Fox

To my knowledge there is no record what, if any, Hornigold flew as a flag. However, the simple skull and cross bones seems to have been more prevalent than any other design amongst the Providence pirates of that era, and was more common among that particular group than any other group. Best guess, then, would be a skull and crossbones, but absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

Grew up in Portsmouth (UK) and had a grandfather who was one of the best historians I've ever come across - used to tell me exciting stories of real exploits rather than fairy tales so I was bitten by the maritime history bug. My particular interest is general maritime history from about 1550-1750ish. When I first got on the net (bout 9-10 years ago) the only way to discuss maritime history of that period was on pirate groups, so I got into pirates. I'm still a naval historian at heart but the enthusiasm for piracy I've landed amongst has got me interested.

Don't get me wrong, I've misled you into reading this. Sorry about that. I like Christmas... bits of it. I like spending time with people I care about, I like seeing other people happy, I like the feeling that just for once my failings are overlooked by those that surround me. I LOVE the smell of christmas trees (ecologically friendly ones from sustainable forests), I love putting up decorations (on Christmas Eve, not November). I love the atmosphere of naughtiness that pervades Christmas parties when everyone's drunk too much of my jelly-baby vodka or butterscotch rum. But why should we only feel that good for one day a year? If we're capable of living so happily then why don't we do it all year? And why - why, oh why - do I have to put up with all the other crap that drives me round the freakin' bend? In October?: OK, so it's good to be prepared, I know people who keep an eye open for Christmas gifts in August. But they do it with subtelty. Why, when I walk into a shop to buy a pint of milk two days before Guy Fawkes night (November 5th for you colonials) do I get bombarded with "Santa Claus is Coming to Town"? Not for another 7 weeks he ain't! But that's not the worst of it: in October, before Halloween even, the staff at my local supermarket were wearing Santa hats. Christmas is a twelve day holiday (I wonder how many people really know that any more), and it starts on December 25th. How long do we really need to prepare for it? Not two months, and certainly not more. I like Christmas, but I like it at Christmas time. Families and "Friends": We've all got them, to some we ARE them. Family members you don't like, or friends of friends you can't stand. At a preliminary calculation I reckon I will have to see at least 12 people over the next couple of weeks that I can't stand and that I'm pretty sure don't like me. I don't mind that they don't like me, it makes me feel better about not liking them. But I'm going to have to see them, and they are going to have to see me. Neither of us will enjoy the experience and the only way in which the "Good Will" of the season will encroach on the meeting will be in the exchange of presents: in some cases it will be a competition as to who bought the largest present (apparently this proves that we don't dislike the person we loath a bit more than they don't dislike us, and alledgedly that's a good thing); in other cases it will be a matter of "Hah! I got away with spending less money on you than you did on me - fool!" Wouldn't the season of friendship go much better if we didn't have to see the people we hate and pretend we like them? It doesn't inspire me to like them any more, it just reminds me of the reasons why I don't. Cards: 90% of the people we give cards to at Christmas we could just say "Happy Christmas" to in person, which would a: be cheaper, b: be better for the environment, and c: be nicer anyway. I hate to think how many acres of trees are cut down every year for greetings cards that we usually deliver by hand anyway. OK, so it's nice to exchange cards with friends and family too far away to contact personally, but how many do we post rather than hand over? I'm proud to say that I haven't given any Christmas cards for about ten years, but I always make the effort to either see or phone old friends. Presents: I don't want 'em. Every year I say to people "There's nothing I really want, if I think of anything I'll let you know, but otherwise don't bother getting me anything", and every year I mean it, truly I do. If there is something I want then I'll ask for it, or I'll buy it myself. If I don't already own it and don't ask for it then the chances are it's because I don't want it. Every year people