Tartan Jack

I believe they adpted the knife pleat in 1794, and the yardege the was 4yrds I believe. of course the size of some of us now means a 6 yrd kilt is still covering the same amount of body. As an aside I once took a regimental kilt, much heavier than what you can normally buy, that was a 29 inch waist, opened all the pleats and repleated it to see the max waist alteration I could ge. It came out that with some creative sewining and redoing all the pleats you could get a 54 inch waist out of it,or one really decent pair of drop front trews. Bob's book shows a Gordon one, from the regimental museum, with 21 small box pleats and 3 yards, 2 inches of material. It dates from 1796. It also has NO taper, is self-fringed on both ends, and looks like it has a button closure. It is made of "hard tartan" and the yellow is silk. (Page 54) Also, there is the barrel pleats in the 1850s in many regiments. Those seem to have fallen out of favor, in preference to the knife pleat. A few of the old regimental knife pleats have the pleats going the "wrong way" around, with the wear implying they were built as barrel pleats which were then altered into knife pleats much later. The VAST majority of surviving 19th century kilts, military or civilian have box pleats. I'll look carefully at Bob's illustrations and note the earliest knife pleat he shows, but I'll do that tonight. I need to be a dad and play with my kids right now! On, and most look to have been straight sewn, no tapers, and many have what looks like suspender buttons (called "braces" in Britain). The above mentioned Gordon kilt has them! Oh, and Bob's book changes my understanding of the 18th century development of the kilt. It is WELL worth the price, for those interested in the subject!

A knife pleat is a type of side pleat. A knife pleat is pressed to a "knife edge." A loose side gather is perfectly fine, I do that often. Also, there is a decent group that now thinks beltloops MAY have been part of a belted plaid and a philabeg, just not blatantly obvious. If you buy and look at Bob's book (All About Your Kilt), he argues for and shows pictures of a couple different ideas. Peter MacDonald, I believe, is another who follows the beltloop idea. Peter is an acknowledged scholar on tartan and kilts, as is Bob. Bob, however, is much more controversial and vocal. I have met Bob a couple times and talked with him for several hours. I think he is right and on to something. If you are interested in early kilts, I would HIGHLY recommend Bob Martin's book "All About Your Kilt." Some disagree, but he backs himself up well.

Thanks. That reminds me, I need to look up when the Gordon's adopted the knife pleats . . . Oh, and the earliest ones aren't that many yards either. Bob Martin's book, in the book seller list link above, gives great historical documentation and dates of the many 1800s kilts in museums. A decent dicussion is in that one of the earliest Gordon Highlander kilts, pleating style and yardage.

