Uniform colors?

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

I believe the answer to the question of the turnbacks is obvious. The coatee is painted in a way that suggests that it is quite worn, and if this is the case, the lapels could be a velveteen type of material that is simply worn-down. Look it over carefully and you will see the discoloration and other wear-marks on the shoulders. Just my observation/opinion, but that is what I see.

Adieu...

Bo

[michaelsbagley]

While not a primary source, it is a great short book that has a good bibliography, "The Armies and Uniforms of Marlborough's Wars Vol 1" (and Vol 2) by CS Grant, published by Partisan Press (available from Caliver Books) has a ton of good descriptions of uniforms of this period. I just ordered these a month ago, and finally just received them today (it takes time for things to get here from the UK it seems). Volume 1 seems to be have all the info about the English (as well as the Dutch, Danish, German states, Prussians etc.) where as Volume two seems to focus more on the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. For some reason the French troops got lumped into Vol 1.

Going back a few posts to Cross's question about Marine mitre hats... It seems there were many versions of the mitre hat, and Fusiliers/Marines (which seem to be synonymous during the Queen Anne period) seem to have a variety based on the unit (and country)... That said, it isn't unreasonable to say that Fusiliers seemed to be found in the shorter mitre hats more than the taller grenadier type. All that said, the Fusilier/Marine type soldier was still a rarity during this period. I think I found it written that there were only 7 (or was it 9?) fusilier/marine regiments during the period, and they were all disbanded after the War of Spanish Succession and not formed again until the (late?) 1730s. I have yet to find any evidence of Fusilier/Marine units in the colonies during the GAoP, and I have been looking pretty hard. Of course those who favour the more "could have" style of backstory, it might be reasonable for a "former marine" to have kept his uniform after the war and worn it for years after... But whatever...

I don't feel comfortable scanning any of the mitre cap images and posting them as they are currently available books still in copywrite. But they are not expensive to buy them, and if you are really only interested in English, you only need volume 1 (which is about $20 + shipping, which will bring it to about $30ish)

[Bos'n Cross]

Thank you mr. bagley you have been most helpful! I feel that i indeed must try and get that book. Indeed you are correct about the marine units, i dont believe any of them actually made it to the colonies either, but what i did find was that(especially after the war) infantry would sometimes get posted on ships needing added protection or force....and especially after the war, groups of former soldiers would work for hire, sometimes onboard privateers.....the source on that being "british regulars in colonial america" which i believe is linked earlier in this thread. Sadly, i dont have the resources to pull of any soldier like impressions atm, so i have lots of time to figure out if it really is appropriate, or worth doing.

[Ivan Henry aka Moose]

Still researching and thinking but I am closing in on something interesting pre 1700 and colonial.

[Bos'n Cross]

please be sure to keep us informed!

[Korisios]

While not a primary source, it is a great short book that has a good bibliography, "The Armies and Uniforms of Marlborough's Wars Vol 1" (and Vol 2) by CS Grant, published by Partisan Press (available from Caliver Books) has a ton of good descriptions of uniforms of this period. I just ordered these a month ago, and finally just received them today (it takes time for things to get here from the UK it seems). Volume 1 seems to be have all the info about the English (as well as the Dutch, Danish, German states, Prussians etc.) where as Volume two seems to focus more on the Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. For some reason the French troops got lumped into Vol 1.

Yeah nice little book. I bought vol.2 for the Spanish that are in there, but now I am cona buy the other vol.1 also...

Thanks for the tip!

[Dutchman]

bump

looking through this, there are a lot of dead links and lost pictures. can anyone shed some new light onto this topic. one of our folks just asked about a uniform and i have no idea.

[michaelsbagley]

bump

looking through this, there are a lot of dead links and lost pictures. can anyone shed some new light onto this topic. one of our folks just asked about a uniform and i have no idea.

Year (or at least decade) and region? I have so much info on colonial soldiers of the era, that unless questions are somewhat specific, it would be too difficult to know where to start.

[Dutchman]

virginia 1700-1720ish??

[michaelsbagley]

virginia 1700-1720ish??

Uniformed soldiers disbanded in the 1690s for Virginia, so un-uniformed militia is the answer. Uniforms in Newfoundland, and other parts of modern maritime Canada, New England, New York, the Carolinas, and most Caribbean ports, but nothing in Virginia or Maryland that I have found for the first couple of decades of the 18th century.

