|
Our information on pinafores in the United States is very limited. We have no personal accounts about American boys wearing pinafores yet. Available photographic images show that some boys did wear them in the late 19th century. I'm less sure about the early 19th century. We do not believe it was very common after the tirn of the 20th century. We believe that this would primarily be boys from wealthy northeastern families. Presumably this would have been a garment worn at home to prevent their clothes from getting soiled. Most children were dressed up for photographic portraits. As a result ythe proportion of boys photographed in pinafores is not a good indicator of the number that avtually wore pinafores. It is not entirely clear to us why a mother would have had her son photographed in a pinafore rather than his best clothes. We note boys wearing pinafores both before and after breeching, but believe it was more common before breeching. We are not sure if there were differences between the pinafores worn by boys and girls. We do not have enough impages of pinafores to know much about the colors or styles. Note the shoulder ruffles on the pinafore the boy here is wearing (figure 1).
Our information on pinafores in the United States is very limited. This is because HBC relies heavily on the photographic record. And in the 19th century when pinafiores were mostly worn, this primarily meant studio portraits. Mothers of course wanted for the children to look their best for a portrait and dressed them up in their best outfits. Thus we believe thst the the photographic record is not a good reflection of just how prevalent pinafores were. We think they were almost certainly much more common then suggested by the photographic record. This almost surely was the case for girls. But the lack of images also makes it impossible to assess how common they were for boys. We suspect thatvmany inbteeched boys wire pinafores over their dresses and skirts at home. We are also unable to make any assessments about demographic trends, such as disparities between urban and rural areas. We also have no personal accounts about American boys wearing pinafores to supplement the photographic record.
We do not have a complete chronology of pinafores. We know that they were commonly worn in the 19th century, primarily because clothing was very expensive and important to protect. In addition, laundrey was so laborious that mothers did all they could to see to it that children protected their clothing. This is adiificult sunject to research through the photographic record which is our prijmary source of information. Most children were dressed up for studio portaits and the pinfore was a utilitarian garment. How commonly boys wore pinafores, we are not sure. Most of the photographs we have found showing pinafores have girls wearing them. Available photographic images show that some boys did wear them in the late-19th century. An example is an unidentified Mississippi child, we think in the 1890s or perhaps the 1900s. Although the child is unidentified, we think he is a boy. We are less sure about the early-20th century. We believe that pinfores began to decline in usage after the turn-of-the 20th century. We do see them being worn, mostly by girls in the 1900s and 10s, but we no longer commomly see them after World war I (1914-18). This can be followed to some extent in the HBC school chronology pages.
Our archive of American children wearing pinafores is limited, thus our assessment concerning social class is only preliminary. We believe that American boys wearing pinafores would primarily be boys from wealthy northeastern families. We think that they were much more widely worn among girls across social class. Modest income families would have been especially interested in ensuring that the children protect their clothing. We say thisprimarily based on the number of girls wearing pinafores to school. around the tuun of the 20th century. Readers may want o look at the HBC individual school sections for the 1890s, 1900s and 1910s. These school portraits are some of the best indicators of the popularity of varous garments and fashions. We suspect that the style of the pinafore may at least in part been influenced by scoal class. At least in the 19th century, more affluent children would have been more likely to wear white pinafores.
The pinafore was a garment worn at home or to school to prevent their clothes from getting soiled. They were proibably more widely worn in rural than urban areas as farm girls wee more likely to soil their garments with chores they were assigned. Clothes were much more expensive in the 19th century in relative terms than the 20th century. Here we are talking about cost in terms of the percebntage of disposable income that had to be spent. Another reason pinafors were popular was the drugery and labor involved in doing laundry.
A reader writes, "Would it be possible to write up something on the differences between pinafores and smocks? They both seem to be fastened in the back and were worn to keep clothes clean. What are the differences?" Smocks and pinafores are similar and they have the same purpose, to protect clothing which in the 19th century was more expensive and laborious to launder than isd the case today. The primary difference is the bodice. A smock has a full bodice like a dress. A pinafore did not have arms and usually there were just straps at the back (like a bib-front apron), not a full back.
