"The Blue 2012" - Oh Dear...

[Foureyes]

"The concept that the CH uniform and how it is worn, is somehow frozen in time (according to posters here frozen as worn in the 1940's 1950's and 1960's) falls apart on any inspection of historic photographs."
Actually, I do NOT agree with this. Having inspected many hundreds of photographs, engravings and paintings of Christ's Hospital boys, my conclusion is that the uniform has changed remarkably little. In fact, I doubt that there is any uniform anywhere that has changed to so little over 450-plus years. There have, of course, been minor changes - but they have been very minor. The discontinuation of the yellow ankle-length pettycoat, for example, although the yellow internal lining of the bodice of the bluecoat perpetuates it to a certain extent. Over the centuries there have been minor skirmishes with the pupils. For example, in the late XVIIIth century some boys with wealthy parents started to wear very expensive broadie buckles (one was even diamond-studded), but this was quickly stamped out. There have been - and are - minor efforts at personalisation or rank distinctions, but these have been - and are - very minor.
The one current distinction which does upset me are the buttons worn up the back of his sleeve by the drum-major. I consider this very unsightly - but that is a personal opinion.
David

[jhopgood]

" The one current distinction which does upset me are the buttons worn up the back of his sleeve by the drum-major. I consider this very unsightly - but that is a personal opinion.David

I believe it is the Band Captain.

[Foureyes]

" I believe it is the Band Captain."
Whatever! I still think it is unsightly.
David

[AKAP]

"The concept that the CH uniform and how it is worn, is somehow frozen in time (according to posters here frozen as worn in the 1940's 1950's and 1960's) falls apart on any inspection of historic photographs."
Actually, I do NOT agree with this. Having inspected many hundreds of photographs, engravings and paintings of Christ's Hospital boys, my conclusion is that the uniform has changed remarkably little. In fact, I doubt that there is any uniform anywhere that has changed to so little over 450-plus years. There have, of course, been minor changes - but they have been very minor. The discontinuation of the yellow ankle-length pettycoat, for example, although the yellow internal lining of the bodice of the bluecoat perpetuates it to a certain extent. Over the centuries there have been minor skirmishes with the pupils. For example, in the late XVIIIth century some boys with wealthy parents started to wear very expensive broadie buckles (one was even diamond-studded), but this was quickly stamped out. There have been - and are - minor efforts at personalisation or rank distinctions, but these have been - and are - very minor.
The one current distinction which does upset me are the buttons worn up the back of his sleeve by the drum-major. I consider this very unsightly - but that is a personal opinion.
David

Surely the wearing of the broadie buckle at the rear qualifies as a minor change and just a continuation of the changes that you acknowledge.

[John Knight]

Surely the wearing of the broadie buckle at the rear qualifies as a minor change and just a continuation of the changes that you acknowledge.

As far as I am concerned, changes to the uniform are made by the 'powers that be', not by the people who wear it.
I blame the school for letting these changes happen... i'm sure they (CH) didn't instruct the pupils to wear the buckle at the back.
So sad... IMHO

[Katharine]

BUCKLES AND BUTTONS
I know a little bit about this very complicated subject and studied it two years ago for my forthcoming book on Housie Dress Through the Ages - so what follows may be out-of-date in some respects.!! The authorities issue the girdles and the buckles but the pupils have evolved an unauthorised (and uncorrected) way of wearing them.
There are two girdles, as always.
The narrow girdle with built-in buckle is issued on arrival. It is worn with the buckle to the front for the entire first year. The band departing at the end of Beating the Retreat is the signal for the first years to switch their buckles to the rear.
The broadie girdle and buckle are issued by the school to all who reach the LE. The buckle is worn to the rear. Nobody seems to know how or when this started, but it appears to have originated about a decade or so ago, probably as a fad, but which was soon universally adopted.
Multiple broadie buckles may be worn if the wearer has had one handed down by a relative or governor. This appears to have no significance as to the wearer's status.
There are special buckles for the following:
1. House captain. Square frame in bright silvery metal (I believe this is bought from House funds).
2. Maths prizes.
3. Sports achievements.
4. There is also alleged to be a 'Sacristan's buckle' although nobody seems to have seen one.

Just to confuse Old Blues further, the way Grecians' buttons are worn has a special sigificance also:
A. Grecians buttons are awarded to school monitors in May for the forthcoming school year, and for academic achievement on an individual basis from September onwards.
B. School monitors wear all cuff buttons secured.
C. Academic Grecians leave the top button on each cuff undone.
D. Monitors who have also been awarded academic buttons wear one cuff with all buttons done up (as a monitor) with one button on the opposite cuff undone (as an academic).

