Coastie04

Well, my first thought for a nomination was Foxe. The constant flow of information from him helps any historically minded pirate improve his gear. I've constantly been amazed at the references, pictures, and general knowledge that's come forth from his posts. I would also second Kass, if there's a female pirate of the year. I do this for the same reason as Foxe. I believe many of the notable pirates here on the pub have some clothing that stems from her hand. She works tirelessly to not only provide us with patterns and clothing that is historically perfect, but she also goes above and beyond here on the pub educating and answering questions on her area of expertise. As everyone's mentioned, it's definitely a hard choice, but these would be my votes. Coastie

Nice one. I can just imagine one with a bone handle and a little scrimshaw and possibly a bit of brass instead of the nail to hold the blade. It looks great as is, though. Coastie

In the GAoP, they didn't put haliards through the masts (at least in no examples I've seen or heard of). The haliard would go to a block tied on to the mast, and then down one side of it. I'd imagine that cutting a slot for a pully (if that's what we'll call it) would weaken a wooden mast too much, or be too much work on the bigger masts. I know on later period vessels (such as CGC Eagle) that have hollow steel spars, a chain is attached to the yard that then goes through the mast on a pully and is shackled to a length of rope that continues the haliard to the belaying pin. However, I'm pretty certain that type of arrangement is out of period. Coastie

That kind of news always strikes hard. Unfortunately, it happens more than most people realize, and it usually reverberates much farther than just the family, friends and crew. A moment of silence for all who are lost at sea... Coastie

Those are great!!! I do like the ships they have in that as well. Some are period (not to GAoP, but to say the civil war). I really liked the one titled: Night chase of the brigantine slaver "Windward," by H.M. steam-sloop "Alecto." You can just feel the slaver driving his ship to the breaking point. In that wind, they even have the stuns'l booms out and ready to go. Coastie

Wasn't #7 on America's Most Wanted last week? Coastie

Here's a link to the best RC tall ship I've seen. Unfortunately, it's not available commercially, as it was scratch built. However, it features controllable sails, 'blank' firing cannons, a motor for when the wind dies, and a flag hoist that can douse the American flag and hoist a pirate flag!!! Besides, it's a model of the best ship out there. Enjoy. RC Tall Ship Coastie

Slight correction here. It's longitude which requires time to calculate. Latitude requires the angle of the sun at local apparent noon (LAN). Longitude requires the time of a celestial event, such as sunrise, sunset, LAN, or the rising/setting of stars/moon/planets. And I can tell you from experience, the calculations can be a pain in the butt. Coastie

I'll be supping aboard ship this Thanksgiving. I'm standing duty this time around. They generally put out a really good spread on holidays and this means I don't have to do dishes Happy Thanksgiving all ye scurvey scum! Coastie

Perfect timing, really. I'll be transfering this summer and will most likely have some time to start that kind of project after I move. Or at least that's what I'm telling myself for now. Coastie

Thanks, Kass. It's a bit large for me. I wanted to make my own anyway, just haven't had the time and the fabric selection here is limited to what's in the back of the Ben Franklin. I'll wait 'til I get back to the lower 48 to delve into that project. By the way, do you have any plans of creating patterns for the mid-late 1700's? I love what you already have, but the style of ships that I like to sail the most are a bit late for GAoP. Coastie

OK, for a stupid question...how do you determine what size you are? You'd think that with all the uniform jackets I have, at least one of them should have a size on them, alas they don't. Coastie

Welcome aboard, shipmate. I love sailing the Lady whenever I can (which is seldom now, unfortunately) and am an honorary member of the Free Men of the Sea. Good to have another tall ship sailor on this here pub. Coastie

Another note about that link. Brigantine is described as a vessel with two masts, the fore square rigged and the main fore and aft. This is another example of a modern nomenclature. It's common now because ASTA supports it. Historically, that description was called a hermaphrodite brig, hermaphrodite schooner, or half brig. A true brigantine is fully square rigged on the foremast and has a schooner main sail with squares above it (see picture). Note that the main mast could easily be the fore mast of a square tops'l schooner. A brig, on the other hand, has a relatively smaller main sail that's used more as a balancing sail than a driving sail (as below). Coastie