Most children were dressed up for photographic portraits. There were exceptions, but for thee most part, mother dressed up the children in their best clothes. As s a result, the proportion of boys or girls for that matter photographed in pinafores is surely not a good indicator of the number that may have actually wore pinafores. We see that in the school photography at the time. We see classes with many of the girls wearing pinafores, in some cases nearly all of the girls. Yet we have only a handfull of portraits with the girls wearing pinafores. The pinafores was a utilitarian garments. And mothers wanted show off a child's best clothing, not cover them up. It is not entirely clear to us why a mother would have had her child photographed in a pinafore rather than their best clothes. Which rather explains why there are so few studio portaits of the children wearing pinafores, even during the decades when pinafores were very common. We do not have snapshots, which are a much better reflection of what was being worn to any extent until the 20th centurty. A complicationn here is that some pinafores were made as dressy garments wiyj lace and ruffles. They were not worn for every day, but saved for everyday.
Most children wearing pinafores wore them over dresses. Most of the children were girls. Anmd girls of all ages wore them. We note some younger boys wearing pinafores, both before and after breeching, but we believe it was more common before breeching. Which would mean that they were still wearing dresses.
The pinafore was essentially a bib apron with a top back pannel, This is what destinguished a pinafore from a apron. we do not have enough information on pinafores to provide much information on the styling. We note a wide variety in styles, including both very plain pinafores as well as pinafores done wuth flounces and lace. Most of the styling was in the bodice top. This was generally done with a front and back pannel, but without sleeves. Some pinafores might have puff sleeves. at the shoulders. We also notice pinafores with no shoulders and only straps of various sorts connecting the front and back pannels. These type seems less common that the pinafores with shoulders. There often was a waistband tying as a bow in the back. The skirt portion matched the top, but with fewer decorartive touches. The length usually matched that of the dress it was worn over. It probably was not made for the dress, but the pinafores followed the current hem-line fashion just as dresses did.
The pinafore is generally seen as a girls' garment. This seems especially in America. And while some younger boys might wear them, American girls of all ages very commonly wore them. Perhaps American girls did not wear them as commonly as in Europe, but quite a number of girls did wear them. We don not see them very commonly in studio portraits. We do see some. The Smith girls about 1895 are good examples. But such portraits are not very common. We think that most mothers wanted their daughters dressed more formally for studio portraits. Probably a better indicator as to how common pinafores were for American girls is school photography. We are not sure if there were differences between the pinafores worn by boys and girls. We do not have enough impages of pinafores to know much about the colors or styles. Note the shoulder ruffles on the pinafore the boy here is wearing (figure 1).
About the image here, a reader asks, "Are you absolutely sure that this is a boy? From time to time there were also girls with short hair as we noticed. And a boy with a necklace seems strange?" Well the only way to be absolutely sure is for the portrait to be identified and this image is not. It is true that some girls did have short hair, but a girl with hair this short would be very unusual, especially in a family in comfortable circumstances. I have seen quite a few images of boys (before breeching) wearing
neclaces. A good example is Percy, a British boy in the 1880s. Also note that the boy here is wearing a locket more than a necklace. We believe that lockets were very common for younger children, both boys and girls. We are reasonably certain the child here is a boy. Another reader writes, "I think fewer girls had short hair than is indicated by the photographic record. Often what looks like short hair is hair that is pinned up in the back."
Navigate Related HBC pages:
[Breeching]
[Dresses]
[Jewlery]
[Pinafores]
Navigate the Historic Boys' Clothing Web Site:
[Return to the Main national pinafore page]
[Return to the Main U/S. skirted garment page]
[Return to the Main U.S. girls' skirted grment page]
[Return to the Main pinafore page]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossary]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]