fail to heed me and spend a load of money they can't afford on a load of crap I really don't want. Then I have to find somewhere to put it all in my already overcrowded abode. Presents ruin my Christmas. I open them, and I feel sad that people I love have nearly bankrupted themselves to buy me presents (ok, and others too, but you get the point) that I really don't want or need. Then I start to feel like sh*t for being so ungrateful when all they were trying to do was make me happy. Then I feel angry because the whole thing could have been avoided if only they'd listened to me in the first place. By lunch time my Christmas is ruined, and my bad mood is on the way to ruining everyone else's. I'll give you an example - my mum is the worst by far. One year I asked for the Lego Star Wars Speeder Bikes (I was about 21, moved out of home etc.). That was all I wanted, and they cost about £7-8. Christmas morning I opened my pile of presents from my mum - all Lego, about £50-60 worth. No Speeder Bikes. I'm not ungrateful, really I'm not, but my mum could have saved herself a load of money and I still didn't get the one thing I'd asked for. Now and again someone really comes up trumps and gets a surprise present which I love, but I'd give up that occasional good present like a shot if it would mean people not buying me presents unless I'd specifically asked them to. Incidentally, this is the reason I hate my birthday too. :) Bollocks Culture: I will accept that "Xmas" has become a sloppy but recognised way of writing "Christmas" in a hurry, but when and why did it start being pronounced "Exmas"? Who the hell is Kris Kringle? Why is a deformed reindeer character from a second rate song as important to Christmas as his overweight commercialized master? Does anyone actually remember the story of Saint Nicholas (that's Santa Klaus for those of you who only speak German)? Or that other story about a kid and three wise men with about as much idea on suitable Christmas presents as my mum? Eating: My mum, my girlfriend, most women I know in fact, go on a diet at some point. A huge number of women, and a smaller number of men, go on diets either just after or just before Christmas. Why don't we just eat a normal amount instead? Or maybe we could just eat ourselves into obesity on Christmas Day itself? No, apparently what we have to do is buy enough food to feed three starving families and gorge ourselves silly for a fortnight. Then we feel overweight and starve ourselves in order to feel better. Many shops specially open 24hrs in the run up to Christmas. Are there suddenly more people around at Christmas, or do we just need to eat significantly more to see us through the cold mid-winter? Let's not forget that Christmas is a holiday. It's a holiday where we get up early in order to spend several hours in the kitchen cooking food for a bunch of people whom we'd probably rather not see anyway. Then, when they've eaten their fill of the potatoes we spent hours peeling we spend another couple of hours washing up the dirty plates they've left. I must confess to being a potato-eating dirty-plate leaver at Christmas rather than one of the cooks, but I do always feel sorry for them... The Cost: I touched on this in "Presents". Everyone I know says every year "I don't know how I afforded Christmas". The answer is that they didn't. According to myfinances.co.uk 21% of people in the UK put Christmas on their credit card, that's one day that they pay for all year. 63% of people pay for Christmas out of their savings - but hey, fixing their car, repairing their roof, or helping their kids through university is probably less important than Christmas in the long run. £6.2billion will probably be spent in Britain on stocking fillers this year, and burglars are expected to get away with £3.5million worth of presents! The average Christmas spending per person in the UK in 2000 was £589, and there are 56 million of us give or take a few. That's about £34.982billion spent on Christmas. That means that if we cancelled Christmas for one year and gave the money to charity instead it would be possible to give every single person sleeping rough on UK streets their own home and a fistful of cash, free of charge - and still have £34.966billion left over to spend on other worthy causes at home and abroad. To put that in perspective, the UK government spent £35billion on education and health combined in 2005. And when we see people collecting for charity at Christmas we put a quid in their tin - it IS the season of sharing and good will after all! The happiest time of the year, when suicide rates are at their highest. Merry bloody Christmas.