I think Foxe made a great statement in that the bible is not a reliable historical document. When some of the source is true, some is false, and a lot is unknown, then it is not reliable in and of itself. On the other hand, many historical references are debated unless verified by other sources in order to prove their reliability. As a hypothetical example: a journal is found somehow preserved in South America written in european language and dated around 1000 AD. describing interaction with the a strange culture, etc. Taken alone, this would not seem like a very reliable source, since the first known europeans in the area arrived in the 15th Century. However, if there was strong evidence of a voyage to find new lands to the west left in 989 AD and was never heard from again in europe, then the journal would seem reliable. Then, we have to just examine how accurate the journal itself is. Many explorers seem to herald their own glory in their journals, and often have a very self centered viewpoint. Just think of what historical evidence being left behind today would look like in 2000 years. Let's take a classic novel, Moby Dick (in keeping with the nautical theme of this pub), and look back 2000 years at it. There is abundant evidence that whaling did take place during the time it was written. There are references in different sources to specific whales who were reportedly viscious, including a white one in the south Pacific named Mocha Dick who was notorious with New England whalers. There are accounts that whaling captains tried to hunt him once rounding the Horn (not exclusively, but imagine the prestige of being the one to get him). There is also an account of the whaling ship Essex being attacked and sunk by a whale. Therefore, did Captain Ahab really exist? Naming people after biblical figures was common then in that culture. Getting to my point (at last), the reliability of a source depends on how much you trust the author (and any subsequent editors and translators). How many people knew that Nelson's true last words were "Damn it, I knew we should have made peace with those bloody frogs" and that everyone in that cabin decided for political reasons to omit that from their reports? Since you don't know the authors personally, the only way to begin to trust them is to verify their claims of truth with some additional proof. The problem with the bible, is we have no idea who the original author, editors, transcribers, and translators are. It's hard to trust them. Thus, it becomes unreliable. Just my two cents worth. Coastie

OK, I was getting curious and doing some of my own research online. I came across this in a wooden boat forum that they were talking about raked masts: I thought this perspective, although just one person's speculation, was rather interesting and as good an explanation as any; especially since the raked masts did disappear in later years when presumably more 'scientific' means of calculating the rig balance in a boat. Coastie

Then again, raked masts can look rather goofy. I was thinking more about it, and it would seem that a raked mast could not support as many spars. So, for the larger clipper ships and giant windjammers of the late age of sail, that's probably why they went back to straight masts. However, the schooners eventually went back to straight masts as well in the late 19th and 20th centuries, and I'm just not really sure why, except if there were significantly more dismastings due to rigging failure than with straight masts. Coastie

It's mostly looks. Sure, it affects the performance of the sail, but so does size, how deep the belly is, if it's loose footed or not, etc. Overall, the speed of different angles of rake were comparable. For the baltimore clippers, the highly raked masts were fairly standard. It was mostly for the appearance of speed. The baltimore clippers were extremely fast boats, but they were small and had little cargo space-major design aspects that allowed them to be fast. There are a couple of other factors that are associated with the raked masts that can be either good or bad. The boom tends to center itself in light wind. This can be prevented with the use of a preventer, though it can be nice when setting/dousing sail. The shrouds and weight of the spar eliminates the need for running backstays. The boom on a raked mast raises up the farther out it goes, so it stays out of the water a bit better when sailing off the wind. Also, some say that square tops'ls can be braced around sharper, though I haven't really noticed it that much. Plus, the sharply braced square sails usually don't give a whole lot more speed. One of the disadvantages is that the rig will not stand up on its own if rigging gives way or is shot away, especially the headstay. Last year (maybe the year before?), the Pride of Baltimore II was completely dismasted when a single piece of rigging, the bobstay, gave way. When it comes down to it, they really look cool. Coastie

I'm lucky in getting to use nautical terminology all the time and people understand it. 'Belay' is standard, as are all directions (port, aft...), a toilet is a head, we have a quarterdeck, etc. However, the only person that I've found that I can talk about specific pirates, history, etc. is one of the cooks. And yes, he once made me some hard tack in our galley. When I start talking about sailboats, however, my executive officer reminds me that they're just SAR (search and rescue) cases waiting to happen. Coastie

I raise my hat and half mast my flag for the passing of a true sailor. Gunner...begin the salute! Coastie

