Fox

Henry Teonge's diary mentions a few games and sports but most of them took place when the seamen went ashore: games such as cricket, hand-ball and hunting. Aboard ship he mentions "handy dandy", putting something in onehand and having people guess which hand it's in. He also mentions rowing races against the boat-crews of other ships. A bit early, but a couple of game boards were found on the Mary Rose, including an unidentified board burnt onto the top of a barrell.

Bronze isn't a requirement for GAoP naval guns. Cast iron was much cheaper and lighter than bronze making it ideal for use on ships. Bronze guns certainly turn up on wreck sites, but so do many iron guns. Also, even fourth rate warships carried guns as small as 4lbers or so (not including the swivel guns and boat mounted pedereroes). Still, the question still stands about full sized iron 4lb guns... If you've got a spare couple of thousand I came across a pair of original Queen Anne barrels for sale a while back. They seem to have gone though.

Very true Kass, being a Frenchman to boot I suspect that they were pink silk with lace hems and embroidered flowers... However, you did get me thinking about the general wearing of drawers. Some more references to do with as you will: "The inventory of Mr Thomas Purchas Sr, who died in Linn, May 11 1678, aged 101 years [which I think is significant given the elderly's frequent reluctance to accept new fashions]. ... 2 pr of bretches, 1 dublett, 1 pair of drawers... " "Inventory of the estate of Samuel Condie, taken April 30, 1678, by Moses Mavericke etc. ... 2paier cloth britches 10s, 1 cloth coat 12s, one cap cloth coat 7s, 1 paier of woolen drawers 4s, ..." "Inventory of the goods of John Watkins 1641 ... an old suit 8s, a suit of clothes 1li 5s, 2 pair drawers 4s, 6 pair stockings 7s 6d, ..." etc. Looking through some stacks of 17thC colonial wills I reckon (at an estimate) about 70% of the men's include drawers.

And some more: When Henry Teonge left Plymouth aboard HMS Assistance in 1675 he composed a short verse: Our stay, though short, got provender good store, Beef, pork, shepp, ducks, geese, hens, chickens, galore. Cider, beer, brandy, bread - and something more I could have told you had I gone on shore. Later, he describes dining at the Captain's table as they passed Lisbon. Bear in mind that this was a special occasion, not a standard dinner in the great cabin.

Somewhere recently (danged if I can remember where) I heard something bad about Townsend clothing (danged if I can remember what!), but I do know several people with his stuff and they're all satisfied, so maybe I'm wrong. The gunner's jacket just doesn't look quite right to me, but even if it is historically accurate it's for a much earlier period than GAoP, and has absolutely nothing to do with gunnery. I've often wondered about the idea of pirates going out of their way to look fashionable ashore. First off, there are a few incidents (like the very famous Cocklyn/Davis/LaBouse badly fitting coat incident), but does that mean that all pirates got togged up? Maybe. Second, our idea of what was fashionable and what pirates considered fashionable might well be different. We tend to think that aping the aristo's would make a man fashionable, but there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that seamen followed their own fashion, even when ashore - smart short jackets and clean white trousers, rather than long coats and brocquade breeches. The captains might have dressed up, but did the grunts? Maybe not. Either way, I think you're on the right track Greenighs. A pirate might have worn a long coat on land, if he could get one, but he would have been very unlikely to wear it at sea.

Foxe, please explain this statement. Are you saying that bucket boots WERE worn in the late 17th century, but not 30 years later?? *looks at 1970's retro wardrobe and wonders if it's safe to wear around Mr. Blackwell....* Or are ye just bein' snarky?? das Not being sarky at all Boots (or any other item of clothing) might be worn for two main reasons - fashion, and practicality. In the mid-17thC bucket boots were fashionable, but by about 1660 they were pretty much out of fashion. Someone a little behind the times or whatever (like you with your 70s wardrobe) might still be wearing them, but by 1700 nobody who wanted to "cut a dash" would be seen in them for that reason. In terms of practicality, bucket boots were for riding. Morgan, as a soldier, and indeed someof his buccaneers, many of whom were former soldiers, might have worn bucket boots (though since they were mostly foot-sloggers, and boots are NOT practical for long marches, I say this with a certain amount of caution). The vast majority of pirates in the GAoP were from a seafaring background so would have been unlikely to wear boots for fashion or practicality, even had they been widely available. There is one picture of some French seamen wearing what look like boots circa 1700 (and it is to this which I'm guessing Petee is referring ), but they are very soft, and shorter than the classic "bucket top". Not really the same thing. Hurricane, I look forward to seeing the finished impression FWIW Das, your Jamaican friend knows that Morgan had no children yes?

Bucket boots in the 1670s is a perhaps a different issue from bucket boots in the 1700s anyway. and Henry Morgan is certainly a different issue from GAoP era pirate scum. The picture looks like it's based on the the etching of Morgan from Esquemeling. I'm not convinced by the size of the sleeves, so I'm guessing this is a modern(ish) rendition of the earlier depiction.

