kass

If they went into a busy port town, staying in their sailor garb would certainly be appropriate if they wanted to blend in....

I don't think so, Das. Remember Foxe said something about sailors being easily-identifiable as seamen because of the way they moved, their speech, and lots of other things that had little to do with the way they dressed. I can't quote his sources to you (he can) but people could recognize a sailor from yards away, and not just by his clothes.

So I doubt any attempt to "blend" on the part of a pirate would be very successful.

But this makes me ask myself why they would want to blend in with society anyway.

But Das, bucket boots weren't worn with Justacorps. They are too early. They were worn with doublets fifty years earlier. If you are fashionable enough to be wearing a Justacorps, you're fashionable enough to be wearing shoes, not some fifty-year-old bucket boots!

Different time period, see?

Okay, I'm a woman with an opinion. But unlike most thing I post about, I don't have the documentation to back this up.

I have two reasons why I believe buggery was no more prevalent among sailors than among men ashore.

Number One: In the period we're studying, homosexuality was thought of as an abberation, almost a mental illness. Even if kept secret, the self-hate involved with the practice must have been immense. Remember that homosexuality was a crime in England punishable by a jail sentence and hard labour until the 20th century.

Number Two: Unlike the other women you've run into, Das, I don't think men are sex-crazed animals who have to screw something in lieu of women or their heads will pop off. Besides, ever been on a ship in the open ocean or fighting a foe likely to kill you? There is so much to worry about that I'm sure "getting some" is the least of one's worries!

Laughter is the best medicine, Captain Grey. Always thought so...

And remember: filthy, rich, American company that's buying the drinks!

Not a problem, Josh. You know me! If he even thinks about wearing his Bucket Boots instead of his poncy, high-heeled 1690s shoes to a GAoP event, I'll kick him in the knees! Or at the very least, refuse to make him any more bobbin lace...

If you did, so did I, Josh!

Hee hee hee! You weren't trying to follow my train of thought, were you Petee? Should have warned you: that way lies madness!

The quick story: I'm going to England next month to the Reenactors' Market. My husband does ECW and wants a pair of Bucket Boots made by this amazing historical shoemaker, Sarah Juniper. If he's talking to her, he'll be so entranced that Ed could probably buy me drinks for three days before he'd notice I was gone. Of course this means I'd have to let him buy Bucket Boots!

Well, one can only hope!

Ed, I can leave him at Sarah Juniper's, fondling Bucket Boots...

He does!

But he's still a damned, dirty foreigner...

Of course I'm only saying that because he's making me buy my own drinks next month!

Yup! Back when the Victoria's Secret catalog first came out -- before they used supermodels and had stores everywhere -- they had "Victoria's Secret, London" as the return address on their catalogs (they were in Ohio) and had a good but fake British woman's voice on their phone line.

Ditto a guy with an English accent. Even a very horrible accent gets me...

I'll buy that... Haven't been to some of the more central areas of PA, have ya, bro?

I like the pretty voices...

Telephone game.

Heh! Now the voices in your head are talking to me, Petee!

Precisely! It's interesting when you know the sources that were copied for the illustrations. You can see all the mistakes. For illustrations in a comic, that's not really important. But you can't base historical clothing on it.

Kinda like the visual version of "Whisper Down the Lane". :)

S'okay. You know, Mr. Foxe, he's one of those damned, dirty foreigners. He talks funny...

That's just because the same voices speak to me too, Ed!

Ah... But you couldn't wear Chuck Taylor's outside of an athletic situation in 1917 and not look like an insane person. Yet today, you can wear them nearly anywhere.

I should probably repeat my governing principal at this point:

"Do not make the rare common or the common rare."

Even if we found a picture of a GAoP period man wearing Bucket Boots with his Justacorps, I wouldn't recommend wearing them for your GAoP impression. One picture does not make the practice common.

But if you want to wear Bucket Boots and be sure it's right, just wear the earlier hat and doublet and breeches with them. It's simple!

This is a 20th century illustration, not an actual portrait of Morgan done during his lifetime. There is no known contemporary "official" portrait of Morgan, sadly. The various engravings of him done during and just after his life were based on current fashion and the descriptions of those who had seen him - just as most of the pirate engravings were.