Edit - My bad, found the document I based this statement on... And it was the early 1680s the Virginia Regiments were disbanded not the 1690s.

[Dutchman]

so would there have been british troops rather than the militia? what would the cut and color have been?

[Dutchman]

so would there have been british troops rather than the militia? what would the cut and color have been?

so would there have been british troops rather than the militia? what would the cut and color have been?

[michaelsbagley]

Speaking in generalizations now... Since Virginia was not a "front" there likely would not have been uniformed soldiers. It would have only been local militia. Since the armies were so wrapped up in Europe fighting the French and Spanish, any and all troops left on this side of the pond would have been stationed on "fronts" (New England and Canadian Maritime provinces to defend against the French of Quebec, and the Carolinas to defend against the Yamasees and the Spanish of Florida etc.)

So it is unlikely (I know better than to say definitely "no" on anything, as new evidence is always surfacing). The issue here is the desire to apply later 18th century conventions to the early 18th century (kind of like the Marines issue)... and things were just too different. Piracy was not enough of a threat to warrant the issuance of soldiers (which were in shortage of supply), so it was left to militias and navy/admirality. It sucks that it plays out this way, as red coats versus pirates is a very iconic image, but it is just starting to look like it is an iconic image fed by pop culture.

Edit - But if your friend is till intent on the soldier impression.... Copy my stuff. The Independent Companies were the most common over here, and it isn't that out of the question for a unit of soldiers to be sent to help out the neighbouring colony from either north or south.

[PoD]

theres a really interesting site about The British Military Presence in America, 1660-1720

http://historyreconsidered.net/Brittish_Military_Presence_in_America.html

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I am pretty sure that there is no proper tread for this

Let's face one thing. In Golden age there were no naval uniforms ( I think most of you know that) (I mean mostly Royal Navy here) But let's take a look to period Officers' look and colors. It seems that slop clothing colors like red and gray (or pre 1706 blue) were not dominat in officers' wardrobe. This tread focuses in naval officers look in general and also colors in this period.

Here is some pics

Admiral Russel who lived in this period

Three admirals here: Russel with Admiral John Benbow and Admiral Sir Ralph Delaval (blue and brown are colors there)

here is one blue admiral from 1710

cica 1735

early 1700s

from this period late 17th c or really early 1700s.

Here is 1703 print of admiral (at sea note that) (it is english admiral in Dutch illustration)

Hmm it appers that admirals are easiest to find.... I am digging up captains and post captains alike.....

Edited April 8, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Osprey books aren't always the most reliable sources, but a good starting point for your researches might be their series of 3 books entitled "Colonial American Troops 1610-1774". Volume 1 covers Virginia, New Netherlands, and New Sweden; Volume 2 covers Mass. New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey; Volume 3 covers North and South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Georgia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Hudson's Bay.

It may be that this tread is dead but now I can ask one thing that has troubled me. Why Osprey books are not so good?

a handful of us Brits are moving towards a portrayal of Woodes Rogers' private company of soldiers who arrived at Providence with him to fight the nasty pirates.

I've tracked down the records of their kit supplies, but haven't had a chance to go see them yet to see if they contain any information about coat and facing colours.

Oi Foxe, have you ever been able to go any further with this?

Yar, I found some bits at the PRO, but nothing that mentioned coat colours. However, peripheral research shows that the Bahamas company was a regular independent company, so red faced with blue is most likely. Current discussion on the UK effort can be found here: http://www.ukpirateb...php?topic=388.0

That is almost too cool to be real if they were red

Edited April 12, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

It may be that this tread is dead but now I can ask one thing that has troubled me. Why Osprey books are not so good?

It's not that they're all bad, but they are certainly variable in quality. A lot of the older ones are based on research that is way out of date and some of the early illustrations are ludicrous. The other problem is that a lot of them are very basic, so come with all the usual caveats about generalisation. Finally, some of them are just plain wrong in places. The first of their pirates books contains pictures of "pirates" with earrings, tattoos, there's probably even a parrot in there somewhere...

The recent book by Angus Konstam and David Rickman that you've criticised elsewhere is an Osprey book, should give you some idea.

