Swashbuckler 1700

Back to the original topic have we any clue what hats of " Woodes' company" were like. Soldier/ grenadier caps or tricornes?

From Genereral History " Boatswain of the Pyrate Ship, carried away two Cables, and several Coils of Rope, as what belonged to his Province, beating some of our own Men for not being brisk enough at working in the Robbery. Petty, as Sail-maker, saw to the Sails and Canvas; Harper, as Cooper to the Cask and Tools; Griffin, to the Carpenter's Stores, and Oughterlauney, as Pilot, having shifted himself with a Suit of my Clothes, a new tye Wig, and called for a Bottle of Wine, ordered the Ship, very arrogantly, to be steered under Commadore Robert's Stern, (I suppose to know what Orders there were concerning her.) So far particularly. In the general, Sir, they were very outragious and emulous in Mischief."

I was wondering how people were hang in 1600s and in 1700s. I am not going to hang anyone but I was wondering.... I have found mainly period pics with carriages but what about other ways...

Thanks odd writing style it don't look like english font but it seems that it is....

By the way was La buse really one-eyed?

That's been done over and over and over. The pirates as the first socialists (Johnson really started that), the pirates as freedom fighters (of a sort), the pirates as rampant homosexuals, the pirates being opposed to slavery, the pirate connection with the Templar myth, etc. Give people a group of colorful characters and they'll try and use them to justify whatever pet belief they hold. (What you don't often read about is the pirates as dangerous homicidal thieves. ) People is hard to understand that pirates were mainly drunks and opportunists as well as malevolent criminals.

I did not found it even if I searced with many different options.

I haven't actually read the book, but there were some fairly extensive discussions on another forum with David Rickman, who wrote the part on pirates' clothing. One thing that struck me at the time was that DR had some very fixed ideas that he wasn't really prepared to alter, even in the face of contradictory evidence. For example, he was insisted that English sailors didn't wear tricorn hats before 1730: when the Luyken picture of an English Admiral wearing a point-back tricorn was posted he insisted it was a bicorn! Likewise, he was provided with more than one GAoP reference to thrum caps, but still doubted they were in use. Now, David is a very capable historian and quite able to make his own conclusions, but in this case I felt (and I believe others did too) that he was making conclusions before considering all the evidence and wasn't prepared to revise them when new evidence was presented. However, this is not a thread for criticising individual authors: anyone wishing to see for themselves can access the discussion here: http://piratebrethre...php?f=11&t=1555 and some other places on the same forum. The hats in the pictures you posted are fairly obviously based on the 'Peter the Great' hat in the Hermitage museum: It is true that there are no 100% certain depictions of the RN slop caps, but based on the written description and pictures of other hats from the period, I think it's a close enough reconstruction. Again, I think you're being a bit too demanding in how cut-and-dried you want the evidence to be. We know that petticoat breeches were made of checked fabric in the 1690s and that checked fabric was available in the 1715-30 period, so why would petticoat breeches not have been checked then? That's reasonable extrapolation. It is quite true that the RN slop jackets have too many buttons. The figure lying on the floor in the Blackbeard illustration has 12 buttons down the front and 3 on each pocket. If the figure climbing out of the hatch is also supposed to be wearing a slop jacket then there's two on the back as well. 18 or 20, but certainly not the specified 15. Yep, we don't know how widespread use of the slop clothing was, but it certainly wasn't a uniform in the way it's depicted here. Or case bottles, such as the figure in the top illustration is waving about. NO OFFENCE TO DAVID I disagree with him and by large extent agree with you (only since you seem to be rigth in this case). It is odd that David don't "believe" trumps to be Gaop proper while they appear in period evidence like GHoP He thinks that those caps disappeared in 1690s since he think that there is no evidence in later gaop and he is wrong but in same time he uses 1690s petticoat breeches in later period ... have nothing against that person and he is quite right about many things. but he is also wrong about many things. As for tricorns I have found more pictures of tricorns or almost tricorns in sailor's, common men's (like that one pic which have its own tread) and naval officers’ use. While he is right about that they were not so popular as often implied. About that other hat: Was it David who incorrectly believed that it is a boater? In that book I can also see David’s personal preferences and it seems that " Howard Pyle" is mentioned more often that "pirate" there. And it is really funny that almost in same bage he put the quote of Bonny’s and Read's look and then he say that there in no evidence at all of kerchief. This is going off topic but for tricorns see men in this 1694 pic of well-known French ship http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/The_r%C3%A9ale_returning_to_port.jpg or in this 1698 pic of even slave has tricorn http://jcb.lunaimaging.com/luna/servlet/detail/JCB~1~1~4880~7670004:-Treatment-of-slaves-on-Martinique-?sort=Normalized_date%2CCreators%2CPublisher%2CTitle&qvq=w4s:/when/1651-1700;q:martinique;sort:Normalized_date%2CCreators%2CPublisher%2CTitle;lc:JCB~1~1,JCBBOOKS~1~1,JCBMAPS~1~1,JCBMAPS~2~2&mi=2&trs=5 Here is one more tricorn candidate ( man in doat in middle) http://www.sailingwa...Rocky-Coast.jpg ( yes Foxe this is 5 time when I do this ) (don't hang me please ) and see my "some interesting pictures tread" there is some naval officers etc. In one tread David said that ( about Ghop illustrations) " and the pictures from the Dutch edition have no resemblance to the British. " He also uses it as argument against tricorns but lets us see what is the "big difference" http://jcb.lunaimagi...~2&mi=34&trs=78 compare that with a English one http://piratical2.pb...46/Bartafri.jpg and there is not much difference ( and both the Dutch one and the English one have tricorns ) BB is also quite similar case with his fur hat http://jcb.lunaimagi...2~2&mi=2&trs=78 and Dutch http://jcb.lunaimagi...~2&mi=33&trs=78 So the claim " the pictures from the Dutch edition have no resemblance to the British" is not true at all.

