Figure 7.--HBC did not notice at first, but this boy appears to be wearing a smock. We assumed that it was probably a French boy. The portrait was obtained, however, with a group of German photographs so we are not positive.
|
Figure 7.--HBC did not notice at first, but this boy appears to be wearing a smock. We assumed that it was probably a French boy. The portrait was obtained, however, with a group of German photographs so we are not positive. |
HBC assumed that this unidentified portrait was of a French boy in a smock. We are not positive, however, due to a variety of factors. Notes from readers lead us to believe that he may not be a Frnch boy--perhps he is a German boy. We would appreciate any insights readers may have.
We initially thought that this portrait was a boy wearing a blouse and white short pants. On closer examination, however, the garment is a smock. Presumably it is a back buttoning smock as there are no front buttons. The smock has slightly shortened sleeves. This is somewhat unusual as most smocks are made with long sleeves--in part because they are outer garments to protect clothing. The smock is white and the image does not show any apparent detailing with the exception of a large slightly ruffled collar. The boy wears the smock with a small white bow. One reader writes, "I'm not sure that the boy is wearing a smock. Unfortunately, the poor resolution of the photo makes it difficult to be certain but I would guess he is wearing a shirt and short trousers, or a one piece suit."
Smocks are designed to protect clothing. It is unclear just what this boy is wearing under his smock to protect. The only other garments that can be seen are his long black stockings and high-top shoes. This is, however, of some interest. It appears that this boy may have worn his smock as a main garment rather than to cover and protect other clothing.
The boy is clearly not wearing a shirt or blouse. HBC had thought that the smock was worn to protect a boy's clothes, but this boy is not wearing any shirt to protect. As the collar is closed, a shirt can not be seen there, but the shotened sleeves clearly indicate that he is not wearing a shirt.
It is unclear if he is wearing any trousers. The way the smock lays, he does not appear to be wearing pants. At least there are no bulky pants under the smock and there are no pants like garments visible at the hem.
The boy wears long over-the-knee long stockings. These dark long stockings were extensively worn from the late 19th to the early 20th century. Conventions varried, however, from country to country. A reader writes, "I'm sure you are right about the boy NOT wearing tights--not only because of the time period being wrong for tights but also because the stockings have a few wrinckles above the knees which would not be the case with
tights."
The mother's choice of shoes is interesting. Often boys wearing smocks at home wore light sandals or strap shoes. Playing at home did not require heavy shoes which also might be rough on floors and carpets, not to mention furniture. This boy, however, wears elegant butv heavy shoes that might be worn when going out to school, parks, shopping, ect.
Smocks were informal garments. Other than school smocks they were designed primarily to be worn at home in casual circumstances. As a result, formal portraits of boys in smocks are relatively rare. Note that this portrait appears to have been taken in the boy's home. I'm not sure why the mother chose such an informal garment for a formal portrait. Presumably this was what the boy normally wore from day to day. He looks old enough to begin attending school. It is not clear if he attended school and what he wore or if he was home schooled.
This portrait is undated. It looks to HBC, however, to have been taken in the 1900s. Home portrais in the 1890s were realively rare. Improvements in photography mean that increasing numbers of pictures, including professional portraits, were being taken outside the confines of a studio. The portrait looked like a home snap shot to us, but a reader rports, "I doubt whether this photo was taken at the boys home, much more likely to have been taken in a studio. "As the smock covers his other clothes, it is hard to date this image. The shoe style suggest this was probably the 1900s, but the long stockings were worn over a long period and are not really helpful in closely daring an image.
The boy looks to be about 7 or 8 years old.
HBC assumed that it was probably a French boy. The portrait was obtained, however, with a group of German photographs so we are not positive. HBC notes that long stockings were not as common in France as in Germany. Most early 20th century French photographs we have seen show French boys wearing socks, often three-quarter length socks. Long stockings were more common in Germany. The bird cage is an interestring prop. We tend to associate them more with France than Germany, but they were probably popular in many European countries. A French reader doubs that he is a French boy. He may well be a German boy.
HBC readers have found this image to be of some interest. They have provided some comments on this image. There are many unanswered questions about this image and HBC is interested in any insights readers may have.
"This is an interesting image. I can't offer any real assistance, apart from a few minor insights. The shoes/boots are very interesting, in that it is rare to find any so tight and pointed. The basketwork of the vase and birdcage are also interesting, and not, I think, particularly French. The smock may be of a French style, but I suspect this may be a central, or even eastern European boy. I can usually spot French people (modern ones, anyway) by their features, although I am unable to say how, other than it is a sixth sense possessed by some British people! Other Europeans tend to look more British, as this boy does." Paul [HBC comment: One can often make guesses about natiinality based on physical features. There are of course many exceptions as modern nations are composed of so many diverse people. French people are not a nationality that HBC has been able to identify from phyical features. We will be interested to hear what our French and German readers assess this image.]
