michaelsbagley

I'm quite certain that the above image is Gretchen. I can't quite recall this young lady's name, but I seem to recall that it wasn't Gretchen, and I think she may have been Sgt. Johnson's oldest son's friend (girlfriend?).

Cringe... Hawkyns, how about not so much an organization, but rather than an agreed upon set of conventions the we agree to use here to describe events, particular the more re-enactment oriented ones (and all the permutations of that phrase)? I'm all for standards in the hobby, as long as they are optional and a personal choice, not a governing body mandate (there's enough of that in "real life", escaping that is one of my main loves of this hobby). An agreed on set of terms and/or descriptives doesn't need management or leaders or any of those "ugly" terms some of the more anarchic of us shy away from or down right rail against. It just needs to be laid out, discussed, and agreed on by a fair majority of those of us who organize and run events, and then adhered to when posting about our events here (and trying to share and spread those terms and encouraging the usage of those definitions in other circles as well). We can all differentiate: a pub crawl, a public historic display encampment, and private immersion encampment, and many other variations without needing to call it an organization. And as long as a majority is willing to be flexible on terms, and not dig their heels in too deeply about this term or that term applying to their idea and no one else's idea, it should be a fairly easy process. In my estimation would only take a few weeks to discuss out on the forum, and ensure lots of feedback is gotten regarding it. It will likely get frustrating at times, but I think it could work well. Flexibility to re-address the topic and the topic being stickied could make such a discussion have many long years of enduring value. Or am I just splitting hairs on semantics here, and are we talking about the same thing in different terms?

Don't worry about the Professor, he is all bark and no bite (and mostly just a warped sense of humour). But if it will help you sleep better, we'll keep him at the opposite end of the line of tents from you. As an FYI, we'll be staying in our wedge, which is about 8 feet by 9 feet and we have the tarp shelter (which sleep one comfortably, and two closely) available as a loaner should anyone need or want it.

My better half also has a Mercury flag on her to-do list (and also got a copy of the pattern from Master Brand)... While I can't guarantee it will be done by June,I think it is close to the top of her list of things to do, so it is possible. I think I just talked Sam (Professor_Death) into, but he said he would post here himself.

Well the Thatchers alone can accommodate that wish! I'll try and talk to a few more of the local(ish) people I know and see if any of them are free that weekend and willing to come, but it is hard to say at this point.

Cheers to my favourite guitar repair man! Miss you and all your stories of the life as a roadie! Happy Birthday man! Hope it is the best one yet!

Yep, the wife and I should be there barring any real life curve balls (which there seems to be more of this year than most).

I don't think anyone here gets upset about the idea of those who choose to taking as far as they like. But I will admit, when those who do so are the same as those who organize certain events (or are integral to organizing of certain events) there may be a misconception that said persons goals are the same as those of the event. I know I am horribly guilty of that. As much as I would prefer to see a greater number of "average joe" sailors/pirates, the Santa Maria event that I am very involved in the organization of and marketing of does not hold to that. Even though it may not be the case, people's associative nature may create the misconception whether it is the case or not. I think there was a great deal of discussion about associative thought during the last "hot-bed" topic... Apparently I remembered and perhaps learned something from it. There is also the concern, that if at the same event as someone who is striving for this, how does someone who doesn't wish to immerse to that level interact or react to such a person should the need arise? It can make people feel very awkward to not know how to address someone at an event that is supposed to be fun for them. There are a lot of other variable that likely float in people's subconsciousness during debates like this as well, those are just two examples I was able to come up with.

You're right Bo, Although I seem to recall the annual tribulations as being more of a month of March thing. Perhaps the hard winter made it take longer for those fires to spring up.

Since you have taken the initiative to do the opposite of your own suggestion, I am going to hop on this. Moderator hat on. No, I don't assume the worst of you. Perhaps your sense of humour falls outside of my comfort range or not, I honestly don't know. My response was keyed specifically at your comment, because there are many here that have and will take offense to comments like that. I am a moderator here, and I am the one who gets the ear-full when someone feels slighted by comments like that. I have to walk a fine line between telling people to go take it up with you themselves, and asking in general to keep definitions and name calling at least somewhat civil. If you want to take my trying to keep the peace here as a personal attack on you, well, I am sorry, but there is nothing that can be done for it. While I do like you Sterling, my first and foremost responsibility in Twill is to keep a very contentious portion of the pub friendly. If in doing that you feel singled out, well perhaps your problem isn't with me.

