Coastie04

Arrrgh! I use that at least a few times a week. Sometimes I sign emails to me wench as that, sometimes to express frustration, and sometimes just to scare little kids. It's rather versatile, really. With me job, I also use a variety of nautical words on a daily basis. A very small list follows: deck head bulkhead bridge port starboard haliard bosun (derived from boatswain...in fact, this one's my roommate) Captain (second most important on the ship, right behind the head cook) swell (actually, anything but) current crab angle bears (as in ship bears two points off the larboard bow, or ship bears a 320 relative) pitch roll knots OK, I've gotten tired of typing now. There's quite a few more, but you get the point. Coastie

I'm just glad she looks to be in much better condition than the Pride of Baltimore II was after her accident. Glad none o' my shipmates were injured. Also, not to doubt anyone's sources here, but are we sure it was a dismasting? I've lowered t'gallants before on her to get under a bridge. Royaliste, you say you got an email from Gray's Harbor confirming that it was dismasting, not derigging? Anyway, thanks for the info and I just hope that they get fully rigged before welcoming the Hawaiian Chieftain back to the west! Coastie

There's also the possibility that the common sailors just didn't wear their coats while working the ship. It's quite possible that this just means they put on their shore-going clothes, as would an ordinary seaman with a few hours of shore liberty. This, as opposed to pirates who might flaunt whatever wealth they had with silks and as fine clothing as they could while on the town. Coastie

I'll echo what Foxe mentioned. When I read it, I didn't get the impression of the ordinary sailors really dressing different, but that the officers were dressing up. I just got the impression that the Captain and such would dress like the ordinary seamen instead of putting on finery as might be the case in a merchant or naval vessel. If anything, this would mean that the flamboyant 'captain' look that is popular in faire/entertainment pirates is not as accurate as just being 'one of the guys' in normal sailors' clothes. It would definitely be the most economical way to go, especially since I get the impression that there was not (usually) as much class difference between the pirate captain and the pirate as there was between the merchant captain and the sailor. Even if there was a class difference, for example Capt. Kidd and his crew (I'll make the assumption that Kidd actually committed piracy for this example), then if nothing else, the common consequence of hanging would help bridge that class gap. Just like today's officers and enlisted bonding closely during war on the front line, that threat of common death would have bonded the pirates to their captain and vise versa, regardless of birth. Coastie

Foxe, that's just great! I've often used the phrase "the sea and the gallows refuse noone", but I didn't realize it was that old! Thanks for the post, though. This is why I love this pub. Coastie

I started as a sailor on the good ship Lady Washington and then progressed to being a pirate. Pirates just wouldn't carry everything they owned all at once, like some try to do at fairs (me included at times). When sailing, I just have slops, sometimes shoes (depends on temperature and sometimes the safety requirements of the captains), bandana, and a belt with a sheathed knife. That's just a normal sailor's kit. Gun and sword would only be used in battle, and often for the smaller vessels that most pirates used, people would not need to be aloft to fight the ship. Sails can be effectively doused from deck, and only if there's a lul in fighting would they go aloft to fix rigging. In that case, leave the sword and pistol on deck, lay aloft to get the job done, and then retrieve your weapons. I also would not take the sheath to any sword I might use. It's just something to trip over. Hell, putting the sword in my teeth while I jump over and use both hands to climb aboard wouldn't be out of the question. Going into town is probably where I'd have the most gear, not on the ship. I would still have my knife, because that's as much a part of a sailor as the shirt on his back. That's where I'd wear whatever the fashion of the time is, including hats, fancy clothing, and buckled shoes. I might have a mug, though that is more for contemporary practicality than it probably was back then. We don't bring our own cups into bars regularly now, I doubt they did back then (I could be wrong). Depending on how safe I felt in a town, I'd bring sword and pistol. That would be a matter of preference and perception. Just like you'd feel safe leaving your car unlocked overnight in some places and don't feel safe even with it locked for an hour with you looking at it in other places. In short, I'd say it really depends on your activity. Start with a basic sailor's kit and then modify it depending on your story. If raiding the town, bring the pistol; if getting drunk in the local bars, bring the purse. Coastie

That's why I live in Sitka. I can walk to my boat in about 30 minutes, ride my bike in 10, or drive in 5. I'm sure I'll be able to do at least one of those regardless of how much snow there is. Coastie