The stitching in the first link is what I was referring to, except with button holes you don't need to turn the edge over, you work with the raw edge, and the stitches need to be smaller and closer together than if you were edging a blanket. On the second link what they call "open" and "closed" blanket stitch are basicaly the same thing, just done closer together - "closed" is what I would use for button holes. The "buttonhole" stitch on the second link looks more complex but is probably more robust (though I've never had any problem with a simple blanket stitch anyway), so you could use that if you prefer.

Enigma, I've seen your holes on ebay and they're quite clearly made of synthetic hole, which even the most novice of costumers knows was not invented until 1835 when the Irishman Dermot O'Logical discovered it by accident while trying to repair his wellies. 17th century my foot! Mick - blanket stitch is fairly easy, period, and does the job - and yes, machine done button holes stand out a mile.

No problem Billy, just tell the set designers that Johnny Depp's eyes are really set off by a yellow background, and we'll see footage of him in front of a yellow pirate flag before you can say "jolly rogers were black!"

Nice list Jack! I must confess I doubt the clean slate reference though, for two reasons: a: the usual traditional method of recording time and distance during a watch was with pegs in a traverse board. Slates might sometimes have been used, but probably not often enough to give rise to a saying. b: it's more likely to come from the days when slates and chalk were used in schools. You make a mistake in a question, you scrub it out and start again with a clean slate. Also, (I can hear the groans) can I scotch the evil rumour that freezing the balls off a brass monkey has anything whatsoever to do with naval gunnery. The triangle used to keep cannon balls in were usually iron not brass, were never called monkeys, and would have to shrink a heck of a lot for the cannon balls to roll off. It's an urban myth. The phrase is probably a nonsense one like "raining cats and dogs". I can also add to the list. Some of the more prosaic and less obviously nautical phrases have nautical origins. The only one that springs to mind is By and large. A ship can sail by the wind or large, so "by and large" means "just about everything".

Sorry fellas, should have updated this one as I found stuff out... The background to the Lewis and Cornelius chapters which started me off on this quest checks out to a remarkable degree. I've checked just about every checkable name or ship mentioned in the text and every single one checks out as accurate. If the Lewis and Cornelius chapters are fictional (which I am beginning to doubt) then whoever wrote them really knew their background info. I initially made a mistake in dating the story by the mention of Woodes Rogers, and assumed that it must therefore be set either between 1712 and 1717 or between 1721 and 1728 - the two big gaps in his life history. However, discarding the Rogers involvement the rest of the background info in the story points more towards the 1690s, which made me wonder about Rogers' involvement. However, Rogers' father, also called Woodes Rogers, is known to have been involved in the Newfoundland trade in the 1690s. So, although it is not clear in the text the Capt. Woodes Rogers mentioned is not the famous privateer/Governor/pirate hunter, but his father. :)

No offence was taken Petee, 'twas meant to be a tongue in cheek answer... I don't know about the US but I'd say that the proportion of ex-military types in re-enactment is probably no greater or smaller than the porportion of non-coms, or than the proportion of ex-military types in any other group of people. What I mean is, I don't think having been a soldier has much effect on whether or not people become re-enactors. To answer your question, I was in the RAF cadets for 4 years (never forget my first camp as a flight sergeant, went in for dinner with the other cadets but was told I had to eat in the sergeants' mess - boy did I sh*t my pants...). When I left school I tried to join the RAF Regiment, but they were in the process of massive downsizing. So, no, I've not been in the services proper. Now, my dad, who is also a re-enactor, was in the SAS. I guess people get into it for different reasons (why people stay doing it is another matter). I got into it because I love history, others got into it because it looked like a laugh, some because it's the best place for drinking contests, and yes, some probably because they want to feel like soldiers. I think the last is probably more prevalent in the later period societies, particularly WWII era. The most common reason I'm sure is that they had a mate who was doing it and got persuaded to join. Blackwell's in historical terms: Sir Thomas Blackwell's regiment of foot, Royalist regiment in the English Civil War (yes, we had one too, and what's more, we had ours first!). Don't know much about them except I believe they wore black coats partly because of the name and partly because Sir Thomas had some thing going with the clergy and got a shed load of black wool. Blackwell's in modern terms: a regiment in the King's Army, the Royalist half of the English Civil War Society. Other infantry regiments include Sir Thomas Tyldesly's, Sir William Pennyman's, Sir Bevill Grenvile's, Sir Ralph Hopton's, Sir Thomas Lunsford's, The Marquis of Winchester's, and Sir Marmaduke Rawdon's. Cavalry are provided by Sir Richard Grenvile's Regt. Basically, each regiment, although under the control of the King's Army and the ECWS behaves like a semi-autonymous society on its own. Each regiment has its own events, elects its own officers (in some regiments "officers" are basically admin roles who get to dress posh and give the orders as a pay-off for the hard work, in other regiments officers get a bit carried away and think it means something) and has its own cameraderie. Blackwell's is one of those.

