Capt. Sterling

Well what we call today a fashion knock-off derives from the idea that top designers try to "copy right" their designs but so far really haven't been able to... In the past folks always copied the top fashions to the best of their ability, whether it was by purchasing something from your local tailor or in some cases "off the hanger/ready mades" (seems funeral/mourning clothing MAY have been ready made in certain cases) or whether you made it yourself... There were fashion plates but I don't know how widely these were circulated and of course you saw "fashion" if you frequented large cities/towns or had the chance to view members of the court or nobility for what ever reason... Fashionable ladies in London were known to walk about parks to show off their finery. Hector

I do reproduction clothing and have been doing it on and off since the late 70s. I am currently operating as The Historical Tailor, Fine Reproductions of Historical Garments, Functional Clothing not Costumes.... I highly recommend that my customers purchase Reconstructing History patterns as part of my service.... I can and often have worked off of original garment diagrams like Norah Waugh's Cut of Men's Clothes or Janet Arnold's Patterns of Fashion, BUT Reconstructing History's GAoP series is just as good, if not better as they help save the additional cost and time in creating a custom pattern for each customer... Why reinvent the wheel each time when Kass has supplied such truly wonderful patterns. I do believe Reconstructing History does garment making as well.... Hector

Yes there is a splendid coat circa 1680 made of doeskin and embroidered. Using Kass's splendid pattern you might want to take out just a bit of the pleat as the original is referred to as fairly narrow, but there is still some pleat. It has the vertical pockets BUT the cuffs are quiet narrow. I even wonder if they are true cuffs in the sense at all or if the emboidery on the coat sleeve just looks like a cuff. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to be able to post pictures on this site. I keep getting errors and no one has gotten back to me as of yet addressing the problem, but if you can get your hands on a copy of Exploring Costume History 1500-1900 by Valerie Cumming there is a black and white photo on page 40 of the coat. You could also contact the Museum of London and ask about it as it belongs to their collection. Hope that helps somewhat.

Welcome aboard young Kidd. I'll take one of ye root beers and toast to a young cap'n in the making!

I suppose that would be an alternative if your time isn't worth much... but why reinvent the wheel when you have all your shoulder seams in the right place and pleats the right size to begin with? :)

I like Foxe's best, they may not be purty but boy he gets you thinking...!!! :)

Gee I always thought hump backed chests or rolled topped trunks were strictly a 19th century thing. I have two originals and they are both dated 1870s. All the trunk restoration sites seem to date rolled topped trunks with the straight sides around then. I also have a reproduction hair trunk circa 1770s, now that has a rolled top but the entire trunk is almost round, only the very bottom is flat. There is a chest in the V&A circa early 18th century and that has a flat top and most of the jewelry caskets are flat topped as well, but not all. Would be interesting to find out more about the true period shape... as for all the talk about flat tops being better storage... with three somewhat round trunks in my keeping, I can't tell you what a mistake they were to purchase, I needed to get a trailer just to get camp gear to an event, you really can't put much on top of em.... Hector

GAoP clothing is really not as complicated as it looks and there are those that are willing and able on this list to help talk you through putting your kit together... and as for sewing it all by hand, what could be more period correct than that?! It's perfect! :)

I totally agree and right here in the pub is some of the very best researched, historically accurate patterns available for GAoP. Kass, one of the regular posters in Captain Twill, has just launched a series of pirate clothing patterns all based on actual garments and/or research of the late 17th century-early 18th century. You cannot find a better pattern on the market when it comes to historically accurate pirate gear. And as for fall front breeches, I do believe they came out after the GAoP, button front was the thing for that time period... I hate to say it, for all the good that Simplicity does, it is still a costume pure and simple. Just wanted to let them that do want historically correct gear know to go to www.reconstructinghistory.com. Look under patterns and you'll find the GAoP patterns that are currently available for preorder, INCLUDING proper ladies' wear.

