kass

I wonder what the process of glazing leather was? You hear about glazed wool and glazed linen in the Rev War period, but the process wouldn't have translated well to linen (it involved heat and pressure).

The original derivation of the word in the late 14th century, Pat, indicated a double layer. So yes, possibly it referred to a padded garment. But we also know that non-padded garments were called doublets too. Language is a funny thing. As historians, we want everything to fit into nice little mutually exclusive categories. And there are many costumers who will tell you things like "a doublet always has sleeves; if it doesn't, it's a jerkin." But that's a modern costumer's distinction, not one made in the 16th century (for this example). And later, it breaks down even further. What we need is Johnson's bloody Dictionary for the 1680s-1720s! But that would probably say: waistcoat (n) -- a type of doublet doublet (n) -- a kind of waistcoat :)

In fact, I would have called both waistcoats. I know that the term "waistcoat" is in general use for an undergarment at least by the English Civil War. Don't know how much earlier it comes into use. But I'm also well aware that there are often multiple terms for the same garment without any distinction between them. I generally think of a doublet as a garment to which the wearer points or hooks breeches to and a waistcoat as a garment worn for warmth under a coat. But I know that they were pointing breeches to "waistcoats" in the ECW so that distinction doesn't hold water either. I'm just surprised to see the word "doublet" this late...

And this is very late for anything called a "doublet". Unless "doublet" means something other thant the man's upper-body garment from the 15th and early-to-mid 17th century that I'm thinking of...

Problem is that they'll be scans of a rather poor black and white copy. Don't know how well they'll come out. But I can scan them over the weekend and email you when they're up. Of course I could always show them to you over that beer next week...

Funny, William. That sounds like Catholics to me!

Oh yes. I've been reading their doctrine on various websites. The only thing good I can see is that they said slavery was unjustifiable. But wow! They were none too fond of my people (Irish Catholics) or Jews...

Yeah, I do, actually. I'll drop him a line. Thanks, man. Does that qualify as my one new thing today?

Nice! Thanks, Greenighs!

Was that their purpose?!?!?! Oh Dorian! That's PRICELESS!!!

Hee hee hee! AMEN SISTER!!! <ahem> I mean, Your Majesty. I knew this guy in a Rev War group who insisted on wearing those blue-tinted 18th century spectacles that Townsend sells. Yes, they're based on a period artifact. But they weren't meant to be worn as sunglasses! Even though he everything he wore was period-appropriate, the guy just looked like a guitar player in a rock band. Which, of course, he was...

Well, you have a customer in me, William, no matter what. :)

Thanks, Greg. I guess I was just hoping that someone like Steve Millingham was doing William and Mary coins. I have bags and bags of his Charles I sets .

Okay, here are the descriptions: 6-stiver piece, billon, of Nymwegen, Netherlands, 1690 2-stiver piece, billon, of Overijssel, Netherlands, 1681 1/6 "/Ore, Sweden, 1683 These were found in a purse of a body buried in Gunnister, Shetland, Scotland. But it is thought that these coins were in use in Shetland at the time because of brisk trade with the Dutch fishing fleets. I don't know if the find is in the National Museum of Antiquities in Edinburgh or at Shetland, but I assume the later since its website mentions the find (but, alas, no pictures of the coins). Another find I've been looking at has 19 sixpenny pieces, all but one from Charles II's reign. The last one dates 1694 (W&M).

Not just a half-groat, Greenighs. There's a six pence and a shilling from the period there too. Thank you! No Netherlandish, though... But let's see what anyone else posts. William, when I get back to my notes, I can send you more information on the coins in the pockets. What would you need for me to commission a replica (if you take commissions, I mean...)?

Does anyone know where to get coins from the 1690s? Particularly Netherlandish coins. But really, I'll take anything from the 1670-1725 period as long as they look real. You see, I'm making a replica of this coat that was found with coins in the pocket and I thought it would be neat to put replica coins in the pocket.

Well that makes a lot more sense, Petee! Remember that bucket boots were fashionable for 1620s-1650s. I'm not surprised these boots date to 1625. Anyone who could afford them was walking around in boots then. It was a very "poseur" kinda thing to do. But now I'm onto this idea of being "The Shadow" and shooting evil squirrels with my wheellocks...

