'Salem Bob'

Ahoy Robert, History is concerned with occurances that can be documented - not idle speculation based on human nature. By definition, written history has to give weight to documentary evidence, and 'historians' who rely on speculation and their 'theories' become marginalised by their peers who follow the discipline of historical methodology. If human nature is to be the guide, and your assumptions regarding it are correct, then we should see proof of same in the world around us today. In point of fact, the vast majority of Americans are terrible savers, and run up huge debt, keeping little more than a week or twos pay banked (to write checks upon). The idea of piracy being taken up by thoughtful, thrify men is I think a misplaced one. The fact of the matter is most piratical careers lasted a matter of mere months, most ended up on the end of a rope, or dead of wounds, and most pirates weren't particularly successful at ammassing hauls of cash. People look to the few famous examples of successful pirates, and then extrapolate that success incorecctly onto the majority of those who took up the black flag. I do not think Morgan can be defined as a pirate properly - he did not attack all and sundry shipping - while the Spanish considered him a pirate, the English did not. Pirates do not get to be governors of English colonies (at least not people the English classified as pirates).

Ahoy Tar Bucket Bill, Cocking of hats becomes fashionable in the last decade of the 17th century, most pictures I have seen from the 1690's to the first decade of the 18th century might be described as 'informal' tricorns, where the brim is not turned up radically. I think as the cocking becomes more prominent, the various methods you described are used alternately. I can't answer as to the specific decade - I have a friend who is a clothing historian, perhaps she might have some further information. i do know for a fact hook and eye closures are reasonably common discoveries in archaeological digs , dating back to the late 14th century, and the many of the old ones look very like the ones still sold today.

There be three points to that hat Cap'n, so she still be a tricorn.

Ahoy aloft and alow! Wanting a better quality hat than I could make the first time round. I wanted a well cocked hat, on the order of what clearwater calls a "French" style. I contacted Clearwater in February, sent a money order out right away, and in 8 weeks time (less a day), I recieved my hat. Back in December, the turn around time had been 4 weeks, but he had recieved a rush of orders, which increased the turn around. The hat looks precisely like this (save mine is 'coffee' coloured, as I ordered, rather than black) - You get exactly what you see in the photo, a well cocked hat of high quality. They come with a silk binding, and sweatband, and an adjustable cotton lining, exactly as they ought have. The hat can be let down (like an original), as the cocking is held in place with light metal hooks. The blank it is made from is a fur blend, and a heavy blank at that. (much heavier than the average wool hat blank you find at sutlers commonly). The hat fits me supurbly - they have you send a pattern of the circumfrence of your head, in the form of a file folder that you size to your head - the process is described on the site, and it allows for a perfect fit the first time. They can trim a hat as fancy as you would like, with gold galoon, exactly as an original (for a suitable price). If you are in the market for a high-quality cocked hat, Clearwater fills the bill nicely. The only comparable hatter in the business and a similar price range is Dirty Billys Sutlery - I went with Clearwater as I liked the cocking of his hats better. The only step up from this hat in historical accuaacy I am aware of is to get a beaver felt hat from a hatter in Canada, painfully exacting replicas going for $400 (US) apiece - I don't have his name, and he hasn't a web presence, but he is well known in the upper end of the 18th century living history community. Total cost for the hat was $122 delivered. I consider it money well spent, as It would have taken me 3 or 4 trys with a blank going at least $30 - $40 to replicate the hat, and then only the shape - I doubt I would have gotten all the details this one has. I wanted a good replica of a cocked hat, not a semi-close approximation, so it was worth the cost to me. Here is a link to CleaClearwater hatsrwater

