Figure 1.--Here we have a young family, we think in the late-1870s or early-80s. The boy wears a dress with anee-length skirt. The studio was Wiggins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Younger girls and boys were wearing short skirts meaning knee-length, or more correcly usually just at or covering the knee. They were often worn with pantalettes and almpst always with long stockings. This varied somewhat chronologically. And by the girl's age. As far as we can tell, based on the 19th century images we have archived, the same length conventions prvailed for major different skirted garments: dresses, skirts, and kiltsukts. Highland kilts were different. They were not very common, but they were worn at knee length and with knee socks. Here they were simply following the well establish British convention. And the upper-class families choosing Highland kilts for their boys was well aware of the conventions involved. he other skirted garments were more prone to fashion trends. Intrestingly, the skirt length for boys often had nothing to do with fashion trends, although the shorter lengths seem nore attributable to fashion trends than the long ankle lengths. Tunics were alo somewht different, perhps, perhaps because they were strictly a boy's garment. And smocks were not very common. We seem for some reason, relatively few boys wearing skirted garments cut this short. At least that is our inital assessment. And this despite older boys, in some cases much older boys, were wearing knee pants. This apparently made sense to 19th century American mothers, but we can not understand the thinking here.

Created: 1:43 AM 8/12/2017
Last updated: 1:43 AM 8/12/2017