Yeah, we're having a bit o' snow here in Alaska today as well. This is right after record rain (one figure I heard was 4.74" in 13 hours, but it was raining pretty hard for days...record rainfall in Sitka is like record heat in the Sahara, it's serious) and people are nervous now that trees will start to come down with soggy soil and soon to be heavier trees. We already had a couple of mudslides and a building come down this week. At least for now, though, it's not a problem. Coastie

Happy Thanksgiving all! Now's the time for spiced rum punches, eh? Coastie

When working on the Lady Washington, I had a guy ask me if the engine was still running. This was right after we sailed off the dock and the Captain made a point of telling everyone what we did, as it requires just the right conditions. I just couldn't reply, I shook my head and mumbled something about lubbers as I walked away to clean up lines. Probably the most frequent question we had onboard was about chaffing gear on some of the lines. We were always getting creative with our answers, which ranged from poodle skins to the line being old, frayed and about to part. Coastie

William, If you get OPS officer on one of those minesweepers and head up to Sitka, AK again (a couple were here a few months ago), let me know. I've got at least a spare couch for any pirate up this way if you want to get off the boat and away from the chaos for a while. Fair Winds, Coastie

I saw it as medieval Matrix. Too much jumping around, balancing and such. Combine Matrix and a Jet Lee, put it in the 1600's and you've got Musketeer. But what the hell, swashbuckling films would have done the same if they had the technology in the 30's and 40's. Coastie

Before completely writing it off as poor navigation, I suggest you try to get an accurate celestial fix, even with a modern timepiece, after 58 days of dead reckoning. I can tell you from experience, that even with the newest sextant and a perfectly accurate watch, it is still hard to get a good position. An error of 1-2 miles is pretty good for this navigation. The only problem, is that celestial navigation relies on having an idea of where you are. Thus, the 58 days of dead reckoning, which is estimating your ship's position based on speed and course over a period of time, definitely affected any celestial fix (besides, there's many errors that can affect the dead reckoning position, including unknown current, ship's leeway which has to be estimated based on conditions and sail plan, and the fact that speed was probably taken ever half hour in stormy seas with a chip log). Plus, if the ship's chronometer (if equipped) could have been affected by the stormy seas as well. Therefore, the mistake made was not necessarily poor navigation, given the equipment and knowledge of the time. It was just a decision that proved to be wrong in the end. Coastie

Looks great so far...keep 'em coming! Coastie

Personally, I like the fight scene at the begining of The Count of Monte Cristo (2002 version). It seems rather historically accurate as to the way cutlasses would be used by semi-trained sailors. The Musketeer is just a bit too Hollywood for me, but that's just my preference. Coastie

I know there's some Civil War reenactors down that way. I'd try to find them and ask. They'd probably have the best idea and would be willing to help out other reenactors. Coastie

The wood handle seems to fit the best, at least in my opinion. The brass would be good if the blade was more symetrical instead of having the clipped tip. The folder just looks like it would be impractical, especially with that point sticking out. Coastie

One I found quite a while ago at the Coast Guard Academy museum is described as follows. It's from 1841, but is at least unique in being a blue pirate flag as opposed to the standard colors. From the Salem Register, June 17th 1841: The description said that the flag was "a blue field with death's head and marrow bones in white, in the center." The rest of the article describing the pirate's articles is here.

Thanks for all the updates. I just wish I could be there ta help out on any of these fine vessels. Royaliste, there won't be an obscene number of cannons there...the only way they could be obscene is if you did nasty things with them, like fondling them too much (a little petting or kissing the gunner's daughter is normal). Other than that, the more the marrier. Also, I noticed you seem to be doing a circumnavigation of the U.S. in the next couple of years. Good luck in that and hopefully I'll run into you on the way. Coastie

Definitely keep going with this. It looks interesting, the pictures are great, and there are definitely people that have showed interest in the past for just this type of project. If they're not interested, they just won't read it. Coastie

