⇧ Another great post @Charles Dana. Thank you.PART VIII—KHAKI GOES TO WORK, 1910–1919
Khaki was mainly the stuff of military uniforms in the 1800s. In 1899, however, khaki “Rough Rider” suits for boys and khaki bicycle pants for boys and men hit the civilian market.
By 1900, the civilian facet of khaki clothes had gotten larger, inasmuch as in that year khaki suits for men and khaki skirts for women were being advertised as warm-weather clothing. New York City’s Brill Brothers placed an ad in 1900 stating that the “throat of war” had given the go-ahead for men to wear khaki suits in the warm months. (The “war” referred to either the recently-concluded Spanish-American War or to the ongoing Philippine-American War.)
As the first decade of the 20th Century progressed, khaki’s presence in the civilian world expanded further as khaki clothes for camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, and “motoring” were marketed to men and women.
By the start of the 1910s, this civilian line of primarily recreational khaki was growing an offshoot of its own: khaki as workwear. For the remainder of that decade, khaki for “outings” and khaki for hardscrabble work co-existed.
Thus, the evolution of khaki clothing, by the beginning of the 1920s, had taken this path:
MILITARY
CIVILIAN
Children’s play suits
Bicycle pants for boys and men
Warm-weather suits for men, skirts for women
“Outing” attire
Blue-collar/outdoor workwear
In this section I’ll describe a few newspaper ads from the 1910s in which khaki clothes are presented as (or implied to be) workwear rather than “outing” attire. The section after this one will contain some stories about khaki in the 1910s. And after that: on to the 1920s, finishing up with the 1930s.
******
The city of Bakersfield, California, is about 113 miles north of Los Angeles. It is in agricultural and oil country. The Bakersfield Morning Echo for January 3, 1913 carried an ad from I X L Clothing Company, in which khaki trousers were explicitly categorized as being for work. For the sake of context, I’ll list some of the other trousers that were on sale at I X L in the first days of 1913:
Dress Trousers
All $2.50 dress trousers, now $1.90
$3.00 worsted trousers, now $2.25
$3.60 dress trousers, all wool, now $2.75
$4.50 imported-fabrics trousers, $3.40
$5.00 “famous” all-wool trousers, now $3.95
$6.00 hand-tailored trousers, now $4.45
Work Trousers
“Best” $1.50 khaki trousers, now $1.15
Regular $2.00 whipcord trousers, now $1.45
Fine $2.50 corduroy trousers, now $1.65
******
Santa Ana is a suburban city about 30 miles southeast of Los Angeles. (Nowadays you could call it a suburb of Disneyland or Knott’s Berry Farm.) But not in 1914. The March 3, 1914 edition of the Santa Ana Register contained this announcement from a retailer:
“Men’s Outing and Work Pants and Coats Greatly Reduced”
The specifics:
KHAKI COATS
$1.75 Khaki Norfolk Coats, now $1.25
$1.50 Khaki Coats, $1.15
$1.50 Khaki Coats, 75¢
KHAKI PANTS
$1.50 Khaki Pants, now $1.05
$1.25 Khaki Pants, 95¢
$1.00 Khaki Pants, 80¢
CORDUROY AND WHIPCORD PANTS
$4.50 Men’s Corduroy Pants, now $3.25
$3.50 Men’s Corduroy Pants, $2.75
$2.50, Men’s Corduroy Pants, $1.75
$1.50 and $2.00 Whipcord Pants, $1.15
BIG VALUES MEN’S TROUSERS
$6.00 Men’s Trousers, now $4.10
$5.00 Men’s Trousers, $3.50
$4.00 Men’s Trousers, $2.75
$3.00 Men’s Trousers, $2.25
$1.00 and $1.25 Work Pants, 75¢
The above ad represents the evolving nature of khaki trousers in the 1910s. Is the retailer’s inventory of khaki pants for outings or for work? For both, possibly. The ad doesn’t say. Khakis, which in the previous decade had been heavily marketed to sportspersons, were now—in the 1910s—assuming a dual role as workwear and as outing wear. Hence the ambiguous flavor of the ad.
******
Santa Ana again, a year later. The Santa Ana Daily Evening Register for February 12, 1915 had an advertisement from The Santa Ana Clothing Store, which billed itself as “THE WORKINGMAN’S STORE.” It offered as follows:
$1.00 and $1.25 Khaki Pants, on sale for 79¢
These were work pants. After all, they were for the working man.
