kass

Oh thank God... I thought I'd gone insane... Now when and where are you buying me this beer, Ed?

Greenighs, don't be afraid of me! I'm not the period police. It's a pub crawl with a pirate theme, for chrissakes, girl! I probably won't be in period attire either... I mean, how stupid would I look, walking down Fells Point in a 1690s Hunting Costume with a train (but no horse or gun)!

Crimson Corsair, Must one register? Or can we just show up. Because, you see, my husband has a job interview the day before... If he gets it, we'll want to celebrate. But if he doesn't, he'll have to work that day. So can we just show up and meet you at One Eye'd Mike's?

Yeah... You might as well say "A wizard magicked this up for me" as anything else. Which is why I suggested people don't try to justify things. Just say, "Cuz I like it!" Did no one get my squirrel reference? I am gonna be so disappointed... :)

Good question, SPC. And I hope you like my answer. I do not portray a pirate. I portray a Procuress ("madam") in Covent Garden. I travel with two lovely "seamstresses" who I introduce to prosperous men what can pay for their company. There are pirates who frequent my coffee house when they are in port. But I (my character) have never actually been on a ship, pirate or otherwise. You've rather hit the nail on the head, as you are asking all the right questions. People answer them in different ways according to how historically accurate they want to be. For example, there were not tons of procuresses. If everyone and her sister suddenly started portraying a coffee house owner from Covent Garden, I could no longer do that impression. I might become one of her "girls". Or I might change completely and become a street hawker, selling oranges and lemons or pins and needles, or something like that. You see, my personal motivation is to make the impression as real as possible. That doesn't stop with me. That includes everyone around me. So if there are too many of one type of person, but not enough of another, I will change my impression to suit what's needed. Another example -- I used to be in a 15th century household where I was the only woman. This wasn't strange as a knight's household consisted mostly of male servants with only ocassional female help. So I was a maid. The rule in the group was that the longest-standing member got to play the knight, so I was in line to be the knight's lady, but there needed to be sufficient "support staff" for that to happen. I needed to accumulate enough female recruits to fill in the ranks of a lady's waiting women AND their servants before I could be the lady of the house. I did this and for one or two events, it was brilliant. But not everyone holds themselves to historical standards. Soon there were fifteen noblewomen and no servants. I started by stepping down as noblewoman to portray a servant, hoping that others would follow suit. But they didn't. I couldn't be all the servants by myself, so that became not the group for me. Do you see what I'm saying? When you go to Faire and you want to play a pirate, you can do whatever you like. Really! But if you're trying to portray an historically accurate impression of a specific time and place, you might not get to do exactly what you want to do because there are not enough people/resources to make it possible. Can't be a cavalryman without a horse. Can't be a captain without a ship. Et cetera. See what I'm getting at. However, at Faire you can do whatever you like! So do it!

Yeah, but what about all those damned squirrels?

Now there's nothing to say that pirates didn't wear checked shirts and blue jackets... As for the taffeta, I'm sure I have a Mantua pattern with its name on it!

Hey Greenighs, I want to apologize if you took anything I said personally. And I also apologize for not being around to apologize right away and letting you therefore believe that I meant to attack you. That was certainly not the case. I just saw that "pirates wore blue short jackets, red waistcoats, and checked shirts" and went a little ballistic. Okay A LOT ballistic. It's such a blatant over-simplification that it's not to be believed. I was actually intrigued by the references to pirates willing away their silk damask clothing before they were hanged. But when I got to that bit about them wearing that "pirate uniform", I guess I just had an aneurysm... And when I said I was surprized you'd believe that source, that was meant to be a compliment. You usually post such good stuff that I was shocked you'd quote someone who gave all pirates such a definite colour coding. And yea... woke up on the wrong side of the bilges. Too many hours slaving over a hot wide-format printer. Can I offer you a nice tankrd of flip? Foxe, thanks for seeing the truth in all things, per usual. What I was trying to do was say that people who aren't interested in historical pirates shouldn't feel that they have to make some ridiculous undocumentable excuse to justify what they wear when they're pirates. "I like this" is a good enough justification. Why bother making up an elaborate story that just doesn't hold water. Because then one of us research geeks are gonna poke holes in your story and you're gonna get mad... So just don't do it, yeah? "I like bucket boots" is fine. You don't have to steal them from a Musketeer or anything...

Oh well. Then I must be completely wrong. Back to the bucket boots and velvet coats, kids. I obviously don't know what I'm talking about. Three pirates in 100 years wore velvet according to someone... And hear that? Throw away your jackets and plain shirts. You must wear BLUE jacket and CHECKED shirts and RED waistcoats or you're not a pirate! Do you really believe this drivel, Greenighs? I have heard you argue better than this before...

Hello preacher! This is the choir speakin'...

We had an unexpected delay shortly after I posted. The pattern will be available at the end of March. I will post again when it's ready.

Good analogy, Josh. I like that... Were you aware that gentlemen often had special outfits made for frequenting nafarious places like Covent Garden. Part of the reasoning was to disguise themselves so they would not be recognized and therefore not ruin their reputations.