I wouldn't say that my research into wills has been extensive, but I have looked at a fair few of them. The difficulty with a lot of wills is that they don't go into massive detail. For example, where a will says "one light coloured coat", its meaning would probably have been obvious to the executors, who could in any case look through the deceased's possessions and make sure the right person got Fred Bloggs' light coloured coat. It doesn't tell us a lot though. There are a couple of clues which sometimes crop up though. Quite often coats are found as part of a suit ("one grey coat, waistcoat and two pair of breeches" for example) which implies that it's probably (but not definitely) a suit of "best" clothes, and thus quite probably longer rather than shorter. The other clue is where different terminology is used. Where a will talks about a "coat" in one sentence, then later on lists "one pea jacket, one thick flanel jacket..." it seems likely that the jackets are short seamen's coats, and the "coat" or coats are longer civilian cut garments. So yes, I think it's quite likely that many seamen owned longer coats, they just probably didn't wear them very much for working. I think whether they wore any coat at all was probably dependent on the weather. It is interesting though that even pictures of seamen enjoying a run ashore tend to show them in short coats, and I'm pretty sure NAM Rodger even mentions runaway seamen using long coats as a disguise - again implying that they didn't often wear them. I'm hoping to get some copies of some more 17/18thC seamen's wills in the next couple of months. I'll post anything interesting.

One of my favourite incidents was a couple of years ago when I was on the Golden Hind we had a Japanese visitor whose English was almost non-existent. He had a bit of a look round the ship then came up and pointed at me saying "salesman?" He'd just been in the gift-shop, and I knew there was nobody behind the till (quiet day, stock taking) so I figured he wanted to buy something. I went into the shop and he followed me, still asking if I was a salesman. Funny thing, he didn't seem to want to buy anything. He was asking if I was a sailor. :angry:

I certainly wasn't in any service relevant to pike and musket combat... You ever been a real pirate?

I've recently been trawling through the Lewis and Cornelius chapters of Johnson's General History with the aim of seeing to what extent the details of the stories can be shown to be either true or false. Yes, yes, I know the stories are generally accepted as fictional, but research shows that whoever wrote the, also fictional, Misson and Tew chapters of the GHP included a huge amount of circumstantial stuff which checks out. I was wondering to what extent the Lewis and Cornelius chapters did likewise. It has also been asked what Woodes Rogers was up to between his two stints as Governor of the Bahamas, in the years 1721-8. One might also add the question of what he was doing between 1712 and 1717. Like the Misson and Tew chapters some of the details of the Lewis story seem to have some basis in fact. I'm not suggesting that the story is true, only that whoever wrote it knew their stuff when it came to background info. I was looking particularly at this incident: What this seems to be telling us is that at some point Rogers was in a position of authority in Newfoundland. Unfortunately there's very little else in the relation of that particular incident which can be checked up on. I've yet to find any record of the Herman Galley commanded by Beale, but HMS Sheerness checks out to a certain extent. There was an HMS Sheerness, she was on the American Station at some point during the 1720s (I've got her at Boston in 1728, but don't yet know when she arrived), and Captain Tudor Trevor really did exist. What I haven't yet found is a record of Captain Trevor being in command of HMS Sheerness. (In 1717 Trevor was captain of HMS Exeter, and in 1728 HMS Sheerness was commanded by Capt. James Cornwall). My point is that some of the details begin to look well researched, so did the author of the Lewis story know something about Rogers' movements during those obscure years that we don't? Or have I missed the plot and does everyone already know that Rogers was governor of Newfoundland in 1715?

