Calico Jack

Largely have to agree with Mister hand, here. Shoes vary in importance, depending upon environment. Generally socks and shoes are a must, when ashore; evidence seems to be equally weighted about shoes or barefoot on deck ["experimental archaeology" folks on the forum suggest that shoes are a must in rigging], so barefoot is excuseable in the right environment. Starting with "almost right" is a good way to get involved whilst you settle on your period and persona and acquire your knowledge. The first post's suggestions are, of course, assuming GAoP ["Great Age of Piracy"] from around 1690 to around 1720, give or take. I'd recommend the knitted cap [Monmouth if possible] in an appropriate colour over a head-scarf, plus it is a chance to learn to knit [Heh!]. Manly arts, knitting and sewing are - or at least were. Once you have "almost right" you can settle on specifics whilst "in traces," and thus won't be spending lots of money on, say, 1680 clothes when you're hoping to do 1725. This is especially true for the ladies, if they are not "being men." Even the oh-so-famous Anne and Mary were reported at trial of having been dressed as ladies except when in action. They dressed as men for combat, say those that were there, no matter the pictures in Johnson's book. So, "almost right" whilst you figure out what is "right," at which point you can exchange parts of your costume as you acquire, becoming more accurate [or more cinematic] as you afford. History is, after all, for everyone, not only the wealthy.

John Paul Jones was a pirate in that he served the American Navy, capturing vessels along the Nova Scotian coast and in the Indies, but he did so in early 1776, before the American revolutionary congress declared either independance or war. As such, even had he a letter of marque, since the "nations" were not yet at war, he could not be a privateer. Without a declared independance, he was a British subject, aboard a ship from the Colonies, capturing British merchant vessels for profit. Hero to the upcoming Americans [who declared independance in July 1776, some 5 months after Jones' depradations began] or no, Jones was in fact, a pirate. That said, piracy does have folk on these forums who regard it as larger than the GAoP. Last pirates hanged here in Halifax was 1844. Last recorded incident of piracy that touched home here was 1863, where some Confederates with forged Letter mutinied and captured a Union steamer Chesapeake and sailed her to Halifax to try to avoid the Union. [Aside note: Harper's Weekly of the day called them "British Pirates!"] The Union then sailed naval vessels into British waters, instead of requesting extradition, and attempted to sieze the pirates in British waters, by force. It led to some poor politics, and to Confederate sympathy, that the Union which was declaring about sovereignty did not respect the sovereign territories of others... Very interesting incident. Anyhow, piracy goes back to at least Julius, before becoming Emperor, who was captured by pirates [that one has been recorded for history]; and it goes until at least 23 August, 2007. There has not been a reported incident of piracy since, as of the date of this post.

Philip Ashton. Esquemeling. James Ferguson. Maggie Jordan. Jones, Hazelton, Anderson and Tevaskiss from the Saladin. Moore was a mutineer, but not a pirate, as it turns out that Kidd wasn't a pirate either. The man did have those French papers to prove them legitimate capture. They turned up in a desk, hundreds of years later... Still, should I keep going? There are quite a few. I have not even started on the surgeons, or those fellows from "the Chesapeake Incident" during the American Civil War [who, it turns out, did NOT have papers, and thus were NOT privateers], or any of Ned Low's crew... The hard one is to name a Ren-Faire pirate that is not a captain [grins].

Crown and anchor does go back a ways, but only a little ways. Early 18th century, popular amongst British, American, Australian sailors. A better choice would actually be Liar Dice [Disney almost got something right!], 'though it is not played as it was in the movie. Also called "Perudo" by the Spaniards, Liar Dice is still played today, and dates back to the mid 16th. There are a number of modern variations, but differences are thankfully few. The core of the game remains the same, and remains simple. As good a source as any: http://www.perudo.com/perudo-rules.html

http://www.costumes.org/history/leloir/jus...orpspattern.jpg - a 1705 justaucorps pattern from Leloir. In fact, doing a google image search for "justaucorps pattern" turns up a good number of "period" patterns [for justaucorps, and sleeved waistcoats]. http://www.costumes.org/history/100pages/1...8thpatterns.htm is where the above comes from, specifically, and they have a number taken from period texts. Their page at http://www.costumes.org/history/100pages/LELOIR.HTM looks at the end of the 17th century, as well. [Mostly from Leloir, Maurice, Histoire du Costume, although Leloir did not write the book itself until the late 1800s, as an academic guide for historical costumes...]