Which period? Between 1600 and 1750 there was dramatic development in belted plaids/kilts. The first certain reference was in 1594, or so. The early style: http://www.albanach.org/kilt.html Style worn in 1700s: Pretty much, pictures from 1700 have the belted plaid worn about the same as in 1745/6 (3rd Jacobite Rebellion) After that it was adopted by the military and maintained as a standard till the modern tailored kilt developed. We know what it looked like, but have really NO IDEA how it donned. No one wrote it down for us. Also, there are NO surviving examples. The earliest we have are 4-yard box pleated kilts from the 1800s. So, people have guessed. Here is one way it was put on: http://www.historichighlanders.com/belted.htm A controversial way, but something with substance IMHO: http://albanach.org/drawstring.htm The rest of that site is helpful too. Interesting POV: http://home.comcast.net/~gmcdavid/HistNote...lted_plaid.html The waist down style first showed up in the 1680s or so. As the belted plaid was made of 2 24-28 inch strips of material (the width of the mills) about 4 yards or so long, sewn together length wise to make a blanket (what "plaid" actually means) 48-56 inches wide top-bottom and 4 yards long. In other words, it was 2 pieces of single width material combined to make one double width one. From experience, 3 times your waist usually works well for length of the material. An early "philabeg"/small kilt/whatever name-ya-like, looks the SAME as a belted plaid, but with much less top part. They simply didn't sew the 2 strips together, leaving a single-width 4 yard stretch. It has a good bit (4-6 inches) of material overlapping the top and hanging out. Sometimes, they put a large, wide belt over the top. It was loosely gathered, not pleated and pressed. We also don't know if it was side-gathered, box-gathered, or both. We do know there was plenty of documentable evidence of a "half-belted plaid" in the 1715 Jacobite Rebellion (the one Rob Roy MacGregor fought). So, it was worn then as a "warm weather" variant of the belted plaid. So, for the 17-teens and 1720s, either one works fine, historically. If looking for pictures, look for pictures and books on the Jacobite Rebellions and that period. If doing reenacting, DO NOT where a modern, knife pleated, 8 yard one! The earliest surviving kilts and most from the 1800s are ALL 4-yard, box pleated examples, except for TWO examples of what is called "Kinguissie" pleating (one in the Kinguissie Folk Museum and the second in the Scottish Tartan Museum in Franklin, North Carolina). Most are set to stripe or NOTHING AT ALL! When "The Kilt & How to Wear It" was written by The Hon. Stuart Ruaidri Erskine in the 1901-1903 (various editions), he praises the "new" idea of what we call "pleating to sett." He also references and de-cries the "new and exessive" use of 6-8 yards of material. Also, he discusses the pros and cons of the new-fangled side pleating, over and against traditional box-pleating. So, the "classic" knife-pleated, 8-yard kilt is only dated to approx. the 1890s, as is pleating to sett. The older style was 4-yards, box pleated, and actually often pleated to nothing at all. It was also straight waisted (no tapering) and no-lining. The first "real" tailored kilts were of that style. Even THAT, a sewn-together kilt is AFTER the GAoP. If interested, I could go on and reference several books. Most of the ones sold here are good: http://giftshop.scottishtartans.org/books.htm A forum wherein I am a mod is for kilties: http://www.kiltsrock.com Oh, and the only real difference between typical period "highlander" kit and "seaman" kit is slops/belted plaid. I'm sure a stickler could argue fine points, but most overlaps just fine.

I think I started the ship color thread: http://pyracy.com/index.php?showtopic=9889 I was wondering about its use on shipboard items, like chests, lanterns, carriages, and general use as an item cover.

After several more years of looking . . . NO proof ANY kilt-clad, belted plaid clad, or "philabeg"-clad pirate was EVER seen in the Caribbean during the 1600-1720s (the GAoP, even by the longest dating)! That said, MUCH of the period common-man and seaman period correct patterns presently sold are based DIRECTLY upon Scottish bog finds. They were worn my Scotsman who got lost, killed, drunk, or otherwise ended up dead in a bog, sunk, and were preserved. Kass based her "seaman jacket" pattern upon 3 particular Scottish bog finds, one with NO PANTS, a scrap of tartan, and the rest dressed. In Scotland of the period, people tended to wear multiple garments at the same time (several pairs of pants and several jackets, one atop the other). Instead of a suitcase or bag, they just wore it. Still, some dies of exposure through multiple wool garment layers. Also, after YEARS of regularly wearing pants, shorts, and kilts and belted plaids (AKA great kilts) . . . There is NO WAY a belted plaid would have been worn in the Caribbean. One worn in South Carolina (cooler than the islands) in the summer is dangerous without LOTS of water, cooling fans on "high," and A/C. It is just too much wool, to warm for the heat. A kilt is OK, temperature wise, but would be impractical for shipboard activities. An early version, basically the bottom half of a belted plaid (gathered, not pleated and pressed and held up by a belt and possibly a drawstring), is worn as it is practical and comfortable. On a ship, slops would make a LOT more sense. So, from a documentable POV and a practical POV, it didn't happen, not in the 17-teend, not in the Caribbean. In the Western Isles and North Sea, maybe, but we aren't playing Western Isles/North Sea pirates . . .

I dug this thread up looking for other info. I was wondering if anyone new could add to it or benefit from it. As for my own projects, I have located some great light wool from 96 District Storehouse in Abbeville, SC. I have some material for the appliqued emblems, but they are a bit heavy. One has the edges sewn and another HUGE one (so as to be period) sits in my wool material truck still.

