Slopmaker Cripps

Mr. hand, It starts off with a circle at the base, then you have a piece of running wire that loops around the base (almost like a blanket stitch) and then when you finish the first row, it goes on top of the previous row. The loops go between the loops of the first row, and so on and so on. Makes an odd (and crude) looking wire mesh. The original wasn't really nice, perfect, and fancy, but rather definitely made by hand bending the wire and more function over looks. Anyway, I hope this helps. If I get a chance to get some pics from an event, I'll try and get them up from a friends comp so you can see the pipe cap. Anyway, time for Church.... Cheers, Adam

Snare drum, bass drum, Bohdran, Rope drum, Ancient Greek Syrinx, harmonica, and working on fretless Minstrel banjo style while I finish making a gourd Banjo. I also play an Azande bow harp, and jaw harp. Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man

Patrick, Unfortunately, my computer is a royal pain in the arse, so I can't get pictures of the one I made. I can try and transcribe my notes, however, though they're mostly sketches with measurements added in. It was in a case with pipes and pipe fragments at the QAR in Charleston. The owner of the collection wasn't there at the time, so I wasn't able to get information on where it came from. Nearly everything in the collection is GAoP period, however. I'm hoping to get back up there and meet up with the guy sometime soon. The original was made of brass wire that has corroded from the sea water over the last 200 years and is now blackened. I was going through some stuff one day, and found a whole coil of correct brass wire that I had for some other project, and since I was bored and had nothing better to do, I dug up my notes and got to work. My friends get a kick out of seeing me smoke a pipe with this thing on it, but it looks awesome anyway. Cheers, Adam C., slop-man

I picked up a 1715 clay pipe at an event a few years back, and then proceeded to make a pipe cap based from an original for it. Didn't have the tools to do the fine bending of the wire to make the chain, so I have some twine holding it on now, but am hoping to get the chain done one of these days. Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man

Foxe, I should have worded that as commercially available paper patterns. Sorry for not getting back into the discussion, but I'm lucky to get time to sleep at night anymore. Anyway, I should be back in a few months once summer gets here..... Cheers, Adam P.S. Anyone is welcome to email me at provincialnavy@yahoo.com though I can't guarantee when/if I can get back to you.

Foxe, I need to get to bed, as I have to report at 0800 this morning for my coast guard duties.....so, I'll have to make this short. What I was talking about with the sleeveless waistcoats had to do with the sailor on the far left of the sketch earlier, not sailors in general. Only general comment I made had to do with the neckline. I understand you're trying to leave options open on the ASC, but I was referring to the specific picture and not all sailors as a whole (saving that for some later publications). I'll try and get back online and comment on your post here in the next few days. This is always one of the busiest times of the year for me! Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man

Foxe, Thanks for giving it a shot. I wish my computer would stop being a _itch and allow me to post and email pics (so I can share details pics). It is very hard with all the clutter there, but I'll tell you how I came to the conclusion that I did. I'll start from the top and go down. Just in front of the cuff and right behind his thumb is a small triangle of white. Just below that and seperated by a horizontal dark line, behind the shirt cuff and before the jacket cuff, there are two squares with a distinct dark line seperating them vertically. Below the two white squares, there's another horizontal distinct dark line with a white triangle beneath it, on the hand side of the vertical, and before the cuff. Where another white square would be, on the jacket cuff side of the vertical, the artist decided to sketch in some shadowing and the area is darkened along with the area under the armpit, side, and upper thigh area of the trousers. The artist would not have left these squares and triangles white unless he's trying to represent a pattern (which in this case looks just like window pane check, which is period and seen on other artwork and described in deserter ads etc). The artist also distinctly darkened the shirt cuff so as to contrast with the patterned part of the shirt coming out from under the cuff, which also gives us another example the narrow cuff widths used on early style sailors shirts. I still stand by my belief that it's a window-pane checked linen shirt for the time being. Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man P.S. I also play with a magnifying glass a lot......:-)