A French reader tells us, "I am not positive, but I don't believe that this boy is French. There are several reasons for this. His smock don't seems to be a French style because of the white color, le vintage collar. Also the short sleeves are unusual in the early 20th century. The long stocking in black were rather rare for French boys. The bird cage were popular in both France and Germany.
An English reader rites, "As for nationality, you say that the photo came with a
group of German photos, so it is more than likely that this boy is German
too. While I have no noted German boys wearing smocks like this, most other aspects of the portrait are consistent with German images."
"The long stockings seem extremely long. Could they have been tights? Did they wear short pants in the early 1900s? I bring this up because the boy does not seem to be wearing any trousers. Could it be that some children did not trousers under smocks at home?" Rich [HBC comment: Interesting observation. We do not think that the boy is wearing tights. Tights did exist at the turn of the century, but they were worn by actors, circus acrobats, gymnists, and aththeletes. As far as we know, they were not worn by children. (Children did not begin wearing tights until the late 1950s with the increasing use of synthetic fibers.) As to how boys wore smocks, you may well be correct. HBC has always viewed smocks as a protective garment. This boy, however, appears to be wearing a smock as primary garment at home. There is no indication that he is wearing a shirt or trousers underneath. HBC does not know, however, how extensive this practice was or in just what countries it was most common.]
"What indications do we have that this is a boy?" Richard [HBC response: HBC has no information on this image other than the image itself. While it is often difficult to determin gender in old photographs of children, the child's face and hair certainly look like a boy to us. I'd also say the way the child has crossed his legs is a boyish posture. Girls as I understand it were susposped to cross their legs, but to do so demurely at the ankels.]
I think you're right. The pose is boyish. Two things do occure to me. First - The photo itself seems more natural, less forced than the photos of kids (especially the American photos) from that time period. It does seem to be taken at home. Not done in a straight dead-ahead manner, the kid seems at ease. There were in Europe middle class families with "bohemian" aspects - artistic. less formal. This could be the child of such a household. (Parentheticaly there were well-to-do artists whose homes were very informal indeed. There are photos of the children of Edwardian Bloomsbury playing in their yards and gardens even without a smock well into their teens. In H.G. Wells' FLOOR GAMES there are wonderful pictures of Wells and his sons, properly dressed playing with toy soldiers and wind-up trains on the nursery floor.) Second - It's amazing how completely conventions change. This is, we suppose, a boy of 7 or 8 who is wearing a dress and no pants and seems to have no qualms about this. Today a boy that age dressed that way would, even in the most understanding household, be seeing a counselor. Richard
A HBC reader comments, "Dennis: This image is very interesting indeed. I wish we could be more definite about the date, but it obviously must be in the first two decades
of the 20th century. The hightop shoes particularly would indicate this to me. I wonder if the image could be Belgian since the Belgian images we have from this period often show boys wearing long black stockings, in some cases with relatively short shorts that show the
stockings to be fairly long. [HBC note: HBC has not observed images of Belgian boys in the early 20th century wearing short-length short pants with black long stockings.] The Belgian First Communion photos show stockings longer than simply an inch or so above the knee (but these images, I believe, are mostly from the 1920s). Also the Belgian boys did
wear smocks, if I am not mistaken. The background details from a private home would seem to indicate a middle-class and reasonably well-off home that would have such amenities as flowers and bird-cages. The boy does not seem to be embarrased to be wearing what to modern eyes could be mistaken for a dress. I suspect that he was not unusually dressed for his time and circumstances, which leads me to be a bit skeptical about the "bohemian" assumption of one of your readers."
"What of course is curious is the apparent absence of either a shirt or trousers of any kind. To me the image reconfirms my earlier point (in my personal experiences page) that even early in the century, when knee pants were standard, boys sometimes wore very long black stockings reaching well above the knee. And this appears to have been true both in Europe and America. Notice for instance the younger boy in the
photograph of Pittsburgh brothers (1906), where the stockings come up quite high under the trousers (perhaps knickers worn unusually high or rather short knee pants). And notice also the German school boy with his zuckertute where the short pants are fairly short and the
black stockings rather long; also another German boy where again the stockings seem to be quite long (c. 1910). Since the stockings in our photograph are quite long, I suspect that the boy is wearing a bodice with garters (what in Germany was known as a Leibchen)." Charles
Navigate the Historic Boys' Clothing Web Site:
[Return to the Main difficult country image page]
[Return to the Main smock page]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossary]
[Satellite sites]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]