kass

Are you kidding, Ed? Frock coats with all the trimming are MUCH prettier!

Easy there, Gent! I have to figure out pricing first! Kass

Thanks, Ed. I'm flogging my illustrator as fast as I can!

And there's more...

Okay, you got me... at least briefly... I've been looking really closely at two 1670s justacorps in the V&A. Both are upper class jackets made for the wearer's wedding day. So we're not talking about common sailor's clothing. However, that being said, the construction of these coats is very simple (two fronts, two backs, two-piece sleeves) and all the fancy stuff is provided by tons of gold embroidery or fine matierals -- not an over-abundance of fabric. This is what I'm getting at -- they have slits for pockets. In one case, a small strip of fabric is inserted into the pocket to make a narrow overlap. In the other, the slit is just pulled to and buttoned closed. Looking at the men's coats in the Cryes of London, I see very similar shapes to these two upper class coats. So I am making the logical leap that lower class coats were constructed similarly. And if they were, why not slits for pockets? That's a lot of leaping about, but it's something to think about while I get back to my pattern work...

Oh, and it's all Blackjohn's fault...

Ah, I misunderstood you, Patrick. Well, it sounds like you have a very good plan now. Get ready for the 22nd and we'll start then! Kass

No. Maybe later...

Okay, gentlemen. I really want to give my opinion on all the points, but then none of the pattern work I have to do would get done today! But I would like to add this to the discussion: if the coats had mariners' cuffs, which require three buttons each, it's possible that the pockets were not buttoned (leaving 9 to go down the front). It's also possible that the "pockets" referred to are not pockets in the coat but pockets worn separately (like a woman's). The text is a little ambiguous to me. Assuming three buttons on each mariner's cuff and three on each pocket, however, you can still have a jacket: a laced front. Marcus Laroon's "Cryes of London" (1687) shows some working men wearing coats with mariner's cuffs and the fronts laced closed. Here's one now:

I just love you guys...

Hi Silent and Swifty. For me, I think it was just the natural progression of things. I've always loved dressing up and pretending to be people in the old movies -- whether the movies were about Elizabeth I or Fred and Ginger, it didn't matter. So that's the start of the phenomenon with me. But I'd been reenacting the English Civil War era (1640s) for about ten years when I started doing the American Revolutionary era. Women's clothes were alot prettier certainly. But the late 18th century in America wasn't as decadent as the mid-17th century in England and on the Continent. Then a couple Rev War friends of mine (with whom I also do WWII -- the period sluts!) got sick of all the drill and discipline that comes with Rev War reenacting and decided to shift their time period a little earlier and incorporate their love of sailing. And The Pirate Brethren were born! Didn't hurt that the women's clothing in 1680-1725 frickin' ROCKS!

Yeah, ain't it cool? As a multi-period reenactor, having shirts that can do double duty is really convenient. From the earliest shirt I can think of (dated 1540), the basic shape of men's shirts doesn't change until the 19th century. Width and details, yes, but not the basic shape. Women's shifts/smocks/shirts on the other hand vary wildly, but usually the changes are in the neckline, not the body of the shirt. But unfortunately fewer of these seem to have survived. I received great info on a woman's shift dating to 1700 from the Gallery of Costume in Manchester. It's very clearly a transition garment between the manly styles of the 1600s and the low scooped neckline of the late 18th century. Can't wait to take a break and make myself one! But first, I have slashed and paned satin doublets to work on...

Ed, let's not forget Grania Mhaille ("Grace" O'Malley), the Irish thorn in good Queen Bess' side. We know she was real because there are English accounts of her petitioning Elizabeth I for the right to raid enemy (read: Spanish) ships off the Irish coast. The problem is that she'd sometimes raid English ships too if the pickings were slim. So Bess kept having to call her in and lock her up and teach her a lesson. There are some tales (mostly from Morgan Llywellen's novels) that indicate she dressed as a man, but nothing in the real historical record (or even the Irish legends about her) indicate that she didn't dress as a woman. She was the owner of her ship and that doesn't even confirm that she sailed on it herself, quite frankly. The fact that Grania gets protrayed as a breeches-wearing pirate at Ren Faires should not be mistaken for fact... Patrick, to add to your argument from a time period closer to the GAoP, there are numerous well-documented accounts of women fighting in the American Revolution -- at first dressed as young boys and then openly dressed as women. The Continental Line was just too short of man-power to refuse "women-power". And there are even cases of women drawing veterans' pensions from the government -- not as widows, but as veterans themselves. Now, that being said, America had a tradition by that point of not exactly behaving as England would have. So we must ask ourselves if women did this in England in the GAoP. My take is that there probably were cases of women dressing as men and making their way aboard pirate ships. But we probably know about the few cases because they were so very rare and unusual. And anyway, who on earth would want to wear breeches and look like a boy when you could wear fabulous girl clothes?!?!

