Accurate "Deckhand" Garb

[Captain Midnight]

A little off the subject but that is a great painting, after I read this thread I was interested to find out more. There are several pages of history about it  here

Nice...thank you for the link.

"John Singleton Copley's Watson and the Shark was inspired by an event that took place in Havana, Cuba, in 1749. Fourteen-year-old Brook Watson, an orphan serving as a crew member on a trading ship, was attacked by a shark while swimming alone in the harbor. His shipmates, who had been waiting on board to escort their captain ashore, launched a valiant rescue effort.

John Singleton Copley, Watson and the Shark, 1778. National Gallery of Art, Ferdinand Lammot Belin Fund 1963.6.1"

Just out of curiosity, does history record the fate of the boy? Was he rescued, or did the shark get him? I sure hope he was rescued...

[William Brand]

As the sailors hurried to Watson's aid, the shark repeatedly attacked the struggling boy.

During the first assault, the shark stripped the flesh from Watson's right leg below the calf. In the second attack, the shark bit off Watson's foot at the ankle.

Copley minimized the gore associated with such an attack, but traces of blood are visible in the water and on the shark's mouth. The composition is cropped to suggest the right foot is missing.

In April 1778, while Copley's painting was on exhibit in London's Royal Academy, a detailed description of these horrific events was published in a London newspaper. The text, believed to have been penned by Brook Watson himself, describes the scene in excruciating detail, ultimately reassuring readers that thanks to the surgeon's skill, "after suffering an amputation of the limb, a little below the knee, the youth received a perfect cure in about three months."

Watson eventually became a successful merchant in London. It is likely he commissioned the painting from Copley, whom he probably knew through members of the artist's family. Copley and Watson probably met in London during the summer of 1774, when the artist was passing through London on his way to Italy. On August 17, he wrote, "To Morrow I... Dine with a Mr. Watson."

Watson later abandoned his mercantile ventures, turning to the political arena. He briefly served as Lord Mayor of London in 1796-97.

Watson's political opponents made frequent, occasionally derisive, reference to his early ordeal. One suggested that had the shark bitten off Watson's other end, a wooden head would have served him as well as the wooden leg.

Oh! Had the monster, who for breakfast eat

That luckless limb, his noblest noddle met,

The best of workmen, nor the best of wood,

Had scarce supply'd him with a head so good.

The shark attack made an indelible impression on the British statesman, who often recounted tales of his youthful adventure in the Caribbean.

When he became a baronet in 1803, Watson specifically requested that his coat of arms include literal references to the terrifying ordeal. With the Latin motto Scuto Divino, meaning "under God's protection," the design places Neptune, god of the sea, at the apex, brandishing a trident to repel an attacking shark, and in the upper left corner of the shield, prominently displayed, is his missing right leg!

Watson owned the painting until his death in 1807. In his will, he bequeathed it to Christ's Hospital, then a boy's school in London, expressing hope that his personal triumph over adversity would serve as a "most usefull Lesson to Youth."

[Captain Midnight]

Fascinating! Thank you for that, William!

[William Brand]

The thank you goes to pyrateleather for the link.

[Desert Pyrate]

Hate to rehash the old "shoes thing", but Foxe, Gary, et al are completely right.

I've spent a lot of time aloft... never without shoes. I do have a couple mates that have, but it's more to say that they've done it.

A waister whilst the ship is becalmed or moored might very well go barefoot for part of the day, however. I've done that many a time, for scrubbing, painting, etc. But shoes really are the order of the day.

The one time I've been barefoot in any kind of weather was a mistake. I'd rowed ashore, and a storm came up. My shoes were off because I didn't want them waterlogged. After getting back aboard, I was trying to head below to get shoes whilst waves were breaking over the ship and she was pitching. Slipped, and my feet slipped crack into a gun carriage. Still got the scar from that, and I was sort of useless with a banged up foot. It's just not likely that 18th century deckhands took poorer care of their feet than 21st century deckhands on similar vessels.