To add to Mission's rather good point of there being no exclusive or universal terms, and the lack of a governing body (I think we all remember how contentious that discussion was), who is to say that an event that is a re-enactment (up-front saying the event expects only on hours standards), but has elements of "Living History" to it. Is the event trying to be misleading by saying it has "Living History" elements to it? There are just too many grey areas, and from my experience almost no events live up to the "Living History" examples you and Sterling and providing. MTA despite having strict standards, is a timeline event. Any interaction with folks of a different time period to you, specially a big time difference would be not "Living History" by the suggested definition. PiP, and quite honestly most (if not all) the bigger and well know pirate events most certainly are not, as they more often than not try and balance pirate entertainers with re-enactors/living historians. In fact of all the events I have been to, Paynetown likely has the best potential for something close to that experience, and even then, the many modern boats on the lake, and modern campers (who while out of sight) are still close enough to affect the ambiance, specially during the day when they flock to the beach right beside the encampment. In fact, the only experience I can see as being anything close to the suggested definition of "Living History" would be what I know as "Historical Trekking/Scouting", and doing that in persona/character.

I can answer for myself here, but I would guess the reasons could be as varied as the people. And to add more to your comment, I have yet to see one re-enactment that is 24 hours. That covers 2 years of me doing War of 1812, 6 or 7 years of late dark age (Norse, Saxon, etc.), and the last handful of years of late 17th/early 18th century. Anyone who really knows me knows me, knows the amount of, and variety of the events I attend each year, while some years in the last decade or so I haven't been that busy, but for most of my modest years in re-enacting, I have been one of the more active re-enactors in whatever time frame I was focusing on at the time. Anyways, back to the question... The short answer is, I find it is exhausting. While a good part of why I re-enact is to get away from the modern world, it is still an escape for me. In fact, if I took "real vacations" where I didn't get all done up in period clothing etc., I would likely do less than half the events a year I currently attend. So yeah, re-enacting for me is in part a bunch of mini-vacations away from the job, and the modern world. But considering the hours to drive to most of the events, all the running around and often dealing with the public during the "open hours" and everything else, re-enacting while enjoyable to me and something I love, can just be exhausting, and after hours gives me a chance to just kick back and relax. And as I have alluded to earlier in this topic, I find first person frustrating to be in at the best of times, the notion of doing it 24 hours a day, is just more than I can take. Being "in character" for that long, and giving up all the modern conveniences for that long just starts to make it more like work than fun. Sure for those who only get out 3 or 4 times a year, they may have the energy and enjoyment to want those handful of excursions to perfect "immersion" experiences, but for a road weary traveler like me who was out no less than 13 or 14 events last year, and with a current line-up for the coming year that looks just as big... it just gets tiring. Having said all that, I don't try to flaunt soda cans or beer bottles "after hours". I do try to pour my drinks into a more period looking vessel. But I certainly won't go way out of my way to avoid it when "off the clock".

Not a huge fan of categorization, specially when the categorization is so binary as the above is. By the above definition, I would fall into the "re-enactor" category, and I am most certainly not at events for "just the battles". I do a fair bit of demonstrating at many events I attend, but apparently as someone who prefers "third person" to "first person" I can't be a "Living Historian". And I think the statement "he breaks out the soda or beer and drinks from the can or bottle and starts talking about his new Harley in front of the public" is a whole lot out of line. Sterling, while I think you were trying to just make a point here and boil things down, but I think you may have pushed your definitions a little too far. While I know everyone has their preferences, it might best behoove us to at least try and make points and differentiate without disparaging those who prefer the other path. While I do sneak in the occasional modern cigarette (as do many I have seen from the "Living History" side as well) as someone who would fall more into the "re-enactor" category by your definition, I am very conscious about keeping modern conveniences out of site until after hours, as are most of the folks I know that would fall into that category (by your definition).