You're not wrong, Greg. 22" was a very common linen width since the earliest times. But by the early 18th century, wider widths were definitely in use. I'm quoting from Linda Baumgarten's "Costume Close Up -- Clothing Construction and Pattern 1750-1790." "About linen width. After shrinkage has been taken into account, the width of the linen in this shift corresponds roughly to the period designation of 7/8 linen, which means that the linen is 7/8 of a yard wide. Calculated another way, it is 7 times 4 1/2" (1/8 yard), for a total of 31 1/2". Other standard linen widths were yard wide (36"), 3/4 (3 times 1/4 yard or 27"), and 5/4 (5 times 1/4 or 45"). Manufacturers did not always conform to exact standards, however, and comsumers occasionally complained that textiles were not quite as wide as their designations." (Kinda like how modern 2x4s are 1.75" x 3.75" and not 2"x4"...) Granted this is later than the GAoP, but since the construction of shirts did not change since the 1600s, it's reasonable to assume that the linen widths did not either. Here's a quote from an article I wrote on shirts and shifts to muddy the width issue further: "A man's shirt from 16th century Italy (shown in Dorothy Burnham's "Cut My Cote") is made from a 27" wide length of linen folded in the middle and slashed for the head... A shirt from the end of the 16th century and now housed in the Museum of Costume in Bath, England, is constructed similarly but the body is a whopping 38" wide and the stand collar is reinforced with triangular gussets at either side of the neck... A number of 18th century shirts from Pennsylvania are almost identical in design despite the time and distance that separates them from these European examples. The bodices of these shirts are roughly 30" wide by 80" long and they retain the same sleeves, collars, cuffs, and gussets of the 16th century shirts. Even women's shirts got in on the act. A few 17th century women's shirts in the Victorian and Albert Museum in London are identical to the men's shirts except for two elements. They are longer in the body than the men's and they have triangular gores set in each side seam below the underarm gussets which creates the width necessary to be able to walk unhindered in the longer version." About piecing, I've examined a number of shirts and shifts myself and it's quite common to see the top of a shift made out of very fine linen and the rest of the shift (that doesn't show) made out of linen so coarse, you wouldn't want it next to your skin. You also see men's collars and cuffs made in finer linen than the rest of the shirt. And a line of stiching across the bottom of the shirt or shift is also seen. I actually made my early 17th century shift like this because I ran out of the good linen, and then I found out how period appropriate it was. It's like photography -- if you don't see it, it's not there! More later, guys. I have to work on a 1620s ensemble today. Kass

I can't say why the shoulder seam of this shirt sits on this guy in the picture's shoulder, but that was certainly not the norm. Shirts in this period were made according to the width of the fabric, not the size of the wearer. You bought fabric wide enough to make a shirt big enough, and this sometimes meant it was very big indeed. But since no one wore the shirt without at least a waistcoat over it at all times (except in bed), this isn't a problem. Of all the shirts I've examined or read about, none were made with the seam sitting perfectly on the shoulder. The shoulder seam should sit about four inches or more down your arm. So Patrick, your sleeves are probably fine. And that "binding" is period appropriate, believe it or not. Besides, when would a gentleman such as yourself wear your shirt without a jacket? Surely not in public... Shirts made with shoulder seams in the perfect modern position came into use in the 19th century. It stops the binding, but the construction wastes fabric. Kass

Why not carry your tankard in your very period haversack? Ed reminded me of an example that my friend who is an expert on medieval cooking always gives to talk about justifications and why they don't always work. In the middle ages they had eggs. We know this as fact. In the middle ages they also had vegetable oil. No brainer. But just because you mix these two together and get mayo doesn't mean they had mayonaise. :) Assuming that because we thought of it, our ancestors would have too is a trap. This is where you really have to immerse yourself in the period to make a good guess. Once at an event, a member of the public ask me what medieval people used instead of watches. I responded, "Why would I have to know the exact time?" Truly, the exact time wasn't important to people in the middle ages. But as modern people, knowing the exact time is very important to us because of how our modern world works. So did you think of the thing as a modern person or a person living in the period in question? That's the real test. Still, I would want something approaching proof. Sometimes our guesses just aren't as educated as we would hope.