All those things. Thanks for reply.

Not really. The "13 colonies" were those that rebelled against British rule in 1776 (Boo! Hiss!), but they were not the same colonies that existed in the 1680-1730 time frame. The 13 Colonies were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. However: Georgia wasn't founded as a colony until 1733. Pennsylvania was founded in 1681. Until 1685 New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth,Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, East Jersey, and West Jersey were seperate entities. In 1685 they were amalgamated into "New England", and regained their autonomy in 1689. Maine and Plymouth were absorbed into Massachusetts in 1691 and Maine remained that way until about 1820ish. Delaware received semi-autonomy from Pennsylvania in 1701 East and West Jersey were amalgamated into "New Jersey" in 1702. Carolina Province became North and South Carolina in 1712. Thus, between 1680 and 1730 the number of colonies fluctuated between 5 and 13, but it was never THE 13 colonies. I have many times found E.G. AmericanTv Documentaries of Gaop pirates and many of them want to link pirates and their code to founding fathers of USA. It is quite far-fetched and just an excuse to add that stuff to everything .

Not so long ago I read a David Gordingly's book (has many other writers like M. Rederiker) "Pirates An Illustrated History of Privateers, Buccaneers, and Pirates from the Sixteenth Century to the Present" And it say that George Lowther was killed in battle which occurred when Sohut sea Company's ship ( many sources say that ship was " Eagle" but not that was it Soth sea Company's or not )surprised Lowther while he was careening his ship in some island. Then when pirates were about to lose Lowther killed himself with his pistol. Is this true since there is some serious errors in that book? And this happened in 1720s but it seems that South sea company was still bright even though there was the bubble in 1720.

From wikipedia: " As late as the mid-17th century, French vintners did not use cork stoppers, using oil-soaked rags stuffed into the necks of bottles instead." Here is good gallery of old bottles http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/ceramics/pages/subcategory.asp?subcat_id=768&subcat_name=Wine+bottles

I dunno but the hat seems to be tricorne to me...

This new is better than old ones but it is still not too good http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/1849084971. First book where I see pirates with derbys on their heads ( period sailor's hats seems to still have little more brim while sailors prefered small hats those look odd. (like In here we can see little bigger brim hat note one man in tent) http://jcb.lunaimagi...~2~2&mi=0&trs=1) Their vision of Rn leather caps is really not justified. While it may be near the truth it has certainly been dreamed up and they are something like grenadier caps. It seems also that they are little too excited with fur hats.... there is also no Trump caps at all ( I know I have seen most pirate clothing pages in it) Here is some pics I have found on the web I have read much of the book in different reviews. Note that there is also both stuff from 1690s and 1700s in same place mixed with odd "Gaop combination". for example I have not found references to checkered petticoat breeches after 1690s. I also wonder why jackets have no mariners cuffs??? Those back buttons in jackets looks also odd same with Maynard and those slop jackets have too many buttons not 15 but more like 24 buttons in them. I also feel that slop clothing is too popular among Rn sailors since ALL of them use them. There is also need for onion bottles. The book in indeed one of the best osprey books but it could be much better while I don't like it is actually one of the most accurately illustrated books of pirates.

