]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossary]
[Satellite sites]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Sailor suits]
[Sailor hats]
[Buster Brown suits]
[Eton suits]
[Rompers]
[Tunics]
[Smocks]
[Pinafores]