Hi Patrick, I cannot prove that people made coats out of blankets in the Golden Age of Piracy (or in any historical period). But what I can prove is that wool blankets were typically a simple twill weave and they still are today. And guess what: the wool coats that survive from the Golden Age of Piracy are also a wool twill. So in this case, we can justify this by saying you are making a coat out of the same kind of wool used for coats back then. The fact that your material was once a blanket really has nothing to do with it. However, the same thing doesn't work for making shirts out of sails, for example. The linen used to make shirts (even very coarse, poor man's shirts) was infinitely finer than the linen used for sailcloth. So I wouldn't make a shirt out of a sail (or make up a story that I did). For me, if I can't prove it was done, I don't do it. But sometimes "proving" it can be rather liberal. For example, I once made a gown out of silk brocade that had a repeating pattern of chrysanthemums on it. I knew that gowns had been made out of silk brocade with repeating flower patterns on them. And I knew that the flowers we about the same size and spacing as this fabric. But I have no idea if they ever used chrysanthemums specifically. I suppose I could find out that they were thought to be a very unfeminine flower and not suitable for a ball gown. But probably not... Kass

Hey guys! Authenticity Police here... "Tricorn" is a 19th century term. Why not call them what they called them: "cocked hats". This term applies to all hats that are tacked up, whether on one side, as was done early in the period, and on three sides as became the standard by the American War for Independence. Just your daily dose of education from your moderator.

Hee hee! Been there. Done that. Spoke like a dork for half a day to prove it! I have a ceramic mug now.

Or here: The Northerner Drool...

AW come on, Corsair... I've seen you in a bodice before... ... or was that our secret? Josh, you're killin' me, bro!

Yes please, Captain. Can you put dates on them? I'd really like the shirt workshop to say "Starting November 1st" and the hand stitches workshop say "October 17th" if you would. Thanks! If this goes smoothly, there will be more to come!

That's next year... After the GAoP patterns come out. Seriously, I feel like the period accurate bloody Martha bleedin' Stewart! HELP!!! I'm living my own nightmares!!!

Well that explains why I've never heard of them, Adam! My interest stops at the 1780s. I've studied alot of shirts, but the only ones without wrist-length sleeves have been women's. I should add that I'm not up on military supply contracts from the 17th and 18th centuries and don't know what they might hold. I'm sure Foxe will tell us if they do. Deadeye, you see a lot of pictures of 17th and 18th century sailors where their shirts obviously have wrist-length sleeves. These don't get in your way when working -- the cuffs are narrow. Kass

Okay, here are the specifics. For this project you'll need 2 1/2 yards of white (bleached) linen. Unbleached (natural) linen or half-bleached may be used if you desire the poor farmer look. It should be as close to 60" wide as possible, but we can work with any width. If you can only get 45" wide linen, buy four yards instead of 2 1/2 just to make sure you have enough. Buy handkerchief weight linen (2.8-3.5 oz) for a fine shirt or 5oz for a more durable shirt. Do not buy "optic white" or coloured linen. It's inappropriate. I recommend buying your linen from this site: Inexpensive Linen I've been buying from them by the bolt for years. They are great! Be sure to check their "Fabric Doggie Bag" for leftovers. You don't need a single piece 2 1/2 yards long, so you can buy two 1 yard pieces and one half-yard if you like. Piecing is VERY period appropriate. Even very rich people had pieced clothing. Other stuff: Thread (preferably linen) A needle A tape measure or ruler We'll start here on November 1st. This should give everyone enough time to order linen and gather supplies. If you're interested in learning period hand stitches, I'll be running a short class here on 17 October. All you need is a needle, some thread, and some scraps of fabric. The fabric and thread don't have to be period-appropriate, but if they are, you'll be making a documentable pin cushion. You don't have to know how to thread a needle to join the class. No need to sign up. Just check this board on the 17th and 1st. Kass