I am finding the different takes on this really interesting. I like the hard living angle, although because I love my dear wife, and she is more a creature of comfort, I don't get to indulge in the hard living angle as much as I would like to. Particularly because the brand of re-enacting we tend to seek out is something we enjoy to do together (with both of us making small compromises on how we re-enact in order to be able to enjoy it together). I'm guessing that while I haven't made the time yet, my enjoyment of the hard living angle could be why I am starting to be so drawn to the "Historical Trekking/Scouting" thing and wanting to try it out. But on the other hand, I tend to enjoy interpretation (3rd person) more than "in character" talking. Although I find 1st person has its charms, I just find 1st person too draining emotionally. Perhaps i get too wrapped up in a persona when I do it? And if that is the case, my shying away from that aspect of the hobby is likely a sort of psychological self-protection/self-preservation? But that is only a guess, Red Jessi or Mission or one of the other students or practitioners of psychology might have an interesting insight there? I've always also gravitated towards what is often referred to as "experimental archaeology", although I do admit despite the gravitational pull it has for me, I haven't done nearly as much as I would enjoy. (Time, time, time, it is always about a lack of time...) But making things with traditional tools, trying to emulate the practices of trades of the time in conditions as closely imitated to the historic conditions as possible. That to me, is just fascinating and likely one of my favourite portions of the hobby. Singing politically charged songs, and other dastardly things like shooting prisoners and not giving quarter are all fine and dandy, and can be done in a shocking fashion, shocking and doesn't cross any serious lines of taboos. Certainly annoying and bothersome to the tightwads... But there are certainly a fair bit of more dark things that just can't be done or emulated without some sort of wide spread public outcry. And yes, I am carefully trying to talk around this rather than citing specific examples, as I have found even specific mention of some of these things has caused some serious strife and uproar on other forums I am on. Playing the villain is all fine and dandy, but let's face it, we can't take that role anywhere near some of the practices of some of the more nasty pirates. L'Olannais comes to mind as a tamer example. I think Pat Hand's by-line is very appropriate here... "More Rum and Wenches, pirates just aren't PC...." (or something to that effect).

Great observation! :angry: And I do agree with you on the personality part, personality types would have been widely varied (even in that what I believe to be a more socially conservative era). And d'Dogge makes a good point, and likely the most compelling argument for the uneven distribution of persona/character types. Sometimes it is better to show variety rather than reality (like time-line events). And perhaps as he said, the events (those running them) need to define their focus more, and perhaps maybe there should be more events where the reality of the pirate world can be more accurately depicted with regards to ratios/mixes of clothing styles, persona/character types, and personality types.

I disagree here. And using a modern example, I will try to make my point. Picture a construction worker in your head. Is that construction worker wearing an Armani Suit? Or jeans and a t-shirt, with maybe a flannel shirt over the t-shirt if it is cooler out, or tied around his or her waist? Is the jean and t-shirt wearing image of a construction worker typical? If you went to a construction site, would a vast majority of the construction workers there fit that image? I think so. Sure the odd one might be wearing heavy duty cotton pants instead of denim jeans, and sure some will choose heavy duty collared shirts over t-shirt and/or flannel, but there is a very distinctive and generalized look to construction workers, and it is not a stereo-type, it is a mostly true image (yes there are always exceptions, but I am talking about predominantly true images). How does this apply? 300 years ago, being a sailor was a job. Certain clothing was best suited for that job. Pirates are nothing more than sailors that turned to crime for whatever reason or circumstance. Sure there was some variety in sailor clothing from 300 years ago, but it was a fairly common look, with common variants just like the modern construction worker. Sure there were deviations then as there is now, but they would be few and far between... And for the most part (this is my opinion), re-enacting should be about portraying what life was like (commonly), not portraying all the exceptions and rarities. Sure some variety is required to keep the public's attention, but more fancily dressed folks than in common work clothing is as misleading about the life of a sailor as would be someone wearing an Armani suit three hundred years from now to portray a typical construction worker of the late 20th and early 21st century. Sure construction workers may own Armani suits, and would wear them out to formal dinners, weddings, etc. But how often does that really happen, and again, is it being as true to the portrayal as you can be to pander to these rare occasions? Now Mission, you as a surgeon/doctor have a lot more reasonable justification for not dressing the part of a common sailor. A surgeon was not a sailor, and likely would not dress as such. And there are other similar exceptions that would exist on ship. But again, how many exceptions can really be displayed as a part of a re-enactment before it once again slides into a historical looking fantasy with few to none of the commonalities that put those exceptions into a reasonable context? I say all this acknowledging the fact that there are not enough re-enactors to make up what I believe to be a realistic cross section (and possibly never will be), but there are more than enough out there, and especially at certain events to do a better job of it than what I typically see.