Umm let's see here....they're cut like trousers and not slop-hose. The details are hard to put into writing, but we'll see what we can do. The rear of the pattern was cut similar to breeches of the period, though the legs were extended down, a little more fitted than the latter versions. The pockets were just a cut in the shape of a triangle or house (depending on the guy you're talking about) that were then used to make pockets like normal. The artist did not sketch the sideseams on the trousers, though it's damn near impossible (or extremely hard if you'd prefer) to get that kind of fitting (especially on the outer thigh area) without one. I'm estimating them circa 4 inches above the top of the ankle bone. The width of the trousers below the knee is the same as the measurement just above the knee. They look like they bell out due to the nature of these guys leg muscles and the way they're standing. These are not to different (except for the small details such as the pockets) from the 1730's period "long" sailors trousers that came a decade afterward. Just a few notes. Also, If you want to know what happens when you just elongate the slop-hose pattern, watch "Treasure Island" with Charleton Heston. That's what they're wearing when they're making way. Accurate....haven't seen anything close yet. There's a distinct cut to trousers that you won't get by just narrowing and elongating a slop-hose pattern. Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man Edit note- The comment on the width of the trousers being the same as just above the knee applies to the guy on the far left of the picture. The sailor that's speaking to the "judge" appears to have a slight (we're talking 1-2") expansion at the hem than the circumference just above the knee.

Greg, If you play around with the picture, what you're seeing under the jacket sleeve is his shirt. It's a window-pane checked pattern. There is two vertical and one horizontal bar visible in the drawing. He's wearing a typical sleevless waistcoat underneath the jacket (the necklines were cut higher in the ealier part of the century on the weskit instead of dropped down the chest later on). Kass is right on the button size, though my personal recommendation is 5/8" flat brass or the rim-less brass dome buttons as they seem to be what I run into most often when collecting info. Do note this is for the short jackets with fewer buttons, whereas the smaller sizes like Kass mentioned is for the jackets you see with half a million (not literall) smaller ones (circa 1/2 inch). I doubt those are watch fobs, but they appear to me to be triangular shaped pockets that were cut out of the main trouser material, the pocket stitched in, then the flap pulled over the hole and buttoned. I drafted a pattern for those trousers (which is somewhere around here...my patterns got moved around in the move a few months ago), but haven't had a chance to test them out. As for the jackets, they are just work jackets similar to the sleeved waistcoat. Notice the split on the side-seam at the bottom of the guy presenting his case, just like waistcoats. As for the waistcoat, it is of the shorter variety falling around the trousers waistband, yet not to further as the jacket falls circa 3" (estimate) below the waist. I doubt it's tucked in, as I have never heard of or seen anything about tucking in a waistcoat (except for the knit under-waistcoat Kass mentioned, which I haven't found anything about sailors wearing....yet...), though we can not get a definitive answer either way since the buttons we're seeing through the guys arms belong to the jacket and not the waistcoat. He's wearing his clothes in typical sailor fashion of buttoning the bottom half of the coat buttons, and leaving the top open to expose the waistcoat, shirt, and neckerchief in the breast area. So, whether it's tucked in or not, we don't know definitively since he's got his jacket buttoned overtop, though I seriously doubt it's tucked in. Kass, I guess I'm not seeing what you are, but I don't see much 19th century about him. The waistcoat, if 19th century would have had a standing collar (not seeing it) up until the 1820's-1830's, and after that would have a shawl collar (that I'm not seeing either). Up above the neckline is his neckerchief which is covering his shirt collar (which was usually a standing collar on sailors shirts coincidentally). What are you seeing that makes you believe it's 19th century in style? I truly am interested, as I also do 19th century and you may know something (that you're seeing) I have never heard of. Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man

GoF, I only have two seconds to post here, so unfortunately I can't continue in the discussion this evening. However, if you shoot me an email, I'll try and get back to you as soon as I can. As for Burnley and Trowbridge, the Burnleys are personal friends of mine . Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man

