dasNdanger

Yeah...I am familiar with it...though I must admit I love wrinkly linens!! But for a coat I guess wool would be the way to go - NOW, to find someone to make the bloody thing since I have a hard enough time staying focused long enough to sew a button on... kass said that they would have worn coats all the time, except, perhaps, when working. That said - would that apply to EVERYONE, or just the 'gentlemen' - those who were better off, or those 'posing' for pictures? Regardless of fashion, many pirates were very impoverished - so would everyone, even the lowliest of all - go about in a coat? (Can ya tell I'm trying to wiggle out of wearing one??! ) K - now that I have the coat to worry about - what about the neckerchief? Would this have been linen or cotton - how long, what shape, what color, does it matter? GoF - yeah - light-coloured trousers are what I usually see - but I REALLY hate to wear white, before or after Labor Day! IknowIknowIknow - wouldn't have had a choice way back when...but I'll figure something out. What about brown or navy blue?? Were those colors popular at that time?? About the axes, I wondered about them, too - esp. in the second set of pictures. I would think, perhaps, that not ALL axes were traditional spiked boarding axes...I mean, as pirates they would have scrounged around for anything they could use, so I suspect if they stumbled upon any sort of axe, it would go into the 'armory'. Mine, unfortunately, doesn't have the spike - it's a nice throwing hawk, though, and the size works well for me. das

No worries - I don't do polyester! *shudder* That's like wrapping yourself in plastic! No worries, there, either. Jet black would look too fresh and new (they aren't that dark anyway), and based on another pair that I have worn, I figure after a few washings, and a day or two in the sun, they will be nicely aged and faded to a dark grey kinda colour. Just not too sure HOW far I should go with them...do I cut and splice until I lose the pockets and have a button fly? And how much 'wear' should they have? Tear and mend them and such, or just wash and wear and see what happens naturally?? I will be looking for something else in the meantime - it's usually not too hard to find these rough cotton trousers around where I live...and I'll check a few on-line suppliers, too. 'Breathing' fibers or not, I am SO gonna die in a coat...gah. Thermostats can't be set highter than 62 degrees F. in my house or I faint. I SO wanna live in Scotland!! I love the cold and the rain... So - since I have this 'coataphobia' - any suggestions as to what would be the LIGHTEST weight coat I could buy/make/wear and still be accurate to the period? Would they all be woolen, or something else? Any good sites around to 'shop' at?? sheesh, I'm a pain in the arse, aren't I? das

Yeah - that too! That's actually what I meant. Some slits stop at about the top o' me cleavage, but they are usually the lace-up type which you really don't see (I have one lace-up one, but I laced it backwards - not criss-cross but running the laces up through the holes on each given side - then letting the laces dangle from the top like a traditional sailor's shirt). Anyway, I have seen the more traditional shirt with the tie at the top and the long slit down the front, but have passed on them because the slit nearly goes down to me navel! So perhaps I can find something in the middle somewhere. K - I tend to be a wild woman and prefer my hair down and free!! ALTHOUGH working aboard ship it wouldn't be very practical or safe. I have to tie it back whenever I go sailing or doing maintenance - so perhaps they did pull it back when working, and let it loose when idle. Either way, I guess I'm covered... That's great! I have a pair of cotton trousers (black - I have a thing for black ) that are about the length shown in those pictures - not wide like slops, but not tight, either...really very similar in appearance to those pictures except for color and the fly. See, the problem is they have a draw string waist and pockets. Hmmm...wondering how I can alter them. I have a friend who is a wonder with needle and thread - I'll see what she thinks. I prefer these over some of the trousers I've seen at faires and re-enactments because they are relatively light-weight. Yeah - I'm trying to figure out exactly how they are worn in those pictures...hard to really tell...(they DO look like a 1984 Madonna-style tied scarf!) I'll just wing it if I decide to go that route. Thanks for helping. Now I have another question... In these pictures - and in many others - most everyone is wearing coats or jackets. Frankly, I cannot for the life of me comprehend how anyone could wear a coat in the tropical heat! So, why coats? What about vests (waistcoats or whatever they may have been called) instead of coats? das

Does that mean it would be historically accurate to do the same at the next faire or re-enactment???!! Hmmm...I wonder if Mardi Gras beads are historically accurate, too... Okay, lemme be serious for a moment. I would like to know more about the trousers. In pictures they are usually light in color...would they have ever been dark? Brown or black, perhaps?? Or only the lighter colors? In that year, what would they have been made out of? Linen? And can anyone tell if these ladies are wearing stockings of any sort? Another thing I noticed is that in all four pictures, the women are carrying or holding axes. Was that an artist's addition, or is it likely that they did tote them around (this would be a good thing since I got a nice one last summer). das