******
Corona, California is about 50 miles southeast of Los Angeles. It’s jammed with tract houses now; 100 years ago, it was agricultural. (Desi Arnaz and Lucille Ball owned a ranch there. The ranch is long gone, but I read that the Arnaz house still exists, although it was moved to a different location.) On September 15, 1916, in the Corona Independent, The National Clothing Store advertised a big sale that included the following:
DRESS TROUSERS
$1.50 Value, Special at 98¢
$2.50 Blue Serge Trousers, $1.45
$3.00 Blue Serge Trousers, $1.69
$3.50 Trousers, Sale Price $2.89
$4.00 Trousers, $2.45
$5.00 Trousers, $2.95
TROUSERS
$1.25 Khaki Pants, 93¢
$1.75 Extra Quality, $1.39
$2.00 Whipcord Pants, $1.59
Here again, the retailer did not categorize the khakis in any specific way. Considering the rural nature of Corona at the time and that the store also sold bib overalls, perhaps it wasn’t necessary to do so. In that town, men wore khakis for work. Probably.
******
In the Bakersfield Californian for November 29, 1918—a little more than two weeks after the armistice that ended World War I—the store I X L announced a “From War to Peace” sale. “The sun of peace is shining through the war-clouded skies. Mills and factories all over our land are readjusting their plans to a peace-time basis.”
“Whether you want a pair of trousers for dress or work; whether you want the finest wool, khaki, or cotton garments—they are here for you at prices you will gladly pay.”
The prices of the “Dress Trousers” are in one column and another column has the heading “Men’s Khaki and Cotton Trousers.” Nowhere in the ad does the word “outing” occur, or any other language suggesting a recreational use for khakis. The implication is that the khaki trousers are for work—although by 1918 consumers may have taken it for granted that the trousers were equally appropriate for work or sport. Contrast this ad with I X L’s advertisement from January 1913, in which the store explicitly categorized its khaki trousers as being for work (as opposed to leisure). Perhaps in those early years of the decade, when the function of khakiwear was gradually expanding, the retailer had to make that category clear.
*****
So there you have the Great Khaki Trousers Bifurcation of the 1910s. These comparatively inexpensive trousers were taking on increasing responsibility as workwear in addition to their original role (in the civilian world) as recreational action wear. This development was an evolution—albeit a relatively quick one—rather than an abrupt event. That might be why retailers sometimes—but not always— blurred the lines between the two classifications. It’s almost as if the advertisers were telling their customers: “Either/or. Vacation or work. We won’t say. Khakis are versatile. You know about them by now. And you know what your needs are.” It was, as I said in the previous section, a transformative decade for the khaki trouser.
To be clear: I don’t want to leave the impression that what I jokingly refer to as a “Bifurcation” started in 1910. We’re dealing with a process. There are advertisements from 1909 and 1908–-maybe earlier—in which clothiers don’t label their khaki trousers in any particular way—or in which they imply that the trousers are for work. But generally speaking, prior to 1910 or a bit earlier, khakis tended to be identified as vacation clothing, and work trousers were likely to be made of some kind of wool.
NEXT: Stories from the 1910s featuring khaki trousers
Thank you!@Charles Dana good stuff / well done as always.
Well...there’s a city in Southern California named “Chino”....Have you run into the term "chino" at all in your research?
The late 1940s in the civilian world.It will be interesting to see when "chino" begins to compete with "khaki" for the name.
Probably coincided with the return of soldiers from WWII, and the use of khaki in civilian dress. It may also have been because more khaki cloth was imported from China. Interestingly, the usage seems to be American. I have never heard khakis being called chinos in India, for instance.Thank you!
Well...there’s a city in Southern California named “Chino”....
But in relation to cotton trousers—the earliest reference I encountered was a clothing store’s advertisement in the late 1930s mentioning “khakis/chinos.”
The late 1940s in the civilian world.
In the mid-1950s I had just gotten out of shorts, and we moved from the east coast to the Bay area. I got my first pair of khakis at Roos Atkins at the Stanford Shopping Center. Nice memory.A BRIEF DIGRESSION TO TALK ABOUT THE WORD “CHINOS” IN REFERENCE TO CASUAL COTTON DRILL TROUSERS—
Drpeter stated that “chinos” used in this manner “[p]robably coincided with the return of soldiers from WWII....”