That is almost too cool to be real if they were red

Why so?

Current research suggests that they were red.

[Mission]

However, peripheral research shows that the Bahamas company was a regular independent company, so red faced with blue is most likely. Current discussion on the UK effort can be found here: http://www.ukpirateb...php?topic=388.0

That is almost too cool to be real if they were red

I don't know if it's what SB1700 is referring, but I like that color combo. Michael made me an vented sleeve waistcoat in those colors. (Not exactly faced with blue, but all the stitching was done in blue.) You can get an idea of it below. Not to get too far OT, but that's a Chad aka. Commodore Swab hand-made French-style bone saw with a Patrick Hand Original™ planter's hat. (Please note that this pirate surgeon was assembled by professionals and you should not try this at home without proper safety equipment.)

BTW, I am all for raising up interesting old topics. No topic is dead unless it gets deleted.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

It may be that this tread is dead but now I can ask one thing that has troubled me. Why Osprey books are not so good?

It's not that they're all bad, but they are certainly variable in quality. A lot of the older ones are based on research that is way out of date and some of the early illustrations are ludicrous. The other problem is that a lot of them are very basic, so come with all the usual caveats about generalisation. Finally, some of them are just plain wrong in places. The first of their pirates books contains pictures of "pirates" with earrings, tattoos, there's probably even a parrot in there somewhere...

The recent book by Angus Konstam and David Rickman that you've criticised elsewhere is an Osprey book, should give you some idea.

That is almost too cool to be real if they were red

Why so?

Current research suggests that they were red.

About those books. The new pirate book has no earrings etc but there is some odd opinions and generalization and many writer's opinions are not so well reasoned. Book maker have made few things up like the look of mystical RN navy caps. It takes back all previous errors but in wrong way and there is even some basic errors like date errors. Book is indeed way better than other pirate books from Osprey. But It has also written very "nonbook" style and looks more like forum comments ( that is due of David’s long history in pirate forums). I don't like it while it is better than most pirate books it could de still many many times better. I don't like pictures and while pirate clothing or weapons is quite accurate ( I would say 80% accurate is my opinion) many stuff like ships don't look too good.

About soldiers red coats I thought that the red coat were not seen too often in colonies but it seems that there was real redcoats there at least occasionally. I have thought that there were only some local militiamen with casual clothing....

That is nice coat Mission

Edited April 13, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

Nope, (virtually) all the troops sent from England to the colonies, and many of those raised in the colonies, wore red coats.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Nope, (virtually) all the troops sent from England to the colonies, and many of those raised in the colonies, wore red coats.

Interesting And red was common color anyway (like slop clothing etc).

[IvanHenry]

The Osprey pirates book I have has several guys in a jacket style I have never seen. It looks like a modified 17th century short coat. Also, more than one guy is wearing a belt that looks like it is holding up their trousers / slops. Overall, I like Osprey books a lot and own several, but for some reason, The GAOP pirate book looks really off. I do like the Buccaneer book and the English Sea Dog.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

The Osprey pirates book I have has several guys in a jacket style I have never seen. It looks like a modified 17th century short coat. Also, more than one guy is wearing a belt that looks like it is holding up their trousers / slops. Overall, I like Osprey books a lot and own several, but for some reason, The GAOP pirate book looks really off. I do like the Buccaneer book and the English Sea Dog.

This new is better than old ones but it is still not too good http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/1849084971. First book where I see pirates with derbys on their heads ( period sailor's hats seems to still have little more brim while sailors prefered small hats those look odd. (like In here we can see little bigger brim hat note one man in tent)

http://jcb.lunaimagi...~2~2&mi=0&trs=1)

Their vision of Rn leather caps is really not justified. While it may be near the truth it has certainly been dreamed up and they are something like grenadier caps. It seems also that they are little too excited with fur hats.... there is also no Trump caps at all ( I know I have seen most pirate clothing pages in it)

Here is some pics I have found on the web I have read much of the book in different reviews. Note that there is also both stuff from 1690s and 1700s in same place mixed with odd "Gaop combination". for example I have not found references to checkered petticoat breeches after 1690s. I also wonder why jackets have no mariners cuffs??? Those back buttons in jackets looks also odd same with Maynard and those slop jackets have too many buttons not 15 but more like 24 buttons in them. I also feel that slop clothing is too popular among Rn sailors since ALL of them use them. There is also need for onion bottles. The book in indeed one of the best osprey books but it could be much better while I don't like it is actually one of the most accurately illustrated books of pirates.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

This new is better than old ones but it is still not too good http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/1849084971. First book where I see pirates with derbys on their heads ( period sailor's hats seems to still have little more brim while sailors prefered small hats those looks odd. (like In here we can see little bigger brim hat note one man in tent).