JT didn't like anyone very much who wasn't all dressed in blue with fibreglass helmets... hang on... didn't I leave ECWS to get away from politics like this? I got me a silver griffin and a couple of commissions. I believe I was actually the youngest commissioned officer the KA ever had, since I got my first one at the tender age of 18. What really bugged me was the sheer number of people who believed, sincerely believed that medals and commissions were important. I liked getting the griffin because I put a hell of a lot of effort in to my regiment (Bevill Grenvile's) and it was nice to have that recognised, but I certainly never imagined that having a rank meant anything except I got to wear a nicer hat. There were people though who really imagined that they were officers. One of the reasons I got out I suppose. I always liked Blackwells, fine fighters and drinkers, and they could always guarantee a laugh. Speaking of daft things at events: when I was first made ensign I once wore a seriously nice green silk slashed doublet with silver piping, embroidered breeches and a jet black silk sash. One of Blackwells' officers came over (short fat fella, forget his name - big blond moustache) looked me up and down then got on one knee and proceeded to sing "How do you do? How do you do? I get an erection just looking at you..." I'm not sure I ever lived that down.

Actually you said "uniform or uniform code of clothing", but I'm splitting hairs Either way, I still don't believe particularly in a uniform or a dress code for merchant seamen. I've certainly never seen any suggestion of it in period sources, and it is unlikley given the attitudes of the time. The reason the RN had no ratings uniform until 1857 was because seamen would chop and change between ships and employers depending on the availability of berths and the seaman's own inclination. Since a seaman might only go on a single voyage for a particular employer it's unlikely that they would invest in a set of clothes just to keep the boss happy. I would be very surprised if there was any dress-code or uniform for merchant seamen before the age of the great shipping lines in the very late 18th and 19th centuries. Also, bear in mind that the fashion for having dress codes and the like is an extremely modern one (by comparison). In the GAoP, for example, English soldiers were issued with uniforms, but I know of no rule that they had to wear them. The fad for corporate (as opposed to military) uniformity - or dress codes if you prefer - did not really come in until later still. I don't think that the passage originally quoted says that they were dressed to any kind of code, simply that they were dressed as normal seaman, not necessarily implying they were dressed alike. Sorry, I think you're probably reading too much into a line which really only says that ordinary coats made them look like ordinary seamen. GoF. I suspect the dresses in question were left over by Bonny and Read - there were some very odd goings on in that ship if you believe everything you read on the web