Ummmm...... certified? by whom? NPS has a certification program but it's primarily for NPS employees. There are some re-enactors who get an NPS ticket, but it only really counts at NPS sites. There are also some re-enactment societies that have schools of the soldier, but it is often handled on a unit level basis. I've fired at re-enactments and festivals all over the East coast and have no official ticket for pistol or musket. I do have them for cannon, but that is a completely different set of rules and requirements. Mostly, it's handled by the event safety inspector who will give you a run through and make sure you know what you are doing. If you are part of a participating unit, your CO takes responsibilty for you. If you are a solo, you may be brigaded with other solos or you may be assigned to a unit, where you will be checked again by the unit safety inspector. Either way, I have never heard of rules such as you say, and I've been shooting black powder at re-enactment for more than 20 years. Hawkyns Aye, Hawkyns has the right of it. There is no such certification between here and Maryland that I am aware of - I am unfamiliar with State regs elsewhere, but if New Jersey and New York don't have such, it is unlikely any other states have them. I've fired my first blackpowder weapon (with supervision, but I set linstock to touch hole myself) at the tender age of 8, almost 32 years ago ( a nice 4 lb gun, and live fire to boot), and I've shot just about any sort of blackpowder gun, live fire or reenactment you can imagine, from handgonne on up, and I've never heard tell of any official ceritification. The only state issuing cannoneer liscences, and requiring a liscensed canoneer on a guncrew, at the last I heard was Massachusetts - Hawykins has one, as he shoots up thisaway quite a bit.

An interesting side note - I came across a late 14th century French document listing the trade guilds of Paris, and their members, and out of 101 occupations listed, women were active in 86. Not too bad. :)

The average career of a pirate crew in the Golden Age was on the order of 6 months, with 2 years being the outside average - I don't know that they would have had time enough to develop a 'cant'. Most were sailors prior to their embarking into piracy, and would use normal nautical jargon and terminology.

Ahoy Billie Bonney! Thanks for the interesting lists. A word of caution I would give is that many 'Womens Studies' histories are more concerned with modern political and social thought, than with the hard factual data making up the stuff of History. I find this to be a sad case, considering that the approach used eventually dates and discredits the work, whereas a more scholarly approach would make for a more useful book in the long term. One of the first things you learn in Historical Methodology is considering the bias in any source in analysing documentation - when a bias is transparent, and in the worst cases truth is stretched beyond recognition, such books do more harm than good to the cause they are espousing. In example - there is an oft-linked to site on 'Women Warriors' that sadly gives 'documentation', that when the source is actually looked at, shows the documentation to be entirely fabricated from whole cloth. Lying about what a primary source says can only hurt the position taken by the person trying to 'document' something. When serious research is done, and documentation is carefully sifted through, the researcher finds women involved in almost every activity under the sun. In many cases, in many societies, women have had to pursue such activities disguised as their male counterparts. In some occupations, women were *never* commonplace, and it is a terrible slight to the women who undertook such an arduous or dangerous pursuit for real, and represent it as a commonplace happening - merely to suit a modern conciet regarding the equality of women to make modern women feel better about themselves. Women in the late 19th and 20th centuries undertook a long struggle to gain the equality they currently enjoy - to present it as being the norm detracts from the strugglein the past brave women undertook to obtain it. While 19th century society was indeed repressive to women, and earlier European society was more accepting of women in certain occupations (trade, for example), even these comparitively liberated women never enjoyed the same status in society men enjoyed, nor the same rights before the laws. It is injurious to the truth, and to the women who struggled against the odds and succeeded at occupations or professions they were nominaly barred from to represent these women as being treated as equals in society. They got what they had because they struggled for it - it was not handed to them on a silver platter.

Ahoy Elizabeth! I assure you that your assertation that the only trade women could legally participate in was prostitution is mistaken. My wife having studied Medieval trade guilds in England and Flanders during the 14th-16th centuries has come across women in every trade, legally recognized by the town guilds. Most trades dominated by men having women participating in them the said women ame into the trade through their marriage - helping their husbands with the business, and learning the trade in the process - they were recognised as legitimately carrying on their husbands businesses, and were even allowed apprentices of their own at their husbands demise (often at a fairly young age for the women - some who refused to remarry, carrying on actively in trade until their deaths). We have found through research references to women in strenuous trades, such as blacksmithing , in addition to less harsh physical trades , running the gamut from saddlers to mercers and grocers. In addition, there were trades that were entirely dominated by women, that were wealthy guilds, such as the 'sopers' (silk-spinners). Even in long-distance merchanting, women appear as a significant minority factor, even in businesses dominated by men - as a for instance, the steel trade in Cologne had women running a full 15% of the businesses single-handedly. Womens 'oppression' in Western Society largely began in the 'Early Modern Era', running through the Victorian one - the labour pool of earlier eras was too small, and too fragile to allow even rigidly patriarchal societies the luxury of eliminating women from trade and business once large-scale slavery dissapeared along with Classical civilization with the Fall of Rome. I just thought that you might find the information 'liberating' to know that women were indeed involved in trades prior to the 'Age of Enlightenment'. If you are interested in the subject, I would recommend a book to you entitles "The Legend of Good Women", which you should find in a net search fairly easily, which deals with the subject of women and their position in society and employment, in the 14th - 16th centuries. Also good is "The Fourth Estate", which is a book covering the role of women in Medieval European Society.

