Cap'n Pete Straw

Alright, I must admit, that is rather impressive. I must show this site to my kids...

When I was in Brighton (UK), I stumbled upon the most unbelievable store. None of their stuff is cheap, but it is well worth seeing. The Lanes Armoury in Brighton, England It has to be the most awesome repository of ancient weapons ever! Swords! Katanas! Original antique Samurai armor! Thompson submachine gun!! Flintlocks of every desired model... Ancient Chinese repeating crossbow (Dear Santa...). And blunderbusses! Originals! These were not repros, and every stinkin' thing was for sale! ... But they were not cheap. If you have the cash, you must check them out. Sadly, their website (I only surfed it for a few minutes) does not seem to hint at the sheer volume of antiques they have in on display available for sale. If you have any plans to go to England (and if you are a Pirate), you cannot afford to miss this store, even if you cannot afford their merchandise. If you live in England, what are you waiting for?

I am so terribly sorry, the cut-and-paste thing defaulted to another italicized statement. That paragraph should have read as follows: Also, Foxe, regarding my "Pirate Top Ten" list, you said: Unless that's a typo you'd better apologise twice. Sextants would be absolutely fine for late 1700s living history. Yes, I know that. But it was such a minor point, I understood what you were trying to say, there were no feelings hurt, you were not innaccurate, and I saw no need to refute a truthful statement. (Interesting... 'I saw no need to refute a truthful statement'... Hmmm, why do I think that sentence does not belong in this topic thread...?) I am working toward more of a mid-to-late 1700s impression, and you were making a statement regarding the Golden (Great?) Age of Piracy -- there was no conflict of interest. It pays to proofread these things, eh? How embarrassing! I mean, I could have accidentally made an utterly stupid statement that I could not back up, such as "Though a wooden astrolabe is nice for learning how to use it, they were never used aboard a vessel." I mean, how embarrasing could that have been, huh?

Sir, you are utterly mistaken. Capn Enigma has already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that wooden astrolabes are, indeed authentic: he has proven that they were used aboard ships. If you are in doubt, please refer to the irrefutable evidence which he previously quoted from: "Dennis Fisher's excellent book Latitude Hooks and Azimuth Rings (p. 25 f)..." & etc. The full bibliographical reference is cited in his previous post. You should bone up on your nautical history, sir. Capn Enigma has done us all a great service proving that wooden astrolabes were used on board ships (although with limited accuracy), and we all owe him our gratitude. Unless you are calling Capn Enigma a liar. Then, sir, I think you owe him an apology. Foxe: you asked: "In all your wide experience, how many times have you tried using wooden astrolabes? I had been chomping at the bit waiting for someone to ask this, as that is a hugely relevant point. Related to that question are three or four more points I would like to have addressed regarding authenticity, practice, common sense and skill, but I said more than enough, IMHO. Also, Foxe, regarding my "Pirate Top Ten" list, you said: (Interesting... 'I saw no need to refute a truthful statement'... Hmmm, why do I think that sentence does not belong in thius topic thread...?) Yes, I know that. But it was such a minor point, I understood what you were trying to say, there were no feelings hurt, you were not innaccurate, and I saw no need to refute a truthful statement. (Interesting... 'I saw no need to refute a truthful statement'... Hmmm, why do I think that sentence does not belong in this topic thread...?) I am working toward more of a mid-to-late 1700s impression, and you were making a statement regarding the Golden (Great?) Age of Piracy -- there was no conflict of interest. Next, "I challenge you to show me a single 16th, 17th or 18th century wooden Mariner's Astrolabe." Can it be from the early 19th century? 'Cuz I have an ace in the hole for that one. However, for the true answer to your question, I refer you to Capn Enigma, as he has already shown us specific evidence of a wooden mariner's astrolabe from the Fifteenth Century. Of course, you must already be aware of this, as I see you specified 16, 17 & 18th centuries. I have already told you I will not tolerate your continued attemopts to refute the concrete evidence with which Capn Enigma has already provided us. Capn Enigma has proven the existance of wodden mariner's astrolabes and I will hear no more from ignorant naysayers to his well-researched historical evidence.

Blackjohn -- yes, that's what I was trying to do. Typically, I post near to my full price, and let it ride. Within a few hours of closing, I may "up" it if I weant it, but I don't overspend. In this case (and that's how I have scored a few of my primo batarangs) I was DETERMINED. But forgot about that second window approval. Damn. Next time.