Foxe, We're still on the hunt for the patterns. If I remember correctly, paper patterns weren't produced until the early 19th century. The tailors would draft the measurements they needed right on the cloth, which is why the slop contracts talk about a display piece being available at every location for the captain and purser to exam instead of a pattern. These prototypes were made exactly like what the Admiralty wanted, and were required to be available for the captains and pursers to see them, and compare them with the slops they were in the process of buying together. So, unless we can turn up an original, we're pretty much stuck with the evidence we have so far. I got the checked shirt covered, but the smarties might be hard to come by. :-) As for the striped waistcoat, I just offered the artist getting lazy as an option. Personally, I think it was solid striped woven ticking (the problem here is that there is a ticking stripe and an actual ticking weave). The simple fact of the matter, is that with the thousands of garments being cranked out, they're not all going to look identical since fabric supplies, slop-maker, etc., change constantly (hence why the ASC's discuss the small details and basic requirements instead of getting EXTREMELY detailed). We're talking about mass-produced garments by hand. A good example is Federal Sack coats during the Civil War. Admittedly, it's just over a century from GAoP, but it's the perfect example of a set of requirements on details and basic aspects for the garment, and then you have many varying originals depending on the fabric run, dye bath, lining materials available, etc. Just thought it'd give you an idea of what we're talking about. Unfortunately, we still haven't attained 100% uniformity even in our own modern armies (they're not in Iraq fighting in their dress uniforms). GoF, I don't hold out, I just sometimes have to wait to have enough time to share the info. Heck, I'm amazed I've been able to swing computer time last night and this morning. As for which contract, they were the same ones (if you notice, most of them were just renewals with the same slop-man ;-)) for the most part, with a few very slight differences on details in the 1730's-40's ones. Even then, the differences aren't with patterns, it's just thread buttons instead of brass, etc. As for the 1706 contract, I say to heck with it, let's work off the 1717 one .... As for the pattern, I have one set I hand drafted for myself, and then I just draft them with tailors chalk on the material (just like the originals were done...as I said, paper patterns were a later thing....), altering as needed. No sketch yet, but I've thought about it, and might very well do it here in the next couple of months (trying not to leak too much out, especially if plans don't go the way we're planning). I don't have the printers, etc., to mass produce my patterns or I would have awhile back, but anymore I just use them for my shipmates and I (we're the only WOJE naval group out there, and we use them in our WOJE Royal Navy impression...admittedly, the 1731 set...). I too am interested in what comes out of Kass's GAoP line. Just another set of patterns to add to my extremely sickening collection (I think I have enough patterns that the paper involved killed a whole acre of the rain forest). Anyway, time to get to classes! I'll see if I can manage to swing by later this evening..... Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man

Foxe, As I mentioned in the email, there aren't any extant original ASC garments to my knowledge. I derived the patterns as close as possible using all the primary source material I could gather (measurements given in the contracts, artwork, journals, letters, complaints and praises about slops, etc). Research on them is constantly going on, and as such I'm glad to alter the patterns as needed, but so far, they're on par with the most current research on the ASC goods. In no way do I claim them to be 100% accurate, but rather the closest approximation I could manage with what all I've been able to gather on them. As for trading you kids, it's ok, I'd rather have my own in a few years. If you have a young daughter who's single and about my age...well then we can try and bargain.... Aye, I meant that comment about the whole fitout as a joke. Having a full set is a good part of a display, especially when you're doing a purser's impression. I like to use them in lectures about the slop system. As for your love for slop-hose, I can totally sympathise as that's usually what everyone sees me wearing. Then again, I'm always working at events, so most of my shipmates haven't even seen me in any of my shore going rigs. It's funny, my closet is full of historical stuff, yet I only use 1-2 outfits when doing sailor. Oh, I just went back and read your questions on the Farness Hercules sketch. He's wearing a complete set of 1731 slop contract goods, as the artists wanted to make sure everyone knew he was suppose to be a sailor (usually the funny bearded guy is a naked Greek statue). It was a political sketch trying to gain support and recruits for the navy. They used the statue for the human figure, because most people knew what it was (not because all sailors wore beards ;-)). Anyway, he has 11 button front, 2 button cuffs.....all heck...it's the same as the details I posted earlier.... And the waistcoats used smaller buttons and really had all the buttons on the fronts, as they were of the sleeveless variety. You never see a set of sleeves underneath the open cuffs on a sailors jacket except the sleeves of the shirt (if I'm mistaken, I'd love to see a picture showing sleeves between the shirt and the jacket!). And a note on the waistcoat fabric. Either the slop-man was unable to procure actual ticking stripe cloth (thus having to settle for a blue on white solid stripe ticking) or the artist decided it wasn't worth drawing all those fine lines and just put solid straight lines. Unfortunately, we'll never know which was the real reason it's just solid straight lines. Personally, I vote for the first option. As for the whole button thing, I didn't feel like reading it all, so I'm not going to involve myself in that discussion. Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man