We are all human beings yes, but our ancestors were a product of their times just as we are a product of ours. Very much alike, yes and no. Going to the mall and seeing numerous different styles now,yes, back then no... the average person then could NEVER hope to own as many pieces of clothing as we do now. Even some nobility only indulged in maybe four new suits a year. Not only that but many people then dressed to "be like their betters" not make a statement about being different. Being different back then usually got you in trouble. Were there some 17th/18th century "punk rockers", not with Mohawks and dyed hair, but I am certain there was some verison of it BUT it was NOT the status quo. Fops could come to mind as the punks of their day and they were very much ridiculed for being so. They were there but not the status quo. What we are trying to say here is when portraying history, if everyone protrayed what was NOT the norm, than the public learns a swayed view of history, one that is just not true.... as Kass will tell you, if every single woman out of say 100 showed up to a pirate event dressed in an elegant riding habit it would NOT be an accurate protrayal of what was truly historical. One or two, unless some group is protraying say the King of France and his court out on a hunting party, would be more appropriate. Were their people who didn't care about fashion? I'd be surprised if there weren't! But again, humans all, yes, but the influences of society can be very different. For instances, when was the last time you packed up your picnic basket, took the day off from work, and joyously went to an execution for a holiday?? And were you glad to be able to pick up horse droppings or dog's fecees on the way so you could toss them at the condemned? Common occurance now? it was then. Hector

I think one has to remember that they lived in brutal times and things just rub off on a person and not just for the better, as a matter of fact Proverbs says that the bad will rub off on good folks before the good will rub off on bad. Not only that but most "Christian" religions of the time were firmly esconced in the Old Testement, and eye for an eye, etc. Yes they had the new and better Covenant but it does not seem to have taken a hold on the majority of the folks back then, and also remember most people could not read and so did not read the scriptures for themselves. Even Charles II thought too much education for too many folks was not a good thing. So it all boiled down to what was being preached from the pulpits and just because someone puts on a collar and carries a bible does NOT make him a Christian. Hector

I can't say about the mismatched items, but pulling off buttons, especially metal ones would certainly be something worth thinking about, metal can be melted down and recast even into a more current fashionable design, or sold for cash. Passimaterrie (SP) buttons could be used again if they were in decent condition. By the 1700s they were still used although according to the Verneys of Claydon, who had a rather large correspondence regarding their clothes... a Lady Fermanagh wrote to Mr. Verney "I have spoke to Mr. Bedford and he tells me that nobody has such a thing as silk buttons to a silk waistcoat, and that if you have it done with silver it will be very handsome, and my lord thinks so too. " So at one time they may have been unfashionable but hard evidence from actual garments show that embroidered buttons remained in fashion through out the 18th century.... considering most clothes were refashioned over and over until most likely the fabric was worn through, salvaging buttons would seem to make a lot of sense... Hector

