***
boys' skirted garments chronology United States 19th century
American Boy Skirted Garments: Chronology--The 19th Century
Figure 1.-This cabinet portrait shows two brothers who had their portrait taken in Salt Lake City Utah. They look to be about 1-4 years of age. The family was apparently had relatives in Cass Lake, Minnesota. The younger boy on the left wears a plaid dress with star-burst lace collar. The older bpy wears a kilt suit with a floppy bow. child is wearing a pleated skirt, but appears to be a boy with very short cut hair. He is also holding a cane of some sort. This convention of dressing the youngest boy in a dress and a slightly older boy in a kilt suit seems quite common during the 1870s-90s. we would guess that the portrait was taken in the 1880s, primarily because of the decorative touches.. Notice the Norfolk styling on the kilt suit jacket.
We know much more about skirted garments during the 19th century, especially by the 1840s because of the development of photography. The skirted garments worn by American boys in the 19th century was more varied. We see mostly dresses for younger boys in the first half of the 19th century. Somewhat older boys might wear tunics. We note dresses in the second half of the 19th century, although our archive is somewhat limited because phtographic portraits do not become available until the 1840s. We also notice both skirts and kilt outfits, especially kilt suits. We notice more boys wearing these skirt or kilt garmrnts than actual dresses, although dresses were very common very little boys. Some mothers beginning aboout the 1870s dressed very young boys in dresses and slightlt older boys in kiltv suits. This was a popular convention, but we also notice some olders boys wearing dresses as well. There was not set rule and decessions like this were up to each individual mother. And to futther complicate the issue, we see boys wearing jeaketed dresses looking somewhat like kilt suits. Some of these outfits are a little difficult to identify as we are often not sure if the boy is wearing a blouse and skirt or a dress with a belted waistline. We note some boys wearing smocks, but this was not very common. The fashion writers in Harper's Bazaar provided some advice to mothers about boys' dresses and kilts--"Small boy's clothes" (1877).
The 1800s
We have very little information about the dresses boy wore in the 1800s. We have a few painyings, mostly naive artists showing how well-to-do children were dressed. We have virtually nothing about average families, ,ot of who lived on family farms.
We do not yet have phoyography in the 1830s, but we have quite a number of painted portraits which unlike photoigraphs have have helpful color information. American portaiture was stull mostly the work of naive artists. But what they lacked in realism, they vert accurately depicted clothing. American prinitive artist Noah North painted many portraits, including families and children. Although he did not master perspective well, his detailed paintings provide a good record of early 19th century fashions before photography was developed. North painted Pierrepont Edward Lacey and his dog, Gun in 1836. Robert Peckham pained sime worderful portraits during the 1830s. Both boys a girls wore long dresses, often in bright colors. We notice the Adams children about 1831 and the Raymond children in 1838. another peckham portrait is unidentified showing a brther and sister wearing similar dresses in different countries e think in the late 1830s.
The 1840s
We know much more about skirted garments during the 19th century, especially by the 1840s because of the development of photography. Painted portraits also provide hrlpful views. Painters bow had to compete with phoyographic studioswhich proved difficult because Daguerreotypes were so much cheaper. The skirted garments worn by American boys in the 19th century was more varied. We see mostly dresses for younger boys in the first half of the 19th century. Somewhat older boys might wear tunics. A good ecample is an unidentified Massachussets boy in 1846. We note dresses in the second half of the 19th century, although our archive is somewhat limited because phtographic portraits do not become available until the 1840s. We also notice both skirts and kilt outfits, especially kilt suits. We notice more boys wearing these skirt or kilt garments than actual dresses, although dresses were very common very little boys. William Matthew Prior left us some portraits of very young boys wearing dresses in the 1840s. J.W. Stock left us a portrait of an unidentified boy in the 1840s. We notice a portrait of an unidentified boy wearing a plaid dress with his hobby horse about 1845-50. we wonder if the pevalen of painted images suggests a social clss conectuin with dresses because a pointed image is relativly expensive.
The 1850s
We see even more phoographic images in the 1850s. Not only do we have Dags, but Ambros as well. Quite a number of these images seem to be skirts rather than dresses. But this may be because the children in dresses can not be easily identifiedas boys. And we also see portraits fom naive artists. L. Moulten painted an unidentified biy wearing a tunic in 1853. An artist named Wybeant let us several portraits of unidentified children wearing dresses in the 1850s.