Ah - see you might not be too concerned about this little bit, but as a woman, I am. I always figgered they tried to conceal the boobage, but according to these pictures, they didn't. That has a lot of bearing on how low the neckline of my shirt should be, because I have passed up several low cut ones like that 'cause of the BCs... Also, a hair style has as much to do with authentic appearance as anything. Again, I have long hair and have wondered if it should be tied back in a queue, or allowed to hang freely. If I go according to these pictures, then free-flowing hair would be correct. Which brings me to the scarves vs. hat thing. If the eyewitness account said they wore 'handkerchiefs tied about their heads..', then the hats may have been an artist's interpretation and not really what they wore. Now - about those scarves. Any idea HOW they would be tied? Like a traditional 'fantasy' pirate ties one, like a Russian grandmother, or like Madonna, c. 1984? Any thoughts? das

GAAAAHHHHHHH! VOO-DOO scenes??!! I SO know this is gonna be just like Weekend at Bernie 2... Pirates of the Caribbean: Weekend at Barbossa's II plot summary: In a continuation of the story in Pirates of the Caribbean, Jack and Will are wrongly accused of Barbossa's acts of piracy and are promptly condemned to death. To clear their names, and to get some well-deserved compensation, the two use the voodoo-revived corpse of Barbossa to track down the hidden loot. Unfortunately, the voodoo spell didn't quite work, and Barbossa can only move when he hears catchy Calypso music... *shudder* das

Sorry... (it's ALL JR's fault!!) Actually, I DO know where you were going, and sorry about the pooch... Thanks for the eyewitness quote, too! Some things I find interesting: According to Dorothy Thomas, the women wore LONG trousers. Hmmm...could this be because they were shorter than the men, and therefore the slops were longer on them? Or where they wearing something other than sailor's slops? In the pictures, it shows their breasts practically bare - were they likely to be so exposed, or could that be a bit of artistic license? In both sets of pictures their hair is unbound. Why? Again - is this a way for the artists to show that they were women? If these two 'passed' for men, then wouldn't the flowing hair be a dead givaway to their sex unless male pirates also wore their hair in a similar fashion?? das

Okay - if the dates on the engravings are in question - then what about the eyewitness accounts? I don't have anything on the ladies (not interested in dames, as a rule... ), so if anyone can post the account of how Reade and Bonny were attired, I'd appreciated it. Just as with illustrations and engravings of Native Americans, artists were known to take liberties when it came to clothing, hair styles, and facial features. Not sure if any of it can be trusted 100%. Eyewitness descriptions should be more reliable...as long as there isn't any embellishment. But even there you are dealing with individual perspectives, prejudices, and faulty memories. So, how does the saying go?? 'Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see'?? Something like that... das

As I hear it, they just rubbed two wenches together and went from there... *crawls back under rock to avoid grenades* das

BLASPHEMER! An un-believer! Persecute! Kill the heretic! *dangles from her toes over pit of embedded swords, daggers, and pikes* PLEEEEEEEAAAAASSSEEEEE forgive me! *grovel, grovel* I was just saying that in the context that I always chose the long line at the supermarket checkout, the wrong lane in heavy traffic, and buy a new electronic gadget the day before it becomes obsolete - so I just figgered I'd finally get my kit (and act) together JUST when no one wants to play pirates anymore!! das

Hey - my hubby let's me play with Jack - he just rolls his eyes and goes back to watching Desperate Housewives... He doesn't care about me having the doll, especially since I pointed out to him that Jack's pants don't come off... *DANG!!* das

Hey, Do pirates who served in the navies of other countries count?? Wasn't de Grammont in the French Navy?? Not 100% sure - been a while since I read about him... das