I don't know of any instances of merchant ships' crews being provided with any kind of uniform. Provisions for the crew aboard merchantmen were notoriously bad because the owners were driven by profit above all else. It's very unlikely the men ever had any clothes except those they brought aboard themselves. The Royal Navy certainly had no uniform until well after the GAoP. Officers were given their first uniform in the late 1740s, but seamen had no uniform until 1857(?IIRC). It has been argued that the Admiralty slops would have resulted in a kind of semi-uniform for RN seamen, but the extent to which slops were worn has yet to be proven. The only item of clothing in the slops contracts for the GAoP which does not have an alternative is the grey coat, otherwise seamen had the choice of purchasing different styles of waistcoat, hat and trousers. Add the fact that most seamen would have had at least one other suit of clothes (the ones they were wearing), and probably more in their chest, and the Admiralty slops become more of a trend than a uniform. Probably the seamen's own clothes were similar in style and cut to the ASC garments for practical reasons, but they might have had any number of variations, including different colours. For example slop contracts of the 1690s call for blue coats, which were changed to grey in 1706, and Woodes Rogers' expedition was equipped with a number of red coats in 1708. If we assume that ASC blue coats were being worn at least until 1705 then there is evidence for large numbers of coats of three different colours within 3 years, not including the limitless numbers of colours that might be used for the seamen's own coats purchased elsewhere. There is an interesting letter quoted in The Dress of the British Seaman from the Revolution to the Peace of 1748, by G.E. Manwaring (MM, vol. 10 {1924} pp. 38-39), from William Franklin, the official Admiralty slop seller to the Navy Board, dated 10 September 1725. Different ships obviously had different sized crews and I don't know what the exact crew of HM Sloop Happy was in 1725, but given the number of under waistcoats 80 seems like a reasonable rough figure. Notice that in this large supply of clothes for such a small vessel three different types of trousers are offered, but no coats at all. * The other point about the letter is that it highlights one of the problems facing the slop sellers, namely that Captains and sometimes pursers would undertake to supply their own slop clothing which may well not have been to Admiralty spec standards or design. Thus, in a lot of cases we just can't tell what kind of clothes the seamen were being sold. It seems to me that the garments laid out in the ASC specs were probably the most common garments being worn by seamen (and since seamen would chop and change between ships we can include non-RN seamen as well). Furthermore, the ASC garments were probably typical in terms of style to the seamen's own clothes. IMHO it would be very wrong to consider it any kind of uniform though, even an unofficial one. Just written all that out and have now realised nobody mentioned RN uniforms at all! Oh well, I'm not going to let it go to waste... *Note: Just checked up, HMS Happy was a 14 gun ship, so about 80 men would indeed be reasonable. The year after that letter was written the captain was replaced and the Happy was sent to the West Indies station.

Wow! That's dedication to a lost cause! I gave up going when they stopped giving me promotions and medals...

Well, that certainly raises a few interesting points! The passage is a bit ambigous. At first reading is seems to mean that six of the seamen had to dress themselves in ordinary seamen's clothes, as opposed to their normal pirate gear. On the other hand, if you read it in a slightly different tone of voice (eh?!) it could equally be taken to be differentiating not between the appearance of ordinary seamen and pirates, but between ordinary seamen and merchants. It doesn't say that "ordinary jackets" were not what the pirates wore anyway, only that they were different from the gentlemen's clothes worn by "merchants". If it means that the pirates dressed differently to pass as normal seamen then it is a pity that it doesn't make clear what the difference is. A couple of other points: regardless of whether the pirates wore something other than their normal clothes or not the passage does show that they certainly had typical seamen's clothing available to them. It also shows that they had enough suits of "long" clothes to dress the Captain and at least two other officers, but, it may imply that Davis, the master and the doctor were not in the general habit of wearing them. This last supposition is borne out by the anecdote about Davis, Cocklyn and La Bouche dressing themselves up to go ashore and Cocklyn getting the stuff that didn't fit. It's not inconceivable that they were actually the same three suits of "good" clothes on both occasions. Food for thought :)

That was probably the last year I did the Whitehall March (1999?), does this mean that we've actually done an event together? Actually the event I was recalling was not the ECWS march but a different week long living history actually inside the Banqueting House. I would imagine they're probably well used to it! Maybe not the 17thC kit bit... Erm, sorry for going OT.

What's more exciting (to me) is that if you Google my name in inverted commas then GoF's site is number 8. Add the word pirate and it's top of the list.

