(Almost) Period Chart Dictating Girls' Skirt Length!

[felicite]

Librarians are wonderful. This is a fact! The substitute teacher for my research methods class (taught through the college library) was helping me figure out Poole's guide to periodical literature, which indexes 19th century magazine articles, provided one can make sense out of it, and knew I was searching children's clothing of the mid-19th Century.

Well, when she was substituting again yesterday, she put a tidbit she ran across while checking on periodicals for me on a powerpoint. It was an image from Harper's (she thought it was Harper's Bazaar, but wasn't sure) from 1868 with an image of a girl's drawers-clad leg and dainty little boot, and lines telling exactly what length a skirt should be for any given age!

It does post-date the period slightly, but the image wasn't proposing anything new, simply clarifying a social norm for its readers, so it seems quite useful to me. BUT - now I have to actually get back to the library and find the image, because I completely forgot to ask where exactly she found it.

Nevertheless, I thought this was very exciting and had to share it, even if I can't link the image just yet. I'll ask her on Tuesday - unless someone else has seen this picture and knows where to find it? I would check on America: History and Life or one of the other databases, but ALAS my school cannot afford the good history ones. Sigh. But I'm sure Pauline will remember where she found it.

-Amie

[Anna G.]

Amie, I think I found the chart you're refering to! It dictates girls' skirt lengths, and goes from 4-16 years.

Is this it?

[vmescher]

I found the same drawing in the Dec. 15, 1900 issue of Harper's Bazaar.  I checked to see if it had been published earlier by searching for the caption but nothing showed up in any earlier issue of Harper's Bazaar.   I then did a search in other periodicals and nothing else turned up.

This is part of the accompanying text.  The title of the article was "Childs' Simple Frock."  "Sewing Room Hints.  From time to time the question of the proper length of little girls' garments comes up to puzzle the mother's mind and mar her complete satisifaction until it is properly decided by some other authority than her own.  . . . .   To obviate the possibility of confusion on this point a diagram is published herewith, showing the lengths of gowns for girls from two to sixteen years.  These are the prevailing lengths in which fashionable frocks are made, yet there are individual figures that will require to have the length slightly altered, either shortened or added to.  This point should be weighed carefully in the case of little girls that are pronouncedly plump or unusually thin."

[Nona Nelson]

I've think I"ve seen that before, hmm...

Is the one Anna posted the same one Amie?

[Anna G.]

I searched for "Harper's 1868" on Google, and this image showed up!

Either way, I think the designated skirt lengths would be close enough to the 1850s, which really helps since Nona an I may be doing a presentation on Young ladies Clothing, and this image is perfect! Thanks for mentioning it and pointing me in the right direction! 

-Anna

[vmescher]

Was it this link?  http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:1868-skirt-lengths-girl-ages-Harpers-Bazar.gif  Wikipedia is famous for its documentation not being checked and anyone can post on wikipedia.  I know that they linked to the Harper's magazine site but they didn't give the 1868 issue either. 

If so, I found the same link but no date was given for the 1868 issue of Harper's Bazaar. 

I went back and did a search for just the 1868 issues of HB and nothing turned up.  The only one that I got a hit on was the 1900 issue.  It is possible that the database just didn't have that particular article in it but before using the diagram for the 1860s, it would be better to have the 1868 issue date.  There are just too many years between 1860 and 1900 to be certain that the lengths are anywhere near correct. 

Children's clothing is not my area of research so I may be entirely wrong.

[Anna G.]

No, it was actaully this link, which has 1868 in the URL:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/9/99/180px-1868-skirt-lengths-girl-ages-Harpers-Bazar.gif

[Elizabeth]

The chart does work fairly well for the 1850s, too, though there is a LOT of overlap in the ranges, actually.  A lot depends on where in the growth cycle we're looking: newly-made dresses for the working class can often be a tad "large" looking (anticipating future growth), while things that are just about ready to be passed down or made over can look a bit short/tight.

