Figure 1.-- This cabinet card portrait shows four children, presumably siblings. They look to range from about 3-10 years of age. Three of the children wear dresses, the youngest looks to be a boy wearing a plaid dress. The boy has a ruffked collar, but his dress is different than that of the girls. Notice that he does not have puffed sleeves--trendy lady's dress styling at the time. The older girl wears a wide brimmed straw hat and large lace collar. The older boy wears a collar buttoning suit jacket with a modest floppy bow. The portrait is undated, but the pinked mount was used 1888-96. The studio was Jarvis in Pasadena, California. Here the gender of the children is fairly obvious. Unfortunately in many period photographs, the gender of the younger children is much more difficult to assess.

We continue to see younger boys wearing dresses in the 1890s, but not so quite so many and fewer of the somewhat older boys. The actual styles chosen, however, were largely up to the mothers fashion sence. Some mothers dressed even dressed all the children alike. White dresses seem popular. An example here is an unidentified family. The age of breeching varied from family to family. One factor here was social class. We see boys wearing plainer styles. A good example is Arthur N. Taylor, probably photographed in the late-1880s or early-1890s. This was an exremely common fashion throughout the 19th century, although the popularity of the convetion appears to have been declining in the late 1890s. The precise time-line still needs to be worked out. A major factor here is the development of the public school system. By the 1890s the public schools were very well established throughout the United States, includung the Southern states and new Western states. Boys being educated at home with a narrow range of family and friends might wear dresses, but once in public schools this would be unlikely and we do not notice boys wearing dresses in the many school images we have archived. Even at the end of the century, however, we still see boys wearing dresses. We see fewer of them and mostly very young boys. And the dresses were often increasingly plain or at least plainer than the dresses worn by their sisters. But we still see boys wearing dresses. Notice how the California boy's dress here does not have the puff sleeves (figure 1). A good example is 3-year old Richard Lancaster Witzleben in 1896. Note his very plain dress.

Prevalence

We continue to see younger boys wearing dresses in the 1890s, but not so quite so many and fewer of the somewhat older boys. The prevalence seems to have declined, especially after mid-decade. We are not entirely sure why. We think the popularity of Fauntleroy fashions was a factor. Mothers wanted to dress up their sons in Fauntleroy suits, which meant breeching him. This is just our informal assessment at this time. We are not sure just how to confirm it. But the prevalence of boys wearing dresses in the photographic record is notable. This was an exremely common fashion throughout the 19th century, although the popularity of the convetion appears to have been declining in the late 1890s. The precise time-line still needs to be worked out. Not only do we see fewer dresses, but many of the skirted outfits we see boys wearing are kilt suits and not dresses.

Identification

Our assessment of boys wearing dresses is complicated by the fact that the children in old photographas are often not named. Now we can often date the images to the correct decade, but identifying the gender of the children is much more difficult. This is because when we are discussing dresses, at least for boys, we are talking about younger children. And younger children do not exhibit the gender differences we begin to see with older children. Thus the number of images that can be used to develop this topic is limited which impairs our ability to assess the developing trends. To our modern mind just the fact a child is wearing a dress leaves a suggestion that he or she is a girl. So it is complicated using facial characteristics to assess gender. And what ever the conmclusion unless the child is identified on the back of the photograph, we can basically only dress.

Styles

We not only see fewe boy dresses at the end of century, but we also see pronounced styles, Most of the boy dresses we see are bery plain. The actual styles of dresses chosen, however, were largely up to the mothers fashion sence. Some mothers dressed even dressed all the children alike. We mostlty by the 1890s see boys wearing plainer styles. The portrait here is a good example (figure 1). Notice how the boy's dress top or bodice is cut like a suit jacket or shirt. While his sister's dress is cut very differently. Her dress is much more stylish stylishly done in 1890s fashion. Note the shouilder trear=tment. These baloon or puff shoulders were all the dashion for dressed in the 1890s. Some of the boy dresses look more like tunics or kilt suits than dresses. It is often difficult to destingush them. The findamental differences brwween bou and girkl dresses was that the boy dresses tended to be very plain. A good example is Arthur N. Taylor, probably photographed in the late-1880s or early-1890s.

Colors

Color is a difficult topic as the photographic record is black and white. We can spot white clothing and to some extent black, but color hues are a different matter. White dresses seem popular. An example here is an unidentified family.

Ages

The age of breeching varied from family to family. One factor here was social class. An associate factor here is the development of the public school system. By the 1890s the public schools were very well established throughout the United States, includung the Southern states and new Western states. Boys being educated at home with a narrow range of family and friends might wear dresses, but once in public schools this would be unlikely and we do not notice boys wearing dresses in the many school images we have archived. Even at the end of the century, however, we still see boys wearing dresses. We see fewer of them and mostly very young boys. And the dresses were often increasingly plain or at least plainer than the dresses worn by their sisters. But we still see boys wearing dresses. Notice how the California boy's dress here does not have the puff sleeves his sisters have (figure 1). A good example is 3-year old Richard Lancaster Witzleben in 1896. Note his very plain dress.

Matching Dresses

We do not find many examples of matching dresses, especially brother and sister examples. And by the late-90s we see fewer and younger boys wearing dresses. Age was another factor. There was a relatively narrow window when brothers and sisters could be outfitted in matching dresses. Boys were for the most part breeched before age 6 years when they began school, mot were brreched earlir by 5 years old, many by age 4 years. And their first year or so the xhildren were wearing infant clothing. Thus we have a very narrow window. And of course for matching dresses there had to be a sister somewhat close in age. While we have not found many examples, we have found a few examples. One example is Nathaniel and Bertha Gilpattricn in 1892. Gilpatrick would have been more common, but the incription on the card is definitely Gilpatricn. They were from Richmond, Maine and look to be about 3-4 years old.

Created: 11:06 PM 11/17/2017
Last updated: 8:14 PM 4/27/2023