Ahoy corsair, It seems pretty thin evidence on the ground for me. Our own society looks oddly on strong male friendships (often based round warfare) that were not sexual in nature in previous eras, and assumes homosexuality, because our society does not have, and does not encourage such friendships. Strong male friendships between peers sharing danger is a commonplace of tribal societies - in most cases without the 'taint' of homosexuality attached (with notable exceptions that are famous, such as the Sacred Band of Thebes). Northern European Societys share this common trait, it's origins in the war band of tribal chieftans. The Boucanier Matelog would clearly seem to be in this tradition. Most moderns would not understand the companionship of Rolanz and Olivier, who were never presented during the era of chansons as both being anything other than heterosexual. Couple that with a functional illiteracy of previous societies, some modern scholars have (especially those pushing political or social agendas), and you end up with such proposterous pronouncements of homosexuality for notable figures such as Richard I (not understanding the Medieval custom of royalty symbolicaly sharing a bed, nor the commonplace of multiple people of the same gender in a bed solely for the purpose of sleeping, beds being a scarcer commodity, and centeral heating being nonexistant - people can sleep in a bed without any sex occuring - just ask some long married couples regarding this... :) ), who never had the remotest hint of such a charge against him by any contemporary, before or after his death. Please note, an enemy - of which he had many - could have used such an accusation as a strong weapon against him. Edward II of England (documentably a homosexual) was politically ruined, lost his throne, and ultimately his life - in part due to his political failures, but in largest part due to his lifestyle. I truely do believe some pirates were homosexual, but I also strongly believe that there is no reason to suspect that any higher rate of homosexuality than is or was ever present in the general population - approximately 2-3%

Ahoy Corsair, Thats a pretty definitive statement about an ephemeral phenomenon ( a person dead Three Centuries sexuality). Could you please enlighten us with some solid documentation or evidence for that? From the last little bit, I believe you are working toward this question by assuming an answer before examining all the evidence.

Ahoy Hawkyns, Errr... The details you describe are the same as the 5 pistols we just ordered 'EDGE 1739" with a crown and cipher below the pan. Wooden rammer, bananna lock plate and all. The detailing in the wood of the examples we recieved are present, they are heavier executed than originals though. Maybe you got a look at a prototype rather than a production model. The butt on the example Deacon Fry posted is the correct shape, whereas the too much wood on the Loyalist examples grip doesn't give it the proper ball shape, until wood is removed. All three examples we have posted are from the same manufacturer in India (including Middlesex Village). The reason we didn't use Pete is he can't get spare parts should something break, and he hasn't been properly hardening his frizzens. Loyalist also offers a discount for group orders.

That is a pretty fluffy article, long on speculation and short on documentation to the point of being nearly entirely absent. I particularly like the arrant nonsense "homosexuality must have been prevelant die to the numbers of rules against it". Sounds good on the surface, but taking a deeper look I believe fewer than a dozen cases of Sodomy are publicly recorded by Admiralty records over the course of the 18th century, with a stunningly high percentage of hangings meted out to the convicted parties (I am unaware of a case where a charge was brought forward without conviction). You stood a greater chance of being hanged for said act than for desertion. The raw data is there to prove the case. For a much better look into sexuality and the sailor, try David Cordingly's "Women Sailors and Sailors Women" (I hope I have that title right - I know I have the author correct). He covers everything from female sailors, to dockside prostitutes, sailors wives, homosexuality, ect. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), the article you linked to is fluff and drivel, a reporters view after a brief skim of a range of material, rather than a well documented study. I think you would get a kick out of the Cordingly book, and he very solidly documents cases of women at sea, functioning as everything from captain of the foretop on an English man of war, to taking over as fully functioning captains when their husbands were rendered incapable.

