kass

Definitely breeches that tie at the knees with ribbons. That's very clear. But it looks like the artist forgot to put buttons down the front of his waistcoat (that's what I'm interpretting that light-coloured thing under his coat as).

Well, okay. Here's the scoop: Rayon is made from sawdust and the leftovers from the cotton spinning process. So the ingredients that go into it are, indeed, natural. But the process by which it is made into thread is a modern, chemical process, similar to that by which polyester is made. Rayon first came into use in the late 19th century (around the 1870s I think) as a substitute for silk. It gained wide popularity during the war years when silk was rationed for parachutes. Nowadays, you're most likely to find it used as a fake linen. But "period fibre" it ain't. It's not even technically a fibre since it has to be "glued" together, after a fashion, to be made into thread to weave. So if it comes to choosing between a polyester brocade and a rayon brocade, the rayon brocade will breathe and I would choose it. But the stuff is hell to work with and I'd really rather search around and find real silk.

No. This pattern covers the years 1670 to 1730. Fall front breeches aren't in use until about 1760.

François, you hit the nail on the head right there! My thinking exactly. Except for the idea that if you made them shorter, they'd be slops. But I think that's because I think of slops as the huge skirty things. Cire, Cire... We don't wrestle naked in mud. The Pirate Brethren wrestle naked in period-accurate chocolate sauce!

You know, Jim, I think he very well might have been!

I don't mind repeating myself, John. Not if it helps. The distinction between the open knee breeches and petticote breeches has to do entirely with width. Open knee breeches would be cut straight (or tapered) and not gathered at the knees. I found some extant examples of breeches from this period that look for all the world like modern shorts! But they were an even length from top to bottom and they didn't gather much. I would call those "open knee breeches". And according to the tailor's notes from 1671, so would he. Petticote breeches on the other hand are so wide and gathered so much into the waistband that they almost look like a skirt. The tailor from 1671 actually says they are a skirt (they have no crotch seam), but other extant examples of petticote breeches do have a crotch seam although it hardly matters. There's even a story about a gent in the 1660s who put both his legs in one leg of his petticote breeches and didn't realize it until much later! (ha! I got to say "crotch seam"... twice! ) Open knee breeches could become petticote breeches if they were cut wide enough in the leg. I'm just not seeing any evidence of that in the pictorial record. And in the Slop Contracts, breeches are only something like 15" wide across the bum. That's narrow. There's a picture from 1738 with sailor's sitting around a table, drinking where you can start to see the widening of the open knee breeches occurring. In a 1752 picture, you've got full on "slops". I don't think Bonney and Read's trousers are huge. That's what my pajama bottoms look like and they're only about 12-14" across! And there are those black and white illos of Bonny and Read -- you've seen 'em -- those look more realistic and less stylized to me. They are definitely trousers (remember that "trousers" in the slop contracts were short -- 34" long on the outseam). And I think you're not reading the visual evidence correctly if you think any of these flare out like bell-bottoms. None of them do -- not even the modern "slops". They are straight cut. But when you gather that much fabric, it tends to pouf out at the bottoms. Foxe was making some noises when I saw him in March about a set of sailor's clothing in the Museum of London. I don't know what time period it's from though and it's not on their website. But I am anxious to see it when I get back there.

John, how can I keep agreeing with everything you say and still disagree with you? I think that whoever was illustrating Blackbeard, Bonney and Read, and Guyacil are trying to show us the same thing. I call 'em trousers. I call 'em that because the slop contracts call garments that wide and that long by that name. You wanna call 'em slops? I won't argue with you. But I won't let that mean that the wide-legged skirty things people wear are the same thing. They're not. And it's those wide-legged things we aren't seeing in the pictorial record from 1680 to 1730. What they aren't showing is what Greg is wearing in the photo posted earlier. They're too short and too wide to be called the same thing. And they sure aren't the same thing as these. Regarding Foxe's slop shop probate inventory, I agree with that too. 10 pairs of "open knee breeches" existed. No contest. But were they these wide things we are calling "slops"? I don't think so. I think they are breeches not gathered at the knee. And the reason I think that is because I have a 1670s tailor's definition of "open knee breeches" and they are distinctly different from "petticote breeches" defined by the same tailor, which, if you recall, is what even Foxe is calling the wide-legged things. Greg, your slops are glorious, bro! I'd just date them to the 1670s or the 1750s instead of the GAoP. To sum up: Open Knee Breeches -- existed Calf-length to ankle-length trousers -- existed Wide-legged, short, skirt-like petticote breeches that we are modernly calling "slops" -- no evidence of their existance from 1680 to 1730. Why do I feel as if I'm repeating myself?