Don't start me on shoulder plates, which seem to increase in number annually!

David

Thanks David, I have just been looking through my copy of The Blue - I've spotted some 2nd Formers with their buckles at the front, and now I KNOW!

I had more difficulty about the cuff buttons. I couldn't make anything out either way.

The girls seem to have more variations of dress than the boys. I also found it more difficult to spot which had their buttons.

The main thing I noticed when looking through is how things have changed, we did NOT have our own clothes, all the photos would have had us in some sort of school uniform.

[Spoonbill]

I did time at the Oh-Christ Hospital in the 1970s and it's fair to say that any kid who wore his broadie with the buckle facing forwards would've been seen as a freak of nature in my day. The buckle was worn either turned to the side of the wearer or (more often) at a point halfway between the side and the centre of the back. We had no thought of 'fashion' as such; it was simply the way in which broadies were worn. To have worn the buckle facing forwards would've been as bizarre as actually using the buckle as a feed-through belt buckle (as opposed to connecting it with its other end via a hole punched in the leather).

As I recall it, the only kids in the entire school who wore any sort of girdle facing buckle-forwards were squits who'd just come from the Wardrobe on their very first day and didn't know any better. I do however remember occasionally being told (as a Third Former) to Turn your buckle to the front! by supposedly-vexed members of the LE/LF who probably didn't really give a toss if truth be told. Certainly no masters or matrons seemed to care.

As for my CH shoe-polishing gear, I use it to this very day: the same polish-applying brush, the same buffing brush and the same drawstring bag to contain them. Both brushes still have my Junior House number scratched into them. 'Twas only the other day after all, and a brush is a brush.

[Goatherd]

Same in the late 60's. I remember doing up the buckle and immediately pulling it down to the left. As for shoes, I cleaned them religiously at school and haven't touched them since - apart from high-days and holidays obviously (well, not holidays now I come to think of it!).

[Avon]

Firstly, the buckle looks much better offset, more rakish, you might say...

Secondly, in the mid eighties at least, the things were appallingly made, both fragile and bad design. As they were given to coming loose unless you improvised a shoelace second line of defence, wearing them offset meant that If it came undone, you had a better chance of noticing the fact and retrieving your belt.

[Fjgrogan]

Oh dear - has it occurred to anyone else that a lot of people put a lot of effort into producing this smart new larger-than-previously production and we have managed to fill three pages just discussing the content of the front cover! At this rate the rest of the magazine should last us about ten years. Frankly I didn't find that this format 'grabbed' my interest as much as the older versions - too many long wordy articles which quickly lost my interest; difficult to navigate; and that smell (is it the ink, the paper, or what?). I used to sit and read it cover to cover abandoning all other pursuits in the meantime. This time I flicked quickly through and put it aside until an unspecified future date. Also, if it supposed to be a record of 2012, why are the reunions published apparently those which took place in 2011? I would like to know which of my contemporaries were at the 50 years on reunion (since I didn't get an invitation!) - at this rate it will be ancient history before I find out!

[Fjgrogan]

Whoops - my apologies - it seems that the Grumpy Old Woman Syndrome struck again for a moment! Seriously though, I do feel that the efforts of the editorial team should merit more serious critical consideration than we have so far offered, fascinating though the subject of broadie buckles no doubt is!

[John Knight]

Whoops - my apologies - it seems that the Grumpy Old Woman Syndrome struck again for a moment! Seriously though, I do feel that the efforts of the editorial team should merit more serious critical consideration than we have so far offered, fascinating though the subject of broadie buckles no doubt is!

Then I guess somebody needs to start another thread...

[John Knight]

Then I guess somebody needs to start another thread...

Sorry, grumpy old me... Having looked at the subject heading I used for this thread I should have been more specific about my dismay at the lack of uniform dress code and not headed it 'The Blue 2012'. Sorry.
John

[Goatherd]

"Also, if it supposed to be a record of 2012, why are the reunions published apparently those which took place in 2011? " I think (I might be wrong) that it's a record of the Academic Year 2011/2012, so reunions in the Autumn of 2011 would be reported on.

[Goatherd]

Re. The buckle. I wonder in 50 years' time if OB's will be bemoaning the fact that it's worn at the front rather than the back. Just a thought! Also, has anyone else noticed the difference in dress between the reunions over the last couple of years? In general, the 40 year are a scruffy bunch and the 50's are all in collar and tie. Hence, perhaps, the different views about shoes, uniform etc.