Ye be a better pirate than me! I read parts of the first two, and jumped right to the last... To answer the original question...I blend both, but lean more toward authenticity. Shoes are always my problem because period, custom-made ones are just too expensive for me, and then there is the issue of being on one's feet all day...If I could, I'd just go barefoot. But since I can't, my shoes are usually the least accurate part of my costume because I prefer wearing sandals (all leather, nothing faddish or dated - but still not in keeping with authentic footwear). But other than that, I try to wear something that at least can pass for the period (though it might be cotton...but no polyester or other man-made materials). I don't carry a firing pistol, but again, I'm dealing with a budget. It's a lot cheaper to buy a good replica, and all the little 'accessories', and if I am in a position later on to get the real thing, I'll be ready. And most of my accessories are in keeping with the 18th century in general. I don't really have anything that screams a certain date...it's all pretty generic. Why - if I would prefer to be authentic, do I mix the two? Several factors are involved: 1. Money - it's a lot cheaper buying off the rack than having things custom made or ordered through catalogues. And I do not sew (I can, but have no machine, which costs money, and hand-sewing takes forever...and that's not compatible with my short attention span). And that leads me to... 2. Time. I just don't have the time right now to devote to the research and development of a 100% accurate kit. Perhaps in 5 years - when the pirate craze is dead, I'll FINALLY get it all together as i would like it to be...but for now, I have to be satisfied with what I have. 3. Time to actually WEAR the costume. I only have time for a few weekends sometime between mid August and the end of October to attend the PA Ren Faire. I don't go to other faires or festivals, and don't have the time to join a re-enactment group. I am spread very thin, between full-time work, domestic responsibilities, volunteering (including on the Meerwald), and other social committments. Having such a full schedule, it's just EASIER to throw on any ol' thing and go to the faire to 'unwind' and have fun...and sit by the kiddie fencing arena to watch sexy Leather Man with tattoos all over his bod-eeeeee.....*drool* ..oo..did I just say that out loud?? And then there is the reason for doing it. If I was a reenactor trying to educate the public - if I chose that - well, with my perfectionist gene and all - I would want to be dead-on accurate...and wouldn't rest until I was. However, I am - at the moment - not trying to educate anyone but myself...and here is where I rely on my imagination to fill in the blanks that my wallet and time won't allow me to fill otherwise. From reading all the replies I often wonder if pirates got into similar debates over attire? Perhaps there was a mutiny or two over the fact that someone was wearing outdated trousers or too big a feather in his cap! das

okay - know let me see if I got this right... It seems that - although working smaller guns on smaller ships with smaller crews, pirates would have basically kept to a discipline and order similiar to the navy when it came to handling guns - right?? I mean, this would make sense. Not that they were 'imitating' naval practices - but that there were only so many ways to handle a very dangerous and sometimes temperamental weapon, so a certain routine would have to be followed if any sort of effectiveness was to be achieved. Of course, the scope of the whole operation would be smaller, but other than that, there would have been a similiar organization, correct? I assume pirates avoided major battle whenever possible - but there were those times when it became necessary, and I would just like to be able to have some understanding of it so I can participate in discussions on the subject, should they arise. If you have anything further to add, please do! And thanks so much for all your input, I really appreciate it!! das

GGGGGGUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHH!!!! You HAD to gimme that link, didn't ya... *drools over primative metal thingys* I am such a ...how do I put this... a 'wood, metal, pottery and stone whore' it's not funny. China and crystal and shiny things just don't impress me - THIS is the sort of stuff I love. I went crazy last year at a Revolutionary re-enactment, buying up all sorts of forged goodies - but they don't come close to these. I prefer the 'rustic' look of this work...it's very fine indeed. I do have a steel - not sure how good it is - it's just a basic striker the sutlers offer at these events and I STILL haven't gotten a good spark (mind you - I practice like - two minutes - then get distracted and move onto something else). I REALLY need to stick with it - and get more flint and a longer attention span!. Funny - this brings back memories of my teenage years. When all the other girls were dating and fussing over makeup - I was back in the woods with my dog after a snowfall, building fires (I cheated and used matches ) under an old cedar that doubled as a 'fort', roasting hotdogs and pretending it was rabbit! LOL - I was so pathetic. Of course, I'm not much better now - only now I'm nestled in the 'ship room', filled with old oak barrels and cannon balls, belaying pins and lanterns, manila cordage and blocks, and a whole bunch of other stuff lacking the delicacy usually associated with the fairer sex. My poor hubby - when we were first married he complained that I had a couple lacy pillows in the living room - now he's complaining that I have too many cannon balls!! Men - just can't make 'em happy... das

I think the non-talking ones are the 7" ones, right?? (I'm on dial-up right now and don't wanna check the linkage.. ) I have the 18" one, it really looks good. The voice is not Johnny's (I heard that it's one of the other actors from POTC, though - Greg Ellis. He's the officer who says, 'That's got to be the best pirate I've ever seen'). I cannot verify that, but I've heard it from a couple of places. Anyway, I like talking Jack, but I have to keep him switched off because he can get REALLY annoying!! I guess I now know how Norrington felt when Jack just wouldn't shut up!! LOL!! I would've wrung his scrawny li'l neck if I had been ol' Norrie!!! das