I'll echo Desert Pyrat's view on this. Although there are cases of ornamented ships, it's just not all that economical for a business. And on a ship of, say 200 tons (referring to the cargo capacity of what I would consider an average coastal merchant, or 'pirate size vessel'), saving a few pounds here and there doesn't make a huge difference. In fact, sometimes the extra weight, properly stowed, could increase their speed. The obvious example is putting extra weight low in the hull. This is done on all modern mono-hull sailboats of any considerable size in the form of a keel: weight below the hull. This would keep the vessel more upright in heavier winds, allowing more sail area to be used in a given wind condition. The upright hull also decreases slipage to leeward. Trim is another important factor in speed. Trim is a factor of the fore-and-aft position of the CG. In other words, is the bow deeper or shallower than the stern? Generally it was accepted that vessels on an "even keel", or the same draft fore and aft, was the proper way to load a vessel. Some vessels are designed differently, but that's a good general rule. You don't want to drive the ship into the water, and you don't want to drag your stern. All hulls have a draft that they operate best at. Hull speed is a factor of waterline length, draft, and beam (assuming that materials are not a factor for this). For many boats, if you lighten them too much, the ratio of length-draft-beam is not favorable. Lastly, for those that might think maneuverability is improved with a lighter weight, you'd be right half the time. A lighter weight allows quicker acceleration, but waves and maneuvering would also slow you down more. A heavier boat will be able to keep the momentum going through say a tack. The top speed of both might be the same, just the acceleration different. A good example of this is the Hawaiian Chieftain and Lady Washington. I wish I could find the finely written version I've seen before that compares these two common adversaries, alas I cannot and must summarize for you. The Chieftain is quicker to maneuver, but slows down a lot, especially in heavier seas. The Lady has the momentum to bring her around and keep going with less speed loss. Also, the Lady can sail backwards easier due to the two square rigged masts (Lady Washington is a brig, Hawaiian Chieftain is a square rigged ketch). Yes, sailing backwards, sideways, etc. can be an advantage for battle maneuvering, I've done it. The Chieftain sails faster downwind, but looses a lot of leeway when close hauled. The Lady's deeper draft keeps her going strait, but slows her top speed a bit. So, the operating characteristics of a ship depends is something best left up to the preference of the captain. If he needs a shallow draft to skip over shoals or hide in shallow bays, he needs to know how that will affect his ship. If he needs top speed, he needs to know his maneuvering limitations, etc. I'm with Desert Pirate in prefering a brig. Partly, that's because the Lady Washington was the most fun to sail and I did things in that boat that I haven't heard other sailing vessels even attempting. I value maneuverability and versatility over speed. Speed is only good if you're being chased by something big or trying to catch something running away. And, if the situation demands it, the Lady would fly downwind with Royals, Stuns'ls, and a Ringtail. Better, however, to act as a vessel in distress and have the prey come to you, or have courses that "coincidentally" meet at some point in the dark of the night. Coastie

Capt. Sterling, As you're from Virginia, I'd recommend heading out to Jamestown and taking a look at their ships. I think the name of the larger ship is the Susan Constant, but don't quote me on that. However, it is armed below decks and has gunports. Take a tape measure, camera, and I don't see why they'd stop you from taking measurements, especially if you explained why. Or, check out the USS Constitution in Boston (Yes, out of period, but a common gunport that would be easily recognized as such if that's your goal). Or, check the internet for pictures of tall ships with gunports and take a guess based on the proportions. Coastie

Nice. Too bad I'm not there anymore. Maybe next tour, though. Coastie

Don't worry, it's historically accurate for pirates to loose all their money to women and their wares. Coastie

Just my bit about being healthier in the old days. In one respect, yes. People were generally more physically fit (at least among the majority of seamen-officers and certain positions not necessarily so), the air was cleaner, and I'd even risk saying that many of the diseases were weaker before the widespread sterilization of things. On the other hand, there was no protective equipment such as rubber gloves back then, all sorts of chemicals being handled, and poorer nutrition. Lead based paint, tar, chemicals used to clean brass, etc. Many different things were used to keep the ship in good repair, as well as make her pretty. Plus, as has been mentioned earlier, some ships were just not kept clean. Part of that could be due to outside conditions (stuck in the doldrums, in port, etc.), and some could be internal factors (leadership, standard of cleanliness, availability of supplies, age of the vessel, etc.). Even today, I've been aboard fishing vessels that could pass a white glove inspection and some that I make sure my shots are up to date. So, live in those conditions for months on end and I doubt that you'd be any healthier than today. Back then, they didn't usually think about what would have health effects years down the line for the ordinary sailor. Today, we're more conscious of hazardous materials. Just my two cents worth. Coastie