We-ell, Yes, I think that it's possible seamen adopted the wearing of drawers first (as they seem to have done with pockets for example) out of practicality. Exactly why it was practical I can't think offhand, unless it had something to do with their wearing of slops and petticoat breeches I can't show you evidence of widespread drawer wearing (except amongst seamen), but I can point out other drawer related incidents from before the late 18th century. In his "Memoirs of D'Artagnan" (1700), for example, Courtilz de Sandraz mentions that Aramis fights a duel while he's suffering from dysentry and soils himself. He is forced to go and buy a new pair of drawers. We can infer reasonably that a: Aramis was wearing drawers, and it does not seem to have been all that surprising to a 1700 audience, and that b: he had, at that time, only one pair with him (I forget whether he was at home or off roaming) For those of an athletic mind, according to Henry Teonge's diary (1670s) drawers and stockings seems to have been a seaman's prefered swimming wear.

Welcome aboard Goldenstream, yes, this is the right place to post that query. There was a thread a while ago about period dice games which you might search for. Cards were also popular, various games, whist and faro included, would be authentic. Board games too were popular, nine-mens-morris, backgammon, chess (can't imagine pirates playing chess somehow, but it was certainly around). There were other forms of less cultured amusements too, skylarking - or races through the rigging, practical jokes etc.

I think Hurricane makes a good point about the why, and while I also think that Ace makes a good point about Twill being the place for that, it does make sense that discussions about one particular coat/hat/sword are kept to one thread. Why not try a rating system, but with each and every poster being prepared to explain their rating if called on to do so, or perhaps in a very short sentence in their initial post: "***/** "Nice coat, quite well made, really about a century to late for the GAoP" I'm in favour of giving anything a go if it will stop the bickering. Being liable to be called on for explanation would a: ensure that all votes are honest (not just voting for mates' gear over others for example), and b: ensure that all responses, whether positive or negative, were actually wanted by the readers of the forum. Privately, I agree with GoF's stance, but this argument is getting old, and I think that even the best written responses will fail to solve it anyway. On a personal level I agree very much with Kass, if it ain't right then it ain't right, but I know that not everyone follows that ethos.

Offhand that looks 1680s ish to me, but the upper-class clothing is more other people's subject than mine. Give me a pea-jacket and I'll tell you what month it was made... GoF, you forgot one thing: Is it 19thC? Yes Here's the Dread Pirate Raffles.

I gotta stick a vote in for Hurricane's. I really admire many of the signature pictures, but when I saw Hurricane's the other day I thought "Wow!". It's so evocative as well as attractive. Huzzah.

And some more interesting bits. From Nathaniel Knott's "Advice of a Seaman", 1634. Knott praised the Dutch victuallers for their healthy sailors (which he ascribed in part to their providing good water instead of beer), and he was not alone. Nathaniel Butler, writing at about the same time also pointed out the better health of Dutch seamen in his Dialogues, though he put the cause down to their eating less salt meat.

I guess it's perspective. What I have seen is "historical types" saying something isn't authentic (and I'm speaking in general, not specifically about a damned ebay coat - that has its own thread). I don't see that as bashing anyone's beliefs, just helping along those who share ours. It certainly isn't a personal affront is it? I have never seen "historical types" (with one small and thankfully ended exception) bashing anyone else's belief. And I have never seen "historical types" whinging about people picking on them for their trying to be authentic. I have seen "Hollywood types" reverting to personal attacks, trying to denigrate attempts to do things authentically (and again, I'm speaking generally, not about any individual recent thread), and whinging about how the authenti-crowd are always trying to put them down. The question of whether the subject line should have been "Great pirate coat" or "Great historicaly accurate pirate coat" is a: off topic for this thread, and b: irrelevant. Technically you may be right, the coat didn't say it was historically accurate. However, in practice many many people see things from the other side of the fence, and assume that stuff is historically accurate until they are told otherwise. There's nothing wrong with making the distinction clear, whatever the tag-line says. ************************************************************ Back on topic. Does this lack of dissension mean we have a temporary accord? Enough to try rating out and see how it works?

First off, may I thank Ace and HM for responding to my (I hope not too rude) post with politeness and decency. Thanks for not making this the flame war it could be. Yes, I agree that had John qualified his remarks as relating solely to the GAoP it would have been better. However, it ought to be remembered that most people here consider the word "pirate" to be more or less synonymous with "GAoP era pirate" unless its otherwise stated. I also apologise if I took certain posts too seriously. I suspect this comes from the language differences between English and Americanese. Over here certain terms use have much more significance than they do in the States. Now, John has outlined the reasons for his comments, and the reasons he did not delete the message. Whether his decision or his comments were right or not is a matter of debate, but he should NOT have got the abuse and bad-mouthing which he did for making them.