FWIW.

[MadMike]

Rope sandals existed in one form or another in a variety of cultures dating back thousands of years, documenting what they looked like and if worn by the GOAP sailor is the problem-

For example-

16th Century Spanish

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/calderon/clothing.htm

"This going barefoot was one of the hardships that our Spaniards felt most of all among those that they endured on this discovery. For after the battle of Mauvila, where their extra clothing and footwear were burned, they were forced to go without shoes. Though it is true that they made some, they were of untanned leather and of deerskins, with soles of the same that became a shapeless mass as soon as they were wet. Though they might have used the abilities they showed in other, more important and difficult things in making hemp sandals such as the Spaniards in México and El Perú and other places make, they could not do so on this expedition to La Florida because they found no hemp or other material of which to make them. The same thing happened to them with regard to clothing, for as they found no blankets made of wool or cotton, they dressed in deerskin, and a single short garment served them as shirt, doublet and coat."

Yours, Mike

[capnwilliam]

A little off the subject but that is a great painting, after I read this thread I was interested to find out more. There are several pages of history about it  here

Nice...thank you for the link.

"John Singleton Copley's Watson and the Shark was inspired by an event that took place in Havana, Cuba, in 1749. Fourteen-year-old Brook Watson, an orphan serving as a crew member on a trading ship, was attacked by a shark while swimming alone in the harbor. His shipmates, who had been waiting on board to escort their captain ashore, launched a valiant rescue effort.

John Singleton Copley, Watson and the Shark, 1778. National Gallery of Art, Ferdinand Lammot Belin Fund 1963.6.1"

So, a painting done nearly 30 years after the incident by an artist who wasn't there constitutes evidence that one of the rescuers - apparently a deck officer - wore shoes. Ergo, able seamen of the era ordinarily wore shoes?

So, if a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge told me when I was in college that his rifle had jammed during the battle, and I pained a picture of him trying to clear his rifle - which I made an M-16 in the painting - that is evidence that the U.S. Army carried M-16s during the battle of the Bulge?

Capt. William

[Coastie04]

About the shoes...

I've climbed rigging many times in everything from steel toed boots to barefoot. Foxe is absolutely right about the pain involved with climbing barefoot. It's just not fun. Beyond the possibilities of spinters from the deck and rope, there's the extreme hazard of kicking something sharp (or blunt, both hurt). As Capt. Sterling mentioned, on a pitching deck, it's extremely hard to control one's movements. It doesn't really matter how experienced a seaman you are, when the boat's rolling and pitching, the deck is awash, and you're trying to do some work, it doesn't matter if you know where the "foot hazards" are. Chances are, they'll move in those conditions. Also, even the extremely inflexible steel toed boots I was required to wear on CGC Eagle gave me no problem with "gripping" the rigging. So, to make conjectures from my experience, I'd have to look at it like this: There are many benefits to wearing shoes and it doesn't create a problem in the rigging. Thus, it's a good idea and if I was a sailor in the GAoP, then I would want to wear my shoes, even if they're worn out, wet, or expensive.

Coastie

[William Brand]

A little off the subject but that is a great painting, after I read this thread I was interested to find out more. There are several pages of history about it  here

Nice...thank you for the link.

"John Singleton Copley's Watson and the Shark was inspired by an event that took place in Havana, Cuba, in 1749. Fourteen-year-old Brook Watson, an orphan serving as a crew member on a trading ship, was attacked by a shark while swimming alone in the harbor. His shipmates, who had been waiting on board to escort their captain ashore, launched a valiant rescue effort.

John Singleton Copley, Watson and the Shark, 1778. National Gallery of Art, Ferdinand Lammot Belin Fund 1963.6.1"

So, a painting done nearly 30 years after the incident by an artist who wasn't there constitutes evidence that one of the rescuers - apparently a deck officer - wore shoes. Ergo, able seamen of the era ordinarily wore shoes?

