'Salem Bob'

Ahoy Julius, Sorry for the lateness of my response. You miss the gist of what I was getting at, regarding 17th and 18th century manners - The point I was trying to make has nothing to do with the semi-nudity of Janet Jackson, we all know pre-19th century society was earthy to say the least - the point is the apology that was issued. Looking at the wording of the apology "We are sorry if you were offended" - to paraphrase and get to the crux of it - that is no apology at all, in point of fact, it was so worded as to be rather a bit smug. If you caused an offence to a 17th or 18th century person, and then more or less told them 'gee. I'm sorry that you are so thin skinned', without apologising for the deed, you would be facing either a beating, or a duel (depending on the social class and location of the participants, ranging from an eye-gouging contest in Appalachia, to a duel in a garden with smallswords). Only in our society today can people be so offending in an alleged apology, without facing personal consequences for same.

Sleeves like that are late 1670's-80's, very James II, only coming down to or just past the elbow - they usually had wide cuffs with buttonholes and buttons. I don't know where you would find something cheaper.

Ahoy Bloody Jack, Herringbone patterns appear in Europe by the 13th century at least (See the Museum of London 'finds' Series book on textiles for in depth information), and I have personally handled a mid 15th century Italian brigandine fragment (from Chalsis) covered in a herringbone patterned hemp cloth. Wool cloth undoubtedly was woven in a herringbone pattern in Northern Europe and used during the 17th and 18th centuries - as to how fashionable it was during any particular decade, I really do not know. P.S. Edited to add "in a herringbone pattern" - obviously wool was plentifully woven in Europe, being the predominate cloth used for clothing in the region throughout history. 'Post in haste, repent at liesure'

Pardon my ignorance, but what is a gunners jacket? Can you show us a picture of what you have in mind? I am familiar with short slops jackets worn by sailors, and 'frock' (they are only suit coats unless heavily formally laced, then they are frock coats) coats, but I've never heard of a gunners jacket before.

Ahoy Aloft and Alow, Actually, I have had problems accessing the site - the past 3 days I've gotten a warning page - I've been assuming the sites server had crashed. This is the second time in as many weeks. There was nothing wrong with my computer, and I cleared the caches.

My shipmates and I have 5 coming next week - as I understand, Loyalist currently only has the .64 in stock - it works well for us, as the pistol that was the model for the particular reproduction happened to be .64 cal. By mid century, the navy settled on .56 as their standard bore (that is the Ordinance board standard pistol caliber). They can send you the lock seperate from the stock and barrel, in two packages. If you have a drill press, you can easily drill your own touchhole, on *slow* speed (they tell you how). They center punch the mark for touch hole placement for you.

While I do not doubt the wisdom of your advice if one is only looking for a costume accessory, I would not recommend the method for a sword intended for use in any serious way. One is more likely to get a partial tanged, poorly welded, untempered POS from merely going by E-Bay pictures and descriptions, than to get a item that can be used in semi-earnest. Also, at least Loyalist has the warenty on their goods, while most e-bay purchases do not.

Ahoy Akasha Zuul, It will please you to know that hangers of the type you describe (actually, both the '1742' and '1751' patterns -an erroneous description of long standing amongst collectors, given solely on the basis of Morriers series of paintings of regimental uniforms) exist having naval pedigrees - in Boarders Away Vol I, there is a picture of a '1742' with an anchor stamped or cast into the pommel. There is no doubt they saw Sea and Land service, and are really indistinguishable in use from cutlasses . For example. the "Gargoyle head" (a cast brass hilt featuring a pommel of a lion head with scales, taken from the national symbol of Ceylon, and brought to Europe and popularised by the Dutch) series was in use on land and sea beginning from the late 17th century, up into the 1750's - examples are extant from 1670 - the mid 1750's, known to have been used as cutlasses, infantry hangers, musicians hangers, and there is even a semi-basket branch guard varient that is credited with being Grenadier seargents hangers (See Neumand "Battle Weapons of the American Revolution). So use away, and if any stitch counter gives you a hard time, tell him to stuff it, or send him my way, and I will give him such a dose of his own medicine that he will flee hollering like the "screamapillar". :) P.S. Regarding the wieght, Decon Fry has the right of it - it is designed as a 'blunt', and the thicker edge, and lack of distal taper add the spare pound