I've had a million and one "Is that real" questions, from less dumb things like swords (if it's in a scabbard one could be forgiven for wondering) to fires, dogs and even once a screaming baby. Question about lifestyle are pretty common too: "Are you really going to eat that?" "Are you really eating that?" "Did you really eat that?"... Yeah, "do you really sleep in those tents" is quite a common one. I have been known to answer "No, when the public leave we take them down and put up modern tents instead" - the trouble is that people believe it. Stupid comments from re-enactors are not uncommon. I recall some years ago doing an event at the Whitehall Banqueting House, where Charles I was executed in 1649. So, we're walking back to our digs through the middle of London in our 17thC kit and on the other side of the road there's a group of punks with the leather and chains and bright mohawk haircuts. One of the women in our group looked across at them, tutted and said "What do they think they're wearing?!" On another occasion I was doing some high quality living history circa 1601. Now, I'm used to members of the public talking to me about the accuracy of our kit, it's quite common to be asked how close our stuff is to the original. But if someone goes on and on about it then you can bet a fiver that it's another re-enactor who is desperate to pick holes in your kit. On this one occasion I spotted the asshole straight away and went for the balls by bringing up the Sealed Knot, who have a (probably underserved) reputation for not being all that good authenti-wise, despite a certain arrogance about being "the best re-enactment society" (by which they mean biggest). As soon as I mentioned the SK his eyes opened and his ears pricked up, and he was off... "So, how do you get that colour?" "Actually, my wife dyed this wool using madder" "And what's your shirt made of?" "It's linen. The pattern and colours are almost identical to fabric fragments found on the Mary Rose, and the pattern is taken from an existing example in the V&A" "What are your boots made of?" "Calf-skin, with a leather sole. As you can see they're straight lasted. In fact, the cobbler who made them is working on another pair in the next room" By this time he's getting a little frustrated, and I'm feeling glad that I put the linen shirt on that morning instead of the cotton. "Of course, if you were really authentic your laces would be made of leather" I smiled and replied: "They are" He left. Dumb members of the public: My favourite was about 2 years ago when I was doing some WWII RAF stuff and someone asked about the field telephone. Then they got onto mobile phones and showed me theirs. "Where are the cables?" I asked. "They don't have them", they replied. "Then how can it work?" Since they couldn't explain to me the workings of a mobile phone they left under the impression that I was the mad one...

Well that didn't take as long as I thought it would. An extract from Adam Baldridge's deposition describing one of the ships sent to a Madagascan trading post. Baldridge was notorious for supplying pirates with provisions and other goods, so this example gives an interesting insight into the kinds of things pirates bought with their ill gotten gains. "August 7, 1693 Arrived the ship Charles, John Churcher Master, from New York, Mr Frederick Phillips owner, sent to bring me several sorts of goods: 4 pairs of shoes and pumps, 6 dozen of worsted and thread stockings, 3 dozen of speckled shirts and breeches, 12 hats, some carpenter's tools, 5 barrels of rum, 4 quarter casks of Madeira wine, 10 cases of spirits, 2 old stills full of holes, one worm, 2 grindstones, 2 cross-saws and 1 whipsaw, 3 jars of oil, 2 small iron pots, 3 barrels of cannon powder, some books, catechisms, primers and hornbooks, 2 Bibles and garden seeds,3 dozen of hens. And I returned for the said goods 1100 pieces of eight and dollars, 34 slaves, 15 head of cattle, 57 bars of iron." Note - sorry, they were spotty shirts, not waistcoats