Anyone have new opinions on ship/boat colors?

This was interesting. It should not be lost.

No one know?

I think it is less the inability to see facts as much as the inability to see facts BEYOND our own perspective view of those facts. So, our POV shade the way facts are seen. Thus, end result (the way the perceived facts are put together in our heads and reason) may or may not reflect the truth of what actually happened or the way things are, OR may even be shades off the truth. Thereby, the perceived reality may be around the truth or be "off" in one way or another, YET not be accurate to the reality that caused the facts. Clear as mud? (I want to type more, but need to go back to work . . . )

I would agree. Humans are subjective by nature. As much as people can strive for objectiveness, it is fleeting and impossible to achieve completely. The best we can do is to recognize our subjectivity and try to balance it out. Humans ≠ objective (Thanks Mission, I couldn't remember where that sign was on the keyboard options and lacked the time to search)

Wikipedia is OK for a quick over-view and to provide some basic understanding for FURTHER research. One thing I have found is that it manages to explain complex stuff simply, esp. how things work and the difference between similar stuff. That said, sometimes the author either makes mistakes or oversimplifies into error. Each article varies, so some can be great, while others can completely suck. In recent years, Wiki has worked hard to raise its standards and, as cited in the above linked article, removing "too good to be true" statements without indicated sources. Wiki is seeking to get rid of the "bad," sucky articles.

Very true. What I said (intended to say): It is an artists ATTEMPT to portray women in seamen garb. It is too tight of a fit compared to other period illustrations of sailors. The cut looks "off," but the pieces (as in what they are) look right, in general. A better thing would be to look through Foxe's collection of period sailor drawings. It looks like much of poor-man/sailor's clothing was often made on only a few sizes and often fit poorly, worse than I would like to wear myself. By modern standards of mass-production fit, they often look a bit "frumpy." Your friend now needs to decide intention, inc. place/group where said outfit is to be worn. -Is it with an established reenactment group? If so, what are THEIR standards? -Is it for general "pirate" events? If so, the standards are often pretty lax. -Is it to recreate the illustration look, as close as possible? If so, that is pretty cool and interesting in-and-of itself, plus an interested tale when worn. That said, some groups (like Sterling indicates) would like something more "period generic" (my words, NOT Sterling's, I'm NOT speaking in his place and don't intend to so do). -Is it for some OTHER purpose? IE-> WHY is the garment set being made in the first place, that indicates what level of "weight" should be put on the illustration. -- For total accuracy in a portrayal, the more common and "period generic" you can make it, the better. Ex. Would a pirate have EVER worn a belted plaid on a ship? Maybe, esp. if in the Western Isles or around Scotland. BUT, it would NOT have been worn in the Caribbean (for a number of reasons) and recorded accounts (primary sources and period secondary sources) have little-to-no historical indicators of belted plaid clad Scotsmen on board a pirate ship on any major voyage or any group that reenactment groups are trying to portray. So, I leave my belted plaids for my Jacobite stuff and don slops using only the stuff that does overlap (which a lot does). We need not to make the uncommon common and the common, uncommon.

It is period accurate, from Johnson's book. As for being specifically Mary Reed, it is an illustrator making a woman in seaman's clothing. If used for the basis of a period garb, you could do MUCH, much worse. It IS period and is an attempt to portray a sailor.

I have sailed on lakes, but its been a long time and I don't have a boat. I want one of my own.

That is between you and Stynky Tudor . . .

Many moons ago, I had an email address ending in pyracy.com. I don't remember the password and don't have a link either to find a log-in. Does this service still exist? If so, I REALLY need it for some stuff coming soon. Plus, my username with piracy.com would look pretty cool on my Scion and Scottish forums, where I'm known as the resident pirate. Thanks, Tartan Jack Wages

I'll be at a Scion gathering in Charleston, SC, to celebrate that city's chapter's anniversary in Scikotics (a national Scion car club). I'll be celebrating!

