Swashbuckler 1700

I am sorry if you don't feel that I was helpful but here is something I have noticed about figurehead

The figure heads varied. Women were popular but there were men as well. Animals were really popular in Warships.

At least to me it seems that around 1600s and 1700s a lion was really common, especially in Dutch and English ships, though also other nation's ship. Same with horses. However there seems to be very little logic or anything like that.

Examples. I post these even while it is not actually related to the question.

drawling from 1680s

A dutch figurehead from a ship model in 1720s has a mermaid

A figure head of a ancient warrior from 1780s

a circa 1720 figurehead, English

here is description for it

Full-length, polychrome-painted figurehead depicting a heraldic crowned lion, holding a small badge of the cross of Saint George at the breast, where it fitted over the stem-head. This is a rare survival of a standard Royal Naval lion figurehead from a small warship probably of the fourth or fifth rate. Its present paint scheme is as restored by the late Kim Allen of Westerham, Kent, in the 1970s but probably much more subtly than most were originally painted: many were largely plain gold, or yellow simulating it. Such lion figures were the standard figureheads of all Royal Naval ships which bore them and were not of a size to warrant an individual design, as was usually the case with first-, second- and (more variably) third-rates. They were also standard in other European navies allowing for local differences of design. This is one of only two surviving British examples: the other, which is larger and probably a little later, supports the gable of the Red Lion Inn at Martlesham in Suffolk. There is an older, probably 17th-century example in Sussex, but in poor condition and of uncertain origin. FHD0089 is another example in the Museum collection, thought to be of 18th-century north European origin.

More interesting stuff about tradition of flogging with cat o nine tails in early 1700s

I think this is interesting enough to be posted

From our friend Woodes Roger wrote i his book A Cruising Voyage Round the World (1712 edition)

happening in 1709 (thank you Google books)

http://books.google.fi/books?id=J1xCAAAAcAAJ&hl=fi&hl=fi&pg=PA358&img=1&zoom=3&sig=ACfU3U0SDuFHViT88SLqOhdwzaMmOEo_0Q&ci=63%2C359%2C866%2C597&edge=0

also an interesting picture featuring a cat of nine tails. Later though in 1747. The sailor with a cap on left

Lately I have been studying naval traditions of Gaop

Now I am wondering prize money.At least accordingly to Wikipedia (yes yes) The prize money as it was know in Nelson's era was established in 1708 and it suffered only minor changes before Napoleonic wars ended. Though there had been rather similar system earlier in the 17th century...

" This practice was formalised via the Cruisers and Convoys Act of 1708. An Admiralty Prize Court was established to evaluate claims and condemn prizes, and the scheme of division of the money was specified. This system, with minor changes, lasted throughout the colonial, Revolutionary, and Napoleonic wars."

​Also as another modern source here is said similarly

So in the Gaop I am most interested about (1710-1726) Navy had a clear prize money system.

However looking the origins of the term I wonder. The term "prize" meaning a prize ship was commonly used at least before 1712 when Woodes Rogers' "A Cruising Voyage Round the World" was written (yes I know there are certainly earlier meantions but it was the earliest book that I could think now). However the actual "prize money" is not so old if we trust this dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prize+money the term has its origins in the 1740s.

I disagree as I have reasons. Fistly "prize" meaning captured vessel was a common term before that and so was "money".

Also at least an earlier mention in 1728 of the actual "prize money" appears:

The history of the pyrates: containing the lives of Captain Mission. Captain Bowen. Captain Kidd ... and their several crews (1728 edition) (can be read here http://digital.lib.ecu.edu/17002)

page 377 Of captain Nathaniel North

the same section than the one I referred in Press gang thread. (note that North here sailed in the late 17th century but the book account was written in 1728...)

"He then went on board a Privateer again, and made several Prizes, two of which were English Bottoms, and sued for by former Owners; North thinking it hard to venture his Life, and have Part of his Prize Money taken away, and the Press being hot in Jamaica, he resolved to sail no more with the English; but went to Curasoe into the Dutch Service, and sail'd with a Spanish Trader to the Coast of New Spain several Voyages. In the last he made,"

So we have "prizes" in early Gaop and "prize money" at least in 1728. I think the prize money as a term was used years earlier.

Another story, this from the heart of the Golden Age. Thirteen men were tried for murder for drowning two men of the Impress Service, but all were acquitted.