Aye Deacon Fry, I'd say you have the right of it seeing the pistol up close - it looks like a fairly typical Brescian pistol, down to the chasework plates on the sides of the stock, save for the unfortunate, awkward, non-18th century appearing skull on the side of the butt of the pistol. Had they put some real thought into it, they would have been better off making a buttcap proper, with the motif of a skull, following the 18th century fashion for grotesqes as buttcaps on high quality pistols. This placement on the side of the cap unfortuneatly is hoakey, and looks as screwed up as a soup-sandwich when comparing to original pistols. I knew positive it had to be Med. basin, but Italian it is rather than Greek. It's not a reworked original for certes.

The length here is the length on the gun deck. For comparison with the replica Rose, see: http://www.tallshiprose.org/info/shipspecs.html The Rose actually seems to be somewhat longer than the historical Surprise, but a very close match overall. It should be noted here that while O'Brian was a stickler for accuracy in some areas, time wasn't one of them. He expanded and collapsed time at will as it suited his needs. To get a really good feel for the size of the historical Surprise next to other frigates (as well as other types of naval vessels), see: http://members.aol.com/batrnq/aubrey4.htm Hi Deacon, You are correct about the length of ROSE. PROVIDENCE, which was built a few years later, by the efforts of the same fellow, has far fewer compromises.

Yes, which is why item 2. was of great importance. They could not have bought her had the Rose Trust not been insolvent. That the production company has promised to bring Rose back to her East Coast home at some point is the question most New Englanders have in mind - will they keep their word? I doubt it.

You know, that IS an interesting question. Why the Rose? Which is not impugning her at all. But how does any particular tall ship get chosen? I'm sure some of it is how much her owners are promoting her, what the insurance/liability issues are, where she's located vis a vis the filming and how likely is it that she could be moved, the friendliness of her set-up as far as filming is concerned. It must be an artform, deciding how to proceed... (Very interesting posts, Salem Bob...I've been enjoying them.) Ahoy Cracked Carrie, An excellent question - I think it has to do with mostly 'happy coincidences' for the movie production team - How close is the ship to the ideal they want? How needy or desperate is the organization that owns the ship for money?, and How close is the ship to where we want to film it? I think Rose met criteria 1 within reason and 2 very well - Lady Washington made all 3 ( can't speak to their finances, but it takes lots of money to keep such a brig going, and invariably the trust orginizations owning them are strapped for cash - I'm doing a gig for the Providence, and donating my pay to her to help her out, these situations are typical I think), and the sets for Black Pearl had to be made as nothing close to the conception of the production team was available.

Ahoy Aloft and Alow, What made this 'inappropriate' was that is was done on the most watched Sports event in America, during the half-time show, which took place at lates 8:30 PM EST - without warning (and anyone who saw it, or some of the commentary on MTV on the same day prior to the event can't possibly believe it was an 'accident'). I don't believe in censorship, as I am sure most of you do not - it should be the responsibility of the parents to censor what thier children watch, rather than the government act as parents to us all. That said, unless some warning is given, how can a parent excersise their right (and responsibility) to censor what their children watch? If warning was given, the complaints against the action would not have a leg to stand on. That the action was premeditated, the apologies are insincere to anyone with a modicum of understanding of the English language (they were "sorry that people were offended" - they did not apologise for ther actions, which is no apology to the ofended, but a shot at them and their morality. Were it the age we all are intrigued with on this board, and an apology like that were issued, blood would flow) is in the end what makes the actions offensive. The lyrics of the choosen songs, and onstage masturbation of several of the preformers was far more vulgar than Janet Jacksons mammary gland. Most men enjoy looking at womens bodies, clearly. My wife can attest that I do - That does not mean that all things are appropriate for people of all ages, and at all times. I personally find it offensive that Viacom took it on itself to choose what to show the audience, instead of giving fair warning so as to allow those who would choose to censor their families viewing to do so.

