Thursday, January 14, 2016

Nothing to wear but clothes...

Nothing to wear but clothes
To keep one from going nude.
          --Benjamin Franklin King, The Pessimist

Nothing to wear, indeed!
          Just look at these 1902 Sears, Roebuck & Co. clothes for young boys: Wash suits of linen, sateen and chambray; striped and boxed waists (shirts) of linen lawn, percale, India and French linen…a veritable shopper’s delight of fashion!



Sailor suits were all the rage, and here’s a spiffy blue and white Pencil Striped Percale Wash Suit, made from an “extra heavy narrow blue and white striped percale,” with large sailor collar of blue sateen and a “white duck shield and monogram in the center.”
All this for 75 cents.






Or here’s another sailor suit, with a large collar “trimmed with a neat pattern of insertion” and a “cord effect pique shield.” The cuffs of the waist and pants (at the knees) have white pearl buttons and shaped sleeves. “A most handsome summer suit,” it reads.
          This one’s selling for $1.00.

Some of these suits were made from “crash,” a cheaper fabric made from undyed yarns. Linen was used for the warp yarn, while the jute was woven in for filler – these suits were coarser, rougher; they probably itched like fury!
Suits of this crash fabric were, however, much cheaper—an entire suit might sell for only 35 cents.




Older boys had more sophisticated choices—a military style cut that was a step up from the sailor motif. “One of the handsomest white waists you can possibly get no matter what price you pay,” reads the copy for this white linen lawn waist. It had a Bedford cord effect, and was “trimmed with heavy ball pearl buttons and double cuffs.”
          A steal at $1.00.





But here’s my favorite waist (and my favorite model): a Little Lord Fauntleroy number made from white lawn (linen) with “large sailor collar, neatly embroidered” and double cuffs.
          I can’t believe any self-respecting boy would ever parade around in this number…it’s flouncy and fluffy and totally inappropriate for a game of Fox and Chase, or Base Ball, or Halley Over, or Hoops…
          …but it’s only 50 cents.

I think I’d rather go naked.



24 comments:

  1. An entertaining post. I enjoyed reading about the American styles of sailor suits, a bit different from the styles in Britain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did they do British Navy suits for children? It's a funny thing -- that military influence -- and we're doing it again, what with lots of folks wearing "camo" clothes!

      Delete
  2. I'm surprised they made boys clothing from linen, sateen and pearl buttons. Must have been only for special occasions. My Irish aunts used to call their blouses "waists". Enjoyed this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the linen clothes were for the more "well-to-do," Helen. The cheaper line (the "crash" line) were sturdier. Old New England women called their blouses "waists," too -- I remember hearing it.

      Delete
  3. Those sailor suits were so popular - about time they made a return I think!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Other things we might like to see come back: the Shirley Temple bow (remember those?), Mary Janes and men in jackets and ties...

      Delete
  4. Just imagine having to wash and iron those styles of boys' clothes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know -- but I think that the people who bought those fancy ones had domestic help to do the ironing...

      Delete
  5. The mention of "wash suits" reminded me that when I was in school, the "chinos" the boys wore were called "wash pants." I Googled "wash pants" and couldn't find what I remembered until I came to the end of a long discussion and found this: "Just to keep this going on what is apparently a slow news day, I grew up in the 50's and 60's in Chicago and we referred to cotton trousers worn informally as "wash pants". That included what we would now identify as poplins, chinos (twills) and corduroys. If they didn't require dry cleaning, i.e., weren't made of wool, they were wash pants. Not likely any savvy early 21st century marketeer will grab on to that moniker and build a "Nice wash pants" campaign around it." This may be a regionalism--I also grew up in the Chicago area in the 50s and 60s. The whole discussion is interesting--mostly about trying to define "khakis" vs. "chinos." http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/forum/showthread.php?90362-Still-Don-t-Know-Difference-Between-Chinos-and-Khakis/page2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. I wonder if it was that simple: pants that didn't need to be dry cleaned were washable -- or "wash." Do you think that's it?

      Delete
    2. I didn't think corduroys were called wash pants, just pants like chinos and khakis.

      Delete
    3. Hmmmm...we called chinos "chinos," but maybe that's a New England thing...where did you grow up?

      Delete
  6. I had never heard the term "wash pants".

    My grandmother wrote that her boys always wore shorts so they didn't put holes in their play clothes.....I wonder about the boys knees!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahhh, those skinned knees! I had my share of them, too -- and back in the 50s, girls didn't wear chinos or khakis...I had jeans (or, as we called them, dungarees).

      Delete
  7. ...and not one Microfiber in sight; lawn and muslin; silk, cotton and linen...how wonderful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Titania -- harder and harder to find things of cotton, linen, silk, etc.

      Delete
  8. Laughing over the Lord Fauntleroy outfit. My daughter and I were shopping for some baby boy clothes recently. We had great fun pointing out the ones that would get some poor child beat up in the nursery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you ever read "Little Lord Fauntleroy?" OMG, what a complete and utter victim...we share a similar sense of humor, you and I...

      Delete
  9. Those were the days when children did and wore what they were told, but that style of clothing must only have been for a certain class, ie. Those who could afford them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, Jo. And they all had somebody else to do the washing...

      Delete
  10. The problem with outfits back in those days is that they had to be worn over such a long period of time - and then passed on down the family line. At least the kids of today don't have to put up with clothes that have been around far too long.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had lots of those hand-me-downs, Alan! And they never quite fit right...

      Delete
  11. A great take on the prompt - going for the fashions displayed on the two little boys. Of course I mistakenly thought the smallest child was a girl. I never read the text below the photo, only the names written on the photo & Lola, of course, is a girl's name. Oh well. Anyway, I enjoyed the trip through the Sears catalog of the early 1900s & the 'ridiculous' prices except, of course, they weren't at all ridiculous compared to the salaries of the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The smaller child LOOKS like a girl, Gail! So I don't blame you for thinking that...and, no, those prices weren't ridiculous when you figure that 500/year was good money!

      Delete