What a difference a war makes.
(Note: Due to copyright protections, I am not permitted to reproduce the advertisements I will be referring to in this post.)
I don’t know exactly when the word “chinos” got its start in the civilian world as the name of casual cotton twill trousers. It was certainly in the mainstream by the end of the 1940s.
We can get some clues—and do some reasonable extrapolations—by taking a look at Stanford University.
On October 20, 1933, the Stanford Daily ran an article about trousers. According to the piece, “the traditional cords and moleskins that have been so prevalent on the Quad for lo these many years” were now being replaced by “slacks, tweeds, flannels, and linens.” At one clothing store that served the Stanford community, the demand for slacks had “completely supplanted the cords and moleskins,” which were regarded as “depression pants.”
The article further noted that slacks with a checked pattern were popular, but “of course the solid-color flannels will be seen.”
There is not a word about khakis. (Or chinos.)
Flash forward to the Stanford Daily for October 14, 1949. It contained an advertisement for Roos Brothers, a successful clothing store chain at the time. The ad proclaims “JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY ON CAMPUS HAS A PAIR OF CHINOS....And the smarter bodies have several.” Roos Brothers was selling khaki-colored chinos for $4.45 and grey ones for $4.95.
Now let’s go back a little earlier. On September 9, 1949, a newspaper near San Francisco had an ad for Smiths clothing store. One of the products that was mentioned: Dickie’s “tan chinos,” which were “long-wearing...yet always neat and smart-looking. Tunnel belt loops, zipper fly.” Either $2.98 or $3.98, depending on the waist size.
And earlier still. A Roos Brothers advertisement in the Berkeley Daily Gazette—also near San Francisco—on June 15, 1949 announced that the store had “565 pairs of men’s slacks! If you can’t find them here—men just don’t wear them!...They’re cut full and roomy for lots of that easy-going freedom you like.”
Among the trouser inventory were “Chinos, khaki cotton...$4.95.”
(Also in the Roos store in June 1949 were corduroys; gabardine in rayon and wool; Donegal tweeds; tropical worsted; golf knickers; white cotton tennis trousers; and English “Daks” brand in flannel and worsted. Levi’s jeans, too, for $3.45. The Daks were the priciest trousers at $32.50 per pair.)
Even earlier: Back to Stanford and the ever-popular Roos Brothers. It’s March 30, 1949. In the Stanford Daily, Roos shouts (because apparently Roos likes to shout) that it has “TREMENDOUS—BUT REALLY TREMENDOUS—NEW SLACK SELECTIONS!”
Roos notes that “CHINOS ARE SWELL for school. They’re tough, washable and as comfortable as an old shoe. Zipper closure and deep, roomy pockets. $4.95.”
(I wonder if the Stanford debaters ever went back and forth about whether comparing trousers to old shoes is good salesmanship. Comparing new trousers to favorite old trousers works for me. I guess mentioning old shoes gets the point across, and getting the point across is the point of advertising.)
Other trousers that Roos was promoting to the Stanford scholars on March 30, 1949: Levi’s blue jeans (“Swell for school or just knocking around the house on Saturday”); white cotton twill slacks, pleated, for tennis; gabardines (they “wear like mad”); and wool cords.
And the earliest use of “chinos”—in reference to civilian trousers—that I found among California newspapers was an ad in a newspaper called the Bakersfield Californian for October 2, 1947. (October again. And I’m writing this in October. What is it about October and chinos?) Anyway, the ad is for Parker’s Men’s and Boys’ Shop. They are selling “slacks” (100% wool gabardines starting at $13.95). And in a separate category called “Work Pants,” they list “chinos, black whipcords, green herringbones and blue or green cotton gabardines. Broken sizes....All sizes, but not in all materials.” Regularly $2.95, on sale for $2.00.
Really good stuff as always.A BRIEF DIGRESSION TO TALK ABOUT THE WORD “CHINOS” IN REFERENCE TO CASUAL COTTON DRILL TROUSERS—
Drpeter stated that “chinos” used in this manner “[p]robably coincided with the return of soldiers from WWII....”
What a difference a war makes.
