Figure 1.--.

The remarks by Jane Clifford on gaberdine school raincoats with hoods provide a valuable commentary on a once familiar aspect of British schoolgirl uniform-- and indeed of British girlswear in general. As such, they are a useful contribution to the history of British children's costume. But the claim (disputing what I originally wrote on the topic) that the version with a hood was 'extensively worn 'by both boys and girls' would be very difficult--or, as I believe, impossible--to substantiate. Some very tiny boys at infant school (aged 5-7) may have been dressed in this way. But it would have been extremely rare for junior schoolboys (aged 7-11) to have been clothed in such a manner, and no self-respecting senior schoolboy (aged 11 upwards) would have wished to be seen in such a garment. Of course, there may have been a few parents who, for whatever reason, made their sons wear them, just as there were a few who kept their sons in short trousers long after the age (varying over the years) at which boys generally went into long trousers. But such cases must be regarded as exceptions--even as aberrations--rather than as the rule."

Illustrations and References

Mail order catalogues of the 1950s and 1960s make it clear that the hooded version of the gaberdine raincoat was intended for girls. Hoods are mentioned only in connexion with girls' gaberdine raincoats and never in connexion with boys'. Likewise, the accompanying illustrations, whether drawings or photographs, show the hood only on the girls' raincoats, not on the boys'. For example, one page from a 1950s mail order catalogue shows a boy and two girls in gaberdine school raincoats of the Robert Hirst brand: the boy's has no hood, the girls' do - one girl is wearing the hood up, the other is wearing it down. (That, I suppose, is why there are two girls but only one boy in the illustration: it was helpful to prospective purchasers to show the hood of the version for girls in both positions; this was unnecessary - or, rather, impossible - with the version for boys since this did not have a hood.) The boys' and girls' versions have different reference letters, and the associated caption for the girls' version reads 'Regulation School Coat for Girls'. Lined detachable hood'; that for the boys' version makes no mention of a hood. Similarly, advertisements in newspapers or in children's comic papers (such as the once popular Eagle) do not show a hood on the boys' raincoats and do not mention it in connexion with them. Again, illustrations in children's books do not show boys in hooded versions of the gaberdine school raincoat, even in heavy rain. The Jennings books and Enid Blyton's Secret Seven series provide good examples, the latter being especially relevant since they depict both boys and girls, frequently in schoolwear, and only the girls have hoods on their gaberdine raincoats when these are worn. As regards texts, I have an extensive collection of references to British school uniform in school stories, other children's literature, adult novels, and biographies and autobiographies: there are not a few references to the gaberdine school raincoat but not once is there mention of boys wearing the hooded version.

Teasing

The author even undermines the case presented when asserting that 'my husband did wear a hood on his coat' for school but that he was teased and called a 'sissy' and 'might take it off just before he got into the school grounds'. Why, one wonders, if such garments were worn 'extensively' by boys as well as by girls? If the hooded gaberdine school raincoat was even halfway common for boys, the taunting would have been senseless. Only if the hooded version was perceived as an essentially female garment would the epithet 'sissy' have been appropriate.

Duffel Coats and Other Garments with Hoods

The author inadvertently underscores the point by mentioning 'duffle' (more correctly 'duffel') coat hoods. It is certainly true, as claimed, that these were entirely acceptable to boys; indeed, one may add, boys often preferred them to the gaberdine school raincoat. As the author quite properly concludes, 'it was not the hood itself that was objectionable'. One can cite other instances. Anoraks were commonly worn over Boy Scout uniform or for other outdoor activities, a favourite form being grey with a yellow lining, and these too had hoods. Cycling capes - of rubber, plastic, or oilskin - also sometimes had hoods. Boys had no objection at all to wearing any of these garments - with the hood pulled up if the weather demanded it, as not infrequently in Britain! No boy who wore such garments - hood up or down - was regarded as being 'sissy'. If, then, the hooded gaberdine school raincoat was seen as 'sissy' on a boy, this can only have been because the garment was perceived as a girl's coat in a way that other hooded garments were not.

Presumably, this difference of perception emanated from the adult world. Duffel coats, anoraks, and cycle capes were worn by both men and women, and the male versions were often associated with 'masculine' activities - the Royal Navy in the case of the duffel coat (an aspect familiar from films covering World War II) and outdoor activities such as camping, hiking, angling, sailing, or cycling in the case of the other clothes. In the middle decades of the twentieth century the belted gaberdine raincoat was worn by adults as well as by children. But it was only the women's version that came with a hood; the men's never did. The hood, that is to say, was quintessentially feminine when associated with the gaberdine raincoat.

The Detachable Hood

The point made by the author about boys wearing hooded gaberdine school raincoats if they were the younger brothers of sisters who had outgrown such garments is curious. As the author states - in some detail and entirely correctly - the hoods were detachable. (Mail order catalogues and other advertisements often confirm this.) Even if, therefore, a boy inherited his elder sister's coat there was no reason why he would have to wear it with the hood still attached, and thus be exposed to ridicule: the hood could simply be removed!

Moreover, the hood, as the author correctly observes, was attached to the coat by either two or (more commonly) three buttons sewn on beneath the collar. From personal observation of boys' versions from six different manufacturers - four of them from the heyday of the 'traditional' gaberdine school raincoat, two of them more recent versions - I can testify that not one is provided with such buttons. Clearly, no hood could be attached and it was not intended that one should be.

The Situation Today

The 'traditional' double-breasted and belted gaberdine school raincoat is not much seen in Britain these days although a few schools, mostly preparatory schools (in the British sense of private schools for younger children), still specify them. The same distinction obtains: the version with a hood is sold as a schoolgirl's garment; a schoolboy's version will not have a hood. This is clear in shops. Where 'traditional' gaberdine school raincoats are sold at all, those with a hood will be found in girlswear shops or in the girls department of large stores; those without a hood will be found in boyswear shops or in the boys department of stores. The point mentioned in the previous section about the provision or non-provision of buttons for attaching the hood applies equally to the versions sold today.

Conclusion

If the case for boys commonly ('extensively') wearing the hooded version of the gaberdine school raincoat is to be made out, it will need to be based on more than assertion and a single uncorroborated anecdote. The evidence is, so I believe, firmly against the contention, and my original statement that the hooded version was a girl's garment may be allowed to stand until unassailable evidence to the contrary is presented.

Terence Paul Smith