Thanks everyone!! I'll look into Townsend - thnnks for the lead. At least I have a few months yet to get things together, and a lot I have or can make. I'll let ya know how I make out!! das

YER WRONG!!!! hehehe - nah, actually, ye be right... :) Pilfered this excellent information from the Pusser's Rum site (me personal fav): For well over 300 years, Great Britain's Royal Navy issued a daily "tot" of Pusser's Rum to the crews of their ships - and always a double issue before battle and after victory! First introduced into the Navy in 1655 as a substitute for beer, by 1731, it [rum] was in general use. And the name Pusser's? Nothing more than a corruption of the word "purser". On board ship, the purser was responsible for ship's stores - including the rum. Everything that came from the purser was called "Pusser's" -- and still is today. Hence the name Pusser's Rum! The history of rum in Great Britain's Royal Navy was largely that of social change, both in England and the Royal Navy. From 1650 throughout the 18th century, shipboard life was incredibly difficult. The daily issue of Pusser's Rum was the highlight of the day. Then, too in those days, battles were fought "eyeball-to-eyeball". The mental alertness and courage required to pack a cannonball into a muzzle loader were far different from that required to operate the modern weapon systems of today... On the Origin of "Grog" and Vernon's Orders Over the centuries, the amount of rum changed from time to time. Prior to 1740, Pusser's Rum was issued to the men neat, that is without water. They received 1/2-pint twice daily! Admiral Vernon (pictured at right), the hero of Portobello and the Commander-in-Chief, West Indies Station was very much concerned with what he called the swinish vice of drunkenness which he believed was caused by the men drinking their daily allowance of rum neat, that is without water. He believed that if the same amount of rum was mixed with water, and then consumed that it would reduce drunkenness and discipline problems for which the punishment could be brutal. Thus he issued his infamous Order to Captains No. 349 on August 21, 1740. His order stated that the daily allownace of rum "be every day mixed with the proportion of a quart of water to a half pint of rum, to be mixed in a scuttled butt kept for that purpose, and to be done upon the deck, and in the presence of the Lieutenant of the Watch who is to take particular care to see that the men are not defrauded in having their full allowance of rum... and let those that are good husband men receive extra lime juice and sugar that it be made more palatable to them." The sailors, or "Jack Tars" had affectionately nicknamed Admiral Vernon "Old Grog" from the "grogram" cloak he often wore on the quarter deck. The watered rum gave great offence to the men, and soon they began referring to it contemptuously as "Grog" from the name they'd already provided Admiral Vernon. Thus, true Grog is Pusser's Rum and water with lime juice and sugar! The "scuttled butt" in Vernon's Order eventually became the "Grog Tub" from which the daily Grog was issued. Petty Officers received their Pusser's Rum 'neat' directly from the Spirit Room at 1100 hours daily when the bos'n piped "Up Spirits!" to herald the event. The issue of Grog to the rest of the sailors followed one hour later. Changes in the Issue The ration - or tot - was later increased to two parts water and one part rum, and in 1756, the daily ration of Pusser's Rum was increased to one pint per day, per man. Finally, just before the tot ritual ended in 1970, it was reduced to one-eighth pint... (Entire article: http://www.pussers.com/rum/history ) So, it seems that during the GAoP - the navy would have been drinking either straight rum, or perhaps still forcing down skunky beer. This is interesting, because I knew about the change from straight rum to grog, but I never paid attention to WHEN the change went into effect (another reason I heard for the grog is that it couldn't be 'hoarded'. Sailors would save up their rum rations sometimes, drinking it all in one session, leading to many shipboard problems. Grog, however, will go bad if saved more than a couple days, and anyone drinking it would get very sick. Thus serving grog prevented 'binge drinking'). Hmmm...so, using the term 'grog' in association with the GAoP is flatout wrong - no question there! das

Johnny said that he came up with it because he liked the idea that Barbossa was in dreaded fear of having folks discover that his real name was Hector! NO idea what possessed JD to think of 'Hector', but when I was watching Ed Wood, I noticed that the cabbie in one scene has his name written on the door of his cab, and the name is 'Hector'. Perhaps JD got a chuckle over that name when filming, and decided it would be a good one for ol' Barbs - who knows... das

