Figure 1.--This photo postcard shows Grant Fehvenbach in his First Communion costume. All we know about the portrait is the boy's name and the fact he is American. The portrait is undated, but we would guess about 1910. |
|
We are not enirely sure at this time just how some outer clothes were worn by boys with comination suits. We think some boys wore pants that buttoned on to combination suits or waist suits. Often men wore suspenders. Some boys did also, but many did not. We also do not see school age boys in the early 20th century wearing suppot aids such as belts, button-on pants, or suspender pants. Thus we are trying to understand just how boys dressed. Hopefully we will gradually work this out.
Many adults and some boys wore suspenders. This boy here, Grant Fehvenbach, who is dressed up for his First Communion does not wear suspenders to hold up his knickers. He may wear a belt, but we are not sure. Note how his shirt blouses out. We are unsure if this is a shirt waist with out tails or if he has not tucked his shirt in well. We see a lot of boys with the shirt blouced out at the waistand thus we do not think this is just hapinstance. We are not sure how his knickers are being held up. Now we also wonder if his knickers are buttoned on yo to a combinbation or waist suit. This boy also wears long stockings. These stickings wouls have been attachjed to a combination or waist suit or seoparate stocking supporters.
there are a variety od support devices that could be worn. As we mention, he is clearly not wearing suspenders. He is probably not wearing a belt, but we cannot be sure. Either a combination suit or a waist suit could be involved here as well as stocking supporters. We think a waist suit is more kikely as he clearly is no wearing a long-leg combination suit. We note button-on clothes and suspender pants after World War I in the 1920s, but these styles were less common before the War.
HBC and readers have ptovided the following comments about the various garments seen here or the possible underwrar and support devices.
We think that this boy is weating a shirt waist that blouses at the waist, but does not have shirt tails. We are not sure, however, just how the blousing works. We think this because this was a formal portrait and mother would have looked over Grant very carefully to insure that he was well dressed. If his shirt was meant to be tucked in, mother almost surely would have insisted on it. Also we see a lot of American boys dressed like this, bith boys formally dressed and others more casually dressed. Se for example, Roscoe Jones, in a snap shot taken at about the same time. A reader writes, "No, I think this boy's shirt has a tail, but that the shirt is perhaps a bit too big and the tails aren't tucked in firmly enough, giving a rather loose,
blousy effect at the waist."
Belts were not nearly as common in the early 20th century as they are today. We beieve the boy here is probably not wearing a belt. Pne reader, however, thinks that he probanly is wearing a belt that is covered by his shirt. He writes, "Because the shirt blouses over the waist we can't tell if the boy is wearing a belt or not. My guess would be that there is a belt, since otherwise, the knickers would have to fit quite tightly around the waist to prevent slippage." HBC thinks that he might be wearing a waist suit that button on the knickers to prevent slippage.
HBC thought that this boy might be wearing a waist suit to support his knickers. A reader writes, "I doubt that the boy is wearing a waist suit although I guess it is possible. If the pants buttoned on to his underwear, the shirt would have to be tucked in around the buttons, which I think would be somewhat awkward. [HBC note: Here HBC though that the shirt blouses out precisely because it is not tucked in--thus making it possible for the waist suit to button on tgo the knicketrs.] In cases where boys buttoned their trousers to their underwear, the most convenient style would be something like a middy blouse that would come down over the pants and wouldn't need to be tucked in. Just my thoughts."
Another possibility is a combination suit or waist union suit, but HBC thinks this is less likely than a waist suit. A reader writes, "I knew boys who wore waist union suits during my youth in the 1940s. But they wore them only for the garter tabs and not for the waist buttons (as I remember). If the waist buttons weren't being used, then shirts could be tucked in normally. One of the interesting things about waist buttons on waist union suits is that the buttons got simplified over time. Instead of a row of buttons (during the 1930s), there were only two buttons at the sides in the same place as the garter tabs. I think what happened was that the waist buttons were less and less used on waist suits and that the main reason for wearing a waist suit was the support of garters. Two buttons only at each side wouldn't be very practical for supporting the knickers or short pants of older boys, who would for the most part be wearing either external belts or suspenders. Maybe the manufacturers felt they had to include at least two waist buttons even on the
later models in order to have their suits qualify as "waist suits". Note that in the case of the Sears 1941 short-leg waist suits, the waist buttons seem to have disappeared altogether, leaving only the garter tabs. This of course is just my own interpretation."
The boy here is wearing some garment to support his long stockings. The fit tell us that he is not wearing long-led underwear. We think he might be wearing stocking supporters. The boy here was of course dressed up by mother for the portrait and thus lumpy stockings revealing long underwear which were considered unsighlty were avoided. We see many other boys and girls dressed more ordinarily with a lumpy look revealing long-leg underwear under their long stockings. A good exampole in a poortrait taken about the same time is Roscoe Jones.
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to the Main combination suit]
[Return to the Main underwear page]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Satellite sites]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]