If we combine this written description with the pictoral evidence it seems, at first glance, to be not unreasonable to assume that the pockets were buttoned closed. Take, for example, this picture of a French seaman circa 1700: and on coats of the period (including the one pictured) three seems to be a pretty common number. That would leave 9 buttons to go down the front. Fair enough. BUT, if we assume that the slop coats also had mariners' cuffs which buttoned closed that would only leave 3 buttons for the front (mariners' cuffs are usually depicted with 3 buttons also), and 3 is clearly not enough to fasten the coat closed. So, do we assume that a: the coats had buttons on the pockets, but no mariners' cuffs (since they are not mentioned), b: the coats had mariners' cuffs and the pockets were not buttoned closed, or c: that the specs only take into account the buttons down the front anyway, in which case the coats may or may not have had mariners' cuffs? Personally I suspect (B:), based solely on pictures of other, non-regulation coats. The issue is clouded further by the fact that the waistcoats had 18 buttons, and probably no mariners' cuffs (though it would not be surprising to find a small cuff opening with perhaps 2-3 buttons). However, several pictures of the period show a large difference in the number and size of coat and waistcoat buttons anyway. Take this picture for example: The British Hercules, 1737*: (Privately, I wonder if that is actually a depiction of an ASC spec strip'd ticken waistcoat. It's about the right length, of the right pattern and he IS a Royal Navy seaman of the right period. Does anyone fancy counting the buttons? IF it is an ASC spec garment does anyone else think that it looks remarkably like he's got his hand in a slit pocket on the side, rather than a flapped pocket in the front as one would suspect? Either that or it's got a VERY high slit up the side.) Then we come to the breeches! I wondered at first whether the large number of buttons was perhaps due to the pockets being buttoned closed (which would be practical, but I have no evidence off hand to support such an assumption), but the ticking breeches have less pockets and more buttons than the woollen breeches so there must be another answer. Are we talking about breeches with 3-4 buttons at each knee and 8-10 buttons at waist and fly? 5 buttons at each knee and 6 at the fly? The 1730 regulations do offer a snippet of extra information: The trousers, included for the first time in the slops contract in 1730, but available from at least as early as 1725 (letter from Franklin the slop seller to the Navy Board, Sept 10, 1725) call for them to be of Naturally one would expect trousers to have fewer buttons than breeches since they have no fastenings except at the waist and fly, but does this mean that the breeches had only 4 buttons at the waist and fly? That would mean 6 buttons on each knee of the ticken breeches - or does it mean that there were buttons on the pockets after all, since there is no mention of pockets in the trousers? (note also the 2 fly buttons on the trousers in the "British Hercules" picture) I know that GoF has attempted to fathom the "Leather Capps faced with Red Cotton, and lined with Black Linnen" previously. I wonder if they might be similar to early grenadier caps? From 1703 all the marine regiments seem to have worn grenadier style caps, presumably because they were more practical at sea than the infantry tricorns. What's to stop the seamen having worn similar hats? Thoughts on any of that from anyone who hasn't developed a headache yet? Frankly, I'm going to start work on my 1690s set of slop clothes first. There are less details in the specs, but that means more room for using other evidence which is less confusing... *Purists may balk at my use of such a late picture, but since the slop contracts for the period up to 1748 are almost identical to those from 1706 there seems little reason to assume that their appearance changed much. Foxe, Seeing how I used to make the ASC garments, and have patterns for them on hand, I guess I should chime in. The jackets had 11 buttons on the front, and two on each cuff. The cuffs weren't your "mariner cuffs" of later periods, but simply hemmed, then buttonholes put in and overlapped (makes it closer fitting on the forearm when buttoned, which is also a reason they're most often seen unbuttoned! Can't work with sleeves fitted on the forearm). The pockets were parallel to the waistline and positioned just above the 8th button. The 10th button looks to be even with the belly button/trouser waistband. The pockets are not buttoned, but simply placed in like you were doing a "welt" pocket without adding the welt. Sorry I can't get more detailed with this right now, but school is keeping me busy (hence why I'm not making ASC garments anymore...). I am doing a few clothing lectures later this year, but they're mostly on the post-GAoP periods due to my audience requests. A shipmate and I might be doing a publication over the summer if all goes well that will be more modern than the articles from the 1920's, and will cover the whole period. Cheers, Adam C., slop-man P.S. Feel free to shoot me an email if you need anymore help. I also have connections for some correct linen ticking if you want to go for the summer slops. And yes, the ticking garments were meant for summer wear. P.P.S. If you're going for a completely slop fit-out, then you must have been in desperate straights on your last voyage! Hope you're having better luck these days...:-)