I don't quite know if I agree with this part. I hope that *IF* there is anything down there, that it's found ASAP (ironically, I agree with Foxe about the plausability of it, but that's different than what I'm posting about this time). The reason I want it found, and by whom, I don't really care as long as they make a decent effort to preserve it intact and record it's discovery. If their motivation is money, they probably want the fame as well and therefore will try to record the discovery the best way they know how. And, the rest of the world will reap the benefits. If this means that they get rich and famous by selling the artifacts, then so be it. People look for and collect Roman coins or bullets from battlefields for the purpose of selling them all the time, but that doesn't mean that they're not preserving the history in some way. It also is sharing that history with people who ordinarily might not see any first hand evidence. I know the only concrete, first hand evidence I'd ever seen of the Roman Empire ever existing before I took a trip to England was a couple of coins (No, I never have doubted Rome's existence). Which brings me to my next point... The exchange about whether we ever landed on the moon. Yes, it is completely possible that it was a big setup. I've never seen a moonrock, and imagine that if I did, it would just look like a rock. It is just a matter of deciding for yourself how credible the information is. When it comes to the Oak Island issue, it's not so much the differing opinions of whether there is anthing down there, but instead it's a different level of scrutiny regarding the evidence. It's not always good to have too much scrutiny, nor is it good to have too little. However, there's also no magic middle point that's best. Using the extremes to prove a point, Foxe falls more toward the 'if I don't see it, it never happened, whereas Capt. Enigma goes toward blind faith. It's been my experience that both extremes can be necessary to prove something, so neither way of looking at Oak Island foolish (a point in which I disagree with Foxe's position). The 'scrutinizers' require a larger amount of proof before accepting fact. This allows them to be more open minded about the final outcome of their evidence, and have a lot of evidence to back up their conclusion. On the other hand, the 'faithers' can make amazing discoveries that would never have been made by 'scrutinizers'. When there's little to no concrete evidence of something, maybe that was passed down in oral tradition, then only the 'faithers' ever seriously look for evidence. Oak Island is one of these situations, but not the only famous one. The search for Atlantis, Columbus believing that he could reach India by sailing west are both examples I thought of off the top of my head. Not all of them are failures (in case anyone thinks that's why I choose those examples), and Columbus was right in theory, just not execution. Anyway, I've rambled along long enough about this. Just agree to disagree, and keep bringing up evidence for both sides. Maybe there will be some enlightenment either way and by discussing the rumors and setbacks we on this online pirate board can solve the mystery and take credit away from the land-owners. Coastie

Proud Puddle Pirate, 2000-present (and counting) Not infantry, but my hand is always missing my firearms. Of course, that's when underway. Since moving to Alaska, I can pretty much shoot whenever I'm in homeport and have the ammo. Coastie

If you didn't think they were trying to kill, would you be as scared? I think that lots of people hear that pirates used to try to scare their foes into submission rather than have a pitch battle and think that it was bloodless warfare. My belief (I'm not backing it up with specific historical references) is that pirates would rather take a vessel without a battle because 1) they would be in less personal danger 2) the goods would be intact 3) ship could be salvaged easier, and 4) you wouldn't have to use powder and shot and could thus save it for when you might really need it later on. It's just practical that you wouldn't want a fight. However, a bit of damage doesn't really hurt the boats. This was a 440-ft cruise ship. RPG fire to the superstructure isn't going to sink it. If they did get aboard, they'd have probably just taken personal belongings, silverware, etc. Or, if there were political reasons, then hostages. Do the pirates really care if there's a few holes in the boat, or if a few people get killed? Not really. But if shooting a few scares others into compliance (if you know they do kill, you're less likely to argue), then why not? The sentence if they're caught is probably the same. Coastie

Just a few thoughts about the belly boxes. Without a belt, or at least some way of preventing it from swinging, it does seem that it would be impractical for battle. However, it would be rather convenient to have all your reloading supplies right in front of you for, say, target practice or walking around on shore where you aren't expecting immediate trouble, but want to be prepared for anything. Also, Foxe, I disagree with the belt being partly redundant. With multiple pistols, reloading gear, and possibly a sword, boarding axe, etc., it would get rather heavy around your neck alone. The belt would help spread the weight, much like a modern backpack with a hip-belt. It distributes the weight from neck and hips. It seems that starting with a basic historical design from these engravings or any other historical evidence and then modifying it to work better and fit your personal body better would be completely authentic, at least for pirates. Naval types might not have the luxury of individualizing equipment. Just my two cents worth. Coastie

Don't forget that large shaft under the Boston cemetery with a really large treasure in it. They really did find that one, and to prove it, they made a movie a couple of years ago about it. If it's been shown in Hollywood, it must be true, right? No way they could have come up with all that on their own. Coastie