Gentleman of Fortune

Mr Nash I can be somewhat of an a-hole as you have probably already figured out by my post... But hey! They turned out pretty good! Let me follow that up with saying I feel that there really is no substitute for correct shoes... but the reality is that correct shoes are not very important to most folks, and to those that it does matter, it STILL takes a lot of money and Time to get to the end goal. So I have been racking my brain about the question I get quite often via my website which is roughly. "I want to get a pair of shoes but don't know what to get and ordering them takes a lot of time and money and I have an event next month" I think you have just come up with the solution! I hate advising anyone to go ahead and buy Rev War shoes as once you say its "ok", people 1) never upgrade to the right shoe and 2) are now $100+ invested in the wrong direction. But, IMHO, you solution is an inexpensive bridge to the right shoes. Obviously, you have learned a lot about how shoes are supposed to look in your pursuit of modifying those shoes. And at the end of the day, they really don't look that bad! The trick is getting shoes that have the basic shape, with the minimal amount of "fancy" stitching on the sides. Also, for tied shoes, the ties also go though two holes made in the tongue. If you haven't already, check out the Belle shoe analysis .pdf posted above for ideas on construction. GoF

Ha! If we agree so much, I am not sure what the point is.... But anyway this seems like fun. How about some boundaries though. If I didn't claim a .96" heel as a high heel, you have to take the nebulous pictures where you can't tell if the heel is high or not.... like #3 Anstis' crew and potentially Reade and Bonny. Sure, it makes for great theater.... OK And ironically, i didn't have to go any further than your own site... So, with the pictorial evidence, and that from recovered pirate and other ships during the GAoP, I wouldn't make the claim that substantial heels on GAoP sailors is incorrect. And I would, at the same time, agree that no single shoe, recovered from any source, can represent the entirety. All that being said, I personally think that the Whydah shoe is a great starting point. If a maker can replicate that shoe, and adjust the heel to personal preference... bingo! The pirate community will be a lot better off than buying American Revolutionary Right Left shoes.... Which has been my goal from the start. Switching gears though... and maybe a new thread to be started, it does seem that we have taken one example of an item and used it represent ALL of the members of that group. Monmouth Cap. I think that the one everyone copies, including Ms Buckland, is from the late 16th century. I can't off the top of my head think of any known Monmouths that survive from the GAoP era.... Any ideas on that?

Wow. Its pretty cool to see the number of "authentic" pirate events mushrooming.... (hats off Nate). And to see the general authenticity getting better and better with each turnout!. GoF

Foxe If you think that I am missing the spirit of your reply, I could make the same comment... To clearify, are you saying that "Pirate" shoes are constructed differently than other shoes of the period? I would love to see the evidence for that. My point is, while heel size may be different for sailors, shoe construction seems to be the same throughout the classes. The difference between classes of shoes (poor -spoiled rich kids) would be quality of materials, stitches per inch, and type and construction of the heel. But, it seems that there are enough pirates and sailors depicted in artwork in the 1680-1730 (GAoP stretch) time frame to not discount the heel size of the Whydah shoe. But this is interesting.... Thats pretty tempting Foxe, especially for GAoP era. But we would have to define high and low. High = 1" and above? So far in the high corner, we have the Whydah shoe, the St Lawrence wreck shoe, **EDIT** looking at the Belle analysis, of the shoes that they can give figures for, the heel heights are (in inches) 1.09, .96, .68, and 1.57 END EDIT**.. That makes $4 to $0.50, to break even, you would need another 14 examples of shoes from ships/shipwrecks. Are you including artwork? Wow! check out them sailors heels!... GoF

Captain Midnight. Yes, its safe to assume that the heel was pegged with wooden pegs. If you haven't read the pdf of the 1686ish wreck of the French ship Belle, I would definately download and read it. Here is some more from that work. From The Analysis and Conservation of the BELLE Footwear Assemblage by Anthony G Randolph Jr. More on Heel construction (pg 83) there is a lot more which is worth the read if you are interested in making some shoes.more on heels (pg 61) and also Take a look for yourself at http://nautarch.tamu.edu/anth/abstracts/randolph.htm GoF