I haven't actually read the book, but there were some fairly extensive discussions on another forum with David Rickman, who wrote the part on pirates' clothing. One thing that struck me at the time was that DR had some very fixed ideas that he wasn't really prepared to alter, even in the face of contradictory evidence. For example, he was insisted that English sailors didn't wear tricorn hats before 1730: when the Luyken picture of an English Admiral wearing a point-back tricorn was posted he insisted it was a bicorn! Likewise, he was provided with more than one GAoP reference to thrum caps, but still doubted they were in use. Now, David is a very capable historian and quite able to make his own conclusions, but in this case I felt (and I believe others did too) that he was making conclusions before considering all the evidence and wasn't prepared to revise them when new evidence was presented. However, this is not a thread for criticising individual authors: anyone wishing to see for themselves can access the discussion here: http://piratebrethren.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1555 and some other places on the same forum.

The hats in the pictures you posted are fairly obviously based on the 'Peter the Great' hat in the Hermitage museum:

Their vision of Rn leather caps is really not justified. While it may be near the truth it has certainly been dreamed up and they are something like grenadier caps. It seems also that they are little too excited with fur hats.... there is also no Trump caps at all ( I know I have seen most pirate clothing pages in it)

It is true that there are no 100% certain depictions of the RN slop caps, but based on the written description and pictures of other hats from the period, I think it's a close enough reconstruction.

Here is some pics I have found on the web I have read much of the book in different reviews. Note that there is also both stuff from 1690s and 1700s in same place mixed with odd "Gaop combination". for example I have not found references to checkered petticoat breeches after 1690s. I also wonder why jackets have no mariners cuffs??? Those back buttons in jackets looks also odd same with Maynard and those slop jackets have too many buttons not 15 but more like 24 buttons in them.

Again, I think you're being a bit too demanding in how cut-and-dried you want the evidence to be. We know that petticoat breeches were made of checked fabric in the 1690s and that checked fabric was available in the 1715-30 period, so why would petticoat breeches not have been checked then? That's reasonable extrapolation.

It is quite true that the RN slop jackets have too many buttons. The figure lying on the floor in the Blackbeard illustration has 12 buttons down the front and 3 on each pocket. If the figure climbing out of the hatch is also supposed to be wearing a slop jacket then there's two on the back as well. 18 or 20, but certainly not the specified 15.

I also feel that slop clothing is too popular among Rn sailors since ALL of them use them.

Yep, we don't know how widespread use of the slop clothing was, but it certainly wasn't a uniform in the way it's depicted here.

There is also need for onion bottles.

Or case bottles, such as the figure in the top illustration is waving about.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

This new is better than old ones but it is still not too good http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/1849084971. First book where I see pirates with derbys on their heads ( period sailor's hats seems to still have little more brim while sailors prefered small hats those looks odd. (like In here we can see little bigger brim hat note one man in tent).

I haven't actually read the book, but there were some fairly extensive discussions on another forum with David Rickman, who wrote the part on pirates' clothing. One thing that struck me at the time was that DR had some very fixed ideas that he wasn't really prepared to alter, even in the face of contradictory evidence. For example, he was insisted that English sailors didn't wear tricorn hats before 1730: when the Luyken picture of an English Admiral wearing a point-back tricorn was posted he insisted it was a bicorn! Likewise, he was provided with more than one GAoP reference to thrum caps, but still doubted they were in use. Now, David is a very capable historian and quite able to make his own conclusions, but in this case I felt (and I believe others did too) that he was making conclusions before considering all the evidence and wasn't prepared to revise them when new evidence was presented. However, this is not a thread for criticising individual authors: anyone wishing to see for themselves can access the discussion here: http://piratebrethre...php?f=11&t=1555 and some other places on the same forum.