I've gotta agree with brother Josh here. Whoever did this illustration is mixing periods a bit. The sleeves are very 1630s but the open way of wearing the doublet is a 1650s fashion, and the breeches are just weird. I wouldn't be surprised if this was made by someone who not only never saw Morgan in life, but didn't know what people wore in his time period. It's kind of like those Victorian illustrations of medieval clothing in Braun and Schneider. They look "medieval" but they show a fundamental misunderstanding of medieval clothing and what went together and what didn't.

I could of sworn that I have seen an engraving with him in an "justa-thingy" and "tri-corn"

Hi Petee!

Foxe isn't saying Blackbeard didn't wear them, I don't think. He's saying that Bucket Boots aren't the same period as Justacorps and Cocked Hats.

If you want to wear Bucket Boots, be English from 1620 to about 1650s. This is when they were in fashion. Boots are generally worn only for riding -- they aren't engineered to be comfortable to walk in (ever wear modern show boots?) -- but during the time around the English Civil War (and a little before and after), they were fashionable. A man might not have a horse, but he'd have bucket boots and "pretend".

I think the trap we're all falling into is mixing periods. Just because something is appropriate for the 17th century doesn't mean the same part of the 17th century. It's kinda like wearing Nikes with a 1920s tennis outfit. They're just the wrong period!

So wear Bucket Boots. But wear an early 17th century doublet and hat with them. Not a Justacorps and Cocked Hat.

[Hands Das her second-best lace handkerchief.]

Here you go, darling. Let's get that exploded brain out of your eyes...

You could always make one for yourselves with this!

Lookie here!

Huge cuffs a specialty!

Yup Kass I have. It doesn't work for me. I sweat so bad I could fill a lake!

But that's what you want to do -- sweat! Sweat lubricates your thighs so they don't chafe. It's absorbing the sweat that causes the problem.

I sweat like a great sweating thing, and my thighs rub together, and I have never had the slightest irritation.

We-ell,

Yes, I think that it's possible seamen adopted the wearing of drawers first (as they seem to have done with pockets for example) out of practicality. Exactly why it was practical I can't think offhand, unless it had something to do with their wearing of slops and petticoat breeches

I can't show you evidence of widespread drawer wearing (except amongst seamen), but I can point out other drawer related incidents from before the late 18th century.

In his "Memoirs of D'Artagnan" (1700), for example, Courtilz de Sandraz mentions that Aramis fights a duel while he's suffering from dysentry and soils himself. He is forced to go and buy a new pair of drawers. We can infer reasonably that a: Aramis was wearing drawers, and it does not seem to have been all that surprising to a 1700 audience, and that b: he had, at that time, only one pair with him (I forget whether he was at home or off roaming)

For those of an athletic mind, according to Henry Teonge's diary (1670s) drawers and stockings seems to have been a seaman's prefered swimming wear.

Yeah, but he's foreign...

Thanks for the ref, Ed. I do appreciate it.

Rue, I don't have skinny legs by any stretch of the imagination! Chafing can be seriously reduced by wearing nothing. Chafing is exacerbated by the rub of cloth and elastic against the skin and the accumulation of bodily oils and sweat on that cloth. Sweat on the skin actually works as a natural lubricant and you don't chafe.

Have you ever tried it? Because I have and I've never chafed.

I'm just saying that if something doesn't happen to be historical or even close but to many might be a fun "piratey" thing. Maybe some people collect pirate bobble heads or the lego ships that don't REALLY look like ships at all, why would someone feel the need to point out that it doesn't look like a pirate but a bit of plastic.

That's kinda my point, Ace. I don't think a rating system would have any use here. Some people want only historical stuff. Other people want plastic pirate toys. And yet others want a little bit of each. Are you really going to listen to my opnion on the historical accurate of a Lego boat? You shouldn't. I don't know much about period ships at all. I just love Lego!

And I can't agree with you about the purpose of Captain Twill, though. That forum is for the discussion of academic things. Plunder is the forum for advertising and asking where one can acquire things, historic or not.

Which further supports my thoughts on no rating system -- how exactly do you rate how cool something is? It's really objective and I'd rather just read everything posted here. And rate things mentally for myself.