'Salem Bob'

Too right you are Hawkyns, I don't even reenact a pirate (American Privateer, F&I or Rev War, Royal Navy, or simply mid 18th century sailor as the venue calls for) Heresy, I know, but at a January gig at Strawberry Banke, we played sailors from the Bristol packet, and in normal sailors slops (including stockings and shoes ashore of course, and a 'cutlash', it being a town full of agitators and rebels in 1774), got labled a pirate by every child who walked through the tavern door. We then had the fun of explaining to them how we 'was honest sailors'. The crowd was perfectly happy seeing us eat, drink, and play cards, have an ongoing battle with the Methodist woman the next room over who had labled us 'limbs of Satan' for all and sundry to hear, and asking us questions as to what we were about, where we we from, a sailors life, ect What I do not understand is the concept some seem to have that being authentic is automatically UN-fun, and that theater must totaly be divorced from reenactment, and authenticity from theater - never the twain can be spliced together. From perusing this web site, seeing e-bay auctions, and seeing the going price for obviously unauthentic "pirate" gear, I would say it were likely cheaper to portray an accurate pirate who was a normal crewman (barring a captain or officer attempting to pass themselves off as a "gentleman" ashore), than an over the top fantasy pirate. I believe I laid out less than $300 in total for a extremely accurate set of clothes, barring shoes. I think both sides of the question could learn a lot and benefit from each other, if they would only let go of preconcieved notiong of the 'enemy' (fortunately, few seem to be adamant in their positions), and listen to what the other had to say.

It depends on the oil. Some oils actually have a small water content. Tallow does work well - their is a German 16th century burgonet in a collection in the UK that had seen about a centuries active service, who's surface is as fine as the day it was made - the boarder Riever who owned the helmet rubbed it on a regular basis with sheep tallow. The only 'adverse' effect was it turned the helmet to a slight golden colour.

Not to stir up trouble, being new and all... I think many people have misconceptions on both sides of this issue. Firstly, if a bunch of people want to dress in frilly blouses, karate pants, a nondescript vest, and a do-rag with a skull and crossbones on it, and *play* at pirates for their own edification and amusement, be it in a fair, or on a boat, or at a clam-bake, who the heck has the right to waltz in and tell them "You all are doing this wrong", and then proceed to point out all the shortcomings of their costumry and accessories? First off, many of them know precisely whatever shortfallings thier gear has - some might know more about the subject at hand than the wet blanket who is boorishly interrupting their fun. What they are doing is adequate for their purpose, and those who do not care will not be convinced by the interloper, no matter how good their intentions (not all of them have good intentions, some merely want to lord it over others to make themselves feel better about them living in their mothers basement at the age of 40, some people can't feel good unless they are spoiling others fun). On the other hand, if one is making a pretence of an educational presentation to the public, and is allegedly interpreting history, then one has a duty to be accurate, both in information and appearance. You ought not say "this is the way it was" to a group of people, while looking like a refugee from a bad college film project (or frat party gone horribly wrong). On this point, I feel rather strongly, having done interpretation on a semi-professional basis for several institutions. Another misconception, I have to agree with Baptiste - using authentic materials makes for a more comfortable experience, and it is no more expensive to do a portrayal authenticaly than inauthenticaly - good lord, a sailor impression is about one of the cheapest ones to do. Wool and linen breathe, synthetics and blends don't I've worn wool and linen and worked a gun in 100 degree heat with no harm, and less discomfort than some of the spectators in shorts and short sleeved tee-shirts. All wool is *not* horseblanket weight, you know. I myself have been accused of being an 'authenticity-nazi', it is a term that gets flung about too freely. As for the fellow criticizing your splinter with a beam in his eye, just remember, he is probably living in his momas basement, and he has to feel superior to somebody. If he persists - stuff him through a hawse-hole.

A person on a sailing vessel who couldn't tie a good dozen knots would be as useful as a pack of clergymen or farmers. Everyone aboard had to learn - nobody was immune from going into the tops in an emergency.

To the best of my knowledge, rust prevention during the era in question on shipboard consisted of 1. 'jappaning' - painting a surface exposed to the elements in a sort of laquer or paint made of 'asphaltum', turpentine, and the like 2. painting with red lead or white lead 3. keeping well greased with tallow British Sea Service muskets came in two flavours, in a long 'bright' pattern, and a short 'black. the black was jappaned all over it's surface, and was prefered to use in boat actions during the night, and the like. bare metal was problematic for rust, even tallowed. Some ships captains ordered things like boarding pikes kept bright, with the woodwork scrapped, some prefered them jappaned or painted. The ones left bright tended to have a shorter surface life, due to their surface being thinned through repeated sandings and polishings. Many, many naval weapons are only recognisable as such today due to traces of jappaning on them.

Sailors slops, cut appropriate to whatever decade of whichever century you are attempting to portray. Liberaly stained with tar, and cleaned in urine for the super-authentic minded When all said and done, as has been pointed out, they were common sailors who had taken up brigandinge on the high seas. If you base your kit around the common sailors clothes, and then look to your weaponry, and a piece or two of exotic gear, you will likely come close to the mark.

