Figure 1.--This American boy wears self-belted short pants and tan long stockings. The colorized portrai is undated, but was probably taken in the late-1920s. There were instructions to the colorizing studio on the back.

A reader writes, "How can you tell the stockings are tan and not white? Is it because the short trousers are brown and most often they were sold with a tan blouse?" Quite frankly the issue did not occur to me here. I was focused more on the trousers rather than the color issue. And because this was sepia print that was colorized the stockings looked tan. Indeed they could have been white as the shirt could have been white. Don't forget, this is not a color photograph. The boy is wearing ahorts set. It would not have been sols as ahite shirt with red collar detailing. If it was a white shirt, the color detailing would have been brown. Or as you suuggest, it could have been atan shirt. Another factor is that by the 1920s white stockings for boys were not very common, expecially for casual outfits like this.

Omdividual

We have no information ion this unidentified boy. Wecdo not know where he was from in the United States. He looks to be 4 years old.

Chronology

The photograph is indated. We would guess it was taken in the 1920s, probably the late 20s. The early 30s is possible, but the 20s seems more likely. Shirts sets like this began to be sold in the 1920s and were common in the 30s and 40s. The shorts sets did not change all that much. But the high-top shoes seem more prevalent in the 20s than 30s.

Photograph

This looks to us like a sepia print of a snap shot that was sent off for coloration. It is not a color photograph, thus the colors are not definitive. We doubt, for example, that the boy wore a pink tie. There were instructions to the colorizing studio on the back. We are not sure, however, just what they were.

Clothing

This American boy wears self-belted short pants and tan long stockings. A reader writes, "How can you tell the stockings are tan and not white? Is it because the short trousers are brown and most often they were sold with a tan blouse?" Quite frankly the issue did not occur to me here. I was focused more on the trousers rather than the color issue. And because this was sepia print that was colorized the stockings looked tan. Indeed they could have been white as the shirt could have been white. Don't forget, this is not a color photograph. The boy is wearing ahorts set. It would not have been sols as ahite shirt with red collar detailing. If it was a white shirt, the color detailing would have been brown. Or as you suuggest, it could have been atan shirt. Another factor is that by the 1920s white stockings for boys were not very common, expecially for casual outfits like this. Another reader comments, "I agree completely that this boy is probably wearing light tan long stockings rather than white ones. In the late 1920s tan stockings were the standard color except for very formal outfits such as weddings and first communions. This boy seems to be wearing ordinary street or school clothes so I think tan stockings are very likely. His belt and blouse are not particularly formal looking, and the shoes seem to be brown rather than black. A couple of additional points. This photo is an excellent illustration of how long stockings had become by the late 1920s--necessary because of the shorter trousers then in fashion. This boy is obviously wearing supporters rather than round garters--either with a garter waist or, more likely, with an underwaist and pin-on supporters since he seems to be about seven years old (first or second grade). Notice, too, that he seems to be wearing long underwear under his stockings--still fairly common in colder climates. His long underwear could be a waist union suit, which would have garter tabs for the attachment of long stocking supporters."

Created: 4:51 PM 12/12/2007
Last updated: 4:51 PM 12/12/2007