The hats in the pictures you posted are fairly obviously based on the 'Peter the Great' hat in the Hermitage museum:

Their vision of Rn leather caps is really not justified. While it may be near the truth it has certainly been dreamed up and they are something like grenadier caps. It seems also that they are little too excited with fur hats.... there is also no Trump caps at all ( I know I have seen most pirate clothing pages in it)

It is true that there are no 100% certain depictions of the RN slop caps, but based on the written description and pictures of other hats from the period, I think it's a close enough reconstruction.

Here is some pics I have found on the web I have read much of the book in different reviews. Note that there is also both stuff from 1690s and 1700s in same place mixed with odd "Gaop combination". for example I have not found references to checkered petticoat breeches after 1690s. I also wonder why jackets have no mariners cuffs??? Those back buttons in jackets looks also odd same with Maynard and those slop jackets have too many buttons not 15 but more like 24 buttons in them.

Again, I think you're being a bit too demanding in how cut-and-dried you want the evidence to be. We know that petticoat breeches were made of checked fabric in the 1690s and that checked fabric was available in the 1715-30 period, so why would petticoat breeches not have been checked then? That's reasonable extrapolation.

It is quite true that the RN slop jackets have too many buttons. The figure lying on the floor in the Blackbeard illustration has 12 buttons down the front and 3 on each pocket. If the figure climbing out of the hatch is also supposed to be wearing a slop jacket then there's two on the back as well. 18 or 20, but certainly not the specified 15.

I also feel that slop clothing is too popular among Rn sailors since ALL of them use them.

Yep, we don't know how widespread use of the slop clothing was, but it certainly wasn't a uniform in the way it's depicted here.

There is also need for onion bottles.

Or case bottles, such as the figure in the top illustration is waving about.

NO OFFENCE TO DAVID

I disagree with him and by large extent agree with you (only since you seem to be rigth in this case). It is odd that David don't "believe" trumps to be Gaop proper while they appear in period evidence like GHoP He thinks that those caps disappeared in 1690s since he think that there is no evidence in later gaop and he is wrong but in same time he uses 1690s petticoat breeches in later period ... have nothing against that person and he is quite right about many things.

but he is also wrong about many things. As for tricorns I have found more pictures of tricorns or

almost tricorns in sailor's, common men's (like that one pic which have its own

tread) and naval officers’ use. While he is right about that they were not so popular as often implied. About that other hat: Was it David who incorrectly believed that it is a boater?

In that book I can also see David’s personal preferences and it seems that " Howard Pyle" is mentioned more often that "pirate" there. And it is really funny that almost in same bage he put the quote of Bonny’s and Read's look and then he say that there in no evidence at all of kerchief.

This is going off topic but for tricorns see men in this 1694 pic of well-known French ship

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/The_r%C3%A9ale_returning_to_port.jpg

or in this 1698 pic of even slave has tricorn http://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/JCB~1~1~4880~7670004:-Treatment-of-slaves-on-Martinique-?sort=Normalized_date%2CCreators%2CPublisher%2CTitle&qvq=w4s:/when/1651-1700;q:martinique;sort:Normalized_date%2CCreators%2CPublisher%2CTitle;lc:JCB~1~1,JCBBOOKS~1~1,JCBMAPS~1~1,JCBMAPS~2~2&mi=2&trs=5

Here is one more tricorn candidate ( man in doat in middle) http://www.sailingwa...Rocky-Coast.jpg

( yes Foxe this is 5 time when I do this ) (don't hang me please ) and see my "some interesting pictures tread" there is some naval officers etc.

In one tread David said that ( about Ghop illustrations) " and the pictures from the Dutch edition have no resemblance to the British. " He also uses it as argument against tricorns but lets us see what is the "big difference"

http://jcb.lunaimagi...~2&mi=34&trs=78

compare that with a English one http://piratical2.pb...46/Bartafri.jpg and there is not much difference ( and both the Dutch one and the English one have tricorns )

BB is also quite similar case with his fur hat

http://jcb.lunaimagi...2~2&mi=2&trs=78

and Dutch http://jcb.lunaimagi...~2&mi=33&trs=78

So the claim " the pictures from the Dutch edition have no resemblance to the British" is not true at all.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700