"It appeared, that Burnifold having a Warrant to Impress Men for His Majesty's Service, and that both the Deceaseds and their Gang went on Board the White-Hart Barge belonging to Abingdon, about one in the night, and asked for the Master of the Barge: and then he asked them if they were Priviledged, but they made no Answer; then he had two of them to go into his Boat, which they refused; when on a sudden came Men from behind the Barge, and cried, Knock them down, and beat them with Staves into the Boat, and made several holes in it, whereby it sunk and they were drowned, and a Fisherman's Boy took up the rest of the Men that were floating upon the Water. The Prisoners alledged, That when they came aboard, they did hold Pistols at them, and cut at them with Swords, and never gave them the word that they were Press master s, and did think that they did come with an intent to rob the Barge, they having a great charge of Money in it; So after all, the Jury found them not Guilty , but ordered to give Sureties for their Behaviour for a Twelvemonth "

To which I say, "Huh?" You go on board a boat of rough sailors who outnumber you, point guns and try to beat them into submission, but don't say you're with the Impress Service??? And none of the sailors gets shot? Not bloody likely. The fact that the jury pretended to swallow this cock-and-bull story says something about what the ordinary people of London felt about the press gangs.

That sure is interesting. I have no actual need to know but what is the date of that one? You said it was from the heart of Gaop? After 1680 and before 1730s?

Edward Barlow was pressed out of a merchant ship, although I don't have the exact quote. It would have been in the 1670s or 80s. That's the only one I can recall coming across, but I don't read period stuff from after 1730 for the most part.

a Gaop era impressement occasion:

From The history of the pyrates: containing the lives of Captain Mission. Captain Bowen. Captain Kidd ... and their several crews

in pages 376 and 377 (OF Capt. Nathaniel North, And his Crew.)

"While North was ashore after a Cruize, he was press'd on board the Mary Man of War: He made a Cruize in her to the Spanish Coast, and return'd to Jamaica; but hearing the Mary was soon to go to England, he, and three more, resolv'd to swim ashore from the Keys, where the Men of War lie, but he was taken as he was going off the Head, and whipp'd; he, however, found Means to make his Escape, before the Ship left the Island, and went on board the Neptune Sloop, a Privateer, commanded by Captain Lycence, then Lieutenant of the Reserve, who, while the Ship was in the Carpenter's Hands, got a Commission of the Governor to take a Cruize. Captain Moses, who commanded the Reserve, went on board their Sloop, under the Command of his Lieutenant, for Diversion only: They cruized off Hispaniola, where they met with a French Letter of Mart Merchant Man, of 18 Guns, and 118 Men, who had the Day before engaged the Swan Man of War, and shook her off.

--

North went again a Privateering, Captain Moses his Ship being not fitted, he would take a second Cruize, and North with him. Some Time after their Return, Captain Moses being a cruizing in the Reserve, North, who was ashore, was press'd on board the Assistance Man of War; and on the Reserve's coming, being recommended by Captain Moses to his own Captain, he was handsomely treated, and made one of the Barge's Crew: He was very easy till the Assistance was order'd to England, and then, as he was apprehensive of going into a cold Climate, he took his Leave of the Man of War, and said nothing. He then went on board a Privateer again, and made several Prizes, two of which were English Bottoms, and sued for by former Owners; North thinking it hard to venture his Life, and have Part of his Prize Money taken away, and the Press being hot in Jamaica, he resolved to sail no more with the English; but went to Curasoe into the Dutch Service, and sail'd with a Spanish Trader to the Coast of New Spain several Voyages. In the last he made"

And wiki says about the same man giving us a summary of the happenings "In 1689, at the age of seventeen North was a crewman aboard an English privateer attacking French shipping during the War of the Grand Alliance. He was impressed into the Royal Navy but made his way to Jamaica. There he again met British press gangs, but escaped by jumping overboard and swimming to shore."

Also many different modern sources says that When Captain Kidd was sailing for his commission in 1696 he didn't salute a man of war. And so part of his crew was impressed in the navy.

So bad that the editing can be used so little here and I need to do this in multiple posts.