Nothing whatsoever, in fact the first thing I said on this thread was that if it could be made to work then it should be. My point exactly. Who's to say what's right? I think Joshua's point about "average" ratings is a good one, as is yours about a ratings system being a kind of shorthand for what's already being said/done. I was, and am, opposed to anyone being able to "define" a correct rating. I wasn't trying to berate anyone (see earlier comments), nor to suggest "certificates of authenticity". Since you've brought the matter up, what exactly is the problem with someone saying that something is not as authentic as it might seem in the same way as someone saying that something isn't such a good bargain or whatever? Would the same objection stand for a star-based system rather than a verbal one? I am sorry you feel that way. I'm not a full-time visitor to "Plunder", but in my visits I have never actually seen anyone blasting anyone else (whilst making the difference between "blasting" and pointing out inaccuracy politely.) If it is in "Captain Twill" that you feel you have been blasted I apologise, but since that forum is specifically for "Academic talk on maritime history, research, & interesting info", one must expect a reasonable amount of dissension if one's arguments are not illustrated. It would be nice if the forums worked like that, that's the way they should work, but doubtless I'd be called an "historical wanker" or something similar if I dared raise the A word. Please don't get me wrong, I am in full agreement with GoF's "live and let live" policy, and I admire Ace's dedication to what he does. It just seems to me that any "berated" or "putting down" wich goes on here (and I mean, really, actually look through the threads and tell me I'm wrong) tends to come from the fantasy side of the fence. When did you last read Blackjohn, GoF or I calling anyone names for their Fantasy portrayal? There's no need for any kind of "them and us" mentality, we're just approaching the same activity from different angles. And here another interesting side-issue raises itself. In other countries (including the UK) authenticity is a bigger issue for a bigger proportion of both re-enactors and public. We must not neglect the international minority here. I AM in favour of a simple way for people to get a good idea about what they're buying, and I think that an Amazon style average-rating is a good idea (provided it's not abused, like by a vendor getting their mates to up the average or whatever). The only way to start it is to start it, so I suggest that the next interested person to post something sets the ball rolling. :)

Great idea Patrick, if it can be made to work then it should be. I see only one flaw, but it's quite a biggie. Who would police it? Mr A finds a cool source for well priced, authenticish swords, and posts a link giving it ****/****. Mrs B thinks that although the swords are quite authentic looking they have a lot of minor faults and argues that it should instead be ****/***. Who decides? A similar problem would arise with sites, rather than specific products. Miss C posts an ad for her costume business and gives it ***/**** because most of her stuff is pretty authentic, BUT she also has a small line of "Halloween" pirate costumes. Is it right to give the impression that all her stuff is good, if people can still buy less authentic stuff from her site too? I think GoF's rant is well placed, and I do find it irritating when people join just to advertise themselves. OTOH, if what they are selling is of interest to people then surely it could be argued that they are providing a service? They should at least stick around to face questions and potential criticism (on grounds of quality as well as authenticity). ********************************************************** In the long run it strikes me that if people could ust get the chips off their shoulder there should be no problem with the current system. If something was advertised which was of a known low quality (like, it fell apart...), then NOBODY would object to a post illustrating the fact, despite the fact that not everyone will care about the quality. Authenticity-minded people should be free to say when something isn't authentic without being subjected to abuse for it. :)

Thrum hats are so much sexier when they're multi-coloured. I love mine

Not that it's strictly relevant, but for the sake of complete closure Pirates of Penzance premiered in Paignton, Devon on Dec 30, 1879. The theatre it was played in is now a supermarket.

For the purists the way the knitting is gather into the top is completely different, giving it that distinctive "button" on the top. Otherwise, yes, it's an 18thC beanie. The big difference is they these are hand-knitted from 100% natural hand-spun natural colour wool.

I don't recognise it from the POB, but I would say it's almost certainly 19thC. It does remind me a lot of early posters for the Pirates of Penzance.

Greenighs, I was just using it as an example, some of his hats are good, some are less so - just depends which you go for. Adam, $40 for a proper monmouth is pretty darn good. Was she getting the wool at a cheap price? Considering the work that goes into spinning the wool then the hand knitting I think £25 is erging on the "underselling" side of reasonable. Of course, if only enough people were interested make a run of them made by an Indonesian child sweatshop viable we could get them MUCH cheaper...

The cost reflects the work really. If anyone can find hand-knitted, 2 ply monmouths caps made from hand spun for less I'd love to hear about it. Kirsty Buckland's, for example, start at £40ish (about $70). I guess it comes down to preference. People will pay $80 for a basic "Jack Sparrow" hat, I'd reather be authentic and save $30 BTW through force of habit I posted this here instead of Plunder - would some kind mod move it by any chance?

It was done, though no as early as the GAoP I don't think - at least, it wasn't a common practice that early if it was done at all. As I understand it, it was a protection for the hair.

The trouble with traditions is that they have to start sometime - they have not been going on for ever. Some perhaps start in the time before time, and might as well have been going on forever. Others started more recently. The difficulty from our stand point in time is that to us they all feel "traditional". Crossing the equator has certainly been celebrated for aeons, but the manner of celebration may have, probably has, changed. I have a handful of references to crossing the equator celebrations from the GAoP, but none that I recall mentioning Neptune, and given that honouring Neptune would have been a heretical act (thus subjecting you to the Inquisition) at the time I sincerely doubt the early Spanish and Portuguese explorers did either. Thus, the Neptune thing must have started some time, but was it before or after the GAoP, and amongst whom was it first practised? :)