hmmmm..... checked or stiped? Ticking? wool? More questions. Or some red and some white - like two football teams? Dammit! Just yesterday I was reading about speckled waistcoats and breeches and I thought "GoF will either love me or hate me for posting this", then I started thinking about something else and now I've forgotten where I found the reference...I'll have to trawl through all the stuff I was reading yesterday and see if I can find it for you. There are some great phrases in there that any first-person pirate re-enactors ought to take note of: "Tarpaulin Arabick" for the language of seamen, incomprehensible to others, and "tost about by the Waves like a Dog in a Blanket" made me laugh out loud. Later in the same work Ward describes rum as being sometimes called "Kill Devil". (Incidentally, Ward makes it clear that rum is there preferred drink of the landsman while brandy is more popular with seamen - doesn't Dampier say something about being able to drink a quart of burnt brandy in the cold southern latitudes?). Perhaps my favourite bit in the later description of Boston is this paragraph about... ahem... ladies' pursuits: "Publick Kissing, and single Fornication are both of a Price; for which Reason the Women wisely consider, the latter may be done with more safety than the former; and if they chance to be Detected, and are forc'd to pay the Fine, they are sure before-hand of something for their Money. " In another work Ward described the "pissdale" of a ship: in the morning a sailor "crawls…to the pissdale where he manages his whipstaff with one hand and scratches his poop with the other" Right, I'm off to hunt down a source for spotty waistcoats...

Couple of points on "black": We are all agreed that true black was an expensive colour until the advent of chemical dyes, but if we think about even our own usage the word "black" is often used to describe a dirty dark grey, or sometimes a black/blue - both of which colours were available much cheaper than true black. Impoverished scholars, for example, have always traditionally dressed in black - not true black, but a kind of off-black/grey. I quite agree with GoF that it's unlikely many pirates happened to come across a bale of true black silk every time they wanted to make a flag. I'm firmly of the opinion that "black" pirate flags were probably near-black rather than true black most of the time. Apart from the circumstantial evidence about cost and availability there is also a tenuous clue in the flag of Charles Harris. In a newspaper report of Harris's execution his flag is described as being black, but at his trial his flag was described as blue. It is possible that Harris had more than one flag (like Roberts, Cocklyn, Davis, La Bouche, Low, and countless others), but I wonder if it may be that Harris's flag was actually a black that had faded to blue. One witness described what the flag actually was (blue), while another described what it was intended to be (black). Not evidence, but a distinct possibility. My second point is about the prevalence of black flags. In the early part of the GAoP many flags are described, sadly, without mention of their colour. Those whose colours are described are sometimes black, but sometimes other colours. I think that Shelvocke's description of yellow flags in 1718 if of immense importance in the absence of other information. Shelvocke is not talking about one or two pirates, but about pirates in general when he describes their flag as being yellow, and since he clearly knew what he was talking about I think there is a reasonable case for saying that many pirate flags were probably yellow at that time. By the mid 1720s however, black was definitely the colour to have if you wanted a pirate flag. The details of flags given by Johnson in 1724 may be a little dubious (though I really see no reason to doubt them particularly), but it is worth noting that with only one exception they are all described as being black, if any colour is given*. Countless references can be found in the General History to pirates hoisting a "black ensign" or something similar, even if no other details are given. By 1726 Capt. Delgarno of HMS Southsea Castle was "resolv'd to bring in all such pirates, where he shall find a black flag..." (Colonial Papers 1726. 360.). This, and other similar references make it clear that by the mid 1720s flying a black flag was completely synonymous with being a pirate. So, the colour to choose really depends on the period you're portraying. If you're being an early GAoP pirate, say pre-1720 then go for any colour you fancy, including black (but yellow would be good). If you're portraying later pirates, say 1720 or later then black is probably the best. Personally, I'm making a yellow flag. Partly for reasons of authenticity and partly to get away from black - I'm with GoF on that one. On national flags: I think, given the number of pirates who probably flew their own national flags along with their piratical flags (ie, they're clearly not trying to kid anyone by the use of the national flag) there is probably a very good case to be made for pirates (some at least) not casting off all allegiance, but rather flying their national flags out of pride, to be identified as English/French/whatever. As my Dad once said, if there's a fight in a dockside bar and you don't know what it's about, join in on the side of the people who speak your language... *Not counting the fictional Misson flag

While hunting for a copy of Ned Ward's "Wooden World Dissected" I came across a copy of his "A Trip to New England", published in 1699. The opening part of the pamphlet deals with his journey from Gravesend to Boston and makes interesting and amusing reading.