Cruzan Black Strap, first tried at the suggestion of BlackJohn and it is now my favorite rum. Any good Scotch, they are all so different, but each is great in it's own way. Smokey Mountain Quaich, "Highlander In a Jar" A friend's special moonshine, usually made with the addition of peaches and peach slices. EXTREMELY good, just "difficult" to transport . . . When MUST remain sobre: My own concoction of tea (orange pekoe and black w/ 1/4-1/3 cup of sugar per half-gallon Coca-Cola Mountain Dew (Pepsi's orange-lemonade stuff, NOT to be confused with SMQ) Cheerwine, a southeastern regional American cherry drink-> based in North Carolina

You log looks AWESOME!!!! I need to redo my log . . . It looks shameful in comparison to THAT!

Johnson is more "accurate" than Gone with the Wind, but less than a primary-source document. GWTW is rooted VERY closely in several mansions and persons in the Atlanta area. Local historians can name-names. Tara is closely based on the Mitchell family's plantation, but with elements of others thrown in. One of the influencial people/places is Jonathan Norcross and his mill-town north of Atlanta and one forgot the name) south of downtown that WAS in the general area of what is now the Atlanta airport. Yet, Tara, Rhett Butler, the O'Hara family, et cetera never lived. It is a dialogued instance of what would now be called "historical fiction" with a fictional person based on one or several real people in real events. I was surprised that GWTW is as accurate as it is. Yet, it wouldn't hold up to some of the better present standards of "historical fiction." It was a fictional novel written CLOSELY based on real people, places, and events. She was not attempting to write history, but fiction. That said, Johnson lacks a central plot to drive historical inaccuracies, lack (in general) central characters that serve to "engage" the reader. Fictional people are in the manner of Capt. Mission, who are likely a morality tale rather than historical entities. Johnson and Mitchell had different motives in what they wrote that influenced HOW they wrote them, though BOTH aimed at actually selling books. Mitchell wrote fiction rooted closely in real history, while Johnson wrote popular contemporary history. What I think: Johnson TRIED to write history, using what he could get his hands on. He did better to question his resources than Heroditus,, who wrote EVERY myth and legend (ie-> EVERY good story) he knew or could find. BUT, he did worse than many modern historians would have found even CLOSE to barely acceptable in a scholarly work. If it was a PhD paper, he would have failed. So, Johnson is (like folks above have said) somewhere in the middle. He used good sources, though those sources were often altered and embellished before HE got his hands on them or talked to them. Also, many of his sources had their OWN agendas at play when he talked to them. Former pirates either downplayed their own actions and blamed others or "upped" the reps of those fellow pirates they admired. Pirate hunters and prosecutors would up-play the evilness of those they brought to "justice," to both encourage what they did and elevate their own hero status, as well as to justify any of their OWN "pushes" of the law to stop the "evil" men being captured, imprisoned, and hung as pirates. Now, this book is one of the few contemporary sources still available to most readers. Primary and news sources are difficult to locate, IF they survived the last 300-ish years. So, many modern writers look to Johnson as the "Gospel of Piracy" and don't even BOTHER to look for what should lie behind Johnson's book, namely primary source materials. They just glean a summary of Johnson as "history" and write it ALL as fact. I started this as I was curious how ya'll felt/studied, and if ya'll knew specific parts that WERE more reliable and those that weren't. Also, this discussion should (hopefully) aid a new non-historian background person to learn to question his/her sources and see the complexity of contemporary materials, which Johnson IS. It was written on the tail end of the events recorded and within a decade of many of them. Aside: It is remarkable to me how quickly the fascination and "birth" of the mythical pirate image emerged after the events themselves. The roots already are beginning in Johnson. Of course, THAT is whole DIFFERENT discussion, namely the arising of the popular myth of pirates, counter to historical pirates.

I though ya'll would find the wording in it. The monument sits on the Northern edge of "The Battery" on the Cooper River side, toward the Yorktown naval aviation museum. The monument in context: The park, with the monument just to the photographer's right The Monument itself: The text:

What's the fun of blanks? As for sloops, it is surprising that so little info and picts are readily accessible, esp. when they were BY FAR the most common used general type by pirates in the GAoP.

Where is the boat? How BAD is it?