Everyone (Moderator especially) please forgive what may sound like fanning the fires of a flame war, but that is not my intent. I have here a (wooden, not metal) bucket of water to throw on the flames. (...Although some may consider the liquid to be kerosene...) And I sincerely apologize for the length of this post, but I do not feel I can edit it further without losing the integrity of the argument. And I apologize for ever listing a sextant among my late 1700s gear, which seemed to be the original source of this flamy thread... ...But... Capn Enigma, you proved the case yourself in your own cited reference. In "resting your case," you conclusively proved the "silly" hypothesis that "wooden astrolabes were used aboard ships once and for all." Flame against me if you will (and I will not fight back, as I really have no interest in arguing with any of you), but I want to point out that you provided concrete evidence that these WERE used aboard ships (unless you wish to recant your own authoritative evidence). And no one else had to help you do it. Your quoted "excellent" authoritative source stated: "But taking accurate sights with an astrolabe...was next to impossible aboard a ship at sea." "Next to impossible" is not "impossible." In making this statement, the author declares that it was tried, and it was done. Clearly it was not the preferred method, but they were used. Otherwise, your author could not make this statement. Your source continues: "Usually three men were required. One braced his back against the mainmast [...] Another sighted the star. The third would read the angular height from the degree scale..." Proof positive! Your source states the methods, convoluted as they were, to overcome the handicap of owning a lightweight (and I presume you cited this reference to indicate a wooden) astrolabe! This ritual would not exist if heavy metal astrolabes were the ONLY astrolabes used aboard ships -- but you offer the logical and irrefutable argument that (1) if this method existed, then (2) wooden and/or small, lightweight astrolabes existed and (3) they were used aboard ships with (4) limited degrees of success requiring complicated methods of steadying them and taking readings. Q.E.D. Granted this same method was not used by all, but your source implies that this method, or something similarly complicated, was employed by EVERY crew who had to rely on a wooden or relatively lightweight astrolabe depending on prevailing wind conditions. Wait.... there's more: "Lining up the dimly shining Polaris through pinhole sights on a pitching, rolling deck demanded more skill than most seamen had, and if a breeze caught the instrument, sight taking was nearly impossible." How can the author make this statement? It is pure speculation, and he has no proof whatsoever to back it up! HE IS A LIAR! Since this could NOT have happened (of course not -- lightweight wooden astrolabes were not used aboard ships, right? ) the author is purely speculative about this hypothetical situation and the entire referenced source must be abandoned... ...Unless the author is NOT lying... Are we suggesting that he has evidence to back it up? If, as stated, lining up Polaris in a blah, blah, blah was nearly impossible, then the author suggests that "most" sailors abandoned lightweight wooden astrolabes because they were considered inferior, or, more accurately, becuase "most" sailors lacked the skill required to use them. But first they had to be used in order for this to be known. Experience comes from trial AND from error. And to reuse part of that same quote: "... sight taking was nearly impossible." Once again, "nearly impossible" is not "impossible." Trust me, I have done many things in my life that many people have gone on record as stating are "nearly impossible." The use of this statement by the author again states that sight taking was attempted on board ship -- otherwise the statement could not be made.... and this is an "excellent" authoritative source, right? Why, I would not at all be surprised if someone -- maybe someone right here in this very forum -- could quite possibly have used a wooden astrolabe (more than one in fact) at sea for solar sightings and achieved very satisfactory results. Yet someone else -- perhaps most people -- might easily declare this actual event as being "nearly impossible." Incredulity does not negate reality. Used aboard ship and failing = used aboard ship. Degree of success or failure does not dictate fact. I really tire of this, but there is actually more convincing evidence to be had... "Vasco da Gama circumvented these problems [common on smaller marine instruments] by going ashore to take sights with a large, wooden astrolabe hung from a tree branch." Vasco da Gama had a wooden astrolabe aboard his ship. He adopted the practice of going ashore to use it to get accurate readings because his wooden astrolabe (due to its size) gave more accurate readings than a small one (which he either did or did not have, and which either was or was not made from metal). Pure logic raises this question: How did this experienced sailor determine that his wooden astrolabe would give him better readings on land (inconvenient to land everytime he wanted to get an accurate reading) than onboard his ship (easy to simply whip it out and use it) ? Hmmm... you don't think he could have actually used it on board his ship, do you? Would trail and error have possibly suggested to him that he could get better readings by using it ashore? And another "proof positive" is that Vasco da Gama had a wooden astrolabe on his ship with him. He did not land, cut down a tree, have a carpenter fashion for him a wooden astrolabe, use it for a reading, and then abandon the instrument on the beach while going back on board his ship. While the original argument here (I think I have lost sight of it amongst the flames) may be that wooden astrolabes were never ever ever used aboard ship, the historical fact that a named sailor specifically carried a wooden astrolabe amongst his gear for an intended purpose places the wooden astrolabe among the list of legitimate nautical gear. (Large axes were typically not used on board ship, they were used to cut down trees on land for new masts -- yet they were considered essential nautical gear. Such a list could go on, but that is not my purpose.) Another application of sheer logic indicates the silliness of declaring that wooden astrolabes were not used on board ship: When lost at sea, with no land in sight, and forced with the unfortunate choice to drift aimlessly or to attempt a navigational decision based on perhaps faulty readings derived from the wooden astrolabe on board (typically saved for landfall readings), what would you do? One might, indeed, attempt the "nearly imposssible." *sigh* There is still more: But for mariners far out at sea, the astrolabe was of limited use. Columbus had an astrolabe on his first voyage, but apparently never got accurate readings from it." Can anyone tell me what this statement means? Astrolabes were never used at all? Astrolabes were used? I read this to mean: regardless of construction, the author indicates that astrolabes were (or are) considered to be inferior navigational tools. All of them. Does this suggest that astrolabes were never ever carried at all by anyone ever? No, we know this not to be true, and the author states that they were used on board ship (by Columbus, to name one person). It is a fact (and I am NOT going to cite references for this, there are too many, and you can easily find them yourself) that MOST astrolabes that now exist in collections were given as ornate gifts to heads of state and important VIPs, etc., and not intended for actual use. But many were carried to sea and used for this purpose. And not all of those used at sea were ornate models that cost a King's Rnasom. Some were plain. Some were cheap. Some (oh -- the author implies most, if not all) were inaccurate.... ...Dare I suggest that some were wood? Pure, sheer logic indicates that not every crew was able to obtain a metal astrolabe. How did they dare go to sea? Wooden astrolabes were made.... why did anyone make them, as they were not suitable for non-navigational gifts? Thank you, Capn Enigma. You have convinced me. You have proven me wrong. My own presumptions were that wooden astrolabes were NOT used aboard ships. But I have seen the error of this short-sightedness, and I now know better. The rest of you: back off. Capn Enigma has shown all of us that wooden astrolabes were used aboard ships, although they were considered inferior and were not the device of choice. And I will defend against anyone who tries to prove Capn Enigma wrong in his proven statements to this point. ...Although I do not see how wooden astrolabe would survive the raging fury of a flame war...