Ahoy CapnWilliam, Regarding the doglock and it's safety - I have seen it argued that it is much safer than the typical half-cock position on a true flintlock (most certainly so in the case of a service piece). It is more inconvenient to use, needing to be engaged manually. Personally, I would feel safer carrying a doglock on my belt, loaded with ball and the dog engaged, than with a loaded flintlock at half cock. Regarding the lock handedness - if you use 17th or 18th century technique, extending your arm fully, and placing your side rather than your front to target (as in modern firing posture), then it doesn't matter. It the arm is fully extended, it doesn't matter how you are facing the target really. In example Dragoon holster pistols in most 18th century armies were made and issued in right handed pairs, and the normal foot posture for shooting isn't always possible on horseback (yes when firing to sides, but no when firing ahead - always being aware of your mounts head!) That is pretty much why they stopped producing handed locks for anything but double barrelled fowlers and pistols.

Captainwilliam, The Loyalist guns are prototyped by Loyalist and their friends, but are produced in India (Loyalist subjects them to an intensive quality control, unlike many sutlers who only buy in small lots), then shipped to Canada 'in the white', where they undergo inspection and final assembly. The stocks would already be inlet for a right hand lock - they would have to make a blank stock from scratch and inlet it, which would not be cheap since it is a pain in the neck, and the work would be done here rather than in India. You can't just throw any lock on any pistol and have it work - you would need to find a left hand lock of the same size as the normal Sea-service lock. L&R makes a number of locks in both left and right hands, and you might find one to work (they run about $99 for a lock, and if the good Indian locks are akin to Ford Escorts (cheap, but reasonably sturdy and reliable), and the Pedesolis are akin to a middleing sedan, the L&R locks are akin in quality to a lincoln or a Caddy. Were I to go to all the trouble, I'd go for something more like a Private purchase pistol, because the issue pistols never had left hand locks - you would only find them on a better quality gun. It would be just as cheap (or expensive depending on how you looked at it) to get a left handed kit gun, and have a blackpowder gunsmith assemble it for you, as it would to cannabalize one of these Loyalist pistols - you will be doing precisely the same thing, paying a blackpowder gunsmith to put a custom gun together for you. You might as well get one that would look like a higher quality private purchase pistol, as to create an ugly duckling that didn't exist. Your mileage may vary) Postscript: to quote myself... This is why IMHO it is better to deal with Loyalist, than some of the sutlers who carry identical arms - Loyalist is the creator of the patterns (he is a custom gunsmith who is very competant) for the India made guns he carrys, and deals with them in bulk, and runs a strict quality control - ships straight back to India anything sub-standard. Sutlers who deal with India directly, and only order a few guns at a time, who don't have the relationship Loyalist does with the manufacturers get sent whatever the manufacturer sends them - it can be a crapshoot in quality, and no doubt some of Loyalist rejects that get shipped back to India, get shipped out to sutlers who aren't gunsmiths, and don't have the clout to send them back, or the knowledge to see some flaws. Thats why you can get replacement parts from Loyalist for these guns, if a part should break, but you most often can't get replacements from various sutlers getting them.

...regarding the ball-buster point, use your baldrick instead of a belt, or righ a thin leather strap for the purpose, as you see some pictures of Scottish lairds doing, so it is against your chest instead of at your hip. Then again, the usual tactic is to fire and throw at yer opponent, so ye don't end up busting any of your anatomy.

I don't know about that Hawkyns, The screw barrel is a mid 17th century invention, and the true flintlock dates to 1615 at the latest (possibly as early as 1597). What makes that particular piece early 18th century rather than Restoration era is the comb of the butt - were it shaped more like a holter pistol of the late 17th century, it would work as early as the 1660's (I'd add a third side-screw for good measure) Regarding the holster pistol, it isn't as hefty as it sounds, and the design balances well. For naval use add a belt hook, which Loyalist offers to do for a very minimal charge (something like $15 US) I'm not sure we're talking about the same pieces. I'm referring to the English doglock cav pistol, and the Early English Sea Service. Neither one of those is a screw barrel. The doglock is definitely dateable to the period of the ECW and the SS has a first pattern date of 1718, with the next major pattern difference occuring in 1756. For the belt hook idea, I have a dog lock pistol with a 14" barrel. Lovely piece, well balanced, shoots nicely. Hang it on a belt hook and it becomes a bloody great ball buster. I have damn near unmanned myself running with that thing swinging from my belt. I hate to think what a larger, heavier piece would do. Hawkyns My Bad, Hawkyns. Someone had posted a picture of the English lock alongside the Pedersoli Queen Anne turnbarrel. As an aside though, the basic pattern of the Sea Service pistol, in essence identical up until a minor lock pattern change in 1752, first appears in the reign of James II. That early pistol is virtually identical to the sea service pistol Loyalist carrys , save for the 'ears' on the butcap - file the ears off flat, even with the rest of the buttcap, and you have a James II 'dragoon' pistol circa 1687 (save of course for the stamping on the lock. Thats the nice thing about British firearms, they are so conservative in form, getting 100 or 150 years of use out of a type, before abandoning it altogether. Here is an earlier pistol that Loyalist just started to carrym, with a doglock, that will work from Charles II up til the end of Queen Annes reign (and much later in the colonies, or for scavangers like pirates) Doglock