What impression I got about 1703 act is that it confirmed press gang and gave navy a legal permission to impress people. as Wiki says " It provided for the forcible enlistment of able bodied men in the army and navy who did not have visible means of subsistence.". Looking for other sources like books it is clear than navy was actively pressing men in the service in this time. For example Voltaire reported a Thames waterman who was pressed in the service in 1720s. But I wonder what it was about people under 18 years of age and press-ganging. In any case even if the pressing of men older than 18 years of age was forbidden it is clear that the law was often ignored.

I looked for example preview of this book http://books.google.fi/books?id=JuGwwDGpTyoC&dq=voltaire+waterman+impressment&hl=fi&source=gbs_navlinks_s

I would like to leave this matter alone but I am interested what the h*** does the 1703 recruitment act mean. Well in any case press gangs of the navy were well active in this time and it seems that people of all ages were pressed. At least when there was a real need.

Edward Barlow was pressed out of a merchant ship, although I don't have the exact quote. It would have been in the 1670s or 80s. That's the only one I can recall coming across, but I don't read period stuff from after 1730 for the most part.

a Gaop era impressement occasion:

From The history of the pyrates: containing the lives of Captain Mission. Captain Bowen. Captain Kidd ... and their several crews

in pages 376 and 377 (OF Capt. Nathaniel North, And his Crew.)

"While North was ashore after a Cruize, he was press'd on board the Mary Man of War: He made a Cruize in her to the Spanish Coast, and return'd to Jamaica; but hearing the Mary was soon to go to England, he, and three more, resolv'd to swim ashore from the Keys, where the Men of War lie, but he was taken as he was going off the Head, and whipp'd; he, however, found Means to make his Escape, before the Ship left the Island, and went on board the Neptune Sloop, a Privateer, commanded by Captain Lycence, then Lieutenant of the Reserve, who, while the Ship was in the Carpenter's Hands, got a Commission of the Governor to take a Cruize. Captain Moses, who commanded the Reserve, went on board their Sloop, under the Command of his Lieutenant, for Diversion only: They cruized off Hispaniola, where they met with a French Letter of Mart Merchant Man, of 18 Guns, and 118 Men, who had the Day before engaged the Swan Man of War, and shook her off.

--

North went again a Privateering, Captain Moses his Ship being not fitted, he would take a second Cruize, and North with him. Some Time after their Return, Captain Moses being a cruizing in the Reserve, North, who was ashore, was press'd on board the Assistance Man of War; and on the Reserve's coming, being recommended by Captain Moses to his own Captain, he was handsomely treated, and made one of the Barge's Crew: He was very easy till the Assistance was order'd to England, and then, as he was apprehensive of going into a cold Climate, he took his Leave of the Man of War, and said nothing. He then went on board a Privateer again, and made several Prizes, two of which were English Bottoms, and sued for by former Owners; North thinking it hard to venture his Life, and have Part of his Prize Money taken away, and the Press being hot in Jamaica, he resolved to sail no more with the English; but went to Curasoe into the Dutch Service, and sail'd with a Spanish Trader to the Coast of New Spain several Voyages. In the last he made"

And wiki says about the same man giving us a summary of the happenings "In 1689, at the age of seventeen North was a crewman aboard an English privateer attacking French shipping during the War of the Grand Alliance. He was impressed into the Royal Navy but made his way to Jamaica. There he again met British press gangs, but escaped by jumping overboard and swimming to shore."

Also many different modern sources says that When Captain Kidd was sailing for his commission in 1696 he didn't salute a man of war. And so part of his crew was impressed in the navy.

I wonder what this means (from this source http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheet_impressment.htm)

"Impressment was a long standing authority from the state for the recruitment to military service, either on land or on sea. The impress service, or more commonly called the press gang, was employed to seize men for employment at sea in British seaports. Impressment was used as far back as Elizabethan times when this form of recruitment became a statute and later the Vagrancy Act 1597, men of disrepute (usually homeless vagrants) could be drafted into service. In 1703, an act limited the seizure of men for naval service to those under 18, although apprentices were exempt from being pressed. In 1740, the age was raised to 55. Officially, no foreigner could be impressed although they were able to volunteer. If, however, the foreigner married a British woman, or had worked on a British merchant ship for two years, their protection was lost and they could be impressed. However, these limits were often ignored and the impressment of Americans into the British navy became one of the causes of the American War of 1812."