Now first of all, PROMISE not to laugh...k?? I found this little bit in the T-L Seafarers/Pirates book...perhaps not the best source material, not sure. Anyway, it reads: Some of the pirates were deserters from Royal Navy warships. Other Navy men drifted into piracy through unemployment caused by the laying up of fighting ships at the end of foreign wars. "War is no sooner ended," John Graves, the Bahamas' collector for Customs wrote in 1706, "but the West Indies always swarm with pirates." But the vast majority of pirates was drawn from the crews of ordinary merchant ships. Of course, this isn't really anything that hasn't been said - except for what Graves states, which I take to mean that as soon as the wars ended, the Indies were swarming with pirates, supporting what JR mentioned earlier. Personally, I wouldn't imagine a 'majority' of navy men turning to piracy RIGHT out of the navy. But what about men who had once served in the navy and then went to merchants before turning pirate? There is no way of knowing just how many had navy 'experience' sometime in their lives, besides the ones who were famous enough to end up in history books. Another thing I wonder about is the reporting of men who turned to piracy. I can imagine merchant ships keeping a pretty accurate count, because these men, whether through capture or mutiny, became pirates in the performance of a crime - making it more likely to end up in a report somewhere. But navy men either turned pirate during times of peace (when it would be hard to keep track of their actions), or through desertion. Now, let's take the latter - I'm not so sure the Navy would want it to be common knowledge how many men may have slipped out from under the King's or Queen's nose in the pursuit of wealth through piracy, ESPECIALLY if they were not caught and brought to justice. Not something you want the rest of the poor, oppressed bastards on your decks knowing about. So the navy MAY have reported the deserters, but I doubt - even if it was highly suspected - that they would ever suggest the deserters had turned to piracy. das

No problem there - always knew the difference between a Hollywood pirate ship and the more practical vessels actually used. Perhaps I should have asked this question in the sense of it being a 'hypothetical situation'. If a ship was large enough to carry a dozen or so guns, would the crews basically follow the same routine as on a naval vessel, or would things be all willy-nilly? The reason I ask is because I want to understand the difference between organization on a pirate ship compared to that of the regulated environment aboard a naval ship, which I am more familiar with. Trying to 'unlearn' bad habits, I suppose... Okay - that said, let's just say they DID have to fight. So, would they have been organized like a standard gun crew?? Would they stick to designated duties, or switch around? With a smaller ship (say - hypothetically, a brig), fewer and smaller guns - how many to handle them? What postitions? 4 man crew with captain, sponger, loader, handspikeman - more, less (someone else?? Drop the bloody designations??)?? Would they have stuck to specific duties, or would it be first come, first serve and whoever reached the gun first was captain, like a child's game? So you're saying it's unlikely for a pirate crew to bother with any sort of gunning drill? I think it would be a waste too, like JR said, a scary black flag and fearsome reputation often did away with the need to actually fight. But what about for entertainment? Would they have engaged in any sort of gunning practice for a little friendly competition? Or would it be too big (and senseless) a risk to draw unnecessary attention to their ship by firing guns simply for 'sport'?? Gah! I have so many questions!! das

I have a question regarding the arrangement aboard pirate ships when it came to handling the guns. I am more familiar with the naval system in which X amount of men were assigned to a gun depending on its size, each given a designation and duty to perform. When manning the guns on only one side of the ship, the larboard and starboard crews would combine to form a larger crew to handle a single gun, with first and second gun captains, loaders (rammers?), spongers, and then other positions - depending on the system & country & era - such as side tackleman, shellman, train tackleman, handspikeman and probably a few designations I've missed. Anyway, my question is this - did pirates adhere to a similar system? Did they have organized 'gun crews' assigned to specific guns (and if so, would they be referred to as 'gun crews')? Did they hold positions within that crew such as the navy did - and if so, what designations did they use if different from above? Did they have practice drills? If so, considering that they probably had limited shot and powder, how would they practice? Any help and information you can give me will be greatly appreciated!! Thanks in advance! (and NOPE - this is not for 'fan fiction' but for my own personal edification :) ) das

OOO! If you close your eyes and click them three times, do you get transported back to the GAoP??! Oh, wait..that was ruby slippers....sry... As I understand it, red heels were all the 'rage' amongst the aristocracy, and perhaps middle-class gents imitated the fashion, but I have a question: Would either a middle- or upper-class gentleman wear them as 'travelling' shoes?? And, if they did have them, would they be stowed away until he reached his destination? And would a pirate, a rebel against class destinctions, chose to wear 'em or toss 'em overboard? Personally, I like the idea. The shoes would have a history and story all their own, adding another colorful layer to your persona... das (eep - I'm not a gent, hope ya don't mind me 2 shillings )

WOT??!!! You wanna pinch his BANANA???!!! PIRATE!! das

Heard about this on another site, and frankly - it has me scared...I mean, weren't blood debts and eternal damnations already covered in the first one?? das