I don't e-bay much, because most things I've seen on there that I have knowledge of the relative value of, I see going for far more than they are worth - Indeed, I often get identical items for much less money by shopping around on the net or in person. Kudos to those of you who have gotten a deal. Best nautical related thing I've gotten on e-bay is a late 19th/early 20th century sailmakers fid in excellent condition, for less than $25.

Salem Bob, Im curious if yr countin snaphaunces and english locks as "true flintlocks"? I've read some writers that place the snaphaunce in Germany as early as 1550 and think the "Jacobian" lock may actually have sneaked in as early as 1584...... Thank ye for the info on loyalist. Ill go with the detached lock option, methinks. z :) :) Hi Zorg, Nope, I'm refering to proper flintlocks, not snaphaunces or English locks. French gunsmith invented them between 1597 and 1615, If I can remember his name, I'll jot it down for you. You can push back the date on snaphaunces an English locks a few decades as well - wheelocks as well (a sketch of a functional wheelock is in a Da Vinci sketchbook dating between 1487-95, and it is in the opinion of experts a sketch of an observed object, rather than his more detailed 'inventions'. The earliest mechanical lock is the "Monks gun", which from it;s form is possibly as early as 1450.)

It's not a bad idea. I think every era of interest has those who would love a 'perfect place' to play. The only real trouble is having the appropriate land to play on. Hawkyns, you might inquire about some of the Boston harbour islands, or any of the Islands in the Bay State area, as to whether they might be played upon. The only problem with an 'all pirate' venue is there is no backdrop of support personel - the ideal would be to combine a waterfront colonial 'playground', with pirates.

Ahoy Billy Bones, That isn't really a legacy of the 'Vikings' - it is a legacy of Norse society as a whole. A person gone a-viking is a job description, not all Norse were vikings, and we have no evidence of any set of rules for vikings (like Pirate 'articles' for 17th & 18th century), or any indication they had any. To attribute wereguild (a legacy of Norse/Germanic agrarian tribal society) to vikings is akin to attributing Newtons laws of physics to Tew, because both of them happened to be contemporary Englishmen.

Ahoy Zorg, Flintlocks entire and fireable don't really get held up at the border, what happens is they must pass through customs at an international airport (usually), and you would have to go and pick them up. Depending on how far away you are from said airport makes the difference between a hassle and a worthwhile option. What loyalist can do is either ship them through regular parcel post, with the lockplate off of the pistol, in a seperate package, or they can ship the pistol entire, without touch hole drilled (but pre-marked). The first option anybody can assemble, unless they aren't competant to put a screw into a pre-drilled hole. The second requires a gunsmith with a drillpress willing to do the job - he must then proof the gun as well. My crew and I are just finishing up a large order for Early Sea-Service pistols, and as we have a competant blackpowder gunsmith in the group, we are having him drill and proof them. Individuals in our group have gotten his products with the lockplate seperate before, with no problems whatsoever.

I don't know about that Hawkyns, The screw barrel is a mid 17th century invention, and the true flintlock dates to 1615 at the latest (possibly as early as 1597). What makes that particular piece early 18th century rather than Restoration era is the comb of the butt - were it shaped more like a holter pistol of the late 17th century, it would work as early as the 1660's (I'd add a third side-screw for good measure) Regarding the holster pistol, it isn't as hefty as it sounds, and the design balances well. For naval use add a belt hook, which Loyalist offers to do for a very minimal charge (something like $15 US)

Your point being? Again, Just clarifying my position. Why is trying to accurately recreate costumes, tools, or weapons somehow automatically unfun? Why does the existance of people who pursue these goals bother others who do not share them? I hope you do realize we have a far better grasp of peoples and material cultures before us than those who lived in the era before the modern study of history or archaeology.