So between 1703-1740 could only people under 18 years of age to be pressed in the naval service? Does that apply to sailor as well as the homeless people?If so this sounds oddly selective thinking that the country was at war in 1701-1714 and 1718-20.

But here http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/yourcountry/overview/pressgangs-/ is given impression that the acts in those year all encouraged impressement

"

Naval impressment

The Crown claimed a permanent right to seize men of seafaring experience for the Royal Navy, and the practice was at various times given parliamentary authority. Impressment was vigorously enforced during the naval wars of the 18th century by Acts passed in 1703, 1705, 1740 and 1779.

The men pressed into service were usually sailors in the merchant fleets, but might just as often be ordinary apprentices and labourers. During the wars with France from 1793 to 1815, an impress service operated in British coastal towns.

Although further laws passed in 1835 upheld the power to impress, in practice it fell into disuse after 1815. "

So did the acts that were in gaop 1703 and 1705 encouraged or restricted naval impressement?

WEll if I trust Wiki it encouraged the practise:

"The first Act of Parliament legalising this practice was passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth in 1563 and was known as "an act touching political considerations for the maintenance of the navy". It was renewed many times until 1631. In the Vagabonds Act 1597, several lists of persons were subject to impressment for service in the fleet.

The Recruiting Act 1703 was an act passed "for the increase of seamen and better encouragement of navigation, and the protection of the Coal Trade". This act gave parish authorities the power to apprentice boys to the sea, and reaffirmed rogues and vagabonds were subject to be pressed into the navy. In 1740, impressment was limited to men between 18 and 45, and it also exempted foreigners."

I still wonder were people over 18 year of age impressed in 1703-40? Could someone who has English as his first language tell me how they understood those sentences?

I wonder what this means (from this source http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheet_impressment.htm)

"Impressment was a long standing authority from the state for the recruitment to military service, either on land or on sea. The impress service, or more commonly called the press gang, was employed to seize men for employment at sea in British seaports. Impressment was used as far back as Elizabethan times when this form of recruitment became a statute and later the Vagrancy Act 1597, men of disrepute (usually homeless vagrants) could be drafted into service. In 1703, an act limited the seizure of men for naval service to those under 18, although apprentices were exempt from being pressed. In 1740, the age was raised to 55. Officially, no foreigner could be impressed although they were able to volunteer. If, however, the foreigner married a British woman, or had worked on a British merchant ship for two years, their protection was lost and they could be impressed. However, these limits were often ignored and the impressment of Americans into the British navy became one of the causes of the American War of 1812."

So between 1703-1740 could only people under 18 years of age to be pressed in the naval service? Does that apply to sailor as well as the homeless people?If so this sounds oddly selective thinking that the country was at war in 1701-1714 and 1718-20.

But here http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/yourcountry/overview/pressgangs-/ is given impression that the acts in those year all encouraged impressement

"

Naval impressment

The Crown claimed a permanent right to seize men of seafaring experience for the Royal Navy, and the practice was at various times given parliamentary authority. Impressment was vigorously enforced during the naval wars of the 18th century by Acts passed in 1703, 1705, 1740 and 1779.

The men pressed into service were usually sailors in the merchant fleets, but might just as often be ordinary apprentices and labourers. During the wars with France from 1793 to 1815, an impress service operated in British coastal towns.

Although further laws passed in 1835 upheld the power to impress, in practice it fell into disuse after 1815. "

So did the acts that were in gaop 1703 and 1705 encouraged or restricted naval impressement?

Well cat o nine tails has had a clear maritime concision at least in 1695 so at least rather early in Gaop.

A play of the period. At the same time is appear to have the first mention of cat o nine tails (though the whip design itself is much older than 1690s) Ben is a sailor. Also it tells that whipping might have been a punishment for bad language

From WILLIAM CONGREVE

(1670–1729)

"Love for Love" 1695

"....Ben. Look you, young woman. You may learn to give good words, however.

I spoke you fair, d’ye see, and civil. As for your love or your liking, I don’t

value it of a rope’s end. And mayhap I like you as little as you do me. What

I said was in obedience to father. Gad, I fear a whipping no more than you

do. But I tell you one thing, if you should give such language at sea, you’d

have a cat-o’-nine-tails..."

laid ’cross your shoulders. Flesh, who are you? You

heard t’other handsome young woman speak civilly to me, of her own

accord. Whatever you think of yourself, Gad I don’t think you are any more

to compare to her than a can of small beer to a bowl of punch."