I have posted this before but not in this tread. 1680s buccaneers Spaniards in circa 1700s. not pirates or sailors but intersting period pic... 18th century picc of bucaneer ships Circa 1700, Illustration showing how to use a Cross Staff http://www.gettyimag...-photo/51239441 Latter 17th century frenchman. He has nice pockets... and his reminds of this from sid Meir's pirates (2004 version) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2700/4543262587_bb1e881b4a.jpg

So do you have to be the one and the other nine the frock coat removers? I only wear my coat when it's cold. I don't think it's a frock coat, though, it's something Michael made that a period surgeon would likely have worn. (I think.) The way Michael explained my character's outfit, I understand he would often only wear the waistcoat over a shirt. (Again, I think.) My blue coat: Don’t take this too serious For being 100% authentic reenactors should use clothing that looks like it has been worn ( u know what I mean not ragged but perhaps little worn and patched) they also should smell like: fish, tar, sweat, gunpowder, booze, tobacco etc and have bad hygiene and some should have scurvy and who knows what diseases .

Interesting And red was common color anyway (like slop clothing etc).

i agree that all TWs are great and thanks for seeing my partial point? ( I think ? )...have you played Napoleon? i haven't, been thinking about it for a while. Napoleon is good but not much different than other. Yes I have it an it is nice... Are the cannon ranges and elevations better? well not really no...

It's not that they're all bad, but they are certainly variable in quality. A lot of the older ones are based on research that is way out of date and some of the early illustrations are ludicrous. The other problem is that a lot of them are very basic, so come with all the usual caveats about generalisation. Finally, some of them are just plain wrong in places. The first of their pirates books contains pictures of "pirates" with earrings, tattoos, there's probably even a parrot in there somewhere... The recent book by Angus Konstam and David Rickman that you've criticised elsewhere is an Osprey book, should give you some idea. Why so? Current research suggests that they were red. About those books. The new pirate book has no earrings etc but there is some odd opinions and generalization and many writer's opinions are not so well reasoned. Book maker have made few things up like the look of mystical RN navy caps. It takes back all previous errors but in wrong way and there is even some basic errors like date errors. Book is indeed way better than other pirate books from Osprey. But It has also written very "nonbook" style and looks more like forum comments ( that is due of David’s long history in pirate forums). I don't like it while it is better than most pirate books it could de still many many times better. I don't like pictures and while pirate clothing or weapons is quite accurate ( I would say 80% accurate is my opinion) many stuff like ships don't look too good. About soldiers red coats I thought that the red coat were not seen too often in colonies but it seems that there was real redcoats there at least occasionally. I have thought that there were only some local militiamen with casual clothing.... That is nice coat Mission

It may be that this tread is dead but now I can ask one thing that has troubled me. Why Osprey books are not so good? Oi Foxe, have you ever been able to go any further with this? Yar, I found some bits at the PRO, but nothing that mentioned coat colours. However, peripheral research shows that the Bahamas company was a regular independent company, so red faced with blue is most likely. Current discussion on the UK effort can be found here: http://www.ukpirateb...php?topic=388.0 That is almost too cool to be real if they were red

Snelgrave's coat was sold before the mast and that means that some of the crew could buy it (and use it ). But if finery was always sold why not just sell them and then share money? But what these pirates did they sold them to own crew and why did captains stole them Since they wanted to impress the ladies. Reason why crew did not want captains having them is that they violated the rules since "The Pirate Captains having taken these Cloaths without leave from the Quarter-master" so there was no " captains can't have nice coats" rule but captains stole them because they did not want to buy them from purser or quartet-master. Say if was wrong ( you can always do that ) At the end I repeat my view of pirate look "I personally think that pirates looked mainly like sailors but there could have been and was some exceptions " I think that 70- 90 % of reenactors should use sailor's clothing and not big coats etc etc to be accurate... See also my art there is visible how I see real pirate clothing (link is in my signature )

I was wondering " duckfoot pistols" would those be preferred weapons in the late Gaop? they appeared as far as I know around 18th c. Blunderbusses were good and used but what about duckfoot pistols?

( Foxe Don't hang me for triple posting) I agree totaly that reminds that coat affair that happened or Labat's writings.

Oh I dunno, I know that I have uncovered (and mostly shared) a great deal of evidence, both about pirates' clothing specifically and seamen's clothing in general, than was available in 2006. And I'm not the only one, by any means. By and large it confirms our earlier thoughts, there's nothing wildly contradictory except for the solitary source showing a pirate in possession of a pair of riding boots, but the more evidence that can be brought to bear the more reliable our impression of "what pirates wore" becomes. My thoughts are still the same but I wanted to say that occasional( it is a kinda magic word ) finery could be used but I am not putting together rule that pirates were dashing out of those quotes. If I would need to say did pirates looked like sailors or gentleman and I could not chose nothing between those opportunities I would say of course that pirates looked much more like sailors. I am not changed my opinions. I hope you understand what I mean .Things are not so simple.

I just wanted to show that pirates could get their hands on finery. I agree and I am not defending too dashing pirate image.