Gluebeard, Look, you are going on at great length about 'the spirit of piracy' - thats all well and good, I don't think anybody is attacking anybody here for doing there own thing with what is their hobby. Where I must respectfully disagree with you is your presumptions regarding what people (specifically what historians or antiquarians specialising in material culture) wore, or used in a set time period (say, the 1720's, in the Carolinas or the Carribean) is somehow an unknowable mystery. Your emphasis on handmade clothing is true to a point - most people, including sailors, did not make their own clothes, but bought them from tailors, second hand clothes sellers (more likely option for people in a sailors social class), from pursers slop chests, or gotten as hand-me downs. These were made to patterns, following the general fashion of the day. It comes across to me as if your making in that argument "You can't ever be authentic, so you should never try to". If that is the case, I think that is a very weak argument. If it is not the case, then I apologise for misreading you. Clothing did, and always has followed discernable fashions, which people followed as best they might. We know what people wore for basic clothes in the late 17th or early 18th century - men wore shoes, knee high stockings, breatches of some sort, shirts cut to a general pattern, waistcoasts, and jackets of some sort, with neck cloths. We can discern from paintings, cartoons, ect, what sailors generally wore, as well as from lists from pursers slop chests and the like. There is a large ammount of variety within the general fashion, but the variety follows the general fashion. To pass the fashion off as somehow unknowable is disingenuous. If one's motivation is to be an entertainer, or for entertainment, then they darned well ought to be entertaining, *but*, if ones purpose is to educate as to history and material culture, then they ought do as good a job of presenting that as the entertainer goes out of their way to be entertaining. To presume that either occupation is not Fun is a poor presumtion - the fellow who is in it solely for "fun", and looks down his nose at the fellow who enjoys putting a lot of work into replicating clothes and equipment is just as arrogant, and just as obnoxious as the worst example you can think of for an 'authentinazi'. A point I made earlier, and applicable *if the motive is to teach an audience about history*, is that not all visual representations are equally good at representations for the purpose. Example - which is the best visual representation of an 18th century ship? The "Rose", the "Royaliste", A sunfish sailboat, a guy in aluminum dory, or a guy on a jetski? another example - which is the best visual representation of a pistol an 18th century pirate would have used? A functional, exacting replica of a Sea Service pistol, a dummy cast zinc replica ditto, an 1851 Colt Navy, a Colt .45, or a glow in the dark waterpistol? While none of the examples listed are *perfect* visual replicas, I think we can all agree that some are obviously better than others, and others are very acceptable substitutes, while some are not appropriate representations at all. My point here is that if the object is to educate an audience, and one is using visual representations, it behooves the presenter to make an effort to make a good visual presentation, as well as getting his facts straight. My reason for sounding off was in direct response to your first post on this topic. From where I sit, I found what you wrote to be hostile to, or demeaning of people who *enjoy* trying to accurately replicate items. I did not find the same hostility present on the side of people who enjoy these things to those whos motive is entertainment. I myself enjoy learning the history of 18th century maritime professions, learning the skills a sailor would have known, and replicating and using the items they would have used to the best of my ability - and then teaching others. I certainly do not think myself better than the people who have written on this topic who's first interest is entertainment - either that of others, or entertainment of self. Pretty much every topic I have ever studied relating to history or material culture (and I have been at it a long time, and have had the good fortune to have some professional training in same), the longer I have studied it, the more I have learned, the more *I realized that I have hardly begun to scratch the surface of information there is*. When I see someone who thinks they have learned it all, I almost always find that they hardly have, and if they would open their eyes and ears they would find so much more that could be learned. Are there blowhards amongst those who claim to strive for authenticity? Surely there are - and they tend to stick out like a sore thumb to anyone who has more than a passing brush with the subject the blowhard claims to be 'expert' in. I think we can all learn from each other - nobody here is trying to change anyone else, or force them to do anything different in their hobby. There is room enough in the Sea for all - but tolerance goes two ways - you can hardly expect it if your not willing to extend it to others.