About the play (yes wiki but it is not bad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_for_Love)

And the play itself http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/noa/pdf/27636_Rest_U03_Congreve.pdf

I meant that the cat o' nine tails has had a clear nautical connection in 1695. The whip itself is older and so is the tradition of naval flogging. It just seem that by the late 17th century cat o' nine tails had become the standard punishment tool aboard ships.

Well cat o nine tails has had a clear maritime concision at least in 1695 so at least rather early in Gaop.

A play of the period. At the same time is appear to have the first mention of cat o nine tails (though the whip design itself is much older than 1690s) Ben is a sailor. Also it tells that whipping might have been a punishment for bad language

From WILLIAM CONGREVE

Certainly most surgeons had normal clothes on during operations.

But if we generally look into use of aprons we can see at least that innkeepers alike had those

Hogarth again (right side)

And well I am going a bit off-topic but this is only tells that doctors could cover themselves with special equipment.... but well it is not a surgeon but a plaque doctor and the suit is to prevent infection ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Johann_Melchior_F%C3%BCssli_(1677%E2%80%931736),_Sketch_of_a_Cordovan-leather-clad_doctor_of_Marseilles.png

anyway

You welcome

Further to this.... Well not Gaop but 18th century

The Persevering Surgeon by Thomas Rowlandson, c. 1775

(that looks like an apron of some sort at least in my opinion)

http://willigula.tumblr.com/post/35078968646/the-persevering-surgeon-by-thomas-rowlandson-c

Sorry if I somehow misunderstood the matter

What is interesting that there so few pictures of 18th century doctors with aprons

This one has some kind of cloth to cover his pants -much like the thing that apothecary had in that earlier picture....

These are doctors studying death bodies by Hogarth (the two people with aprons with one button thingy) (similar than this You are wearing http://www.piratesurgeon.com/pages/pip07/images/Mission_Posed_Gear_Main_Page.jpg )

and this is a bit unclear but it seems that he has something like the brain surgeon was wearing earlier.

Country surgeon circa 1747

(http://www.chemheritage.org/discover/collections/collection-items/fine-art/le-chirurgien-de-campagne-fa-2000-001-140.aspx)

Also note this earlier Teniers school Foot operation 1663

New Videos

Trailer

Gameplay

Well I see if I can be helpful at all.

Some replicas of ship of the first half of the 18th century

I am not sure how accurate replicas these are though and I don't know their official sites so it is just Wiki

For replicas these are in Europe but I think you can visit them at least technically...

Shtandart a replica of Russian ship of 1703 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtandart_(frigate)

Götheborg a ship replica of 1745 Swedish East-Indiamanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6theborg_(ship)

oh Well... it seems that Götheborg is not really good

"While the exterior remains true to the original, the interior is highly modern. The ship has an electrical system, and propellers powered bydiesel engines. The engines are however only intended for port navigation and in emergency situations."

Well I see if I can be helpful at all.

Some replicas of ship of the first half of the 18th century

I am not sure how accurate replicas these are though and I don't know their official sites so it is just Wiki

For replicas these are in Europe but I think you can visit them at least technically...

Shtandart a replica of Russian ship of 1703 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtandart_(frigate)

Götheborg a ship replica of 1745 Swedish East-Indiamanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6theborg_(ship)

Oh I knew that article. All in all I like all the stuff Beneson Little has in his sites and articles. Someday perhaps I need to read some of his books...

And well Pyle's paintings don't show much eye patches but he made also other illustrations. Like here

Still he generally showed pirates with both eyes and legs. I think the lack of those pirate cliches is one reason why at least sometimes, if not often, Pyle's works have been though to be more accurate than they are....

And more (click them to get them larger)

John Laguerre, 1688-1746 Hob Selling Beer at the Wake. Circa 1725. Stuff from harlequins to gentlemen.

Peter Monany The Opening of the First Eddystone Lighthouse in 1698 picture circa 1703 (Note again the uniformed boatmen with some kind of caps, reddish breeches and white shirts much like I posted in leather caps thread)

Also this is interesting artifact if it is indeed real http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/the-mussard-workshop-circa-17301740-le-serpent-4107817-details.aspx?intObjectID=4107817 e.g shows nearly Gaop sailor wearing pipe in his cap....