Ahoy Harbourmaster, I believe Military Heritage recieves it's longarms and pistols mostly from the same source as Loyalist, but has them finished in India (Loyalist is a longtime custom gunsmith, he does the prototypes, and then the Indians make them for him and everyone else - or they get copied by other Indian companies - copyright is fast and loose over there). I didn't consider getting the Military Heritage ones because they are the 1805 short barreled model, which does our crew no good for a 1740's-70's impression. Military Heritage is a shade cheaper, but your dealing with Indian quality controll on the finished goods - they are quite capable of making a decent product however. If they make what your looking for, it is certainly a good option.

Ahoy Cap'n William, Ping them again. As I said, I had a few days of worry like you are having now, and it added up to a weeks delay. The Canadian end of the business is one fellow and one or two helpers working in a barn, with the owners wife answering the e-mail. It is running toward reenactment season, and if they had a flood of orders I wouldn't be surprised for the delay. Thew owner also runs up the prototypes that get shipped off to be prosuced in India. When I hadn't heard from them in a few days, I pinged them again - polite, but persistant, and that is how we got the goods. Seeing other small reenactment oriented businesses, I klnow it's easy for them to get swamped.

On this board, shouldn't the poll be "How many times have you seen Pirates of the Carribean"?

Yer Welcome Cap'n, I was a bit long-winded, but I wanted to give a fair and accurate review. I like the pistol very much - I've taken to having it on my nightstand next to my side of the bed, and indulging in the guilty pleasure of dry-firing it at things and people that annoy me on the television, in a very Elvis-esque fashion. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the product - as I said, it seems sturdier than the originals I've seen, and I don't think you can currently get more 'bang for your buck' for what is both a decent reproduction in spirit as well as form, and will be a reliable working firelock. I would do business with Loyalist Arms in future.

Ahoy Coastie, I think that particular piece is @ $320 USD, the Early Sea Service pistol is $299 (both before shipping). On the Sea Service pistol, if you get three or more people to order a group order, they give a discount. I am not sure about Conneticut State Law, but according to Federal law, that isn't a firearm legally - it is an antique or collectors piece. Even in Canada, where pistols are essentially forbidden, without the touch hole drilled, it isn't a pistol (or a firearm). In Mass, the State law has it that without a flint in place, it isn't considered a pistol. You should be able to mail order that directly, and possess it. Check out your states specific laws regarding carry of same. Read my review of the Early Sea Service pistol for a detailed description of the Loyalist Arms product.