Okay. Even better. Throw out all the period illustrations. No problem. Pictures can lie. I agree with you, John (and Jim). But then how does that prove the existence of petticote breeches (ie "slops") as we're wearing them? Nothing in the archeological record from 1680-1730 looks like these wide-legged slops like what Greg's wearing in the picture someone posted. The record is extremely limited. However it does contain examples of both open-knee breeches and breeches gathered at the knee. Neither look like Townsend's slops. Nothing in the slops contracts specifies anything nearly that wide in the leg. We have the dimensions. So where are the non-pictorial references that make you think the petticote breeches "slops" existed? Just like many of our ideas about what pirates wore, the picture of a Golden Age of Piracy sailor with wide, short breeches is only in our heads. We need to look at the evidence and change that picture in our heads to what we know.

I totally agree with you, John, on all points. I just wouldn't call what Bonney and Read are wearing in that picture "petticote breeches", would you? They certainly aren't as wide as what Townsend is selling (and we're wearing) as "slops". Those are trousers. They correspond with the Slop Contract specs for trousers. Or one could argue that they're open knee breeches (although if you look at the Slop Contracts, they're way too long). But they most certainly aren't the skirt-like things we call slops. Slops are HUGE! These are just baggy. Is no one seeing this difference but me? And about the breeches giving at the knee -- why do you think they wore OPEN knee breeches? I don't think these are simply not gathered. I think they are cut straighter in the leg (little to no taper).

Sure, Kathyrn. I make my documentation no secret. It's all right there in the pattern historical notes. But to reiterate, I base my findings on period illustrations of seamen (look at Foxe's Pirate Pictures for the most extensive collection), the Admiralty Slop Contract Specifications from 1690 to 1739 (these can be found on the Pirate Brethren Forums as a sticky), and extant breeches of common men in museums in England, Ireland, and Scotland. I was as surprised as any of you not to find evidence for slops in the GAoP. I expected to find them. I HOPED to find them! I mean, after all, I make my living selling patterns to you guys. If my patterns say something you don't like, you won't buy them. And then my greyhounds will starve... But I simply cannot say something existed when I find no evidence for it. I don't do research to please people or to bolster my pet theories. I do research to discover the truth about historical clothing. And wide-legged petticote-like breeches like we see sailors wearing in the Rev War period aren't in the pictorial, documentary, or archeological record for the years 1680-1730. There are many examples of things that "worked" that went away and came back later. Cartridge pleating comes immediately to mind. In the 17th century, so much of a woman's attire was cartridge pleated that it was ubiquitous. But in the 18th century, it drops off the face of the earth. For an entire century, the extant garments, the tailors' account, the pictorial record show narry a single cartridge pleat. Not on a noblewoman. Not on a commoner. And then in the 19th century, they came back and were everywhere again. It's not "fashion". It's just that sometimes there's a better idea out there for a while. Petticote breeches started out as fashion in the 1660s. Frankly, I can't see why sailors would ever wear them at all, they're so impractical to me. But we have pictures of them wearing them. So I can point at those pictures and say "petticote breeches were worn by sailors in the 1670s". But then they disappear. And we don't see anything nearly that wide until 1737. I can't say something was there when I see no evidence of it. And believe me, I will be the first one to hold up an example of slops from this period if one is found. But even if one is found, it certainly doesn't make them common if only one is found among hundreds of sources!

Francois, You're right about slops being for practical use and not fashion. But the idea of them being worn over breeches as protection for the breeches has never been proven. It's an assumption based mostly on the fact that we call them "slops". Foxe has some interesting experimental evidence to bolster the idea that slops don't work well as overalls. Rabbitz, I agree with your ideas. But the trousers of this period weren't wide in the leg. They look like modern girls' capri pants in fact. Greg, I would call what you're wearing "petticote breeches" and date them to the 1670s at the very latest (or the 1740s when we start seeing them on sailors). I can't see the bottom of the legs in DJ's picture, but I think his trousers are a little too wide as well. But it's hard to tell without seeing the bottoms. If he's wearing what I think he's wearing, I'd date them to 1737 but no earlier. Le Taileur Sincere from 1671 lists Sailors' Breeches (which are gathered at the knee, not open), Petticote Breeches (which have no crotch but are open at the bottom like a kilt), and Open Knee Breeches (which are not gathered at the knee). I think Open Knee Breeches aren't huge in the leg, just not gathered at the knee. Fact it, guys: For a long time, we've been buying F&I and Rev War stuff from Townsend and Flying Canoe and other places and trying to make it work for the GAoP. But clothing was significantly different in the 1750s than it was in the 1680s-1730s. A number of items of clothing that were in common use in the mid-18th century were just getting their start in the GAoP and you can see the "growing pains", if you will, of a number of innovative garments. But the petticote breeches we're calling "slops" -- nuh uh. Don't see 'em. Not from 1680 to about 1737. Not even anything approaching that width. So I stand firm on the idea that the developed later (which we do have evidence for). I guess this is going to be my "boots"!

He looks like he's wearing one of those torn-to-hell justacorps like we see in the Cryes of London, like this guy: He may even be wearing something like those long shirts and legwraps that we see in Buccaneer pictures. I just didn't find any definitive evidence of the huge, wide, skirt-like things we modernly call "slops" like what Townsend sells and Kannik's makes a pattern for. Not from 1680 to 1730. Doesn't mean they didn't exist. But it sure means that I'm not going to say they did, or that they were common. The stuff in my pattern is based on extant garments, pictures of seamen from the period, and the stuff described in the slop contracts. I just didn't find what we call "slops" anywhere in the period.

Yay Mr. Foxe swoops in valiantly and saves the say! Thanks for the refs, Ed. I do appreciate it. So there you are, Mick. Some mention. Not as popular as in other areas. Also probably not as wide in the leg as we see people wearing. In my pattern, by the way, you'll notice that I give the option of not gathering the breeches at the knees. This would give "open kneed breeches". The Tailleur Sincere from 1671 mentions "open knee breeches", but it also mentions "Sailors Breeches" and describes them as big full in the leg and gathered into a band below the knee. As with everything, there was no "uniform" and people wore different variations of things, much like today. But I stand by my statement that what we call "slops" (the huge skirt-like breeches sold by many Rev War sutlers) were not in common use by sailor's from 1680 until the 1730s. Hector, the extant breeches from the period have the buttonhole horizontal ie at right angles to the front edge (like all buttonholes I think I've ever seen on historical clothing), but they are stacked vertically, if that's what you mean. No sizes given in the slop contracts. I think "open" meant that they weren't fastened, yes. But also that they weren't tight to the leg at the knee. However, I don't think they had to be huge to be considered "open". I don't quite know where breeches end and trousers begin because, unfortunately, none of the illustrators at the time have done us the service of labelling everything. In my personal vocabulary, I call anything more than a couple of inches below the knee "trousers".

Well, yes, Silent. Frock Coats didn't come around until about the 1680s. Before then, men wore doublets. When you say "1600s reenactment", what exactly do you mean? What is the group reenacting? Can't be the whole of the 17th century... That's very important question to answer before you start building your kit. Boots seem to have gone in and out of fashion. Boots were original worn only by men on horseback and were removed as soon as the wearer dismounted -- they simply weren't made to be walked around in. Later (in the early 1600s), it became fashionable to swagger about in your boots and this is when the so-called "bucket boots" became popular. But by the 1680s, boots became a "horseback only" thing again. And we certainly don't see them on sailors. The idea of pirates running around in frock coats and bucket-topped boots is a Hollywood invention. There's a thread here somewhere called "BOOTS" that talks about all the myths and the pictorial evidence and all that if you care to search for it. Go look at Foxe's site on pirate myths. It's a great resourse. So is Greg (Gentleman of Fortune)'s site on Pirate Living History Shoes with buckles were worn contemporaneously with frock coats. Take a look at the info on Greg's site for details. Bare feet, I don't know about that. And there was a discussion of sashes here a while ago, but I don't know about that either. I just know that in the pictorial record, I don't see them. Foxe also has a wonderful site of pictures of period seamen. You should look at that and base your outfits on what you see. Two warnings: if you want to reenact the GAoP, don't look at any movies for clothing ideas -- not even those on the history channel. And never look at what your friends are wearing. Only look at pictures and extant pieces from the period. They won't steer you wrong.

Maria, you could even use cool, comfortable linen if you heart so desires. Enjoy!

That's what I would make, Mick, were I the boy type.

I know Foxe differs with me on this conclusion -- I can tell you that. He believes sailors wore slops throughout the period. But unfortunately I cannot remember his reasoning. And he's offline until the 19th of this month. And please, if anyone is holding back for the sake of my feelings, don't! I just report what the evidence tells me. If someone has other evidence, I will be the first person in line to look at it, and the first person to change my pronouncements if the evidence proves to the contrary. :)

I know you probably want to hear from someone other than me, Mick. But just for the people who haven't seen my pattern notes, I'd like to clarify -- in my research, I didn't find any verbal reference, extant garment or pictorial evidence that showed what we call "slops" from 1680 to 1730. Before 1680, yes. After 1730, yes. But not in between those years. And since those are the years we call "The Golden Age of Piracy", I have to conclude that wide-legged, open-kneed "slops" were not worn during the GAoP.

Hi Mick, The bottoms of the breeches can be gathered into a band of the same material as the breeches, into a band of narrow ware (like twill tape) or left "open". It's your choice. All three were done on the extant examples I studied. For Trousers, linen was definitely used. At this point in history, canvas IS linen, you see. And canvas wasn't as stiff back then as modern canvas is (we're not talking about sailcloth here). So your assessment is correct. Did you read my post in Plunder about the mistake on the back with the sizes? If not, go there and read it to make sure you cut the right size waistband. Kass

Hi all, To those of you who bought the first of Reconstructing History's Breeches and Slops pattern (RH706), we just found a small error we want you to know about. The sizes on the back of the pattern read: size 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 waist 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 This are NOT correct. The sizes should be: size 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 waist 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 So if your waist measures 36", cut a waistband size 40, not 36. Size 36 will be too small for you. In stock patterns are now marked correctly. Kass

Oh John, do stop blithering... The acquisition of property has obviously made you insane! <helpless female>If only Mr. Foxe could come and save me!</helpless female>

Dirty Billy is one of the best hat makers (if not THE best hat maker) I have ever heard of. He's not cheap, but you can't beat him on quality. Good choice, Francois!

Pirates didn't wear boots.

UPDATE! UPS picked up all the pattern orders yesterday (3 July). So if you preordered any of the new GAoP patterns, you patterns are finally on their way to you. Thank you for your patience, guys! And SEND PICTURES!!!

Well those of you who lived through last year's hurricane season will know what I'm talking about. We live on the Delaware River and last week it surprised us by flooding for the third time in 18 months. It's getting quite ridiculous. Just when people rebuild, the river comes and takes it all away again. Luckily we are just enough uphill for the flood waters not to damage us. However, it did damage the roads around here. We didn't have a UPS pickup for three days. And getting out to a UPS drop box was just impossible. So if you preordered the Sailor's Jacket, Breeches and Slops or Waistcoats, I hope you will forgive them being late. I just can't control the forces of nature.