Ah, the Jail Fever. Remained a problem 'til well after the GAoP. Outbreaks often occured in the navy after bringing new crew aboard, so may well have happened for yer pirates two, under similar conditions [new crew]. The "close quarters" were an excellent environment for any disease spread by fleas or lice or bodily fluids. That much we have for certain, from the writings of assorted Ship's Surgeons ['though they most often did not realize that was what they were describing; we've a better theory today as to how the Jail Fever and the Malaria are spread...].

WOODALL, JOHN. The surgeon's mate, or military & domestique surgery... London: Printed by Rob. Young, for Nicholas Bourne, 1639 This book is your first and foremost, I think, and is so whether doing GAoP, Rev War, or even 1805 [it is a classic!]. Trouble is, a cheap repro is a hard thing to find [if you find one, do let me know!]. Even other forums bemoan that the Surgeon's Mate has yet to make it into Project Gutenberg. http://www.piratebrethren.com/forum/viewto...topic.php?t=434 Reconstructing History have suggested that they're hoping to produce an affordable, if not actually cheap, edition in repro, but no sign yet. [alas] [EDIT: a more comprehensive bibliography on the subject has already been made by someone else, and can be found here: http://www.cindyvallar.com/surgeonresources.html - You'll note there are a few issues of No Quarter Given that are of interest, and they include bibliographies themselves. Most books and articles will be looking either early or late for this period, but you should be able to cobble some good research together. I do recommend Brown, Stephen R. Scurvy: How a Surgeon, a Mariner, and a Gentleman Solved the Greatest Medical Mystery of the Age of Sail. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2003; although Lind does not perform his experiment for a couple of decades past the GAoP, it is a good overview book of Scurvy, what it is, the many treatment theories, and such. Plus it is quite readable. Little, Benerson. The Sea Rover’s Practice. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2005, is an ex-navy seal and reenactor; text must be taken with a grain of salt as "experimental recreation," but it is also a good read. The medical information is a small fragment however. The Mary Rose museum's "Barber Surgeon" pages are of interest, 'though Tudor in focus.

As BlackJohn pointed out, a Careening camp is also an excellent reason to have everything, including the proverbial kitchen sink, from aboard ship. In such case, the more the better! Make liberal use of any small props and tricks you can think of, to increase the effect of the camp. Makes it nicely Authentic, too. Scurvy and the like are fun, even to establish a small part of the camp as Scurvy-ridden [blacken teeth]. Depending on your surgeon, Scurvy can even be considered communicable [!]. As mentioned in an earlier post, whilst the "quarentine" sign is appropriate enough for our Navy camps, it seems less likely for a pirate hospital... A surgeon's station nearby would be a good indicator in exchange. Lots of your surgeon's chosen remedy [purgatives, or bleedings, or exercise and fresh air] too. In all, I think your careening camp might be the most useful excuse of the many possible at any rate. So... tangent done, and back to the topic at hand? Good "easy" and "cheap" tricks to indicate a nautical/maritime encampment of pirates, as distinguished from the [pick a navy, and navy] Navy?

[grins] Staying slightly off-topic, I certainly agree that not all started as skilled sailors. Farmers' sons, fishermans' sons, inkeepers' sons... Similarly, some "impressments" were not of skilled sailors, either. One notable for me was a number of Lunenburg NS farmers, who were impressed by a Halifax press gang during a night of boozing following the weekly market. Their story even made it to the local Admiralty Court, which is how it made it into the historical record. That said, those farmers were rated Ordinary, which means 'though they were not good sailors, they were sailors none-the-less. Plus, by the time they made it home, at least several had rated Able, so were at least passable sailors. Unless taken aboard as a Marine, or as a Warrant Officer equivilant, even those tailors, haymakers and tinkers would be sailors. They might not start out very well at it, but even Rogers suggests that they will be passable once they have got their sea legs. He even hopes to be successfully manned with this motley crew. A few privateers do seem to have had a "shares" notation for Marines, as differentiated from sailors [the way a Quartermaster, say, is differentiated], but most seem not. What pirate Articles survive also seem to imply that rarely were a Marines equivilant considered, as separate from actual ship's crew. To use the automotive turn of phrase again from my comparison in the post above, many drivers are poor drivers. This does not mean they are not drivers. Some poor drivers even learn to be good drivers, 'though not all by any stretch. Those that do not, remain drivers, but only poor ones.