Ahoy aloft and Alow, At the end of January, members of our crew inquired with Loyalist Arms & Repairs as to whether they had any Early British Sea-Service pistols in stock. We were expecting a wait, and scrambled to get an order together for 5 of them when we learned they had them in stock, in .64 caliber (they offer them in .62 and .64). Once they recieved the money, Loyalist assured us that it would be a matter of a few weeks time, as they had to assemble and fit and finish the pistols in their shop, as their normal custom for quality control. Three weeks later (there were a few unavoidable delays, due to minor family crisis and weather), the pistols arrived on my doorstep. Here is a picture of the pistol from their website, which is a very reliable depiction of the goods. As mentioned, the pistols are .64 caliber. Early british sea-service pistols can be found in this caliber, an .62 and .56. By the mid 18th century, the ordinance board settled on .56 as the standard pistol caliber for sea-service pistols. As the locks are marked 1739, this is not an issue. On to both the positive and negative aspects of the pistols proper. The pistols are very sturdily made, they are stocked in rosewood (the originals were stocked in Walnut, but most of the guns coming out of India are stocked in rosewood), the locks, belthooks and barrels are bright, as is the brass buttcap and lock screw washer. The barrels have a much thicker wall than original examples I have seen - I have no doubt that this is for reasons of liability and safety , and it would seem that the end result is a very sturdy barrel. As with most Indian made reenactment weapons, looking down the length of the barrel, slight ripples can be seen along the surface of the barrel, while it seems originals had a finer finish in this respect, it does little to detract from the overall pistol. As it sees use and a patina develops, it ought be unoticable. One error is in the placement of the vaunted marks, with the breach proof appearing farther up the barrel than on originals (which was near to the tang). The gunsmith who drilled and proofed the barrels for us has a set of marks and so placed the mark properly. The lock. Perhaps the best part of all the Loyalist Arms products I have seen is in the quality of the lock. The mainspring and feather springs are far heavier than original examples I have seen - most modern reproduction flintlock springs are cast, and then tempered - these are forged like the originals were. It takes some effort to cock the guns, but I think the mainspring would be one of the last things to fail on these guns, if it ever did. The marks are stamped on these locks - this is correct for Sea-Service pistols with the flat lock - other service arms have the crown and cipher engraved (unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge most reproduction arms have said marks incorrectly stamped). A slight matter of detraction in the lock stamps are the font of the lettering is incorrect (not overtly noticable, unless you really are looking, but it would be nice if they were the correct font). The ordinance broad arrow and crown property mark is the weakest part of the marking - it just isn't a good quality reproduction mark. My reason for pointing out these slight flaws is Loyalist proclaims the markings as being accurate. The stock - As mentioned, the originals were stocked in walnut - these are stocked in rosewood with an unmistakable smell of 'Minwax' walnut stain as they arrive new. The stocks themselves are the weakest part of the reproduction - not as in quality of wood, but in accuracy of wood used, and in the carving proper. There is no way around it - the stocks are far beefier than the original pieces, and the carvings such as the 'beavertail' on the tang, the wood round the lock mortise, the 'meat' on the grip, ect, are all heavier by far than original pieces - there is more wood than on the original. The good news is that this makes it easy for the interested parties to tweak the stocks to the form of an original - there is plenty of wood to work with. Also, it does make the gun a bit more sturdy than an original in this aspect, but frankly, the stocks are 'overbuilt'. It also makes the reproductions heavier than their original counterparts, between the additional weight to lock, stock, and barrel. Minor flaws existed in the form of some hairline cracks near the mortising of the lock on several pistols (an easy fix for the gunsmith), and in one or two instances a tiney chip or deformation that is hardly noticable (and really makes the piece a bit more like an original). I suspect such flaws were incurred when shipping from one climate to another, and the inevitable and unavoidable expansion and contraction of wood with differences in humidity. Finally, Several of the pins holding barrel and furniture were shorter than they really ought be, one or two triggers rattled, and one trigger guard didn't sit as flush to the grip as it ought - all very minor flaws. The one noticable flaw in looking at the pistol in profile - and there is no way around it, is that the shape of the trigger is obviously different from an original (the reproductions follow the curve of the grip - original triggers curl forward). Service. Loyalist Arms was prompt and polite in answering any questions. While there was a brief few days when difficulties at the shop had me concerned, the delay was slight, and we recieved the pistols in a timely fashion. One slight gaff causing delay was we had requested the pistols touch holes undrilled, and the shop accidently drilled one, requiring the order to be split into two packages, which added slightly to the delay of delivery. I won't quibble about one week though. Overall, I am very satisfied with the product. As a reproduction, I would rate it a 7 on a scale of 1-10 (1 being the worst, 10 being the best), for the reasons you can read in the detailed descriptions above. I was not expecting perfection for an exacting reproduction for @ $300 US (most decent pistols begin at $500 - some quality kits begin at that level). I would say the pistols are probably the best bargin for those wanting something historical and reliable on a budget, and are excellent reenactment weapons. I'll let you know how they shoot once I get a chance to put some roundball down range, but being an Indian made barrel, I do not expect to win any shooting competitions (in long arms, Indian made reenactment guns are notoriously less accurate than the products of American gunsmiths), neither do I expect the gun will ever blow up in my face, and given normal maintenance, would expect it to still be around and functional decades from now (probably many). Since the originals were not exactly weapons noted for long range marksmanship, but were intended to be used at 3-4 yards distance, I won't be dissapointed with it's accuracy whatever it is.