Having more time to digest the Belle shoe analysis, I thought this was interesting too... Cue the picture of Black Johns shoe..... A majority of the shoes recovered from the Belle seem to be of low quality and probably belonged to the lower classes. GoF

Hmmm... that is interesting. But remember that there really isn't a "La Belle" shoe. There are many shoes and shoe fragments recovered at that site, which is from 1684. If you download the pdf from http://nautarch.tamu.edu/anth/abstracts/randolph.htm and skip to page 256 you have a pretty decent drawing of both a tied and buckled shoe (stud chape). The next 30 pages or so has diagrams and pictures of the recovered shoes, but the real gem for the sake of this thread is the tables starting at 270. For the 6 shoes that they record the fastening type, Buckles outnumber ties 4 to 2, or twice as many shoes are buckled as tied. And that is 1684. I have not read through the file enough to see if there were buckles found, but it is interesting that the archaeologist have even been able to tell you what kind of buckle went into the shoe page 289 Which makes one think, if they had the shoes, why not the buckle. GOF

Regardless of the heel size, it still represents shoe making/construction of shoes that would have been worn in and around 1717. So, where there is speculation that it could be John Kings shoe, we do know for certain that it is a shoe from a 1717 pirate ship, so, while I won't claim it to be the representative example of all pirates shoes, it probably is constructed as any shoe of the period would be. I would imagine that the shoe maker I am talking with would/could put just about any size heel that the customer wanted. And oddly, it certainly does look like a double soled round toe shoe... to bad the ASC did not specify heel size. But here is one from the 1690 wreck of the Elizabeth and Mary that has to have at least a 1 1/2' heel! Elizabeth and Mary Shipwreck Now, of course, this shoe could have belong to John's King's spoilt brat cousin Philbert..... GoF

The heels seem to be pegged on with wooden pegs. Whereas metal nails may have been used on "land" shoes, I would think that metal nails on the bottom of the shoe would scuff the deck (eventually, as the leather wore down), so I would skip the metal nails myself. Midnight, I have a line drawing of the bottom of the Whydah shoe at my stie http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/shoeproject.htm that shows pegs around the heel. The real bitch with a period shoe is the type of stitching that joins the "sides" of the shoe and the seam up the back. This is the butt stitching that joins two pieces of leather at the edges (as opposed to overlapping the two pieces and stitching "down" through the top. What this means is period shoes have to be done by hand as there is no machine that does the butt stitching. This takes the maker time and costs the consumer money. But also it prevents them from being "mass produced" on a machine. I am working with a maker on a shoe design from the Whydah, but the guy is telling me he has to be able to do it on a machine. This may be one of those compromises... I guess it depends on the final cost though. If he can make the Whydah shoe, designed as the Whydah shoe but machine stitched, for around $100, it may be a reasonable proposition. Just to illustrate, here is a picture of a later shoe being made, the pink and yellow lines show how an earlier shoe differs. Here is a closeup of the actual Whydah shoe and the butt stitching on sides and back I would also add that the Admiralty Slops Contract from 1706 calls for a double soled, round toe shoe... which is what the Whydah shoe seems to be. GoF

Thinner is more correct for GAoP as you have already surmised. I would go with anything from 1" to 1 3/4" if you could. That way you would be on the safe side at least. Here are some wreck recovered buckles from the GAoP (Spanish). The grid squares are 1/4 inch http://www.artifacts.org/Fleetpage.htm GoF

They look good. I can post some pictures of 18th Century Buttons from my collection as a reference for those interested. IMHO its a nice, plain simple button that is probably better than, and cheaper than most alternatives. Kudos for putting together the project! GoF

A while back, I proposed/started a signature graphic contest. I had prizes and everything, though the contest was scrapped due to a pub "technical" difficulty. I have noticed that there are a LOT of cool signature graphics now..... I still got the prizes, and am willing to re-start the contest if any of you are still interested. You can't nominate yourself.... Anyone interested? (I will post the prizes when I get back home and can check out the prize locker!)