Not to be correcting you gunner Hawkyns (you are far more experienced than I, but I may have chanced upon some references you might not have seen), but cartridges appear in Burgundian inventories (for ordinance) from the 1460's - If your interested in early artillery, you should try to get a copy of Garnier's "L'Artillerie de le Ducs de Bourgogne" (pardon any misspelled French), and they are referenced for shoulder fired arms in Swiss sources from the 1470's and 80's - check out Bertram Halls work on Late Medieval and Rennaissance warfare - the discussion on advances in powder milling and tube casting are fascinating. "Die Burgunderbeute" is also a treasure of early tubes of Burgundian origin, now in Switzerland.

Regarding the rifle vs. the smoothbore in New England - The principle reason of the smoothbores popularity in New England was largely the type of hunting involved - one can take a deer with a Fowler, but one truely successfully fowl with a rifle. New Englanders being a frugal lot, (I know, I am a 13th generation one myself) tended to go with a large bore fowler, such as a New England Club butt, which could take a deer handily in the terrrain conditions at hand (and the de-forestation of New England is in largest part a 19th century phenomenon, as more and more marginal land was turned over to grazing dairy cattle and sheep - the forests of New England now are largely second and third growth scrub pine and brush, then Oak, maple and birch, elm and chestnut to a lesser extent, with far less underbrush, the line demarking mostly deciduous from needle bearing trees being up near Portland - but I wildly digress..,), take geese and duck handily, and by the hatful, and do as a militia musket in a pinch - more than one of these King William or Queen Anne long fowlers has the stock cut back from the muzzle, and a bayonet stud added. Rifles and riflemen did exist in New England prior to the Revolution, although not commonplace - more commonly on the Western and Northern frontier. At least one, a Tim Murphy, had a double barelled rifle.

Ahoy Aloft and Alow, Have handled the merchandise, and am very familiar with the company. If you want a pistol that will see only light service, it will do you well. The pistol is made in India, the two possible disadvantages being the frizzen isn't twice hardened, as it ought be (not a difficult operation to do the second case hardening), and the second being if it breaks, you are out of luck as Middlesex has no warentee, and no means of replacing parts. If you want to only occassionaly make noise with it, it will serve you well for decades. It is cheaper than Loyalist arms, but not substantialy so in my estimation. Your other Sea Service pistol option is Loyalist arms. Disadvantage, a few tens of dollars more expensive, advantage, a warentee, spare parts, and a properly hardened frizzen. if you want a shooter, I'd take this option - then again, I don't buy weaponry not fully servicable - your mileage may vary. So, if your interest is the occassional blank firing, and it looking pretty, and being accurate looking, then Middlesex is fine, if you intend to use it heavily, go for Loyalist, even though it's a little more money.

Capn William, Check volume I again, it does cover the M1860 cutlass (derived from the French M 1833, and ultimately the Model 1801 cutlass), and it covers the M1917/41, including describing what may have been the last action with a US soldier (combat Engineer NCO) killing a Chineese soldier with one during the Korean war.

Ahoy there, That sword I doubt to be the basis for the barbossa sword. There are plenty of examples of shell guard cutlasses, circa 1660-1760 that are much more likely candidates, and clearly as you look at the video, the sword in question has a 'falchion' blade, and is not a double edged broadsword for use by heavy cavaly. Most shell guard cutlassses have an iron hilt. Most original cutlasses ranged from 24"-28" in the blade, with a rare few having as little as 18". See Gilkersons "Boarders Away - with Steel" Vol I for sea-service edged weapons in particular, or Newmanns "Swords of the American Revolution" for a number of land and sea-service swords.

Ahoy Aloft and Alow, Lady Barbossa, I am almost dead certain that the pistol in question is of Greek or Albainian (or similar South Centeral European) origin. Were it a minquelet lock, then I would concur it would likely be Arabic in origin, but from the pictures I have seen of it, in the few shots where it can be properly seen from the front, it is clearly a flintlock proper, rather than a minquelet or a doglock. The overal form of the pistol indicates the origin I have suggested - I cannot speak to whether it is or is not original (and more than one weapon in the movie was purchased at auction, to my understanding), but this form of pistol was produced in those parts of Europe well into the 1830's, and they characteristically are highly ornate (but comparitively crude in execution to Western European arms of quality). It probably has silver wire inlet into the wood of the stock, giving a pleasing look, but not being as difficult or expensive a form of decoration as chasing would entail to the metal of the lock or barel, as was commonly done on the higher quality Western European firearms. The pistols of this origin are not considered as desireable or collectable to the average firearms collector, and so originals can be gotten within a reasonable range (on the order of a thousand dollars for a working arm in decent shape, or much less for one with a broken lock). I would suggest that a modern replication of such a pistol, to be made as a 'hero' weapon would be cost prohibitive compared to simply buying an antique. Quite possibly, they could have bought an antique in indifferent condition, merely for the stock, and put a new lock or barrel to it. It is certainly not a Sea Service arm as prudiced by any European power in the Age of Fighting Sail - a quick perusal of Gilkersons 'Boarders Away', Vol II will dispell that notion. Sea service arms were invariably simple, rugged arms, as they took (and were intended to take) far more abuse than their land-service cousins. As to who made what for the movie, indeed, most of the 'hero' weapons were made by the usual suspects in the indistry - but the bulk of the firearms and cutlasses to my understanding were bought or rented from 'Loyalist Arms', in Nova Scotia - certainly the blunderbuss seen in several scenes was from this source (I own the prototype for the production run) Loyalist can be perused at Loyalist Arms A very nice Sea Service pistol can be gotten there, as well as a typical English or Dutch doglock, circa 1660-1720.