The Fairfax, Assurance, Tiger and Elizabeth circa 1680

Furthermore about the water/barge men. They wore caps like this apparenlty during the most 18th century

Usually these men are seen wearing red or blue but this figure is painted green. Perhaps it is an error. Anyway apart of the green flaps of his cap this might well be something near "Small Leather Capps stich’d with white Thread" However the figure is made in 1750s so later than the slops of 1706-25....

http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/explorer/index.php?qu=PD.348-1973&oid=42264

another figure without paint with similar cap but again in 1750s

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/5776.html

However even when the oarsmen/watermen/ bargemen of the 18th century had jockey styled peaked caps it doesn't mean that other sailors used them really much. In paintings you can see uniformed oarsmen and watermen (whatever) who are wearing these caps or something like that but usually sailors aboard ships, even navy ships, are wearing very mixed clothing and it seems that the watermen were distinguishable from sailors. Especially thinking that Thames watermen worked much as water-taxis with their boats. So perhaps the peaked caps were watermen's way to be distinguishable as modern taxis do with their yellow colour in many countries. But still admirals, for example, had that kind of men (with caps) in their rowing barges like admiral lord Anson (see the early 1900s picture of bargeman of 1743 ) Though I see it still fairly plausible that slop leather caps were related to these caps (but likely the front peak was upturned and thus on the way as at least I think it would have been impractical to have a large point forward peak in your cap aboard sailing vessels) .

So now I agree with the one book and I think the authors made good job in book "Pirate the Golden Age"with the leather caps. They made the leather caps like this in their pictures (see the man on the right wearing black cap with white thread)http://www.edinburghwargames.com/J57%20Images/Recruitment002.jpg

I am not sure why I studied this but well.... And I am sorry if I am unclear

It seems that "barge crews" who rowed "barge" boats had many different types of caps, at least during the mid and late 18th century. Many of them where peaked (like Lord Anson's barge crewmember above) sometimes the caps were like like grenadier caps (like here). It seems that people here are not ordinary RN sailors but some barge men who had uniforms like said in this other example here

" The 18th-century admiral’s barge carried by men-of-war was a richly ornamented craft. A smartly dressed and well-drilled barge crew was considered to be a status symbol amongst the ships of the fleet and often oarsmen were dressed in a uniform designed and paid for by the admiral himself."

Also Thames watermen who are more or less related to barge boatsmen used (at least later) and still uses a form of cap that is interesting. http://www.watermenshall.org/ (note how similar these are http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4084/5021679416_facb286799_z.jpg and these men http://www.watermenshall.org/events1.html)

So all in all there is a lot of caps and a lot of rowing men but that is any of this related to 1706 RN slop contract is unclear.... I think But if so then the caps here http://www.nationwidebooks.co.nz/assets/images/products/9781849084970.jpg can be accurate

And I almost forgot: Well an example of one style of cap... Thought there is no links to the RN slop caps of 1706....

Here is a particularly ugly bargeman's cap (in my personal opinion as I think jockey cap or baseball cap styled hats are ugly and boring). Circa 1795 and there is even some leather in it.. somewhere.

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/71260.html

This cap belonged to a member of Samuel Hood's (1724-1816) barge crew. It is made of wood that has been steamed, shaped and covered with brown velvet. The brim is of stiffened leather and has also been covered with brown velvet as well as Viscount Hood's crest, which has been embroidered in stumpwork. The interior of the hat is lined with linen and has the maker's label as well as the owner's name, John Lea. There are two holes for ribbon ties at the back which would have served to secure the hat. Officers often dressed their barge crews in non-regulation clothing such as this hat.

More bargemen uniforms and peaked caps but now early in circa 1710

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66360.html

They are wearing uniforms of the Royal Bargemen but while the breeches are red it doesn't mean that these would have any real touch to RN slops. For example here we have white shirts and socks. Also the caps, which may made out of leather though, doesn't fit to either slop cap description as they have tan peaks. They are not red or sewn with white thread Also I think caps with that large peaks would have been impractical when there was need to see above, to the ship's rigging. That was likely the reason why tricorns were often worn backwards aboard ship during the 18th Century. Simple bargemen who just rowed didn't need to see anywhere.

