kass

I don't think this is unique to this forum. I'm on a couple of different forums and email lists, and in all cases the number of members far outstrips the number of posters. Some people are shy. Some people just like to read what other people write. And still others join, look around, and never come back. I don't think membership "expires" or anything like that. So the number of members is really the number of how many people ever registered, from the get-go...

I sure as hell didn't know, Patrick! My knowledge of period clothing kinda starts at the ankles and goes up. You know what I don't understand? When people who aren't interested in historical accuracy see the words "historically accurate", why do they get so inflamed with anger? Guys, if you aren't interested if something's historically accurate or not, fair enough! Just ignore what we who are interested have to say. No one is trying to force anything down your throats! Just move to the next post, fer God's sake... When I see the word "fantasy pirate", I know that post isn't for me. I might read it for fun or to see what other people do. But I don't take it to pertain to my enjoyment of what I do. And I sure as hell don't take it as an attack. Like Petee said in another post, we ALL dig pirates. I'm okay, you're okay, get it? So bloody relax already...

Not just for you, Greg, but it should be so for everyone. Let me illustrate the problem with a story... Cartridge pleating was an extremely popular style of pleating in the 16th and 17th centuries. It gives the kind of width to petticotes and skirts that was popular during those time periods. It is also an extremely popular method of pleating in the 19th century when we not only see it on skirts but on sleeves. They went cartridge-pleating nutty! We have a whole lot of pleated gowns extant from the 18th century. Not a cartridge pleat on one of them. We also have extant tailor's books. No mention of cartridge pleating (or any technique that resembles cartridge pleating). Did tailors in the 18th century lose their minds and forget how to cartridge pleat? Were cartridge pleats outlawed in the 18th century? No. They probably just went out of style... Now you could do your 18thc petticotes and gown skirts with cartridge pleats, but they'd be wrong. They'd look wrong and they'd hang wrong. They would still be wearable, but they wouldn't be a very good representation of clothing in the 18th century... Sometimes styles go out of fashion. Sometimes techniques disappear and reappear. While it seems logical to assume if something was done in the 17th and 19th centuries, it would also be done in the 18th century, the above illustrates how that is not always the case. Advice number one: if you want to do something period appropriate, look to surviving artifacts. Advice number two: back up the surviving artifacts with period pictures of the artifacts being used. Advice number three: one picture or surviving artifact does not make the item common. That's all. Wear boots if you like 'em. But don't purport that they were worn by pirates during the GAoP.

Silly Ed... They're not shoes!

She's a beauty, Ed!

Preordering has not yet started because we haven't laid out the pattern, drawn the cover, and decided what goes in it yet. But as soon as it does, I will announce it in Plunder. If it works for your timeline, great. If not, that's cool too.

Can you wait a couple weeks, Mick? One of the new GAoP patterns is for breeches and slops. :) For linen, I recommend something heavy, like 7oz. Go to this page and click on the link for 4C22: The Right Stuff

Good hypothesis, Petee. I definitely see your trail of logic. I would love to see you find a pair of GAoP sailor's boots and wear them and when people ask you why your boots look so different, you could tell them about the difference! That would be awesome! And THANK YOU for calling it a hypothesis, not a theory. My respect for you grows and grows!

