Figure 1.--This is s cased Ambro of an unidentified English boy. Note the longish hair and elegant, very well-fitted suit. We would guess he came from a well-to-do family. He wears a lapel suit. We are not sure about the length of the jcket. Note the mtching vest which has a low-set collar. And he has a kind of ascot tie. The portrait is undated, but like most Ambros was probably taken in th 1850s.

We have much less information on English 1850s suits than American, primarily because the number of phptographic images is so limited. We have found very few Dags. We have found a few Ambros, but again far fewer than in America. Thus our archive is relatively small. And Ambros are more easily dated than Dags. Most were taken in the 1850s or very early-60s. Thus although most are undated, we can say that they for the most part date to the 50s. Among the Ambros we have found We see suits with lapel jackets, cut a little longer than modern sack suits. The boy here is a good example (figure 1). Many had vests, although they were more varied tham later in the centuury. We notice vests in both matching and contrasting colors. Vests in the 50s often had lapels. we also notice suits with collar buttoning jackets. Some are done rather look like tunics. Stocks were still worn as collar adornment with suits. But we see them beginning to give way to more elaborate neckwear that will evolve into neckties. We also see pants in both matching and contrasting colors. This was the last decade in which contrasting pants were very common, although we see a few examples in the 1860s. We note that many of the photographic portraits we have found shows boys wearing suits that do not seem to fit very well. That is something we never see in painted portraits. We notice this in American images as ell during this period. Not all boys had ill-fitted suits. The boy here certainly does not, he has very well fitted suit (figure 1). But many boys did. We are not sure why this was.

Photographic Evidence

We have much less information on English 1850s suits than American suits, primarily because the number of early English phptographic images is so limited. We have found very few Dags. We have found a few Ambros, but again far fewer than in America. Thus our archive is relatively small. And Ambros are more easily dated than Dags. Most were taken in the 1850s or very early-60s. Thus although most are undated, we can say that they for the most part date to the 50s.

Neckwear

Stocks were still worn as collar adornment with suits. But we see them beginning to give way to more elaborate neckwear that will evolve into neckties.

Jackets

Among the Ambros we have found We see suits with lapel jackets, cut a little longer than modern sack suits. The boy here is a good example (figure 1). we also notice suits with collar buttoning jackets. Some are done rather look like tunics. We also see pants in both matching and contrasting colors.

Vests

Many had vests, although they were more varied tham later in the centuury. We notice vests in both matching and contrasting colors. Vests in the 50s often had lapels or collars, something that began to disappear in the 60s. Boys always wore their jackets for portraits, we do not see portraits with just the vests. We are unsure if boys sometimes jut wore the vests, especially during the summer.

Pants

We see boys wearing long pants with suits. We se some variance with tunic suits. Tunic suits were still worn, we think often for school. Some boys wore bloomer knickers, but almost all boys wearing suits wore long pants. This was the last decade in which contrasting pants were very common, although we see a few examples in the 1860s.

Proper Fiting

We note that many of the photographic portraits we have found shows boys wearing suits that do not seem to fit very well. At this time we can not say if this was more prevalent in the1840s than the 50s, but we do note that by the 60s, most boys wore well-fitted suits. That is something we never see in painted portraits. We notice this in American images as well during this period. Not all boys had ill-fitted suits. The boy on the previous page certainly does not, he has very well fitted suit. But many boys did. But the boy here does not have a well-fitted suit (figure 1). We are not sure why this was. We suspect that it could reflect the growing affluence of industrial Britain. There were probably other facrtoes, but we believe that this was an important one. Some how thanks to Charles Dickens, the popular image of Victorian Britain was one of slums and desperate poverty. The actual change was the creation of great wealth and a substantial middle class. Many of the new middle-class came from very humble origins, families that earlier could not afford fashionable clothes. (Clothes in the 18th century consumed a much higher portion of family income than is the case today.) The poverty Dickens described existed, but poverty had existed since the dawn of time. It was more observable during the Victorian era because it was concentrated in the cities rather than hidden in the countryside and for the first time the new middle class saw it as a social problem and had the political influence to demand change.

Created: 5:41 AM 7/30/2014
Last updated: 5:41 AM 7/30/2014