We note quite a number of boys wearing skirted garments in the 1860s, but not as many as we might have expected given the huge increase in the number of photographic portraits taken with the apperance of the CDV. We this are not at all sure about the prevalence of skirted garments and the age conventions. We comtinue to see boys wearing dresses in the 1860s. Photography began to provide images in the 1840s but it is not until the 1860s and and the CDV that we begin to se really large numbers of images. And for the first time we have a substantial number of images of boys wearing dresses. We think that this is not only because there are much larger numbers of CDVs, but because you could write on a CDV, we have more individuals identified as boys. The dresses we see boys wearing look very much like the same dresses girls wore. We do not see any of what might be called boy dresses. And We also see an important new garment, the kilt suit. We are not entirely sure when this garment appeared, but we definitely see examples by the 1860s. We also continued to see some tunics, but not very many of them. We are not sure about pinafores.
Dresses and other skirted garments continue to be very common for younger boy. And the very extensive photographic record provides us a detailed look at the garments and styles involved. Dating 1870s dresses, at least for boys is very difficult. It is not always posible to dated undated images, but mounts, decorative itens, and hosiery are very useful. Some mothers beginning aboout the 1870s dressed very young boys in dresses and slightly older boys in kilt suits. This was a popular convention, but we also notice some olders boys wearing dresses as well. There was not set rule and decessions like this were up to each individual mother. And to futther complicate the issue, we see boys wearing jeaketed dresses looking somewhat like kilt suits. Some of these outfits are a little difficult to identify as we are often not sure if the boy is wearing a blouse and skirt or a dress with a belted waistline. We note some boys wearing smocks, but this was not very common. We note two pre-school Massachusettes boys wearing dresses, we think in the 1870s. The two dresses are styled differently, but we are unsure if age conventions are involved. We also see quite a few boys wearing fashionable tunics. The fashion writers in Harper's Bazaar provided some advice to mothers about boys' dresses and kilts--"Small boy's clothes" (1877).
We continue to see younger boys wearing dkirted garments intyhe 1880s. There were dressess, but there were some alternatives. Kilt suits continued to very popular during the 80s. Here age was a factor. We see younger boys wering dresses, but older boys were more likely to wear kilt suits. There were no absolute rulre. This was all up to mother. A new development was the Little Lord Fauntleroy suit which appeared in the mid-80s. Many mothers were enamored of the style creating the Fauntleroy Craze--a fascination that lasted into the early 1900s. We suspect that some mothers sped up breeching so they could buy a fancy Fauntleroy suit for their sons. It is difficult to date images by dresses styles, but mount styles and decorative trim is often useful. This is why we believe the Utah boys here were photographed in the 1880s, probably just before the eruption of Fauntleroy styling (figure 1). While the Fauntleroy Craze was primarily a suit style, we also see dresses and kilt suits done with Fauntlroy styling. This helps to date them. Dresses as a result of the popularity of both the Fauntleroy suit and klilt suit were declining im pipularityy for boys. And the ones we so see tended to be plin with the exception of Fauntlroy itens, especially large white collars. We do not see many tunics in the 80s, but there were some. Pinafores were worn by girls, but we do not see boys weraring them.
The 1890s is the last decade we see large numbers of boys wearing skirted garments, espoecially the older pre-school boys. The convention did not disappear over night, but we defitely are seeing sewer noys wearing skirted garments by the end if the decacde. Kilt suits were still very popular. but we also see dresses. These were the main garments we notice. We are less sure about skirts, but this is prbably our major source of information is the photographic record. And this in the 1890s still meant formnal studio photopgraphy in the children were mostly dressed up. And a skirt was more of an informal garment. We also see tunics, but they seem more popular after the turn-of-the 20th century in the 1900s. This is a little complicated to tell because so much of the photographic record is undated, but this is our prelinimarty assessment. There seems to be a declining trend with fewer boys wearing skirted garments after mid-decade. But this is much more noticeable by the 1900s decade. We are not sure after centuries of younger boys wearing skirted gsrmnts thst this suddenly began to change in the 1890s. We think Little Lord Fauntleroiy suits were a factor, but the reason this major shift in boy' fashions occurred is still unclear to us or the rapidity in which it unfolded. Fashion historians tend to point to toilet training and the complicated garments boys wore, but this did not begin to change until well into the 1910s. So this is a still an unanswered question.