Interesting question, and I expect that there will be quite a diversity of answers... And I look forward to them. I tend to try to walk the line. While I acknowledge and know those we portray were often the worst types, displaying such activity (even in mock emulation), crosses lines modern "Disney-ized" society is uncomfortable with. Particularly when touching on some of modern societies taboos. I also try to pander to the level of the audience. I'm more likely to play the jolly rogue to a 5 or 6 year old, but when talking or interacting with an adult, not pull the punches and try and give a greater hint as to what pirates really were. One of the areas I try most to avoid, is the gentleman pirate thing. While there are documentable instances of certain pirates/privateers/sailors that dressed to the nines, I think those were only noted because they stood out and were more the exception than the rule. While the ratio of common sailors/pirates to well dressed ones has improved in recent years, I still think the ratio sucks, and will never likely get to where it should be (in my ideal world, as this is a personal opinion). There are some great examples of what I believe an average pirate should look like here on the forum.. Patrick Hand is often the fist and most shining example I can think of, but folks like Kenneth, any one of the Sea Rats Atlantic, CasketChris, Rats, Shay of the Keys, Mark G, and a host of others I think exemplify this look, and if I didn't get stuck playing the Red Coat as much as I do, the look these folks and others similar to them have, is what I aspire to with my pirate/sailor impression. Back more to the point I think you were trying to aim for, I don't think it is possible to re-enact pirates the way it possibly should be done, so it is really a case of where one chooses to draw the line in the sand on how much to dumb it down and cushion the blow that pirates were really for the most part desperate men who were nasty criminals (without getting into Jungian versus Freudian arguments of circumstances versus upbringing type psychology). In fact, I think a lot of "pirate re-enactors" are starting to focus more on displaying and demonstrating nautical life more than the piracy angle anyways. One could just as easily call the re-enactors that portray pirates, just sailor re-enactors.... But then that doesn't have the pop-culture appeal that gets us spectators to watch and listen to us.

Hey Tartan Jack, I sent you a private message answering your questions. Got you added to the list of those trying to make it! Food is generally pot-luck/pitch-in, and to date we have not run short of food, so as long as everyone continues to contribute, that should continue to go well!

I own two of these pistols, and I haven't had any issue with the main spring being too hard either. I have however found that the sear spring can be a little soft. On the one I bought used, the sear spring pretty much needs to be replaced, on the one I bought from Callenish Gunner, while the spring still works, it is starting to go soft and could probably use some re-tempering or replacing after a year of hard use.

Well, it might not be as traditional, but the method I use starts the same... But has one more step. Once coated, put the item in an oven on it's lowest heat setting for 10 to 20 minutes (time varies by thickness of pitch, heat setting of oven, and other random factors, you just gotta feel it out).. Anyways, the pitch melts into the leather, and the fused pitch/leather is both firm, hard and water proof, but not brittle. Sometimes, I may add an additional coating of pitch inside after doing the first melt into the leather if I think the item needs it. Give that a try and let me know if it works better for you (if you have any of the Townsend pitch left to try it with).

I too have used the pitch from Townsend, and never had a problem with it. I will grant you that it does have a yellowish hue, but when you apply it to leather, it darkens the leather (if the leather isn't already dyed dark), and the yellowish hue disappears. I have yet to see anything I have made with the pitch from Townsend crack or become brittle, but then I don't still have everything I have made with it, but I hope if such a thing happened, one of the folks who bought one of my leather costrels would have let me know. Can I ask how you are applying the pitch? I think your problem may be more one of method than material.

I still can't find the quote I was looking at, but in searching for it, I have decided that I was most likely incorrect, and it was Sarjeants and CorporalsI was thinking of, and not Sarjeants and Ensigns. That aside, I did find the below quote on the value of the various portions of a uniform from this page of the Colonial documents web site..

Fox, please do take that statement with a grain of salt. I was going from memory of something I remember seeing in the colonial papers I cite throughout this thread. I seem to recall the citation as being an order for equipage, and it listing the items for soldiers, then something to the effect of "the same in finer materials" for sarjents, and I think Ensigns were included in that as well.... But now that you question the statement, I can't for the life of me find the citation again. I will keep looking for it, and until I find the quote, please disregard my assertion that Ensigns were provided with uniforms. Bear in mind that military uniforms are not my primary field of research, but I've done a bit. Do you have evidence of ensigns being issued uniform? I'm under the impression that the line is drawn at commissioned officers - everyone up to and including sergeant was issued uniform, everyone over and including ensign provided their own.

While these were not used in the battle, someone at Searle's (2009 edition) had one of these, I asked them about them and they went further to say they used tennis balls, and burnt the "fuzzy" stuff off with a home propane torch, and used the matte finish barbecue paint to get a real nice look, and filled them with some sand to give amore realistic weight to them as well. On the whole, I think these look great, but while it may be safe enough to do in a reasonably controlled environment, is one of those issues that would most likely raise the hackles of almost all safety police (if not the real police as well). Anyone mind if I move this thread over to "The Workshop" area? It is more about "how to make a repro" than it is about what actual grenadoes were about.

It is also a bit post GAoP, but still looks very good and is comparable to what is shown in the Cartagena assualt... But check out the Spanish (artillery?) uniform PyratJoe is wearing in the picture in this link.