Figure 1.-- The Keith-O'Brien Company was a dry goods store in Salt Lake, Utah. We knoiw nothing about the store at this time other than it was active in the 1920s. The size of the ad suggests that it was a substntial store, but probably not a depoartmrnt store. The ad tells us the store was having a big sale that featured as many as "300 undergarments for women and children". One of the most prominent items (taking up about a quarter of the page) was an "Extra Special" offer of "Panty Waist Union Suits" for boys and girls and featuring a boy of perhaps 9 or 10 years of age playing athletically with weights and wearing the garment which normally sold for $1.35 but was now on sale for 65 cents. The tape and buttons can be clearly seen here.

A panty waist union suit was an alternative term for a waist union suit. There was no difference, just interchangeable terms. Today, the coloquial meaning of a sissy boy is the primary meaning of the term 'panty waist'. This was not the original meaning which was another term for underwaists. A waist union suit was different than an ordinary union suit in that it had features of an underwaist--a garment with support features like buttons to hold upn other garments like pants, skirts and long stockings. We note a newspaper advertisement in the Salt Lake Telegram (December 7, 1921). And occassional as in the advertisemeht here, they were called a panty waist union suit. This was part of a full-page ad for children's and women's underwear. The Keith-O'Brien Company, a dry goods store in Salt Lake, was having a big sale that featured as many as "300 undergarments for women and children". One of the most prominent items (taking up about a quarter of the page) was an "Extra Special" offer of "Panty Waist Union Suits" for boys and girls and featuring a boy of perhaps 9 or 10 years of age playing athletically with weights and wearing the garment which normally sold for $1.35 but was now on sale for 65 cents.

Newspaper Advertisin

The daily newspaper was a major adverising vehicle for local stores. Advertising was such an important sourec of income that newspapers were very inexpensive. This was true throughout the 20th century. The internet was only beginning to change the advertising industry at the end of the century. We note a newspaper advertisement in the Salt Lake Telegram (December 7, 1921). It was a full-page ad for children's and women's underwear.

Keith-O'Brien Company

The Keith-O'Brien Company was a dry goods store in Salt Lake, Utah. We knoiw nothing about the store at this time other than it was active in the 1920s. The size of the ad suggests that vit was a substntial store, but probably not a depoartmrnt store. The ad tells us the store was having a big sale that featured as many as "300 undergarments for women and children". One of the most prominent items (taking up about a quarter of the page) was an "Extra Special" offer of "Panty Waist Union Suits" for boys and girls and featuring a boy of perhaps 9 or 10 years of age playing athletically with weights and wearing the garment which normally sold for $1.35 but was now on sale for 65 cents.

Waist Union Suit

In the early-20th century the waist union suit was developed, but did not become popular until the late-1910. They remined remained popular until the 1940s. This garment (for both boys and girls up until about the age of 13) combined the basic one-piece union suit, the standard form of children's underwear, with the underwaist (with reinforcement straps, waist buttons, and garter tabs) so that a single garment could do duty for two. Wearing one layer rather than two made getting dressed easier, and mothers saved money by not having to buy both a union suit and an underwaist or garter waist. These suits were sometimes referred to as "combination suits." Waist union suits came in both summer and winter styles. The summer style was usually made of nainsook and was like a junior version of adult BVDs. It had short legs and was usually sleeveless so as to be cool. Usually the girl's summer style was a bit different from the boy's summer style, the latter having front buttons from the neck to the crotch. The winter style was knitted like ordinary union suits and could be had with short sleeves and knee-length legs or with long sleeves and ankle-length legs. All these garments, whether winter or summer, or whether for boys or girls, were equipped with waist buttons for outer clothing and tabs for hose supporters. Waist union suits normally had all the features of an underwaist plus the usual features of a summer or winter union suit. These went out of style in the mid-1940s when long stockings ceased to be widely worn and when garter tabs on underwear were no longer necessary.