Also it seems that bargemen had quite similar uniforms earlier like here the figures rowing with white shirts.

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/mediaLib/381/media-381131/large.jpg

And later in 1750s http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/15075.html see the tiny white and red men around another here 1740 http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/12538.html

and I think bargemen had their peaked caps which were rather unique to them. However the style of the peaked cap dates back at least to the early 1700s so perhaps slops had something like that. Well they are not cool looking but well....

Furthermore about Horatio Nelson. Yes not a pirate and later than Gaop but related enough I think.

​Firstly a picture of wounded Nelson wearing a scarf/bandage circa 1800

Here a part of the NMM's description "The portrait is believed to have been owned by Nelson. This significantly means that it is probably based on an accurate account of his battered appearance at this period. He had been severely injured above the eye, bandaged, racked with a headache and pain, and probably concussed."

Just to show that eyes could get hurt in battles during the age of sail. Not that anyone would have said anything else.

There has been a popular myth that Nelson wore an eye-patch

Hollywood seems to the one to blame but I don't know how old the myth is. Nelson in "That Hamilton Woman" in 1941

One of the countless places where the myth is busted Yes it is serious site while the picture there is humorous http://www.forteantimes.com/strangedays/mythbusters/356/lord_nelsons_eyepatch.html

The Stuff of the Nelson's navy and era has been mixed to pirates in great many fictional works and I believe the myth that nelson had an black eye-patch has something to do with the pirates' eye-patch too.

Sorry for triple post but it seems that time is up and I cannot edit my earlier posts.

Chaloner Ogle in 1718 actually four years before than he killed Roberts.

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/14390.html

btw he is wearing blue coat again

Need to correct that

The date 1718 seems to be error http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/14390.html there was at least other dating error (He killed Roberts in 1722 not 1712) and the text says that this is painted between 1745-47) But for the some reason there was the date circa 1718.

Good observations,

If I had to summarize what you said, it would be, "Hey Osprey Illustrators, watch National Geographic much?"

Good on you for catching how much of their concepts came from that documentary. Overall, with this publication and the last one, I'm getting more respect for the mainstream publications from Konstam. Bringing a more accurate portrayal of the early eighteenth century will take a long time to fix is all. Also, I can see that the illustrators were trying to incorporate as much available period images and material sources as possible. For instance, that blackbeard cover have the Whydah cartridge boxes, that hat with the large front that's name escapes me at the moment (but you can see it in the Spanish sailor's equipment illustration), and a kind of furry hat I've seen depicted in a 1730s pirate illustration. As mentioned previously, it's a by product of being, "too picky about the evidence and made the pirate appearance and weaponry perhaps too homogeneous." I think a more precise way to put it would be that the historian/illustrator just got obsessed with incorporating as much of the period images/material culture that is available, but at the expense of accuracy. Ironic, to give the appearance of accuracy, they actually hurt the accuracy a bit.

I think when fall comes, I might go obtain these books just to see what Konstam is doing in greater detail.

Thanks.

Interesting that how Osprey books makes me this talkative.

Firstly I say that it seems that the new more accurate style is, at least party, merit of the other author of "Pirate: The Golden Age", David Rickman. He has made a lot of study in pirate reenacting forum of "Pirate Brethren". I think Konstam himself has focused on more general things and David in the clothing and such. At least David wrote the clothing section of "Pirate". However in this new Blackbeard book Konstam is the only author.

Having read the other book I make notes of the hats you mentioned:

The large fronted cap is probably supposed to be a leather cap with red cloth facing as mentioned in the RN slops. In the earlier book there was guessed that the caps would have been something like "Jockey caps with upturned peaks". Also the illustrations showed them as leather caps.

And the similar fur hats can be seen earlier than 1730s actually as early as 1690s, if not even earlier http://www.reconstructinghistory.com/image_lib/EnglandsSafety.jpg

and about the straw hats:

Also I think the illustrator(s) got confused as in the earlier book there were a lot of tan brimmed wool hats based on this one http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/images/bk-ptg-navy.jpg. and see the picture in "Pirate: The Golden Age" http://www.edinburghwargames.com/J57%20Images/Recruitment002.jpg

They look a lot like straw hats and in the book the authors didn't say what kind of hats they were. Add this the hats of "Blackbeard Terror at Sea" http://www.linternaute.com/television/dossier/05/barbe-noire/images/3second.jpg And you have sailors wearing different versions of those hats and some hybrid hats. So the hats are understandable. As for the clear straw tricorns: who knows if they aren't really inaccurate, but there is no actual evidence for them, at least related to seamen or pirates, so I consider them unrealistic. There is a better picture of the new Blackbeard book which I saw in the Google books preview and there was similar hat than in the miniseries.