Hello folks! A discussion in another thread made me think of something on the car drive home today. Often we justify what we have in our kit with the words "I'm a pirate. I stole it." It occured to me that I hear this a lot in another group of people I hang around with: The Landsknechts. For those of you who don't know, the Landsknechts were mercenaries of the Holy Roman Emperor in the early 16th century (that's Germany, not Italy, for those of you not up on your 16th century place names). Anyway, these guys were fearsome mercenaries and they were allowed to keep whatever they plundered. So in Landsknecht reenactment groups, we often hear the justification: "I took this as plunder." Well, it doesn't hold water. Even though the Landsknechten held Milan and Pavia in their thrall for years until the local nobility got up enough money to PAY them to go away, "I took it as plunder" still isn't enough justification for a common soldier to wear velvet and brocade. Wanna know why? Because we have many, many woodcuts depicting these men. People were fascinated by them and their strange mode of dressing. But in not a single one of these woodcuts do we see common soldiers wearing brocade and velvet. The Captains, sure. But not the guys without the horses. Why do you think that was? Well, my fellow Americans, although they were mercenaries, there was still a social heirarchy. And no matter what the low-man on the totem pole took as plunder, he wouldn't be able to keep it. I'm sure he had much nicer things than other men of his station in life because of his profession. But he sure as hell didn't have a gold brocade Waffenrok. All this is to illustrate that just because you can imagine it happening doesn't mean it did. Do you know any thieves? Do they dress richly? Probably not. Neither did they in the 16th and 17th centuries. And honestly, people, if you want to wear crushed velvet or bucket boots or anything else that isn't historically justifiable, why not just say: I wear these cuz I like 'em! There's really no need to make up an elaborate story if you're not trying to portray a historical figure anyway... So chill out and do what you do and don't try to make up some crazy story about it. It's the story that will get you every time. Cheers!

I just thought of something else. You know those heavily-embroidered jacket and waistcoats we see from this period and try to emulate? Most of those are court dress. Court dress means you wore them to Court, not even to formal balls and dinner parties. In the Royal Presense and that's all. So the slim likelihood of a gentleman taking his court clothing on a ship AT ALL makes it even less probable that a pirate would have the opportunity to steal such things. Don't let the rare become common and the common become rare, fellas!

Amen! And there are even extant examples of them. Look here!Homespun wool coat circa 1730 Tons and tons of metallic trim doesn't look "rich", guys. It just looks fake and tacky...

And apparently you've broken the Pirate Brethren Forum now too! Mr. Foxe!!!

The drawers are crotchless, meaning that the opening is equal front and back. They are basically two legs joined only at the waistband. Upon closer inspection, Kathyrn, you will find those drawers in QEWU identified as Italian examples...

Not really... I mean, when you're handsewing, you have the ability to vary the tension as you go, so you can make seam as loose or as tight as you like. It takes practice to get it right all the time. But I find a machine is far more inflexible in this area. This is why haute couture clothing is still sewn by hand. Even when they sew something together by machine for fit, they tear out the machine stitches and redo the seams by hand. It really is the better way to do things...

Yeah, isn't it cool? They really barely cover the elbows. The V&A is so evil...

We Got It Sista!! Now have a drink on me!! Oh no, John! I didn't mean you specifically! I didn't think you were taking anything as an attack. I was just musing and my post just happened to come right after yours. Just chance, that. Not commenting on anything you said. Like I said, I like fantasy pirates. Nothing I say about historical accuracy should ever be taken as an attack on fantasy pirates. That's all I was trying to say. Now start sharing that ale!

Stronger inner thighs?

Hi Captain Ed. I like your sense of humour! However, in this particular forum, Captain Twill, we are supposed to be discussing maritime history, historical research, and other academic info. Hollywood inspiration is fine. But this isn't the forum in which to discuss it. Artistic inspiration and fantasy pirate gear should be discussed elsewhere, like in Plunder or Pirate Pop. Nothing wrong with being inspired by Hollywood though...

And Englishwomen in Elizabeth's time though wearing drawer was sleezy because the Spanish and Italians wore them!

Cuthroat, try popping over to the other thread called "Boots" in Plunder. There were some statements there by people who sail regularly about the unfeasibility of going barefoot in the rigging.

Zephaniah, This is how I approach the problem of documenting an item to the GAoP. Number one: don't document backwards. In other words, don't find an item you *want* to be from the period and try to find it. That way lies madness, as I'm sure Petee is finding out. Start with the question "What did they wear on their feet?" rather than "I wonder if they wore boots." Number two: the best source in the world is an extant source. It tell you for certain that this type of item existed in the time period. What it does *not* tell you, however, is how common that item was. Or who wore it. Some items are passed down in families, but many are found in bogs, shipwrecks, etc. and do not have records attached. Number three: in order to understand the breadth of how the item was used, in what context it was used, how common it was, etc., look to the historical record: pictures, wills, inventories, written accounts, etc. This is where the knowledge gained from extant items gets "filled out". We learn the frequency with which the item was used and how common an item it was. For example, if you found a coat that you could positively date to 1697 and it had three sleeves, you would know if all coats were made like that, or if it was a fashion of a certain bunch of people, or if it was a mistake that got dug out of the midden heap centuries later. So it's best to use multiple sources to document items from an historic period. And never back document. See what I mean?