Ahoy Zorq and all, Actually, those doglocks with that stock are about 1680, not 1640. if you put that lock on a stock like their 'jacobean' lock, then you would have a 1640's doglock. The buttcap on the prototype is a 18th century heavy dragoon pistol buttcap, which they just threw on to complete the prototype - a late 17th century butcap will not have the extended brass bits running up the stock, but is flat straight across (unlike the 'ears' on the buttcap of the 'Early Sea Service pistol). Without a belthook, thats in essence a James II, or a late Charles II heavy cavalry holster pistol - add a belthook, and it's the Naval varient. If you wanted to, and had access to a gunsmith with the stamp or the engraving tool, it would look very much like an original if you added a James II crown and cipher to the lockplate. Loyalist Arms makes a very sturdy, servicable reproduction gun. Best yet, you can get spare parts from them if a spring goes wonkey or the like - unlikely, since the springs are like built like a Mac Truck - more than a bit heavier than the original, but unlikely to fail you. Awe-inpiring to cock though, and interesting when a feather spring requirees some force to put a frizzen down over a pan.

What is precisely there remains an unknown, but for a fact something is there. The pit has been known since the late 18th century, and a boreing in the 19th brought up amongst wood bits a bit of coconut hist, and a damaged bit of gold chain - I believe part of a barrel top was gotten out of the excavation before the cofferdam flooded and the excavation under dropped the platform to it's present level. The found artifacts, and the elaborate construction argue for something of value being concealed - it is far too elaborate for a hoax, and the island was not frequented by the local population until the last years of the 18th century - principly due to the pit being found. I sincerely doubt it is the loot of Havannah, as the British army is not in the habit of burying loot, but placing same in the hands of it's upper officers and the Crown. I equally find it unlikely to be specifically the loot of Kidd, but it is something of value put there by someone - given the effort and the concealment, it is likely ill-gotten gains.

Ahoy Cap'n Flint, Aye, Dirty Billy's sutlery has an excellent reputation for making hats - they are not cheap, but you do certainly get what you pay for in this instance. It's him or Clearwater for my hats, unless I break down and spend $400 for the absolute most authentic beaver felt hats from a fellow in Canada. A speedy recovery to you Cap'n.

What precisely are you refering to? The ordinance board had patterns for both long barreled and 'short' barrelled 9 pound cannon, but that may not be what you are looking for if you seek a 'long 9'. It is my understanding that these reference a 32 pounder, sporting a 9' Barrel, and usually inhabiting the lowest deck of a 3rd-1st rate, occassionaly used as bow or stern chasers (on larger ships). At any rate, even the 9 pounder is a substantial piece of ordinance, it will weight several tons, even on a truck carriage. A 3-4 pound 'minion' would be more managable, 6 pounders for the 18th century was about the normal maximum for a field gun tube (you would see bigger bore howitzers, but the shorter, thinner walled barrels brought the weight down). So which one do you seek?

Ahoy Aloft and Alow, While I am uncertain as to the origin of the Davy Jones legend, I can contribute that the name amongst the Welsh (Cmry, they prefer) is as common as 'John Smith' amongst the English. I do not think that it is a reference to the devil. Scratch, Old Nick, the horned gentleman, ect, these I have heard refered to as the adversary, Davy Jones was not amongst them. If it is indeed a corruption of Duppy Jonah, then the legend cannot predate the West Indies slave trade, and it's origins will be the coast of West Africa.

Ahoy Aloft and Alow, The Spanish for well over a century maintained an annual treasure galleon from the Phillipeans to Mexico. it was attacked at least once, off the Pacific coast of the United States in the first two decades of the 18th century, by English privateers - note, they weren't pirates to anybody but the Spaniards minds. While it was during 'the golden age', it was not by the likes of William Kidd, or Edward Teach. Unlike the annual plate fleet, the Galleon did not sail in convoy. There certainly was local coastal trade on the Pacific coasts of the Americas for pirates to disrupt, if they choose to.