Hi guys. Okay, let's define what we're looking at here. I see three different things. 1 -- Short, stand collars 2 -- Wider, soft collars that are worn with a cravat around them 3 -- Yet wider, soft collars that fold down Number 1 we see in the 16th and very early 17th century (like 1605), usually with embroidery on the collar to give it even more stiffness. Then we see them again around the time of the American Revolution. There's on in the collection of the Museum of Costume in Bath dated 1585 and a similar one dated 1610. And then there's one in Williamsburg's collection with a 1" tall collar. It's dated 1775-1790 (but possibly altered in 1810). So short stand collars appear to have been period for the end of the 16th/beginning of the 17th century and the end of the 18th/beginning of the 19th century and not in between in the GAoP. Number 2 and Number 3 are almost indistinguishable. If a man is wearing a cravat, it's hard to tell if his collar is folded down underneath it. The only shirt we have that dates positively to the GAoP is on a doll at the V&A. It's collar is tall (the life-size equivalent of maybe 4") and it is buttoned closed. But paintings of other men from the period, we cannot see their collars at all. Generally, men of fashion are wearing cravats or Steinkirks and we can assume that their collars are under those neckcloths. But as to the common man, I have GAoP era pictures of men without collars showing at all and others with their collars flopped open as in the modern day. It seems to be the case that it was not respectable to go around with your neck exposed, however, for even lowly street hawkers in the Cryes have something tied around their neck, even if it is only a rag. If only we had more extant than we do. Unfortunately we don't choose which period retains the most textiles -- nature does.

Hee! Greg, $135 for custom-made shoes is absolutely phenominal. No matter what!

Precisely!

Thanks Jack!

Yeah and this was the ship's master. Now excuse my ignorance of sea terms (I'm the port entertainment, remember?) but does "master" mean Quartermaster? So he would be responsible for rationing out the men's daily portions of rum? That I could understand. You see, I thought this was his personal possession... I also fully admit to not thinking about the length of time he would have been on board.

I thought you guys might like those. I just found it by accident when looking for something else. Thank the guy who put up the website!

Do you mean this, William? http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/seagunner/

I take your point, Josh. And it could be. It's just that that's roughly half a hogshead. And hogshead was a common measure of liquid. Not that someone couldn't carry a hogshead of something for his own use. It just seems like alot... And did this guy fall overboard at the beginning of his journey? Or could this have been a hogshead barrel that was half gone? Interesting... I don't know about spirits like I know about beer ( ) but if you tapped the barrel, how long would it keep?

I don't know from captains, Josh! It's just that 30 gallons seems to me like a lot more than you keep around for guests.

I was looking for information on Elizabethan prices and stuff when I came across this page: http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/index.html

You're very welcome!

Thanks Rod. You pretty much guessed my purpose -- I don't want to sound like Eliza Doolittle! I guess I'll just have to break out my "Complete Works" eh? Say, have you ever heard those dialect tapes from Stuart Press (Skyes used to sell them)? If you have, are they any good?

Check it out, friends! http://www.shipbrook.com/jeff/seamansgrammar/

It begs the question: is 3 bottles a shilling expensive or cheap. If it's expensive, then the bottles are more of the man's personal cargo, like the sugar and rum, that he intends to sell later. Unlike Josh, I think the rum wasn't for personal use but was rather more a commodity -- like an investment, to be sold at port. Perhaps the bottles were too.

Rock on! Thanks, Master Foxe (don't think that one got past me in your first post). Could you recommend any books or websites that deal well with the subject? Thanks so much! Kass

Yeah, I know I can subscribe to the OED online. But I also know this gives you joy. Say, you do Elizabethan from time to time, yes? I want to run a few appelations past you and see if I have them right or not. I know them for 18thc, but not 16thc. "Mistress"-- form of address for a married woman "Mrs. Fairfax". Also a form of address for a superior, particular one's employer. Can it be used with the given name? "Master" -- form of address for a man of higher rank than yourself or your employer. Has this come to be used for boys yet? Or is that purely 19thc? Would one call a Head Brewer "Master Brewer" or "Master Fairfax" or "Master Bob"? Or is he too low-ranking to be any of these (brewing not being as much a professional as a Kitchener's duty, like baking...). What level of address would be used for a brewer's wife? In other words, what level is she? Is she akin to the wife of a merchant or more like the wife of a cook?

AHA! Now I know your secret! You guys do this period so you can wear high heels and fancy boots! Next you'll be trying to justify dresses... WAIT! Petticoat Breeches!!! Funny, I still think guys in the 1680s looked manly...