We have so far collected almost no written information on American boys wearing smocks. Virtually the only information we have is from available images. We have not yet found paintings with boys wearing smocks. And unlike Euriope we do not see many farmers and workmen wearing smocks. We do see ity boys from fashionable families wearing tunics. And there is considerable similarity between smocks and tunics. Much larger numbers of images become available with the advent of photiography. We have some information on American boys wearing smocks in different eras. Photography provides a coverage of popular trends to a degree not possible with paintings that were done in smuch smaller numbers. Thus any fashion that was at all prevalent shows up in the photographic record. And we just do not see many examples in the photographic reciord, although it is possible that mother did not bring childremn to phtographic studios even if they did wear them at home. Smocks were a casual protective garment and thus would have been worn at home if worn at all. Tunics were very common, but not smocks. And some tunics seem similar to smocks. They were worn by American boys in the 19th century--although not as commonly as in Europe. The few examples we hav found were affluent familis. In the 20th century they have been worn even less. And with the advent of the family snapshot, they would show up if they were being worn to amy extent.

19th Century

We have so far collected almost no written information on American boys wearing smocks. Virtually the only information we have is from available images. We have not yet found paintings with boys wearing smocks. And unlike Euriope we do not see many farmers and workmen wearing smocks. We do see city boys from fashionable families wearing tunics. And there is considerable similarity between smocks and tunics. Much larger numbers of images become available with the advent of photiography. We have some information on American boys wearing smocks in different eras. Photography provides a coverage of popular trends to a degree not possible with painyings that were done in smuch smaller numbers. Thus any fashion that was at all prevalent shows up in the photographic record. And we just do not see many examples in the photographic reciord, although it is possible that mother did not bring childremn to phtographic studios even if they did wear them at home. Smocks were a casual protective garment and thus would have been worn at home if worn at all. Tunics were very common, but not smocks. And some tunics seem similar to smocks. They were worn by American boys in the 19th century--although not as commonly as in Europe. The few examples we have found were affluent familis.

Early-19th century

We have so far collected almost no written information on American boys wearing smocks. And we have not yet found examples to add to por achie fropm the eal;019th century. Virtually the only information we have is from available images. We have not yet found paintings with boys wearing smocks. And unlike Europe we do not see many farmers and workmen wearing smocks. We do see city boys from fashionable families wearing tunics. And there is considerable similarity between smocks and tunics.

Mid-19th Century

We have no information on American boys wearing smocks in the mid-19th century. Nor have we found many images shiowung boys wearing smocks. And by the 1860s withthe CDV, the number of available imafes are substantial. Our information on Euroe is also limited during this period. European farm workers commonly wore smocks during this period, but not American farm workers or factory workers. Information on the populatity of smocks for children is lacking at this time. This may be due to the lack of images of children in play clothes, which is how smocks were viewed. When a portrait was pained or taken in a photographic studio, a child would havev been dressed in his best suit and not worn a smock. We so note quite a large number of boys wearing tunics, in some way a related garment. In fact, we are not entirely sure in some cases if boys are wearing tunics or smocks. The example we have found are front-buttoning and are not very common.

Figure 3.--This image is difficult to assess. It could be a girl, but the toy gun, boots, and simplicity of the smock suggest that it is a boy. boys.

Late-19th Century (1870-1900)

Available images suggest that some American boys were dressed in smocks during the late 19th Century. A mother might dress her entire family, boys and girls in identical smocks. The back buttoning styles were generally chosen. I believe this was most common in wealthy families. Almost all the available images of families so outfitted appear to be wealthy or affluent children. I am not sure why this was. One would think that less affluent mothers might want to protect their son's clothes. And after all the smock was introduced by the French Republic to reduce the obvious differences in income shown by the clothing children wore to school. Perhaps smocks in America were perceived as a fashionable European style. Perhaps boys that were not carefully cared for at home did not want to wear smocks because they would be teased. Unlike European boys, smocks were not adopted as school wear and this there were not large numbers of smock-clad boys trudging to and from school. Styles of the smocks varied. In many cases they were probably made to order. I am not sure about the colors, but I think white was popular. The smocks for boys were the same as the ones worn by girls. Some had smocking. Most had long sleeves.

Figure 2.--Some younger American boys in the 1920s-30s wore smocks, but they were not very popular. Smocks were much more commonly worn by European boys.

20th Century

American boys in the 20th century seem to have worn smock even less than in the 19th century. We see quite a few girls wearing pimafores in the early-20th century, but not after that. Ans smocks were much less common. And with the advent of the family snapshot, they would show up if they were being worn to any extent. The extent of the photographic record and the ubiquity of the family snapshot means that prevalence is a very good indicator as to thec wxrent to which garmnts were actully worn. And we see very few examples of smocks in the 20th century photographic record. A few in the early part of the century, but not much after that. There seems to have been a social-class component here. The few example we see are boys from well-to-do families or at least substantial middle-class families. There is one exception to this. We do see some boys in school art classes or doing art at home wearing smocks. And we see some items in catalogs, but bery few examples of boys actully wearing smocks. they were not even very common for girls.

Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Introduction] [Activities] [Biographies] [Chronology] [Cloth and textiles] [Garments] [Countries] [Topics]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Glossaries] [Images] [Links] [Registration] [Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]

Created: 1:50 AM 4/15/2013
Last updated: 3:59 AM 5/25/2019