The Mercury Crew

[Capt. Sterling]

Ye do know Silkie came to my rescue.... SILKIE, while the rest of ye just sat there and laughed....

Me: "Help!!!"

You all: giggle, giggle, snicker, snicker... "Oh look at the stars!!"

Me: "Damnation woman, Let GO of my arm!!! Help!!!"

[Silkie McDonough]

And all I had to do is lay claim to the captain of the Arch Angel ...grab his arm and monopolize his conversation.

[Misson]

And Mission...is there any evidence for those leather lace up corsets? Just curious, I know they would bind glass flasks in leather for protection...

Is there any evidence for a pirate crew name-branding their sea totes?

While I like getting things as right as I know how to, I think slavish adherence to what we can absolutely prove is sort of silly. (Blasphemy, I know.) And unrealistic. As in statistics, its the silent, uncounted majority that often reveals the true story of the event. I've little doubt that someone, somewhere, during period wrapped their mug in something such as leather to protect their hand from the heat of the coffee (which is period) and liked it. So they kept on doing it and may have endeavored to tie it somehow. It's nigh impossible to prove otherwise.

[William Brand]

They don't all have to be the same snapsack or wallet. I'm just looking for a broad item everyone can us in their kit. In fact, even if Lily makes them all the same, I would still encourage people to modify them according to their own taste and needs.

[Capt. Sterling]

And Mission...is there any evidence for those leather lace up corsets?  Just curious, I know they would bind glass flasks in leather for protection...

Is there any evidence for a pirate crew name-branding their sea totes?

While I like getting things as right as I know how to, I think slavish adherence to what we can absolutely prove is sort of silly. (Blasphemy, I know.) And unrealistic. As in statistics, its the silent, uncounted majority that often reveals the true story of the event. I've little doubt that someone, somewhere, during period wrapped their mug in something such as leather to protect their hand from the heat of the coffee (which is period) and liked it. So they kept on doing it and may have endeavored to tie it somehow. It's nigh impossible to prove otherwise.

Only problem with that theory is

they didn't drink coffee out of mugs...

[Misson]

While I like getting things as right as I know how to, I think slavish adherence to what we can absolutely prove is sort of silly. (Blasphemy, I know.) And unrealistic. As in statistics, its the silent, uncounted majority that often reveals the true story of the event. I've little doubt that someone, somewhere, during period wrapped their mug in something such as leather to protect their hand from the heat of the coffee (which is period) and liked it. So they kept on doing it and may have endeavored to tie it somehow. It's nigh impossible to prove otherwise. 

Only problem with that theory is

they didn't drink coffee out of mugs...

Never?

If you were three hundred years in the future, would you think that people drank wine or ate cereal out of coffee cups? I do this all the time (coffee cups - lazy bachelor Misson's container of choice). Until I wrote this, this fact (or data point would be more accurate) probably hasn't been in print. (Or maybe it has. Since the 60s, we have become so fascinated with ourselves, schools have provided most people with the ability to write and the web has given everyone (it's free to residents at most libraries) an outlet. So I could be wrong.)

Having spent the last 6 months searching out every authentic pirate account I could find in the quest for data on period surgeons, I was amazed by how little there is out there. And what there is contains scant info on day-to-day behaviors during period. We only know what people did from a remarkably small group of data that was put down by those in the classes that could write and who had the time and inclination to do so. This is why I think it's silly to insist upon absolute adherence to what we know. What we know is a very small subset of what was. I'd be more inclined to believe that lazy sailor bachelors who could do so also drank things out of whatever they had handy - especially pirates, who did things like knocking the tops of bottles with weapons and tools rather than open them properly.

Should we wear spandex? No, clearly not. We can pretty well pinpoint the arrival of spandex in history (more or less). However, humans are whimsical tool using, creative creatures and if they had coffee, a pewter tankard and a piece of leather...why would they never assemble all three? If you don't like the coffee explanation, what if the pewter tankard was left out on deck by lazy bachelor pirates in the hot Caribee sun long enough to be warm to the touch? (Ok, it's a stretch that it would get that hot.) Or it was left close to the fire on shore? Or several other possibilities. (This is all probably a discussion better suited to Twill, however. In fact, I'm sure it's be hashed out there so many times that my contributions would be of little merit.)

[Capt. Sterling]

To coin Kass MaGann's all too true phrase.. Don't make the common rare and the rare common. And just because you may do it now a days doesn't prove folks did it then....

[Misson]

To coin Kass MaGann's all too true phrase.. Don't make the common rare and the rare common.

And vice versa. Many people have this idea that everyone from the 19th century back were hidebound and non-creative in their approach to things. Why would this be so? