kass

John, Remember who you're talking to here... I find with "historical costumers", they use good sources to start with, but then make changes based on "so-and-so said they did this" or "the female lead thought the sleeves looked ugly on her..." I want to know (A) if she made these particular costumes and ( if she did, why she cut off the tails. I know she didn't do all the costumes for the film, so she may have had nothing to do with them. But she might know the story behind it. But don't you find it insane that I got a random email from this guy this morning saying, "Hey, you live in Easton? I live in Easton. And my wife was the costumer for Last of the Mohicans!" It's spoooooooky...

Guys, you would not believe this but the husband of the costumer on Last of the Mohicans emailed me this morning! It turns out they live in my area. I've asked her about the short tails on the waistcoats and I'll let you know what she says. She didn't do all the costumes for the movie, so she may not know. But I bet she could find out! Serendipity, ne?

Okay, I don't know alot about lighting in the 17th and 18th centuries (but frankly, I'm dying to learn), but I can share with you one type of light that was pretty typical and used by all levels of society. The rush light. Rush lights were simple stands into which you clamped a single rush. The stand looked like one of those things you use to hold the hook when you're tying fishing lures -- a foot with about a 8-10" upright with a clamp off to one side. The rush (which is a type of tall grass) was dipped in tallow (rendered animal fat) and lit. Candles were of course in use, but beeswax was expensive and even tallow was costly (and takes a lot of stinky work to make). Rushes were the common man's lighting system. Rush lights were around as early as the middle ages, but I have seen rush light holders that date from the 18th century.

But Jack, I'm looking at fashionable waistcoats, and I'm not finding ANY with shorter backs before the Revolutionary War (and none after either). If the backs were cut off by Roger's Rangers, that makes sense, but it doesn't sound like they were ever made that way. Are you sure you're not confusing waistcoats with short backs with waistcoats with plain (i.e. linen not silk) backs? Those I can document in this time period. And I'm afraid I'm just not understanding how a waistcoat with no back tails would make it more convenient to sit a horse. There's no need to "eliminate" the slit in the back for sitting a saddle. All waistcoats (and frock coats and great coats and any other jacket-type things) of the time period had this slit. Bar none. It's simply an extension of the center back seam. It's actually easier to make them with a center back slit than to sew it closed. As an equestrienne, I've noticed this parallel in modern riding gear. Many jackets made for warmth have zippers at the side seams so you can open them when seated on a horse and close them when working in the barn. I haven't seen riding jackets (then or now) that stop at the waist in back. This only serves to expose the back and that just doesn't make sense. You'll catch your death! Besides when you post, the tails of the waistcoat don't end up under you. They sit behind you.

Sailorgirl, I assume by your handle that you're a girl, correct? Did you know that you may already be wearing "period garb"? The other day my apprentice walked into my house wearing a jacket she got at the mall. It was the exact same cut as a 17th century woman's jacket! I find women's shoes that are shocking similar to shoe styles in period. It's all over the place if you look! Pat, buy a pattern and you may live...

Thank you, Rue. That's kind of you to say. And no bowing down necessary, girl! Cheers, eh? Next time you have difficulty with one of my patterns, please email or PM me. I'm right here and I'm always willing to help. :)

Welcome, welcome, Regina! We sure do talk a lot about what we wear here in Captain Twill, whether you call it "garb" or "clothes" or "kit" or any of a million other synonyms. Hey Hawkyns! I used a big word! Do I get a cracker?

Hector, I think The Professor has an old Anglican Book of Common Prayer, but I'll be damned if I knew what box it was in... (Yes, I moved in October and I still have stuff in boxes!)

Here, Jack, let me pour one for you. You're making my head hurt! Yes, Bo, I hear wat you're saying. I just wonder if they were ever produced that way, and not just cut afterwards. Although I have to admit that cutting the tails off the back of your waistcoats wouldn't really change how often you got snagged on brush. You'd still get snagged in the front. And were these guys really running around without coats on? Having a coat on would negate the whole thing entirely. Backt o what I said originally -- the VAST majority of waistcoats had tails in back as long as the tails in front. I'd err on that side of things if I were you, Carolina (if you're still listening ).

Yeah, I think you just put my thoughts into better words, Jack! I just find dialects difficult to read. And in Twill, we're not being our characters; we're talking about historical pirates and making stuff and all those things that historical pirates wouldn't have wasted time debating. In a chat room or a thread that's like a chat room, I can definitely understand it there! Still would have difficulty reading it Did I ever tell the story here about when I was working in NYC and my friend was emailing me in this dialect I spoke in Japan? It's not written, so he was typing what it sounded like in English letter, which meant I kinda had to read it aloud to hear it and understand what he was saying. At the same time a Swiss film crew came around the corner, speaking French. I was trying to sound out this dialect on email and I hear this other language I speak and it felt like my brain was leaking out my ears. I just couldn't understand anything at all for about five minutes!

Yeah, but you don't do it when not "in character", Pat. Know what I mean? You don't write "Arrrgh, I reckon I'll make meself a new thrum cap. Ye savvy where I can pluder me the right wool? Arrrrrgh!"

Hee hee hee hee hee! Pirate Queen, you crack me up!

Hee hee! The last time I went to Pennsic, I missed every class I wanted to take because I never knew what time it was. Personally I like that the word isn't sliced up into bits and there is no rush to be anywhere. It's morning, noon or evening. No need for any other distinctions, really. My stomach kinda tells me what time it is.

Captain Bo, your experiences sound so cool. Is it just me, Dorian, or at events do you stop caring what time it is? I find I never even miss my watch...

I dunno, Blackjohn. I just never seem to have those kinds of experiences. I'd love to, though. Maybe I'm just trying too hard... Or too easily distracted... Although I must admit that I attract whiners. If someone is complaining in my ear about what's wrong or what so-and-so said about their kit, it's no wonder I miss out.

Yeah, Hector, I can't say as I've ever seen one that was "real". The only ones I can think of right now are the ones I've seen on reenactors. Waistcoats with different fabric backs, yes. But not with shorter backs. It doesn't make too much sense in practice, really, since a shorter back leaves your lower back exposed. That's not usually a desireable situation, even with a frock coat covering it. I will continue the search, however. As luck would have it, I'm writing up the historical notes for the 1700s-1720s waistcoat pattern as we speak.

You know, I don't mind people saying, "Arrrgh" as much as I mind people writing in a "pirate accent" (dropping gs and addressing people as "ye" and all that). It just hurts my head to read. Of course it doesn't sound bad in person...

Oh Captain! That is just too cool! :)

I would love to see the coat on you, Mike. It's hard to tell what it looks like laying on the floor.

Pat, you're my kind of nutjob! Adam, you and are seem to be completely on the same page regarding trowsers. That is exactly what I'm seeing (including that cool pic with the little pocket flaps on the thighs -- love them!). I can't wait to see the pictures you plan to share. Good luck with that laptop! Blood Jack, sorry we seemed to be ignoring you. To answer your question, Kohler is a bit dangerous. To his credit he is one of the first people to ever study costume in any systematic way and as a result, he's a great resource if only because he was first. But as the first, he makes alot of mistakes. For example many of the pattern drafts he presents are not only not historically accurate, but many of them are physically impossible. It's pretty obvious that Kohler not only did not test these patterns, but he didn't know the first thing about garment construction. To the book's credit, Kohler included photographs of many extant garments in museums that have since been destroyed (mostly during WWII). So it's only because of his book that we have a physical record of these artifacts. I have a copy of Kohler and believe every costume library should have one. But don't spend your last penny on it. Waugh or Arnold are certainly more reliable sources.

Yeah, I found that too, Mick, on that website and the stuff I found on the PA State Trooper site just didn't agree. I think whoever transcribed that subsection forgot the "not" in regards to licensing.

Hi guys! Adam, thanks for the clarification. I kinda assumed I was reading you wrong. Now I understand what you mean. Although I still find it strange that we seem focused on slops when in the proponderance of pictures of seamen from 1680-1725, they are wearing either trousers or breeches, not the wide slops of the earlier part of the 17th century. Care to share your thoughts on this? Oh, and I wasn't accusing you of withholding pictures at all! Although I do wish I could see what's on your computer... I was just commenting that I've seen everything Foxe has on the subject because he sends me stuff. Pat, Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle! (RE: the PoF Venetians back seam). I'm so used to making them according to Waugh's 1620s pattern with a curved seam that I forgot Arnold's draft had a straight seam. Thanks for the correction. But I do think this reinforces my point that curved seams were certainly used in this time period. About the two-piece waistband, strangely enough not only these breeches have that eyelet but so do the 1681 breeches belonging to Sir Thomas Isham (which are wider and more "slops"-like). Everything in Waugh from the 1650s breeches have two-piece waistbands now that I look at them closely. Interesting...

Hi Greg, Yes, these are the Manchester breeches. Just made a pair for a gentleman in Ireland as a matter of fact! They actually date to the 1670s (the suit Waugh shows them with dates to 1690). You will note the curved crotch seam front and back... I like to err on the side of simplicity. If there is an extant garment available to study, I follow it to the letter. If there is something close to the time period in question, I make my decisions about cut based on that information and keep things as simple as possible. After all, if we're talking about government-issued clothing, it wouldn't be cut elaborately. It would be simply constructed. Therefore, if I were making a pair of slops with no other information, I would make them like these breeches except I wouldn't taper the legs at all and make them longer and without kneebands. And this is also why I wouldn't make the back much higher than the front -- it's not on these early breeches. And that vertical line about halfway across the breeches front? That's the pocket slit. See what I mean about it not being on the seam? When you pleat the breeches to the waistband, this places the pocket on the front of your hip where it's much more easily accessible than a side-seam pocket. Just flipping through Foxe's pirate picture collection, I see your point, Greg. We've got post-1730s depictions of wide slops, and we've got some indistinct sketches of sailors wearing what may be slops. But most of the GAoP seamen appear to be wearing breeches (if they're wearing a justacorps usually) or trowsers. Maybe what we're calling trowsers are their slops? And some of the slops look very similar to the Elizabethan version... I don't know about Adam, but I know Mr. Foxe isn't hiding anything. He tells me everything!

Pat, I don't know. It's Adam who said the crotch seam isn't curved. And I can't think of a single extant garment from the GAoP where it isn't curved. The baggy butt is actually a product of the points at the top of the back pieces, not a straight back seam. Believe me, I know my baggy butts! But this is the construction of mid-18th century breeches. Why are we assuming that GAoP slops were constructed this way when contemporary breeches were not? I mean, if I were to extrapolate the construction of 1710 slops, for example, I wouldn't base them on the construction of breeches from 1750! It seems to me that we should err on the side of simplicity of construction for slops and not try to make them as complicated as late breeches become. Unless, of course, we have an extant pair of GAoP slops to examine that suggest the higher back developed in the slops first and then somehow trickled up to breeches... See where I'm going with this? I just don't know why we're making these assumptions about the construction of slops. What is this idea of a straight back seam based upon? What do we have? Show me.