|
With the development of photography we have more images available from the 1840s. We note Daguerreotypes of boys wearing tunics. We find it difficucult, however, to differentite between 1840s and 50s images. Almost all Dags were taken in the 1840s and 50s. A few were made in the early 60s. The problem is that we can not at this time differentiate between the 1840s and 50s Dags. Early 1840s Dags are rare and relatively wasy to identify. Most have plain rectagular or oval frames. By the mid-40s we begin to see much larger numbers of Dags and more varied frames. The problem is differentiating the Dags taken in the mid- and late-40s with 1850s Dags. Hopefully we will eventually be able to better date Dags. We welcome any insights readers may be able to offer. A good example is Edward Edwards which we think was taken in the mid-1840s. As far as we can tell, the tunic was a popular boys styles in the 1840s and 50s. Because we can not precisely date the available Dags, we are not sure to what extent styles varied in the two decades. We see boys wearing tunics with and without belts. We also notice tunics with and without front buttons. We are not sure if the tunics without front buttons had back or side buttons. A good example of a tunic with front buttons is Thomas Smith. As far as we can tell tunic suits with matching pants were not common.
With the development of photography we have more images available from the 1840s. The format was the Daguerreotype. While not available in huge numbers, the number of images are far greater than before the development of photography. Thus the 1840s is the first decade for which we have any substabtial number of images. We find it difficult, however, to differentiate between 1840s and 50s images. Almost all Dags were taken in the 1840s and 50s. A few were made in the early 60s. The problem is that we can not at this time differentiate between the 1840s and 50s Dags with any certainty. Early 1840s Dags are rare and relatively wasy to identify. Most have plain rectagular or oval frames. By the mid-40s we begin to see much larger numbers of Dags and more varied frames. The problem is differentiating the Dags taken in the mid- and late-40s with 1850s Dags. Hopefully we will eventually be able to better date Dags. We welcome any insights readers may be able to offer. Wether we accrately date Dags, they do not just represent more images. While expensive they were far less expensive than pintd portraits. As a result, Dags as well as Ambris and tin-types in the 1850s represent a much more accurate look at popular fashions than the painted portraits thatwe have to rely on earlier in the century.
We note large numbers of Daguerreotypes of boys wearing tunics. A good example is Edward Edwards which we think was taken in the mid-1840s. As far as we can tell, the tunic was a popular boys styles in the 1840s and 50s. Because we can not precisely date the available Dags, we are not sure to what extent styles varied in the two decades. As we see fewer Ambros with boys wearing tunics, we think they were more common in the 40s than the 50s.
We are nor sure yet about the ages of boys wearing tunics in the 1840s. There is not yet any substantial school photography which means an imprtant source is not avaiable. So far most of the images we have found are pre-school boys. The boy here looks to be about 4-5vyears old (figure 1). We believe this suggests that tunics were most common for preschool boys, like the boy here (figure 1). We know that younger primary school boys, at least in the cities, wore them. This we can not yet confirm how common this was because we have so few 1840s images. The oldest boy we have found so far seems to be about 10 years old, but most are younger. Of course the public school system in America was still developing and the tradition of school photography not yet estblished. So far the only school age boy we have found is Edward Edwards. He was about 10-years old. We think social-class factors were involved here. School age boys from wealthy fmilies may have worn tunics, but for most families it was younger boys who wore them.
We also notice tunics with and without front buttons. Some tunics look more like long shirts, often done in plaid like patterns and front buttons. Other tunics are more like tunic suits we are more accustomed to seeing. They were done in single coloes, perhaps with some band or stripe detailing. Most seem, however, very plain. We are not sure if the tunics without front buttons had back or side buttons. A good example of a tunic with front buttons is Thomas Smith. The collars were commonly some kind of white addition such as a ruff or small Eton or other shaped collar. The one constant is that the collars were not part of the tunic and were small. The boy here looks to have a small Peter Pan collar, although it is difficult to tell because the boy's tunic is such a light color (figure 1).
We see boys wearing tunics with and without belts. Our preliminary assessment is that most were worn with belts, but as we have such a smlaa number of images from the decade, we cannot speak with any certainty. The belts were entirely decorative. There was no practical purpose to wearing them on the outside of the tunic. The belts tended to be wide in the 1840s. They were varied. Some were fabric belts done in the same material as the tunic. We also notuce black leather belts. The boy here is a good example, although we do not see a belt buckle (figure 1). Nor are there belt loops.
Most of the tunics we have found had long sleeves. A few were done wih half sleeves. They were all cut at lengths well below the waist but above the knee. There was some variation as to how far they came toward the knee, but most were cute well above the knees. The tunic here is relatively short, but not unusual (figure 1). It is falls below the waist, but well above the knees.
The Daguerreotypes appearing in the 1840s provide information on the accompamying garmentrs worn with tunics. There are akso paintings, nut with phoyohraphy we aved much larger numbers of images. For some reason we have little information on the extrmities. For what ever reason, headwear is really seen in Dags. Thus we do not know what kind of headwear was worn with tunics. Images showing the headwear are very rare. We do have one Dag showing a rounded-crown hat on he table beside the boy. The rounded-crown hat if not the standard boy's headwear, was the nost common headear through much of the 19th century. We notice an older boy wearing a military peaked cap withb his tunic suit. We bellieve this was more common earlier in the century. We notice the Massachusetts Wonsoin Twins (about 1847). They are waering blue berets. We do not know what kind of shirt or blouse garment boys wore under their tunics. In most portraits all we see is a small collar or ruff peaking out from he top of the tunic. Here because of the short sleeves we see that he seems to be wearing a plain white long-sleeve shirt. Notice their are no sleeve cuffs. The tunics were worn with long pants or foir younger boys pantaletts. As far as we can tell tunic suits with matching pants were not common in the 1840s. Most of the examples we have found show light-colored pants. We do not notice matching pants. Dags also commonly do not show the lower extremities--hosiery and footwear.
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 19th century cronology page]
[Return to the Main American tunic cronology 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]
