|
Most tunic suits in the 1900s and early 1910s were made in age ranges that included 6 year olds. This surprised us a little because this is the age American boys begin school. And we do not note them commonly being worn to school. We think boys in grades 1-2 may have worn them. But we do not notice them very commonly in school portraits during the early-20th century. Grade 1 means children 6 years old. A good example is Carl Kellison about 1910. He was 6 years old, but may not have begun school yet. We believe that tunics were less common for 6 year olds that had begun school because most boys stopped wearing them when they began school, at least for schoolwear. We have an exensive school section which can be very useful in the age section for school age children. Here readers can look at school portraits for the 1900s and 1910s to see that tunic suits were not common school garments, although they were worn by a few boys to school. Tunics were very popular for both decaedes. Another factor is that not all 6 year olds were in school. They only began school if they had their birthdays by September. Which means that boys who turned 6 after September began school the following year. Here we think there may have been social class differences which is why they do not show up at many public schools. Apparently many boys had tunic suits, but more for play or for dressing up rather than to wear to school.
We think there may have been social class differences which is may be one reason why they do not show up at many public chools. This can, however, be over stated because we see many images of boys in what look like rural areas with what looks like a rather poor housing in the background. This is not to say the poverty-stricken consitionds, but clearly not a widely affluent family. What we are less likely to see is children from urban workung-class families wearing tunic outfits, at leat that is our preliminary assessment. Apparently many boys had tunic suits, but more for play or for dressing up rather than to wear to school. Many of the images e have found seem to b e the boys dressed up in tunic outfits. Suggsting that the tunuic was a dress up garment.
We think this may reflect the fact that there are fewer images of the children at play. After the turn of the 20th century we have nany family snap shots, even so not all that many snapshots are candid images of the children at play. Maby are actually ohotographs of the children dressed up for a photograph, so the photographic record does not provide us a real true representation of just what circumstances in which the children wore tunics. For example photographs might be taken for outings or with the children all dressed up for church. School for whatever reason was a different matter.
We have only a few photographs for which the age was specified. We are forced to estimare the ages. This there are possible errors here, but we doubt we are off by more than a year or so. Here family portraits showing age grading are very useful. We note many different styles of tunics. Two popular styles were silor styles and Rusian blouses. We do not notice age conventions associated with the different ages. We notice that Sears offered several different tunic suits in 1912, but only to size 6. Clothing catalogs were a good indicator of age conventions and widely available by the late-19th century. Interestingly some sack suits for little boys were cut rather long looking somewhat similar to tunic suits.
Most tunic suits in the 1900s and early 1910s were made in age ranges that included 6 year olds. And we notice quite a number of boys wearing them in the photographic record. This surprised us a little because this is the age American boys begin school. A good example is Carl Kellison about 1910. He was 6 years old, but may not have begun school yet. We believe that tunics were less common for 6 year olds that had begun school because most boys stopped wearing them when they began school, at least for schoolwear. Another factor is that not all 6 year olds were in school. They only began school if they had their birthdays by September. Which means that boys who turned 6 after September began school the following year.
While we notice 6-year olds wearing tunic suits, we do not note them commonly being worn to school. We think boys in grades 1-2 may have worn them. But we do not notice them very commonly in school portraits during the early-20th century. Grade 1 means children 6 years old. We have an exensive school section which can be very useful in the age section for school age children. Here readers can look at school portraits for the 1900s and 1910s to see that tunic suits were not common school garments, although they were worn by a few boys to school. Tunics were very populr for both decaedes so you might expect them to sjow up in school portraits.
We think there may have been social class differences which is may be one reason why they do not show up at many public chools. This can, however, be over stated because we see many images of boys in what look like rural areas with what looks like a rather poor housing in the background. This is not to say the poverty-stricken consitionds, but clearly not a widely affluent family. What we are less likely to see is children from urban workung-class families wearing tunic outfits, at leat that is our preliminary assessment.
Apparently many boys had tunic suits, but more for play or for dressing up rather than to wear to school. Many of the images e have found seem to b e the boys dressed up in tunic outfits. Suggsting that tythe tunuic was a dress uo garment. We think this may refect the fact that there are fewer images of the children at play. Agter the turn of the 20th century we have nany family snap shots, even so not all that many snapshots are candid imahes of the children at play. Maby are actually ohotographs of the children dressed up for a photograph, so the photographic record does not provide us a real true representation of just what circumstances in which the children wore tunics. For example photographs might be taken for ourings or with the children all dressed up for church. School for whatever reason was a different matter.
We have only a few tunic photographs for which the boy's age was specified. If we have a specified age, we load those images in the age section. Bur that would leave us with very few images to work with. We are thus forced to estimate the ages. As aresult, there are possible errors here as to the ages, but we doubt we are off by more than a year or so. We welcome reader comments on our age estimates. Here family portraits showing age grading are very useful. Age grading helps to improve age estimates by estblishing praters around the posible ages. Generally speaking brothers are separated by at least a year and commonly 2 years.
We note many different styles of tunics. Two popular styles were silor styles and Rusian blouses.
Catalogs are especially useful because they usually provide age-bsed sizes ranges. We notice that Sears offered several different tunic suits in 1912, but only to size 6. Clothing catalogs were a good indicator of age conventions and widely available by the late-19th century
Interestingly some sack suits for little boys were cut rather long looking somewhat similar to tunic suits.
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing hair style pages:
[Return to the Main long hair page]
[Return to the Main curl hair page]
[Bangs]
[Ringlet curls]
[Hair bows]
[Caps]
[Collar bows]
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to the Main American tunic age page]
[Return to the Main American tunic page]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Topics]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]