Foxe, The roman's didn't have knitting, though the art of "naalbinding" was appearing in Egypt towards the latter days of the Empire. Most of the headgear was felted wool or straw and made into wide brimmed hats (Petasus hats) that offered some protection to travelers and farmers. Usually however, no headgear was worn. The Copts in Egypt were the first (to my knowledge) to wear a cap that resembled the later monmouth, and even then it was using naalbinding and not knitting. If I remember correctly, the Iscaa Morrismen claim to have invented the so called monmouth, or they at least have a lot of information on the monmouth's early history. Cheers, Adam C. (Gaius Oppius Fugi...or jump back to Hippias...or even further to Gideon)

15-20 minutes? Dang, I wish the talks were that short! I've had people who wouldn't go away after an hour or two....And that's just history, not gear and so forth.... And I'm with Foxe....when our group goes in our Royal navy stuff or our merchant seaman kit (same thing, we just put the Slop contract garments in the trunk) we still get called pirates. Cheers, Adam C. Fish-Broth Society

Mr. Hand, My crew and I are all about authenticity, and we have a hell of a time while doing it (always laughing and having a good time when we're all together). We tend to piss off the hollywood pirate types because all the spectators flock to us and ignore them. They've even been so rude as to barge into our presentations. It is not like we're trying to fight them or anything, it's just that we set up off to the side and do our own thing, and the public comes to us. Trust me, the public can tell what's realistic versus what looks like POTC, and many of them comment to me as such. They do notice the extra effort. Cheers, Adam C. Fish-Broth Society

Contact Queen Anne's Revenge in Charleston, SC. They have a full sized gibbet on display. Unfortunately I don't have the contact info on hand, as it's just a 3.5 hour drive for me. Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man

As I understand it, salt water eats the hell out of pewter. Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man

The blanket stitch WORKS for buttonholes, but it's not a real buttonhole stitch. Both stitches are similar, though a real buttonhole stitch as a nice little purl on the top edge, which adds to the protection of the fabric around the buttonholes. Keeps the buttonhole from wearing out as quick and then messing up the material. For a buttonhole stitch, you come through the material towards you, form a loop, go through the loop, then the back side of the material (coming out towards you) then back through the loop. When you pull the thread it should form the purl on top. From there, you just form the loop and keep going from there. I recommend practicing on scrap fabric before doing them on the breeches. Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man

My personal favourite is "Captain Barton's Distress on the Lichfield." Cheers, Adam

Chad, If I remember correctly, I recommended Mrs. Buckland in the packet I sent you. She is the best option in the world. Once I wear the heck out of the monmouth cap I have (it was handknit for me by a young lady friend a few years ago), I'm planning to replace it with one of Mrs. Buckland's caps. I have also thought about getting a few of those styles for everyday wear in the winter time. You missed out on the bulk buy a lot of the guys were doing last year from Mrs. Buckland. Cheers, Adam

If I wasn't starting College next Fall, then I'd take the chest. It would round out the decor of my little cottage nicely. Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man

Thanks Guys. Cheers, Adam

Greg, Thanks man. It will probably be awhile though, as I'm starting college next fall. We'll see in the future, but things just aren't working out to well right now. Cheers, Adam

To all my shipmates, It is with a sad heart that I will have to shut down Slop Shop Reproductions yet again. Every time I try and get the business back running, disaster strikes. Unfortunately, this time it has to do with my Mom being in poor health, and my apartment complex being bought out by another company and will be turning the apartments into high priced condo's. I am very sorry to get everyones hopes up for the slop contract goods, and I looked forward to providing them. Unfortunately, life isn't working well in regards to the business or my part in the hobby as a whole right now. So, I hereby proclaim that Slop Shop Reproductions is offically shut down, and a statement to that effect will be on the website in the next couple of days. Again, I apologize, but I must do what I have to do. Cheers, Adam C., Slop-man