|
The Best & Company page here offered rompers and overalls. The connotation here is children's play clothes. Some of the items here had clear gender indication, others were more ambiguous. There was in addition another page for girls' rompers. Several of the items here were rompers. They were done both for toddlers and tounger boys. Some were styled like tunuc suits, but without the tunic skirt. Best has rompers for boys up to 8 years of age. Notice that their or both pink and blue gingham rompers offered. We are not entirely sure about the gender color conventions for tthese colored rompers. Also children rompers seemed to be dressier than the boy’s rompers. Beach rompers seem to have had straight legs and were called children rompers. We assume that means if was for either gender. There is another page of rompers where they describe circular rompers for girls. that seems to be a balloon styled bottom).
The Best & Company appaers to have been an important New York City department store that went natioanl. The built a large store at 645 5th Avenue at East 51st Street, NE Corner (Wing on 52nd Street). It was located in Midtown Manhattan. The building was replaced by the Olympic Tower of Aristotle Onassis. I am not sure when the company was founded, but it must have been in the mid-19th century. We note the company handling Little Lord Fauntleroy suits, probably in the 1890s. We note a catalog with rompers from 1912. We note that the company was active in the 1950s and 60s. They varried an extensive line of fashionanle clothes. One fashion writer in 1957 noted that Kays Thompson, author of Eloise autographed at Best & Company in New York where various Eloise products were available. We know that Best & Company was a major U.S. depattment store chain, but have little information on the company at this time.
Romper suits originated in France and were in many ways the beginning of a revolution in children's clothes. Rompers were the first true play suit. They were initially designed for boys a nd continued to be worn primarily and the first garment (other than dresses and pantalettes) designed for both boys and girls. One of greatest change in children's clothing occuring after the turn of the century was the declining custom of dressing boys in skirts until the age of 4 to 6 years ended. While the custom did not disappear until the beginning of the 1920s, it became increasingly less common as the century progressed. One of the reason for this decline was the appearance of rompers for younger children. Other fashions appeared for little boys. One of those fashions were one-piece romper suits which were worn by both boys and girls. Older boys wore short pants. In America, School-age boys wore knickers.
Gender conventions for rompers varied from country to country. French rompers were for boys. American rompers were worn by boys and girls. We are not entirely sure about other countries. Some stores offered special boy and girl rompers as well as children's (boy and girl) rompers. We are not entirely sure what features mafe rompers suitable for boys or girls, but pages like this help to explain the gender conventions. This is often difficult to sort out using the photographic record becuse the gender of younger children in photographs is often not apparent.
The Best page here offered a variety of different garments. Many are rompers, but there are other items as well. The connotation here is children's play clothes. Some of the items here had clear gender indication, others were more ambiguous. There was in addition another page for girls' rompers. They were done both for toddlers and tounger boys. Some were styled like tunuc suits, but without the tunic skirt. Best has rompers for boys up to 8 years of age. Also children rompers seemed to be dressier than the boy’s rompers. Beach rompers seem to have had straight legs and were called children rompers. We assume that means if was for either gender. There is another page of rompers where they describe circular rompers for girls. that seems to be a balloon styled bottom). None of the rompers here were specifically for girls.
The Best ad copy read, "Children's Bloomer Rompers with high neckand long sleeves made of pretty shades of light blue or pink soisette or white piped with pink or blue ; sizes 1 to 6 yrs. ...... $1.00" “Soisette” was not a fabric we have noted very commonly. It was manufactured by Ponemah Mills and was a brand name for Silkaline, a soft, silk-like fabric. Notice that the options here were pink or blue. The ad copy does not indicate that this was a gender-based option. The fact that this was a "children's" romper and the only color choices were pink or blue, does rather suggest that gender conventions were developing in the 1910s.
The Best ad copy read, "Children's Bloomer Rompers, as style 2115, with high neck and long sleeves made of white long cloth and pioed with pink or blue; sizes 1 to 6 yrs. ,,,,. $1.00" The only difference here with the orevious romper suit was the material used. We are not sure what "long cloth" was. These rompers were only availabe in white, although there were pink and blue piping options.