Netting and net mending are quite simple, depending upon which knot you choose to be using. I often teach netting with the museum [since we don't just focus on pirates]. The technique I use and the netting needle I use are broadly appropriate as far back as the vikings in Newfoundland, so should be appropriate for the GAoP as well, but folks will want to check it. One typical knot: And a needle design for something "personally made" rather than bought: Me, I prefer the French Hitch knot for netting, as it is simple, easy to do even in the dark below decks, and is easy to teach. Also called the Ring Hitch, you can see it here. And at the bottom here: Whew!

The question fo wooden or iron barrel hoops [which crops up now and again] might be answerable by someone who visits and asks in Missouri - [Emphasis mine.]

Also not picking on anyone, but for what it might be worth, here are my observations: First, do notice that you both said exactly the same thing here, but phrased it as a debate. Both suggest that most times when ashore, you would be in port [what sort of port, naturally differs sometimes between pirates/privateers/navies, but port none-the-less]. Both suggest that camps would be unusual. AnnaMarie suggests that a camp as we think of it would be more likely when careening, BlackJohn suggests most common when assaulting a town but that it would not be as we think of it. Therefore, let us all set up the following: this discussion appears to be about Careening camps, then. This is appropriate, since the companion threads are in regards to the PiP Careening Camp. Alas, when you go bare minimum, you also rely on the audience's knowledge of the era to some extent as well. More show and tell means less reliance on the audience already being informed. And as someone who works in museums, I hold grave misgivings about the general public's historical knowledge and understanding of most any era. It is true. Normal sailors did not often steal their stuff. Unless, of course, said normal sailors were privateers, most of whom appear to be "normal sailors" out to make some quick money during a given war, by sailing under a privateer. Take out the words "pirate" and "sailor" and instead insert "student" and "drug dealer." They are criminals, but this likely does not make them less sailors. Especially including the many accounts of sailors "taken" or "offered" during captures. Those sailors who sign on the Account from captured ships were, in fact, sailors. Else they would not have been sailors on the captured vessel. Ned Low [my personal favourite] seemed to acquire many of his crew(s) in just such a fashion. [EDIT: Ooh! Better comparison! There is a young fellow recently in the local news for street racing his car and causing a horrible accident. Take out "pirate" and "sailor" and instead instert "street racer" and "driver"! Difficult to be a Street Racer car versus car, without being a Driver as well...] And Hand, amongst others, I care [grins]. But I think the debate, such as it is, entails less about "period" and more about "event." That is to say, BlackJohn, I've noticed in other trheads your large concern about not just what year is being represented, but also what specific event. Is is a careening? A siege? A night in port? The sack of a specific town? Which captain(s) was historically involved in that event? This is a common question amongst Civil War reenactors, who generally even have scripts as to which soldiers go where on the field and who "dies" when. Do you folks have a specific careening in mind for the 1720 [not 1729][grins] careening camp? And finally... using some quick secondary source searching, I've come across citations from North America claiming Ditty Bags to be from the first world war, citations from North America claiming Ditty Bags to be from the 1850s, and citations from the UK claiming that Ditty Bags appear in books from 1700 "about" the navy... but being pieces of poor scholarship, they do not give a citation for the books in question from 1700. I'm having some research done by me and others over the next bit to try to track down just how far back does the ditty bag go. Because I want to know if it is accurate, as well as atmospheric. [grins]

A few different spots, in truth. The shot with the boat was Louisbourg, Nova Scotia [as was the first, wee little tent]. The tent with the brown canvas included is at Fort Anne, Nova Scotia. I don't think she included pictures of any of our other "usual" encampments.

Agreed. Folks should buy him boats like those at regular intervals. And at irregular intervals, at times which don't fit into that schedule, I suppose I will accept gifts of the others [grins]. Actually, really want to find a way to convince the Museum to build one of the 1700s Navy Longboats. They are good for the 1800s too, which means we could use it at most any of the reenactment events that we go to...