So, if a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge told me when I was in college that his rifle had jammed during the battle, and I pained a picture of him trying to clear his rifle - which I made an M-16 in the painting - that is evidence that the U.S. Army carried M-16s during the battle of the Bulge?

Capt. William

Why did you quote that particular passage from this thread? I was just talking about the history of the painting itself. However...

This painting was painted in 1697 by Abraham Storck. Almost every visable sailor in the painting is wearing stockings and shoes.

[Matusalem]

Well, the chap by the fountain confirms the tricorn/headscarf.

[blackjohn]

Well, it is 1697 in this painting, which means hats cocked on three sides are becoming more and more common. Though honestly, your eyes must be better than mine, because I don't see the figure wearing a three-cornered hat with a headscarf beneath it.

[Matusalem]

Mr Blackjohn, the photo is saved as an .art file ( I'm not familiar with this format) and my version of photoshop can't open it up, which is why I can't enlarge to examine. Whatever the guy is wearing underneath his hat looks to big for hair (wig? c'mon.) . ...guess I'll have to find the picture.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Let me help...

Interesting.

Short jacket (is that a blue and white checked shirt underneath?)

Slops (short style) or Petticoat Breeches with drawers or Breeches underneath.

Definitely a scarf/handkerchief under his hat, and it looks to be a tricorn/cocked hat.

Lots of goodies in the whole painting... Thanks!

GoF

[William Brand]

Here is a wonderful little find...

...Cornelis Claesz. van Wieringen

details...

[MajorChaos]

If our shod rescuer is a deck officer, then by definition he isn't a deck hand, and wouldn't be tasked with climbing the rigging.

I'm pretty sure that I've read somewhere that the midshipmen were required to go aloft into the rigging. How else would they learn all aspects of the ship and I believe some of them were even watch leaders which required them to be in the rigging.

[Capt. Sterling]

Here is a wonderful little find...

...Cornelis Claesz. van Wieringen

details...

Great find! Pity the poor fellows flying through the air!

[Rats]

What a nightmare that would be...

[theM.A.dDogge]

but i bet they got one hell of a view of all the action!!...well until they landed anyhow.

[Carlislekid]

ChThe Starter Kit: A description of the very basics of the 18C seaman's attire

Shirt: A basic 18C style shirt is appropriate. A checked pattern is ideal and known to be popular among the "tars". White is good as well. Linen is what folks wore.

Contrary to popular opinion, sailors mostly wore trowsers (long pants). The trowsers would be natural/off-white/white linen material and would come to above the ankles (flood pants). See the above drawings. Sailors did wear petticoat breeches, just not in the majority.

Trowsers:

Sailors generally did not go barefoot. Indeed they had there own style of shoes. They looked like basic 18C shoes, but were very flexible with very thin, low heels (boat shoes if you will). Good luck finding a set like that. So we wear 18C style shoes, with buckles.

Shoes:

Stockings: Woolen stockings are appropriate in dull colors. White, grey, brown. The horizontal striped stockings aren't necessarily wrong (we haven't seen them in artwork though), but they sure make one look like a "pyrate". Pyrates...bad.

Neck Cloth:

Instead of neck stocks and other tight fitting finery, sailors wore loosely knotted cloths around their neck. Called "sweat rags" they were often silk and often patterned, especially for "going ashore". Solid colors are appropriate as well. They do not have to be black. Bright (period bright that is) is better.

Jacket:

Tars wore jackets, mostly of wool. These jackets were much shorter than the popular jackets of the period and were, as such, identifying marks of a seaman. Single and Double breasted jackets both existed. Navy blue was popular, but not dominant as it was to become during the Napoleanic period. Grey, Brown, Green were also popular colors. In hot weather, a linen short jacket is appropriate in natural.

Three styles of hat were prominant during the F&I period. The first was the knit wool cap, of which the monmouth style was most prevalent. The round hat was beginning to appear in its sailor-style short brimmed version. The cocked hat was beginning to lose some of its earlier popularity, but was still common. As you can see above, it was short-brimmed and not taped. It doesn't look like other cocked hats. Other styles of hat were worn, after all sailors did not have uniforms, so it was their choice.

eckout the HMSRICHMOND reneactors wbsite, or the HMSSquirrel.