Okay fashion, at least in England, fine clothing seemed to be everyone's ambition. Sumptuary Laws were a thing of the past and everyone, especially the middling sort, were able to obtain what they wanted. The ragmen, or second hand shops were suppliers, according to Maureen Waller, to tens of thousands of Londoners during the late 17th century early 1700s. Business was so competitive that shop clerks seemed to have jumped potential customers in the streets and, starting to take off their garments, dragged them into shops to try on their wares.. "Ned Ward was walking in Long Lane, he was suddenly accosted by a 'parcel of nimbel-tongued sinners' who 'leaped out of their shops, and swarmed about me like so many bees about a honeysuckle. Some got me by the hands, some by the elbows, others by the shoulders and made such a noise in my ears, that I thought I had committed some egregious trespass unawares, and they had seized me as a prioner. A pox take you said I, you are ready to tear a man's clothes off his back, and then ask him whether he'll buy any. Prithee let mine alone, and they will serve me yet for this six months.' But still they hustled me backwards and forwards like a pick-pocket in a crowd, till at last I made loose and scampered like a restless prisoner from a gang of bailiffs." Tom Brown suffered a similar experience "But their rudeness continuing at every door, relieved me from these panic fears; and the next that attacked my arm, with 'Wht d'ye buy, Sir, what d'ye lack?' I threw from my sleeve into the kennel, saying, "Though I want nothing out of your shops, methinks you all want good manners and civility; you are ready to tear a new suit from my back, under pretense of selling me another one. " Markets trading in second hand clothes could be found in Monmouth Street :George Hartley's and Daniel Jones; Godfrey Gimbart's in Long Lane; Rosemary Lane, East Smithfield, Houndsditch, the Minories, Petticoat Lane, Chick Lane, Long Lane, and the Barbican. According to Waller, the ragmen, enabled Londoners to wear clothes above their rank and beyond their means had they been brand new. No one threw away used clothes. A good wardrobe was the equivalent of a savings account-it could be used to realise cash if the need arose. Certainly fuel for the thread would a pirate keep what he stole?? Old clothes could be repaired and refitted, and many remaining originals often show new stitching lines where garments were refitted or restyled to bring them closer to the current fashion of the day. Rich folks could actually trade in older garments as a down payment for a new suit. There were regular adverts in the press for second-hand clothes, auctions of unclaimed pawned clothes, and sales for the effects of the dead... Executioners could keep the fine clothes often made to be worn for hangings and sell these themselves after them that were hanged no longer needed them. Stealing clothes as well as wigs was a profitable business as long as one was not caught, and folks that had been robbed of their clothes often went to second hand shops to hunt missing items down... A smart shop keeper would quickly change the look of any items he purchased that he deemed questionable. One foolish highwayman was arrested because he not only stole an elaborately decorated coat from a lord, but wore it in public. The coat was easily identified and he was apprehanded.. So the rag men made fashion available to the English at least. In The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits, Bernard de Manderville wrote: " Handsome apparel is a main point, fine feathers make fine birds, and people, where they are not known, are generally honour'd according to their clothes and other accoutrements they have about them; from the richness of them we judge their wealth, and by their ordering of them we guess at their understanding, It is this which encourages every body, who is conscious of his little merit, if he is any way able, to wear clothes above his rank." Pepys, the son of a tailor, was up and coming as an official in the Navy Office, paid close attention to his wardrobe. Overall clothes ate up no small part of his carefully hoarded savings. By the way guys, he spent far more on his own clothes than he allowed his wife. In 1665 he paid 24 pounds -about half a year's income for a family of the middling class even in 1700 - on a new silk camleott sute. Four years later he was wearing gold lace sleeves, unmistakably the mark of a gentleman and was given to understand that he had gone too far in dressing above his station... and yet he wore them and was able to get them. Daniel Defoe warned aspiring tradesmen to be very careful in their choice of a wife since accordling to Manderville, I believe, "the poorest labourer's wife in the parish, who scorns to wear a strong wholesome frize... will half starve herself and her husband to purchase a second-hand gown and petticoat, that cannot do her half the service; because it is more genteel." John Evelyn "was appaled at the cost of a bride's trousseau but thanks to his daughter's Mundus Muliebris; The Ladies Dressing-Room Unlock'd, there is a record of the contents of a fashionable lady's wardrobe. Cesar de Saussure wrote "English women are fond of luxury, they spare no trouble to be becomingly attired." Manderville also wrote "This haughtiness alarms the court, the women of quality are frighten'd to see merchants' wives and daughters dress'd like themselves." Guy Miege wrote "And herein the citizens wives, and maidservants, do run into such excess as makes a confusion. So hard it is sometimes to know a tradesman's wife from a lady, or the maid from the mistress." A friend of Tom Brown's was equally confused "I have not learnt to distinguish female quality from the wives and daughters of mechanics any other way than by their coaches." But even Samuel Pepys soon had one of those... and of course many of the men were no better... referred to as fobs because fashion in order to impress the ladies, was one of their chiefest goals... even despite the cries of "French Dog!" when they passed in the street. So to sum it up many folks in England tried hard to copy their betters of the court, even down to wearing gold and silver lace. BUT they copied the current fashion not older fashion,(garments being recut to fit the styles of the times!!!) and the tradesmen were willing to sell to anyone. Manderville wrote as an example " A highwayman having met with a considerable booty, gives some common harlot he fancies ten pounds to new-rig her from top to toe; is there a spruce mercer so conscientious that he will refuse to sell her a thread sattin, tho' he knew who she was? " Now were there older folks that held on to older styles like folks do today,,, could be... and as far as fashion making it to some deserted island, if a ship or two was expected once a year and they did happen to have women on that island who MIGHT pick the brain of them onboard, odds are the styles wouldn't have been too far behind. Were the French and Spanish the same regarding styles? I have no evidence to back this up, but since many looked to the French for fashion.... Since boots, other than to ride in or WORK in, (remember a gentleman was someone who did not work for a living! so would a gentleman where boots other than to ride and perhaps be mistaken for a working slob???)went out of style by the late 17th century and would not fall back into style again until the late 18th century, I very seriously think that folks as fashion conscious as the English, and Foxe correct me here if I am wrong, it seems many, many pirates came from some sort of UK background, that styles would NOT have been extremely far behind, even in the American West prior to trains, fashion history shows that styles may have only lagged behind no more than 7-10 years. So why wear something that was 40-70 years behind the times??? Oh and by the way, during the later 17th century, except for the military, boot cuffs tended to shrink considerably... they seem to be referred to as cups not buckets.... MY question is, if places like the Carolinas and Rhode Island, specifically Newport, owed their growing into prosperous cities to pirates, would not some BUT NOT ALL, have some decent clothes that were in line with current fashions? Honestly, though, how many pirates other than the most well known, such as Teach, Roberts, Tew, etc, were successful enough to dress above their station on a day to day basis? And where if you did have a good extra suit would you keep it? And how many could you keep in the space alotted you? I'm talking every day sailor now, not the captains? Hector