Terminology

The phrase, 'panty waist union suits' is just an alternative name for ordinary waist union suits, which have the features of an underwaist (or panty waist) in addition to those of a regular adult union suit. A panty waist was a term used for underwaists. The term "panty waist" refers to an underwaist with support functions, i.e., reinforcement straps, waist buttons for trousers and skirts, and garter tabs for attaching hose supporters. This was the chief meaning. When waist union suits were invented, they were sometimes called "panty waist union suits" (because they included the features of a panty waist) but never just "panty waists" alone. A union suit is never a panty waist, but it may be a panty waist union suit. It was applied later to waist union suits as an adjective--"Panty Waist Union Suits"--i.e., union suits with the features of a panty waist built in. So we must distinguish between a panty waist (= underwaist or garter waist) and panty waist union suit (= union suit with garter waist, underwaist, or panty waist features). So the first sentence should read "A panty waist union suit was another term for waist union suit." A union suit is NOT a panty waist, although it may have the same support functions as a panty waist. We have seen the term 'panty waist union suit' used in newspaper advertisements during the 1920s, but the simpler "waist union suit" is much more common--and for obvious reasons. Today, the coloquial meany of a sissy boy is the primary meaning of the term. This was not the original meaning which was another term for waist union suit. A waist union suit was diffeent than an ordinary union suit in that it had features of a waist--a garment with support features like buttons to hold upn other garments like pants, skirts and long stockings. What isn't clear to HBC yet is just when 'panty waist' began to be a term of derision. It seems to me unlikely this was the case in 192 or the advertiser would not have used it. Possibly the process had begun which is why we have a he-man pose. Of course there could have been regional differences. A related question is when 'panties' became the aceppted term for girls underwear pants. Of course there could be differences between when boys began using the terms and when mothers/companies did, or for that matter girls. We know that boys came to detest the term "panty waist", which later became a term of abuse among boys and men for sissies--boys who still were required to wear the same kind of underwear as girls.

Sales Psychology

The sales psychology of this advertisement is quite interesting. The term 'panty waist union suits' was obviously used to appeal to mothers who commonly used the term for children's underwear regardless of the gender involved. Mothers shop for underwear, not schoolboys. But the illustration also emphasizes the athletic and rather masculine attitude of the boy wearing the waist union suit so as not to offend any youngster who might see it, although we are not entirely sure just when the term became a term of boyhood derision. . What is somewhat interesting is the contradictory response we can imagine a ten-year-old boy having in 1921 if he happened to see this advertisement in his family's evening newspaper. He would approve of the weight-lifting as something quite appropriate for a boy, but he would hate the term "panty waist" associated with the underwear his mother might buy for him because he would think it appropriate only for his sister.

Ad Copy

The ad coipy rea, "Extra Special Panty Waist Union Suits, Regularly Priced $1.35, Priced 65 cents. 12 dozen Children's Panty Waist Union Suits, made with tape buttons, from the very best warm winter weight fabrics. Regularly priced at $1.35 a suit. Special 65 cents." The phrase, tape buttons, means that the waist buttons are sewn onto the underwear with tape to make them more flexible and to prevent their being torn off by the tugging of outer clothes fastened to them.

Features

This model, as illustrated by the boy, has long sleeves and ankle-length legs (obviously a winter model) with the addition of knitted-in shoulder straps that pass over the boy's shoulders and end, both in front and in back, in waist buttons for the attachment of knickers or short trousers. Although not shown, the suit undoubtedly has a drop seat in the rear which attaches to a waist band by three buttons spaced across the small of the back. One of the three buttons appears in the line drawing at the edge of the suit on the left. The shoulder straps curve down around the hips below the waist buttons to end in garter tabs, probably metal pin tubes or perhaps tape loops, so that supporters for long stockings can be fastened on. The illustration doesn't show the garter tabs, but they are obviously present since there would be no other function for the curved extension of the shoulder straps to the hips. Anyway, we know that the suit includes garter tabs, although they aren't mentioned, because all panty waists and waist union suits had garter tabs--one of the main functions of a support garment. In the 1920s some boys still wore long stockings on top of long underwear, thus having a double layer of fabric on their legs. Many of the photos from the period show the long underwear bulging lumpily under the long stockings. For this reason, many waist union suits have short legs to avoid the double layering under stockings.

Gender

This suit is specified as for 'children', this meant for both boys and girls although only a boy is shon in the illustration.

Age

The age range is not specified in the ad, but we can be sure that the suits were sold for boys and girls from at least 4-12 years of age. And we have seen ads a few years later than this one for waist union suits or panty waists for children as old as 16 years old. Probably the older children were mainly girls, but in advertisements panty waists are almost always specified as being for "children" (including both genders) rather than specifically for girls. Even so, boys came to hink the panty waist as girl's underwear--or at least underwear for boys of about 8 years or younger. The boy in the illustration looks to me considerably older than 8 years which is what makes the ad significant.

Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to the Main U.S. 1921 catalog underwear page]
[Return to the Main U.S. 1921 catalog page]
[Introduction] [Activities] [Biographies] [Chronology] [Cloth and textiles] [Clothing styles] [Countries] [Topics]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Glossaries] [Images] [Registration] [Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]

Created: 5:39 AM 9/25/2011
Last updated: 5:32 PM 9/26/2011