The Best ad copy read, "Boys' Rompers made of high grade blue chambray or tan Holland with belt and narrow standing collar of Turkry red; sizes 2 to 8 yrs. ..... $0.75" It is not immediately clear why 2117 and 2118 or boy rompers and 2115 is children's rompers. While "bloomer" has been removed from the desveiption, the pants/leg type looks identical. The major difference seems to the be that the front is plainer. Note that the color options here do not include pink. Note that these rompers were made to size 8 for boys. We are not sure how popular this wa. We note mostly younger boys wearing them in the photographic record.
The Best ad copy read, "Boys' Rompers with square neck and short sleeves made of pink and white or blue and white striped gingham, also tan or dark blue chambray; sizes 2 to 8 yrs. ..... $0.75." It is not immediately clear why 2117 and 2118 or boy rompers and 2115 is children's rompers. While "bloomer" has been removed from the desveiption, the pants/leg type looks identical. The major difference seems to the be that the front is plainer. The square collar seems to be a boys' style. Note that pink was one of the options here. This suggests that the modern gender connotations were not yet fully formed. A reader writes, "If you look at 2118 it clearly states boy romper and it came in a pink option. My guess on why 2117 and 2118 are boy rompers vs. children (which I like HBC assume girl's can also wear) relates to the lack of pleats and other decorations. The exception may be the beach rompers do not appear to be very decorative except for the color around collar and cuffs. They also have what seems to be called kimono sleeves."
The Best ad copy read, " Children's Beach Style Rompers of blue and white or pink and white check gingham, trimmed with white at neck, sleeves, and belt; sizes 1 to 8 yrs. ..... $0.75." These beach rompers were done in larger sizes than most of the other rompers. We thought the square collar might be for boys, but here we see it in a children's collar. Note the straight-leg pants. That was apparently seen as more serviceable for beach wear than the bloomer rompers. Again as Best does with children's rompers, the choices were pink and blue.
The Best ad copy read, " Children's Beach Style Rompers of blue and white or pink and white striped gingam, also tan or blue chambray trimmed at neck, sleeve and belt; sizes 1 to 8 yrs. ..... $0.50."
The Best ad copy read, "Children's Bloomer Rompers made of pink and white or blue and white check gingham, also blue or tan chambray with high neck and long sleeves; sizes 1 to 8 yrs. ..... $0.50." This was the only one of the romper suits with a ckear girl figure in the illustration. Note the front. These separate yokes seem to be the principal characteristic differentiating the children's rompers from the boy rompers. This style was also done to age 8 years.
The Best ad copy read, "Boys' Overall Suits of blue denim; sizes 3 to 12 yrs. Per suit ..... $1.00. Separate coats or overalls; sizes 3 to 12 yrs. Each ..... $0.50." The illustration is a lottle confushing. It looks more like a army uniform costume. Although you can not tell from the illustration, the pants are bib-front overalls.
The Best ad copy read, "Boys' Overalls of tan khaki, very strong and srviceable; sizes 3 to 12 yrs. Each ..... $0.75."
Notice that most of the children are shown wearing these rompers with long stockings and this is for Spring-Summer wear. Only the younger children wear socks.
Notice that their or both pink and blue gingham rompers offered, mostly done in white checks or stripes. We are not entirely sure about the gender color conventions for tthese colored rompers. Most of the pink and blur garments were the children's rompers, suggesting that these were gender-based options. But we notice that pinlk was a color offered for one of the specifically boy rompers--2118. This suggests to us that in the 1910s that modern gender-based color conventions wee begonning to form, but not yet firmly established.
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing catalog/magazine pages:
[Return to the Main American mail order 1912 page]
[Main photo/publishing page]
[Store catalogs]
[Fashion magazines]
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Cloth and textiles]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Topics]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Sailor hats]
[Flat caps]
[Sailor suits]
[Buster Brown suits]
[Eton suits]
[Rompers]
[Tunics]
[Smocks]
[Knickers]
[Long stockings]
[Pinafores]
[Underwear]