(Note: Due to copyright protections, I am not permitted to reproduce the advertisements I will be referring to in this post.)
I don’t know exactly when the word “chinos” got its start in the civilian world as the name of casual cotton twill trousers. It was certainly in the mainstream by the end of the 1940s.
We can get some clues—and do some reasonable extrapolations—by taking a look at Stanford University.
On October 20, 1933, the Stanford Daily ran an article about trousers. According to the piece, “the traditional cords and moleskins that have been so prevalent on the Quad for lo these many years” were now being replaced by “slacks, tweeds, flannels, and linens.” At one clothing store that served the Stanford community, the demand for slacks had “completely supplanted the cords and moleskins,” which were regarded as “depression pants.”
The article further noted that slacks with a checked pattern were popular, but “of course the solid-color flannels will be seen.”
There is not a word about khakis. (Or chinos.)
Flash forward to the Stanford Daily for October 14, 1949. It contained an advertisement for Roos Brothers, a successful clothing store chain at the time. The ad proclaims “JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY ON CAMPUS HAS A PAIR OF CHINOS....And the smarter bodies have several.” Roos Brothers was selling khaki-colored chinos for $4.45 and grey ones for $4.95.
Now let’s go back a little earlier. On September 9, 1949, a newspaper near San Francisco had an ad for Smiths clothing store. One of the products that was mentioned: Dickie’s “tan chinos,” which were “long-wearing...yet always neat and smart-looking. Tunnel belt loops, zipper fly.” Either $2.98 or $3.98, depending on the waist size.
And earlier still. A Roos Brothers advertisement in the Berkeley Daily Gazette—also near San Francisco—on June 15, 1949 announced that the store had “565 pairs of men’s slacks! If you can’t find them here—men just don’t wear them!...They’re cut full and roomy for lots of that easy-going freedom you like.”
Among the trouser inventory were “Chinos, khaki cotton...$4.95.”
(Also in the Roos store in June 1949 were corduroys; gabardine in rayon and wool; Donegal tweeds; tropical worsted; golf knickers; white cotton tennis trousers; and English “Daks” brand in flannel and worsted. Levi’s jeans, too, for $3.45. The Daks were the priciest trousers at $32.50 per pair.)
Even earlier: Back to Stanford and the ever-popular Roos Brothers. It’s March 30, 1949. In the Stanford Daily, Roos shouts (because apparently Roos likes to shout) that it has “TREMENDOUS—BUT REALLY TREMENDOUS—NEW SLACK SELECTIONS!”
Roos notes that “CHINOS ARE SWELL for school. They’re tough, washable and as comfortable as an old shoe. Zipper closure and deep, roomy pockets. $4.95.”
(I wonder if the Stanford debaters ever went back and forth about whether comparing trousers to old shoes is good salesmanship. Comparing new trousers to favorite old trousers works for me. I guess mentioning old shoes gets the point across, and getting the point across is the point of advertising.)
Other trousers that Roos was promoting to the Stanford scholars on March 30, 1949: Levi’s blue jeans (“Swell for school or just knocking around the house on Saturday”); white cotton twill slacks, pleated, for tennis; gabardines (they “wear like mad”); and wool cords.
And the earliest use of “chinos”—in reference to civilian trousers—that I found among California newspapers was an ad in a newspaper called the Bakersfield Californian for October 2, 1947. (October again. And I’m writing this in October. What is it about October and chinos?) Anyway, the ad is for Parker’s Men’s and Boys’ Shop. They are selling “slacks” (100% wool gabardines starting at $13.95). And in a separate category called “Work Pants,” they list “chinos, black whipcords, green herringbones and blue or green cotton gabardines. Broken sizes....All sizes, but not in all materials.” Regularly $2.95, on sale for $2.00.
[EDIT: Around 6 weeks ago I stumbled upon an old newspaper ad from the late 1930s in which a clothing store referred to their khakis as “chinos.” I didn’t make a note of the ad because it wasn’t what I was looking for at the time, and now I can’t find it. The ad, in any case, seems to have been an outlier.]
+1. I can't help but wonder what a vintage pair of those "Can't Bust-Em" chinos would cost today. Vintage pairs of Levis have sold for $2000+.Great stuff, as always, Charles. When you are done, perhaps these can all be collected together and archived as a group on this site for future reference. I'd love to see that.