[Patrick Hand]

I was reading the chapter on "The life of Captain Davis" in A General History of the Robberies & Murders of the most notorious Pyrates by Captain Charles Johnson when I came across this interesting bit.....

and having ordered out the boat, he commanded six men in her, in old ordinary jackets, while he himself, with the master and doctor, dressed themselves like gentlemen; his desighn geing, that the men should look like common sailors, and they like merchants;

I'm wondering ... if Pyrates dressed like common sailors, then why did Davis's crew, have to "dress-up" to look that way..... in "old ordinary jackets"etc.....

Did they dress differently at other times ?

[Captain Jim]

I'm not sure how to read that one. Were their jackets ordinary because that is what they usually wore and it was mentioned to contreast with what the captain, the master and doctor wore? Or were they ordered out of finer garb to create the illusion mentioned? Can't say.

[Patrick Hand]

Or were they ordered out of finer garb to create the illusion mentioned?

That's kinda how I'm reading it also.......

Just quessing that they would be wear nicer clothing than common sailors, so they had to "dress-down" to look ordinary......

[Fox]

Contrary to popular opinion, sailors mostly wore trowsers (long pants). The trowsers would be natural/off-white/white linen material and would come to above the ankles (flood pants). See the above drawings. Sailors did wear petticoat breeches, just not in the majority.

Trowsers:

Only just noticed this post, and as informative as it is I can't help commenting. Both Richmond and Squirrel groups are portraying later periods, so while they are both informative they're not necessarily applicable to GAoP.

In the GAoP trousers were a relatively new invention (they seem to appear actually during the period), so I would dispute that "most" sailors wore them this early. That "many" did I agree with, but slops, petticoat breeches, and normal breeches were all very common.

Sailors generally did not go barefoot. Indeed they had there own style of shoes. They looked like basic 18C shoes, but were very flexible with very thin, low heels (boat shoes if you will). Good luck finding a set like that. So we wear 18C style shoes, with buckles. 

Shoes:

I wonder how flexible the ASC "double soled" shoes were.

Regarding the Davis quotation, it has been debated before with no real resolution.

It may simply imply a distinction between pirates "in" their normal clothes and the pseudo-merchants "dressed in" finer stuff (noting the language used in the original text).

On the other hand it may indicate pirates deliberately dressing down from their norm, but if it does then it's only one of a small handful of pieces of evidence of the practice, compared to a larger amount of evidence of pirates actually just looking like normal seamen.

The passage opens possibilities, but as evidence it's really too vague to draw any conclusions from either way.

[Patrick Hand]

The passage opens possibilities, but as evidence it's really too vague to draw any conclusions from either way.

But it's the vagueness of the passage that cought my eye.....

I'm not saying that they put away thier turbans, and ninja outfits (well the could have worn them.... .... ok I'm being a jerk about that...)

I'm just wondering about what "finery" Pyrates would have worn..... "dressing" above thier "station" and such.....

Yah... I know.... opens up a whole can O' worms on that one.....

But I'm still wondring.......

[theM.A.dDogge]

ok...just a thought here.....so no shootin....

there are plenty of refferences of what common sailors wore(law abidin)

there are plenty of references about pyrate tactics....the one that catches my eye is...tryin to scare them into submission...hence hoistin the pyrate colors an such.......

so...my question is....in the vain of tryin to look "scary enough to force a surrender"...would the common sailor purposly "dress like a pyrate"...as to seem more vicious and scary?....

modern day example....bouncers...they all look the same...big bad and mean...like they could kick yer arse......but do ya know if they can really fight or not???,,,,me either...to scared to try them....

and thats kinda my point.....

if at sea...about to engage another ship...would a "pyrate"...dress the part....to put the fear of GOD into the other ship?????

any ideas on this one?????