kass

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.

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.

See what I mean? Thanks for posting, Hawkins, so we can see it.

Well, thanks in return for showing me a picture I'd never seen before. It's always cool to see a new picture from the period. I'm afraid I'm a little too black and white for a rating system. To me it's either right for the period or it isn't. That's not a judgement on someone's taste. That's just my personal lack of creativity talking. Personally, I don't notice much bickering in this forum. I think some stuff I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole gets posted, but other people love it. No problem from my point of view. Different strokes and all that. I would never post "Oh that sucks" in response to something someone really liked. I only answer the posts that say, "Is this appropriate for the GAoP?" Or the posts that are funny...

Very nice. It looks like the edges of the armscyes are prick stitched too. Nice touch... Lovely piece. If I didn't make 'em, I'd buy it!

shhhhh... Don't tell anyone. It'll ruin me! Yaaaaaaaar...

Thanks for posting that link, Rue. A midwife friend of mine (who's also an 18thc reenactor and, of course, interested in women's medicine in the time period) sent that to me last week. We'd long been debating the question. My argument has always been against women wearing drawers and now there's proof. :) One of the biggest reasons for women not to wear drawers is there's less mess without them. This is why when women finally started to wear drawers in the 19th century, they were crotchless. Even as late as the 1960s, a lot of women's undergarments were open on the bottom. Air is a good thing for we womenfolk. You know what else occurred to me in my quest to prove the nonexistence of women's drawers -- why male children aren't breeched until the age of three or four. They're wearing diapers! It's easier to change a child when he's wearing a skirt. And there's less mess if there's a leak (and I'm sure period diapers leaked all the time). Same methodology for women, really. Except that they don't wear diapers. What I don't understand is the people who argue that they need to wear bicycle shorts under their petticotes to prevent chaffing. Personally even the thought of lycra bike shorts makes me chafe! I just can't agree with you, Foxe, that drawers were typical. Yes, the slops contracts make numerous mention of them. But other sources don't talk about drawers until much later. And then they are touted as if they're this new invention. Do you think it's possible that seamen found them essential but lubbers hadn't heard of them yet? I guess that's possible. Just have to mention that before I talked to you on the subject, I thought drawers were unheard of for men until the late 18th century. But I wasn't doing much in the way of naval stuff before. I would say that wearing or not wearing drawers is equally typical of the period. But women should never wear them. 'Cuz I said so. And put a damned cap on, you shameless hussy!

Hi guys! Hurricane, I would put a date of at least 1680s and perhaps even 1670s on the clothing in this painting for much the same reasons that Greg points out. The vertical pockets, the lack of wig, the cravat all point to the late 17th century, not the early 18th. The reason I would go so far as to say 1670s is that by the 1680s, we were already seeing wigs and horizontal pockets. This man is obviously someone who follows fashion. Therefore he wouldn't be wearing something this fabulous out of date. The earliest instances of Justacorps in the late 1660s were still worn with petticote breeches. These are not. These are slim breeches, the kind we start seeing in the 1670s. How'zat? Back to the grind! By the way, I think a rating system just gives us another reason to fight. And personally, I'd just rather talk about cool stuff! Hey Petee! I'm offended by your dropped baby remarks! Don't know why. I just am...

I nominate Hawkins. His sig photo is really cool.

Greenighs, my dear, there is hope. Step one is avoiding eBay at all costs (at least until you have a better idea of what's right and wrong, so you can avoid spending your hard-earned cash on junk). I don't know if you are a seamstress or know of someone who will sew for you, but I produce patterns for clothing from the Golden Age of Piracy. They are multisized 6-26 so to fit all manner of women, large and small. And there are men's patterns too if you choose to attire yourself like Bonny and Read. The first six of the thirteen patterns are listed on the Preorder section of my website. If you have any questions about them or anything else, feel free to PM me. If you post here, I may not read it quickly as I'm busy finishing up the first patterns which will ship on Monday morning!

Methinks they be meanin' those shirts worn by the famous poets: Shelley, Lord Byron, and Keats in yer historical drama Blackadder, Mr. Gentleman, sir... Yaaaaaarrrrr! Love the blue glass tricorn!

It's hard to say if it was common or not, Greg, when we have so few extant shirts from the GAoP period.

Sorry, kids! I've been buried under the printer, trying to make sure the GAoP patterns stay on schedule! Okay, if by "shoulder yokes" you mean that piece of fabric that reaches from your shoulders to the bottom of your sternum to which the rest of the shirt is pleated, no. Never seen anything like them in the extant or pictorial record. They are an invention of the Ren Faire costumers as far as I can surmise. If by "shoulder yokes" you mean the 2" wide strip that runs from the collar to the sleeve attachment and covers the shoulder seam (or gives reinforcement to a folded-over shirt that has no seam), then yes. We got evidence of this kind of reinforcement as far back as 1600. Sorry I haven't been around much lately... But it's all for you guys in the end!

In fact, the handles of most pistols are designed to be used as clubs. They also turn very nicely in the air when you toss 'em up and catch them on their barrels.

The images are broken, bro. I wanna see, wanna see!

Josh, brother, you're my frickin' hero! That is really just too cool for words. Now why can't someone in England have the "molds" for clothes from 1720s so I could stop sewing!

I think you have to have them on a webspace somewhere before you can use the "IMG" button. Hector, email them to me and I'll put them up on my site temporarily.

Canvas was hemp in the period in question. The word "canvas" comes from the word "cannabis". Get it? Hemp and linen would have been your most likely fabrics for absorbancy. I can't imagine anyone would have used silk for a head scarf because it just doesn't keep the sweat out of your eyes. Cotton is right out. Unless of course you're from Italy or Spain or the Middle East or South East Asia or...

Unfortunately, Jib, I think your problem is the fabric as well as the construction of the coat. If I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing, the fabric is rather soft and flowy, correct? That will always kinda curl up. And the lapels are just plain modern. They're always going to get caught on the baldrick. Try it under the coat. I think that's your best bet.

As you said, definitely not a period coat. Not laying terribly well either... I can see why the baldric causes such a problem.

Ah yes. You're the one in the center, are you? It's those big turnbacks, Jib. They're catching...

I'll still be here, RumbaRue! You just do what you can, girl.

Paul, you're my hero. You used my favourite word: pedantic. I agree with him, Jib. Your coat shouldn't have a lapel so that may be where you've met your bloomer. {SHAMELESS PLUG ALERT!} Perhaps you should buy a Reconstructing History Golden Age of Piracy Coat Pattern. You can preorder one here now: Reconstructing History Piracy Age Patterns :)

Oh guys, I cannot WAIT to see them all! Also when our new website is up (1st April) you can show off your clothes made with RH Patterns there too. I hope you'll share and show our customers what can be done with our patterns.

Mind? I thank you, Blackjohn. You ROCK!