There are also photos of the doll stripped down to his waistcoat if anyone is interested. I could post them as well if someone would tell me how to do so on this list... seems whenever I try, nothing takes... Hector

This doll and a number of 17th century/18th century items can be viewed online Via the V & A museum archive link.... you sign up and you get access to what ever items they have that have been photographed... granted maybe not the biggest selection but it helps steer one in the right direction. Since this doll is supposed to represent Lord Clapham (sp) I believe, there is one for Lady as well, I would hesitate to call it a fashion baby. But there were dolls, referred to as fashion babies, that were dressed in the current fashion to show buyers what they would be getting. Fashion babies were a tailors/merchants tool, not intended for children's toys. Hector

Hey thanks. Do you know what other types of dissenters would be around during the GAoP time frame? Aren't the Quakers pretty much established by now as well? And did not Locke pretty much start laying down his theories concerning religious tolerance about now? Hector

No you're not the only one...

absolutely nothing but I could sure go for a glass of port!

I can't agree with you more in this regard. It is extremely hard to stay together when you are unequally yoked in areas that you place as most important in your life. I'm going on 14 years of marriage myself, again met in church also, and very much believe love is not based on feelings but on commitment.... you will chose to love your spouse no matter what (except a physically threatening relationship)... especially no matter how you feel... feelings can always be restoked by some time and effort. A relationship, whether marriage or not, takes commitment and work... if your partner is not worth your time, commitment and effort, then something is wrong... Hector

Isn't Calvinism pretty much the same then? How are they related? Hector

Both religions were based also in works... i.e. I must do this in order to get to Heaven, instead of just accepting that Christ died to pay for all sins. It is almost a flip flop then between the Puritans and the Catholics, the Catholics, trying to work things out for themselves by agreeing to do this or that and the Puritans almost trying to force folks to do good works by their strict laws. And their laws went right to the basic family because they very much believed that unless the family was sound, the government run by the men of those families would not be sound. Some of their ideas were quite nit picky, for instance only God is perfect, so young children were instructed to do their best but then before you complete a project, add a known mistakes... this is very evident in girls' sampler from the time... There is a very interesting book I believe it is called the Copse of Heaven, dealing with the puritans and their religion and government in the colonies.... a tedious read but interesting none the less. Hector

Sorry, I thought you were making a connection between "leftenants" and left-shoulders That would be erroneous. For the record then, lieutenant has been pronounced "leftenant" in England since at least the beginning of the 17thC, and still is today. Oh not a problem Foxe! I went back and reread my original post and realized it was all over the place... I'm the one who should apologize... Hector

Again just theory (and thanks for posting that info on the left shoulder pictures,) but one wonders if the fact that the baldrick seemed to become such a huge and elaborate thing, in one fashion plate of the period it almost looks as if the fella is wearing a blanket roll, if that had anything to do with the development of all those ribbons on the shoulder.... just a thought... Hector

Well my question for Foxe is are we speaking of a shoulder knot, like the more modern day cord that is used, for corporals, or are we still talking about the shoulder knots/bands, all those red or blue ribbons, that show in the fashion plates circa 1670-90s. I haven't seen this particular item on the left shoulder at all yet, but I have read that they were also worn at the knees and at the sleeves where the cuffs turned back... still haven't found an actual print to prove this though...at least not for circa 1675-1730...only modern day interpretations.... Hector

Yes I agree with you on both points... I still have not found any rock hard evidence regarding shoulder knots except that they were a fashion... but the thing with fashion, NOT ALL, but there are many fashion items that come from practical use, especially for men... Hector