...But you can hear him coming from a mile away, what with all that clinking and clanking...

Same here... with everything else I have done, I still don't have a coat for myself (this has been belabored endlessly in other topic threads). I'm working on finishing the waistcoat, and I think that will do the trick. Might be too warm anyway.

Er, too late. I have to take comfort in the fact that many pirates went around barefoot.

Yes, you are absolutely correct in your fears. They chose the name "Simplicity" for a very good reason -- their patterns are very easy to use and assemble. Historic patterns are typically (in my experience) not for the novice, and can be VERY challenging. Find a fabric you'd be comfortable with and make your coat, but I recommend you use the exercise to hone your sewing skills and work your way toward more authentic pattern/material for a subsequent coat. Did you read through this entire thread? I recall that someone mentioned they used wool for the Simplicity pattern, and it hung all wrong because of the weight of the fabric. I used velveteen (on sale!) for my son's coat (pictured in an earlier post), and it turned out really great.

I was in an ebay bidding war this morning with a Brit (probably someone on this board) over an astrolabe. I hate it when I am up against another determined bidder who knows the trick of throwing in a large bid at the very last instant, defeating the attempts of others to out-bid you. They got it for US$ 58, but only because I forgot that I had to verify my bid in a second window before it would be posted. I literally lost this astrolabe by a matter of one or two seconds.