Aha! Well, that makes a difference. I'm on more certain ground with costuming approaching the "French and Indian War" period in the middle of the century. Ten years' difference makes a small difference for men's, and likely a large difference for women's costuming. Still, I'll now start thinking 1720 instead of 1729. My own pirate interests are principally Ned Low and company [spriggs, etc]. That hits as late as 1725. Heck, Low only hit Shelburne NS in 1722. As such, I just figured that you folks had some local pirate down there in the late year of 1729, and were using him as a template for the camp.

Yes, but again, part of the point is that the list should be inclusive, for those who cannot afford the prices of, amongst others, Kass. A combination of Mary Diamond's list with the "cardboard mock-up fake" might then suit the intention of the thread. I think, if 1729 is the aim of this list as well, that a bonnet of some sort under the straw hat would be necessary as well [thus saving any money elsewhere would be a good thing]. Time invested is another consideration. Bare minimum standards. The aim of the original thread was, it seems, to find a minimum standard which is easily attainable for those who are arriving and wanting to shift from RenFaire to PC for the event, and who might thus be lured into eventually doing Period Correct more often... Yes, women's costume is necessarily more extensive than men's, but we still must be able to build a relatively simple list that won't require hundreds of dollars and weeks of effort. Again, as "poise" and "élan" go, mannerisms are an excellent and inexpensive addition to a character's "costume," so can anyone give a few good mannerism hints? The equivilant to Sterling's note on "how to bow."

Well, as mentioned, cargo hooks have been around since at least the mid-1800s; whilst they are symbolically the icon of longshoremen and dockers [even being the symbol for the 1930s longshoremen's union and strike in the 'States], they have likely been picked up as a useful tool by any occupation which deals with moving bales or bundles, whether a ship is involved or no. I've used one myself [!], but alas, that only dates it back to this past decade or so [grins].

But that still does not answer the question of dates and period. How far back do dockers'/stevedores'/lonshoremen's cargo hooks go? Anyone have an answer?

She does, 'though as these threads are looking for bare minimum standards for involvement [so as not to drive off those new to the hobby with large investments], and as women's clothes have much more involved than do men's clothes, requiring new folks to shell out 12 per yard for linen rather than 3 per yard for a linen/cotton blend might not make it the most accessible. The stays concern is the most valid - a lack of stays beneath your clothes [which is, after all, where stays belong in an historical costume] is noticable. Stays are, however, not the simplest of projects, nor something that can be knocked up in a couple of hours for those first looking into shifting into Period Correct events. Ladies - has anyone here found a good way to simulate stays? Is it possible to pull a good "fake" on stays, since they will be under clothes? Consider it similar to using machine stitching on inside seams, to save time and effort. Since only the effect of the seams is visible, and not the seams themselves, most will accept such a "fake." So how about with stays? How can they be "faked" so as to not require an advanced bit of tailoring effort, or large sums of money? [Edit the first: As for poise, it is true that poise is free, but it is also true that not all folks of period are ladies or gentlemen - some are even lower class. That said, lower class in 1729 is not the same as lower class today. Mannerisms change, and that I think is the intent of the je ne sais quoi. Figure out the mannerisms of your period, and use 'em as you can. They are free, and add lots of authenticity to even the minimum standards of garb.] [Edit the second: By the way, thanks Hand for starting these discussions. Folks must be interested - they even get debate going! That's a sure sign of interest.]

By which do you mean a longshoreman's cargo hook, such as this one? There is of course the not-terribly-useful-but-ubiquitous Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longshoreman%...%E2%80%99s_hook and a slightly more useful Smithsonian look at more modern cargo hooks at http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/co...object_178.html I am not sure, however, just how far back the longshoreman's hook goes. 1800s? Certainly. Earlier? I don't know. Anyone have the scoop on that? Anyone know any dated artifacts to push well past the 1850s?