Unfortunately, the only thing that seems to make my buttonholes look better is practice. I have read somewhere (not sure what time period) that apprentices had to practice making 100s if not 1000s of buttonholes before being allowed to do them on "real" garments. For my sailor short jacket, I made about 10 practice ones before I attempted any on the coat. It had 18 buttonholes all together... and most of them turned out like "Frankenstien buttonholes". I think that the last 3 were the best (and they are on the cuff ). Here is the best one... and thats an honest to goodness original button too! GoF

I hate the short replies that add nothing.... But Wow... cool info! Thanks for the info Tightpants and the pictures Kass! GoF

Tennessee Valley Manufacturing has a kit http://www.tennesseevalleymanufacturing.co...hp?category=all Scroll down and you will see it. It runs about $400. There are some differences between early (that is, GAoP) style blunderbusses and later ones though. PM me and we can discuss it if you want. GoF

Lady Barbossa Says: Black Bonnie followed with Of course, everyone has their opinions of stuff, but my personal take is that there is plenty of room under the pirate tent for all types; fantasty, historical and theatrical. The historical wonks (which I claim to be a part of) are a small minority, but pretty vocal. I think its cool though that both or you are hand stitching some pirate kit now though... Watch out, its a slippery slope into the historical camp! GoF

In the Fabric Whore thread, it was suggested that a thread be started to help those of us who have over flowing fabric bins to break our addiction. Or to help the fabric "have nots" get some good stuff to start their pirate projects. So If your fabric locker is busting at the seems, list the stuff that you know you are probably not going to "get to" here. ***NOTE*** As this is under "Plunder", all types of fabric will probably be listed. That means all types of pirates (Historical, Theatrical, and Festival) will be looking. Please try to describe the fabric as best you can, which should include fibre content if known, along with length and width and brief description EXAMPLE Fabric: Wool, Grey 2 yrds x 1.5 yrds I am not sure the fiber content, but it looks to be an old navy blanket. Would probably make a nice short Jacket. Free to good home, you pay shipping though $6? Something like that.... GoF

The good Cp'n Sterling says: I am going ahead and giving this a shot... look for the "Fabric: Beg, Barter or Buy" thread in Plunder GoF

Neither... for me its the "pen". Although, these days its more like "the keyboard". GoF

GAoP the Golden Age of Piracy... roughly defined as 1680ish-1720ish GoF

Ottomon is a little "wider" with the ribs.... it looks a little more like corduroy. "Faile" is a little thinner, but usuable IMHO. Here is a site that has lots of interesting silks.... http://www.luigi-bevilacqua.com/BroccatiMa...Manualieng.htm# GoF

I hope not... I am a fabric whore myself! To answer the original question though... Thats tough, because there are lots of different silk styles that would be great for our period. Its kind of like What car best exemplifies "the 1960s" lots to choose from and matter of preference. Silk was a luxury fabric back then, but my answer would be a "bizarre" pattern silk (see Cptn Sterlings pictures in the post above). Reason: It was only produced during the golden age of Piracy. If I recall correctly it comes in the 1680s and is gone by the early 1720s. There is a French company that is making reproduction fabric, but when I contacted them, it was really bloody expensive like $400 a meter or more http://www.e-luxus-fabrics.com/soie_us/index.htm GoF

All this talk about bodices and stays and not a single picture of someone IN one.... How sad........ GoF

I would recommend Swords and Blades of the American Revolution, which should be available via Amazon. Don't let the name fool you, as it covers swords from the early 17th century up to the American Revolution. Boarders Away is ok, but it doesn't have as many pictures of the early stuff (GAoP) as it covers a wider range... 1600-19th century. I have some stuff on my web site... http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/swords.htm That should get you started. GoF

You have probably already tried this... but it might be worth checking. Women size US 7 is like... European 37.5/38 ? http://tinyurl.com/3cql6e Greg aka GOF