I had a blurb on this event posted in my group's C.W. Reenactor's newsletter. (actually, forgot I contributed it, then saw it in print, was mad that someone scooped me on this news, and then saw my name credited as the one who submitted it. Must be the beer.)

The route is mapped, my plans are set. See you on the 18th. Now if I could just find all my gear...

NOOOO!!!! You showed me how to find ring tones! The one piece of information I did NOT need to know! I have been surfing for a half-hour.... so tired... need to go to bed... Don't select your ringtone without listing to this Yosemite Sam pirate ringtone.

Ye sound like me wife. The aeshetics of a thing depend on how well ye can use it as a planter.

Sweat

Yikes! And then I found THIS topic, halved (wisely, I now see) off from the one in PLUNDER. Not to carry this all the way back to the PLUNDER area again, but I would be very interested in seeing any plans, diagrams, or other schematics you may have, Foxe, as I am rather good in making things out of... well, other things.

Foxe! Thank you for posting this topic... I didn't think you would bother. I should have done so myself a long time ago, and I appreciate it being here. As soon as I get my head straight (I am going insane trying to find missing gear -- and it ain't cheap), I'll PM you about various products. Capn Enigma -- Thank you VERY MUCH for the sources. But all you did was confirm my problem -- I am trying to get something cheaper. I am a patient person, and always succeeed in that goal, 'cuz I can wait FOREVER if bnecessary. However, if I get a sudden windfall of cash...

If you are going to go through the effort to make your coat out of wool, you should consider shelling out the extra bucks to purchase a historically authentic (not costume) pattern. The Simplicity pattern is a costume. If you are going to purchase the needed yards ($$$!) of wool, may as well go the extra yard (no pun intended) to get a better pattern. You will end up with a FAR better product when you are done. Yes, I am making coat #2 for myself from the Simplicity pattern, but coat #3 will be made using a historically researched pattern.

THAT'S it! Linseed oil! I swear, I have been wracking my brain trying to remember what to use to seal the handle! Thanks! "A bit of work"? Can't be more work than building a flintlock from a kit...

Agreed and understood, except... The sextant was an easy purchase. Decided to purchase several guns instead of one astrolabe. They just aren't cost-effective. The reason I have one as my avatar is... so I have at least ONE astrolabe, even if it's only a virtual one. If someone finds a good source of affordable astrolabes, PLEASE start a new topic thread in PLUNDER.

Speaking of stops and starts... Yesterday afternoon I pulled the gun back out, and was disappointed by (1) the stain job and (2) my sad acceptance of having used nothing finer than 80 grit emery cloth to sand the handle (which is why I hate the stain job, I guess). What, had I been drinking beer or something? With a much finer grade of sandpaper, I sanded the handle to a satisfying smoothness (thus removing much of the unsatisfying stain). Then I used a technique I perfected when making realistic magic wands for my kids (ask me about that another time): I thinned down some water based enamel paints to make an ink wash... (this allows me to apply any of an infinite spectrum of colors to an exact degree of darkness). I first applied a very, very dark grey (with a hint of russett) wash, and wiped off the excess. When this dried, I attacked the handle with steel wool -- the grain of the wood had absorbed and was darkened by the ink, while some of the black remained in teh deep recesses of teh carved handle. I then applied a deep rust-colored ink (again wiping off the excess to control darkness). Then a light work-over with steel wool, and another light wash with the ink. The result? The handle is stained an almost transluscent cherry-color, through which the blackened grain of the wood stands out, giving the perfect impression of age, without looking old. I keep pulling it back out of the box (three times while typing this) to admire how nice it turned out. First gun I ever built. Won't be the last.

As I said, I made one for my son... used velveteen, and it looks great. I have been debating on fabrics for myself. I am making the waistcoat out of a fantastic upholstery fabric, but I picked up (on sale!) a quantity of some suede-like material (moleskin? Is that what it's called?). I found an even better fabric (which I did not purchase... that will be for coat #3), but I'm going to have another go at it, and see how it turns out.

Invitation is noted. When I get more of my gear together, I'll be there.

Oh! ...And a Pirates of the Carribbean Aztec Gold Coin necklace. 'Cuz if I fall overboard and start to drown, the Black Pearl will come and rescue me.