Figure 1.--Here we see two vrothers, apparently in 1934. We don't know where, unfortunately. The boys seem to be about 6 and 3 (or 4) years old. They are holding their toy cars and trucks. The boys seem to be quite dressed up for their photo, which seems to be a studio portrait. The older lad wears a dress white shirt and tie with pleated short pants with a somewhat unusual wide self-belt. It is probably a button-on outfit. He wears tan long stockings with supporters and high top shoes. His younger brother wears a button-on suit with very large white buttons.

Here we see two boys, presumbly brothers. Unfortunately we do not know their names or anything about the family. The boys seem to be about 6 and 3 (or 4) years old. The portrait was apparently taken in 1934. Our reader writes, "The source gave 1934, which might be correct. But notice the toy cars. It seems to me that the dating is something of a challenge. Don't these look more like 1920s models? And the long underwear underneath one boy's stockings seems a little more like the 1920s than the 1930s to me. Do you have any opinion about this? I bet you will spot some features of the clothing that might help us to correct or narrow the date. The source was just an Internet note that I don't entirely trust. But a nice image nonetheless. I'm thinking late 1920s is better than 1934." Difficult to day. I would say that the image could have been taken anytime from the mid-20s to early 30s, but not much latter. We don't know where the photograph was taken. The boys are holding their toy cars and trucks. The boys seem to be quite dressed up for their photo, which seems to be a studio portrait.

The Boys

Here we see two boys, presumbly brothers. Unfortunately we do not know their names or anything about the family. The boys seem to be about 6 and 3 (or 4) years old.

Chronology

The portrait was apparently taken in 1934. Our reader writes, "The source gave 1934, which might be correct. But notice the toy cars. It seems to me that the dating is something of a challenge. Don't these look more like 1920s models? And the long underwear underneath one boy's stockings seems a little more like the 1920s than the 1930s to me. Do you have any opinion about this? I bet you will spot some features of the clothing that might help us to correct or narrow the date. The source was just an Internet note that I don't entirely trust. But a nice image nonetheless. I'm thinking late 1920s is better than 1934." Difficult to day. I would say that the image could have been taken anytime from the mid-20s to early 30s, but not much latter. Our reader later w You may recall that I had some doubts about the dating of this image (although 1934 was given by the Internet source). My inclination was to say that the image was more likely older, and I hazarded the guess that it might be the mid or late 1920s. You agreed that the image might be a bit earlier but were not too unhappy with the date 1934, which is what we now have on the page. Since then I have discovered HBC's page on the Kane family (dated 1914) in which the twin boys in the foreground are wearing precisely the same style of button-on suit that one of the two boys in the 1934 image is wearing. The details of the clothing in the two photographs are astonishingly similar--almost as if the suits were bought from the same store or catalog and proabably within a year of so of each other. Notice that in both cases the boys wear dark, apparently velvet, short pants which button onto a light colored waist with large white buttons. The waist has a dark velvet collar that apparently matches the shorts as well as dark matching cuffs. The suits do have a few minor differences. The twins seem to have a white top with dark collar and cuffs and single buttons down the front, whereas the 1934 boy has a darker colored top with a double set of front buttons to give a double breasted look. The Kane twins also have string ties at their collars, a feature missing from the unidentified 1934 boy's suit. So the suits, although very similar, are not quite identical. Doesn't the similarity in styling indicate some problem with the dating of one or both of the images? I think that 1934 was an Internet guess rather than a firmly established date, although I can't of course be certain of that. But I assume that the date, 1914, for the Kane family photo is better documented. If that is the case, shouldn't the 1934 image be re-dated to at least a period closer to the Kane photo--1916-22 perhaps? One point that perhaps should be noticed is that the 1934 photo doesn't have ornamental buttons on the shorts--i.e., we are dealing here with "short trousers" rather than "knee pants," which would make the 1934 photo later--perhaps early 1920s. What do you think about this problem?" Well the younger brother's outfit is similar, but not identical to te Kane boys. Note the ornamental knee hem buttons on the shorts the Kane brothers wear. We can not tell about the image here, but we suspect that this boy's shorts do not have them. The more obvious indicators that suggest the 1930s concern the older brother's clothes. First beige long stockings were not commonly worn in the 1910s and were just becoming popular in the 1920s. They were, however, very common in the 1930s. An even more important clue is the older brother's short pants. Note that they are self belted. Boys in the 1910s wore kneepants and not shorts. Boys in the 1920s wore shorts, but these sekf-belted shorts did not appear until the late 1920s. They were, however, very popular in the 1930s.

Location

We don't know where the photograph was taken.

Props

The boys are holding their toy cars and trucks.

Clothing

The boys seem to be quite dressed up for their photo, which seems to be a studio portrait. The older lad wears a dress white shirt and tie with pleated short pants with a somewhat unusual wide self-belt. It is probably a button-on outfit. He wears tan long stockings with supporters and high top shoes. His younger brother wears a button-on suit with very large white buttons. Notice that the black (velvet?) collar seems to match the shorts, buttoned on to his waist with ornamental white buttons. The younger boy wears white long stockings and high top shoes. The older boy's stockings don't fit very smoothly. He may be wearing long underwear (perhaps a waist union suit) underneath.

Hair Cuts

Notice the hair cuts--the younger boy having short bangs and a sort of bowl hair cut.

Created: 11:04 PM 9/24/2006
Last updated: 11:04 PM 9/24/2006