Well for a look at Stocking Caps and where they come from, check out http://www.nachtanz.org/SReed/thesis/sdreedthesis.pdf Stocking caps are specifically explained and explored starting page 33. As regards Stocking Caps such as this one, the thesis comes to the conclusion that they were still rare in the 1490s and early 1500s. In part this was geographical, being most common in Burgundy/Flanders/Netherlands. Red was more common than brown as you near 1500 [though was common, apparently, from 1400 on at least], and red more common than brown in Burgundy/Flanders/Netherlands as well. Most Stocking Hats had tassels, again looking at 1490 to 1519. Not sure that the info confirms anything for anyone, save that between 1490 and 1519, the woolen stocking hat with tassel, in red or brown, with limited decoration, was appropriate. Honestly says nothing for 1729, of course. One more source gives that hat style as accurate for GAoP. It's a re-enacting group, admittedly, as well, but supporting evidence: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheArchangel...tes_privateers/

Hm ... I think you got your shoes backwards - that is to say, shoeless on deck is why holystoning exists. Leather shoes on salt-spray decks quickly leads to no shoes. Barefoot in the ratlines seems to be more common historically. And again, you don't holystone the deck to keep splinters out of the sailors' soles, but rather out of their feet. Shoeless on land is what would be odd.... [Edit: In the many discussions on the topic in Captain Twill, visual and documentary evidence is available to support the idea that some sailors wore shoes on deck, whilst others were barefoot. Rather than discount either set of evidence arbitrarily, the assumption must be that both were options.] As far as the hats, the Monmouth is the best , and covers a VERY broad historical period. It is however a pattern that is [legally] very tightly controlled, and thus potentially quite expensive for those living outside the UK. Lots of "fakes" are readily available, even as patterns off the internet. Like real linen [blends and fakes can be as cheap as a dollar or three a yard, where real linen is often 12 dollars or more the yard, which is no small difference for many who are not exceeding wealthy]. The Monmouth is reasonably "fake"able, however, and a number of folks can give good ways to fake the cap [whether by knittiong a SIMILAR but not exact pattern, or by using a lanolin-in wool tuque and wearing the fold on the inside].

Ah, you're showing your reenactor colours, Hand. P'raps they plan merely to hang it on a wall and never carry it at all. [grins] Of course, I'd suggest hanging the Real Thing myself, but there you have it. Collector of movie replicas rather than player with the toys, or collector as an investment. But Hands' suggestion still holds. Why not go the extra and get a "replica" that is the "real thing" instead?

<<Period Buckle or lace-up shoes are strongly encouraged Sandals or bucket boots will pass, but only because the ground is coral (Safety First)>> As a note [yes, this is not the "real list"], might also want to mention when someone can do without [at many events, say, "barefoot" is perfectly acceptable, and quite affordable]. <<If you have any questions, or for availability of loaner garb post in the Careening Camp thread.>> The "loaner" notation is quite encouraging, and will give chance to discuss with those unsure, what they do already own, whether or not they realize it. <<It takes time to put together good authentic garb, But with encouragement and helpful advice (not criticism) our hobby and the number of authentic Pyrates will grow.>> Agreed. This is true of all reenacting, so pirates would be no exception. <<think we also might need a few pictures showing minimum garb.... and then what a few additions to the garb can do..... >> Excellent idea. Even a "shirt and britches and barefoot" shot, for the bare, bare minimum; to compare with a very few [but visually interesting] period "accessories" or "enhancements" to that minimum. Retain the intent to show how it can be within a reasonable budget of money, time, and effort. Remember not to scale up the "additions" shots too high [not "compare this minimum to this shot of someone who has spent 485 work days, and $512481 dollars" but "compare this minimum to this shot of someone who has added these couple of extras that they made over a couple of weekends"]. After all, the guide seems to be aimed principally at those being introduced to the historical pirate reenactment; just a reminder [probably un-necessary] not to lose sight of your audience.

I also understand the need for a good "fake" [cottons instead of some linens, etc] for some gear. I also recommend setting a simple list of bare minimums - inclusions rather than exclusions, with some suggestions for optional additions or replacements, and a couple of period images ["this is what we are aiming for"] if possible, for inspiration. This can accomplish two things additionally: it can help remind people to dress as crew [can't have all captains]; and it can help people remember that when wearing "fakes," you need to be able to explain to the public what is NOT accurate about your costume, when curiosity is roused [materials chosen, "pattern is off by four years from 1729," etc]. Oh, and agreed, the images are great!