You're going to think me insane, Jack, and please don't think I'm not encouraging you. But you would be absolutely SHOCKED how cool wool can keep you even in ridiculous heat and humidity. I crewed a cannon on 4th of July weekend at Ft. Mifflin (on the Delaware South of Philly) in 97 degree heat and soaking humidity (and then there was that steaming cannon next to me...). I wore linen underclothes, stays, and a wool jacket. Lightweight wool, but wool nonetheless. The wool actually stops your perspiration from evaporating too quickly and it allows it time to cool you off. I was actually more comfortable and hydrated than I was on other hot ocassions when I wore a linen jacket. Women and men running around without jackets on at all were being carried out on stretchers... You have to pound water all day long, but you should be doing that anyway. And I was absolutely soaking wet underneath my top layer of clothing. But my body temperature remained low. And I'm a person who normally becomes incapacitated in the heat. And wool is much safer around the cannon and the hearth because it puts out cinders and doesn't catch fire easily. That's not to say that you can't have a linen coat. Of course you can. But don't throw wool out of the equation entirely. Have Janelle email me about what to look for if she likes.

P R E C I S E L Y ! Thank you, Hawkins!

No, Daniel. This thread started with the suggestion that instead of people (who aren't interested in being historically accurate) making a lame attempt at justifying their crushed velvet "frock coats" (which are period for about 1985) and bucket boots, that they just say, "I wear these because I like to wear 'em." No one wearing a goth coat they got on eBay is wearing anything that could have been plundered without a time machine! So any historical justification is ludicrous in the extreme! And unnecessary... unless you're purporting to be historically accurate. And then you damn well better be wearing real silk velvet cut in a period fashion and not some junk from Hot Topic! The example of Landsknechts not wearing their plunder is still a good example of why wearing fancy clothing and calling yourself a common pirate isn't justifiable historically. I can list tons and tons of things taken by the Landsknechten during the Seige of Milan. But still, you never seen any of them wearing it. Even the officers aren't facily dressed (although they are dressed better than many of the soldiers of the same rank because they were paid twice what the typical soldier was and the Emperor decreed that sumptuary laws didn't apply to the Landsknecten). So here are these guys who are rich in comparison to their fellow soldiers and are allowed to wear the richest materials and accoutrements by decree of their own Emperor. But yet we see them colourfully yet plainly dressed in woodcuts that were made to show how fabulous they were. Don't you find that strange? If I hadn't seen the woodcuts but only heard of them, I would have expected every man to be in brocades and velvet. But they're not. They're wearing plain cloth. Don't you also find it strange that there were all these fancy clothes on ships taken by privateers but none of the depictions of pirates show them particularly well dressed? The simple truth is that clothing isn't as easy to carry or convert into something useful as gold and jewels were. What would you rather do with your plunder? How much joy do those silk stockings really give you? Or would you rather have the two pounds five? Again, that wasn't what the thread was about (and I really should know, as I started it). That's the last time I try to make bloody peace! But thanks for the fabulous lists!

Oh yeah, Redhand! They may not be prospering, but they are still around. The website from which I got that link about clothing belongs to the Covenanters. These people are STILL angry at Scottish Presbyterians for joining the Union in 1688 when William of Orange became King of England! They don't even agree with the rest of the Presbyterian Church. They are some pretty scary folk...

If I can make it, I'm definitely dressing pirate!

I don't know if they were all that fantasic, Jib. Those people were seriously severe in their beliefs. That's one of the reasons they got kicked out of England! Lemme see if I can find you some links on clothing restrictions and the like... Here you are! William Perkins on the Right, Holy and Lawful Use of Apparel (1616)

Lady Seahawke, The point I'm trying to get across is that if you don't care about doing something that fits with the historical record anyway, why even try to justify it? Why not just say, "These is me boots. I like me boots! Arrrrr!" And no, I'm not being sarcastic. There's no need to dig deep and try to find historical justification for something you just plain LIKE and want to wear/do/say. "Backward documenting" is a trap anyway. You don't find something you like and try to prove its existence in the time period. You find something that exists in the time period and decide you like it. See?

I'm sorry you couldn't make it to the Pirate Feast this year, Josh. Bob couldn't either. But both my girls were there and the way they tended upon me and Captain Sterling and still had time to entertain Young Jim Hawkins was magic to behold. I was so proud of them... You've seen the pictures, right?