[Nona Nelson]

The girl in this dress in this CDV is a good example of a dress that is a little short and tight:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Two-Prim-CDVs-Homespun-Family-the-Girls-in-Calico_W0QQitemZ180106289257QQihZ008QQcategoryZ409QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Anna G.]

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind if I use this image for a handout! 

[Anna G.]

I found a description of the image from Wikipedia, which has the 1868 date. Granted, we aren't allowed to use Wikipedia on school reports, since anyone can edit it, but I did do a search on Google for "Harper's bazaar 1868" and this image did show up.

Article on Victorian Fashion that has the foot chart: (Scroll down 2/3 of the page, and the image should be there)
http://www.search.com/reference/Victorian_fashion

Caption under chart:
"The proper length for little girl's skirts at various ages", from Harper's Bazaar, showing an 1868 idea of how the hemline should descend towards the ankle as a girl got older

[felicite]

Yes, Anna G. posted the same chart I saw in class. I didn't think to check google!

So now the question is.... could the site where she found it have simply misdated it and my sub have found the same thing? That will definitely have to be checked on, because if it's 1900 that doesn't help us much. It would certainly be interesting if the 1900 incidence that Virginia mentioned is in fact reprinting an older picture, as that would imply some major stasis in the "societal norms" of skirt length.

Anyone see any strong time indicators on the boot?

On tuesday I will -definitely- be asking Pauline about this, and hopefully we can hunt up some more info. I think we actually HAVE the old Harpers on microfilm at school, so if I really get desperate I can dig through those. Hrm.

Aside from the aforementioned varieties in just-handed-down ranging to lordy-that-child-needs-a-new-dress, does the chart LOOK roughly accurate to Elizabeth and fellow experts? It rings right to me, but that's from a generalized impression of images, not from any kind of statistical analysis. (Can you SEE why the fact that I'm teaching a class on children's clothing at Costume College has me incredibly nervous? I'm going to say something stupid and Elizabeth will have me run out of town =( )

-Amie

[Anna G.]

The chart does look fairly accurate to me. Then again, I'm not an expert in child's clothing, but there was overlap in skirt lengths of the period, so this could just be a generalized chart to show the average skirt length, or one type of skirt length for that age.

-Anna

[Elizabeth]

Amie, I'm happy to help wherever I can with your class prep.  You'll do fine!

Even if the chart is dated 1868 at the earliest (and possibly hails from much later in the century), the average skirt drops are fairly consistent with mid-century, if you start by mushing the 4-8 lines together... toddler styles later in the century are shorter than they tend to be mid-century, so a 4 year old and 8 year old might have their dresses hitting at the same level on the leg.  And, a lot depends on when we catch the image in the growth cycle (as that image shared so amply illustrates!) so there's a lot of overlap and range even within the basic suggestions.

What it does show is that little girls and young ladies wear dresses shorter than adult lengths, and that's completely consistent with what I've found for mid-century clothing so far.

[Ginger Lane]

So now the question is.... could the site where she found it have simply misdated it and my sub have found the same thing? That will definitely have to be checked on, because if it's 1900 that doesn't help us much. It would certainly be interesting if the 1900 incidence that Virginia mentioned is in fact reprinting an older picture, as that would imply some major stasis in the "societal norms" of skirt length.

Anyone see any strong time indicators on the boot?

I've had this one saved to my computer for years with the 1868 date.  It might be a great case of Virus-Like Spreading of a mistaken date, but it's certainly not just your site or Wikipedia.  And as others have said, even if the diagram itself is not documentably accurate to before 1865, it's still a terrific visual guide and reference.

About the boot.  If I had the Women's Shoes in America book handy I'd pull it out... but I don't.   That said, it looks perfectly consistent with the new-styled side-button boots that were just coming in at the end of the war years.  It could fit in with the 1900 date, but I'd want to check on it.  At one point late in the 19th century boots had extremely pointed toes, like half of the modern pumps now.  That diagram certainly has a very rounded toe.

[Amy Suha]

Thanks for the info!

Miss Amy