Figure 1.--These American siblings were photographed in the 1900s although specifically when during the decade we are not sure. The two boys look to be about 7-9 years old and wear Norfolk jackets with long stockings. One curious aspect is that they wear white dickeys normally more common with sailor suits. The family does not look very prosperous. The boys have above-the- knee knickers (they don't match the jackets) and long dark stockings with hightop button shoes. The younger child wears a belted dress with a rather longish skirt. The child could be either a boy or a girl, but by the 1900s a child wearing a dress like this almost certainly was a girl. One question we have is where and by who the portrait was taken.

These American siblings were photographed in the 1900s although specifically when during the decade we are not sure. The two boys look to be about 7-9 years old and wear Norfolk jackets with long stockings. One curious aspect is that they wear white dickeys normally normally more common with sailor suits. The family does not look very prosperous. The children have had their hair quickly combed but it does not look like it was very carefully cared for by mother. The dickeys may have been cheaper than a shirt, collar, and tie. The boys have above-the- knee knickers (they don't match the jackets) and long dark stockings with hightop button shoes. The younger child wears a belted dress with a rather longish skirt. The child could be either a boy or a girl, but by the 1900s a child wearing a dress like this almost certainly was a girl. The doll looks as though it has a china painted head. One question we have is where and by who the portrait was taken.

The Children

This American family is unidentified. We know that they are American siblings, but we have no other information about them. The two boys look to be about 7-9 years old. The little girl looks about 5 years old.

The Clothes

The boys wear Norfolk jackets with long stockings. One curious aspect is that they wear white dickeys normally normally more common with sailor suits. The family does not look very prosperous. The children have had their hair quickly combed but it does not look like it was very carefully cared for by mother. The dickeys may have been cheaper than a shirt, collar, and tie. The boys have above-the- knee knickers (they don't match the jackets) and long dark stockings with hightop button shoes. The younger child wears a belted dress with a rather longish skirt. It could be either a boy or a girl, but by the 1900s a child wearing a dress like this almost certainly was a girl. Strangely she seems rather unkempt. This is also suggested by the doll. The gender of the baby is ambiguous.

Chronology

were photographed in the 1900s although specifically when during the decade we are not sure. I'd say about 1905-10 in part because of the type of portrait. The knickers rather than kneepants also suggest the portrait was taken after the turn of the 20th century.

Location

There is no identification of the photographer so we have no idea where the portrait was taken. The brick wall in the background suggests that it is not the Midwest. One question we have is where the portrait was taken. It is not clear what the circumstances of the portrait were. The chair and the doll suggests that it was taken in front of the house. The chair looks like household furnishing. Also we do not think that the girl would have been allowed to taken a very nice toy like that doll out on shopping or other trips. (Perhaps to a frmal photographic studio, but this is not a photographic studio.) Such portrats, however, were usually taken at the threashold. The background looks more lile a wall than the side of the house. The foreground is also strange. It does not look like the sidewalk of a city, but the brick does not look like a farm house.

Photographer

I'd say taken by an iterenant photographer, but I'm not sure. The lack of the photographer's name and location suggest this as well as the make shift background. Smetimes itinerant phoitographers set up and fairs and markets, but the lack of a background suggest this photographer was going house to house. Also it is curious that any kind of a professiinal photographer would not take a level portrait.

Props

The only prop here is the doll. It looks to be quite a nice toy for the little girl. The doll looks as though it has a china painted head.

Reader Comments

One reader writes, "I suspect that the dickeys made the need for a shirt minimal which decreased the cost of the clothes. Back then clothes were more expensive relative to income than today."

Navigate the Historic Boys' Clothing Web chronological pages:
[The 186s] [The 1870s] [The 1880s] [The 1890s] [The 1900s] [The 1910s] [The 1920s] [The 1930s]

Navigate the Historic Boys' Clothing Web style pages:
[Jackets] [Eton suits] [Norfolk suits] [Knickers] [Kilts] [Knee pants suit]
[Dickeys] [Long stockings] [Short pants suits] [Long pants suits] [Blazers]

Created: November 25, 2001
Last edited: February 25, 2004