And I must say that well there is nothing actually "Wrong" with the navy blue coats of RN officers. Like I have said in "Uniform colors" thread some English navy officer favored blue in their clothing even before the uniforms of 1748. However it was not uniform and many officer dressed also in reds, greens or browns. There was a picture in the new book that is not shown here were there was captain Brand dressed like the uniform of 1748 and the text said it to be navy uniform of post-captain. Also Maynard of the last picture of my original posts is wearing rather similar suit but a plainer coat. Just if you wonder where I see the naval officers.The only real error is that they are called uniforms otherwise they could well be wearing dark blue coats.

And The Blackbeard's fine suit looks quite OK to me, at least -without the boots. My humble opinion though....

For closer look I recommend Google-books preview.

I don't own much Osprey book, no more than the pirate book (I have discussed a lot about it as you may know) but I have always looked previews etc for interesting books etc.

Now this belongs to Twill as the book is not fiction (well at least it tries to tell the truth)

The book is a part of the new "Raid" series and its name is "Blackbeard’s Last Fight – Pirate Hunting in North Carolina 1718" ( http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Blackbeard%E2%80%99s-Last-Fight-%E2%80%93-Pirate-Hunting-in-North-Carolina-1718_9781780961958)

At first I was quite pleased. I looked the book cover and I didn't saw the same terrible, mythical pirate cliche look with earrings etc. which was troubling Konstam's earlier books (like this ).

Then the author made a far better book. "The Pirate The Golden Age" was good and rather accurate, while I have criticized it quite a bit. My only real complaint about that book was, and still is, the fact that the authors were, I feel, too picky about the evidence and made the pirate appearance and weaponry perhaps too homogeneous.

This Blackbeard book, however, seems to be a small step back to Konstam's older more inaccurate books. Firstly I can see that two things were used to create the illustrations. The first one is the earlier Konstam book "The Pirate: The Golden age" (nothing wrong with that) and the other one is, I could bet, BBC's miniseries about Blackbeard "Blackbeard The Real Pirate of the Caribbean". The series is also know as national Geographic's "Blackbeard Terror at Sea". The series was good and pretty accurate but there were "errors" like bucket boots, earrings and straw tricorns.

Here is the intro of the series is you are interested http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJI4Qj9uR9s

Now some may wonder why I think so, as it is not officially said anywhere. Well look it yourself: the book's cover illustration.

Vs James Purefoy in Blackbeard terror at Sea. See the style the hat and even the same Scottish style metal pistol.

I haven't seen the whole book yet but I have seen a couple of illustrations in book previews. There are no earrings, tattoos or too much bandannas as Konstam knows that they are rather unrealistic.So the book is fairly accurate.

But still in the new book there are elements especially the cavalry style boots, sailor's ponytails and straw tricorns that are more or less inaccurate. Also I have read some segments of text and there is said, clearly, that RN officers had official navy uniforms in Blackbeard's time. The text was pretty much like this "Here we have Captain Brand wearing Royal navy post-captain's coat. But his sailors didn't have uniforms." The truth is that Navy had no officer uniforms yet, not until 1748. That is firmly established fact. I think the reason for the uniform error was the miniseries again. There were RN officers with navy blue coats. In Konstam's earlier book British Naval officers had no uniforms and lieutenant Maynard was wearing non-uniform clothes not navy blue uniforms of 1748.

Well here, in a picture which Osprey has put in their site about the book, we have BB wearing bucket boots like he does in that series (I have seen it many many times)

So all in all I just tell you that there is a new book out there. I cannot make actual reviews as I haven't read the whole book but I just said what I thought about the historical accuracy of the book based on the facts I know about it. Now I have nothing against the author or anything but I wonder why this Konstam's book is less accurate than the previous one. In any case this is accurate compared to many other works so thanks for that to the makers and Osprey. The books seems interesting and I think I will buy it someday.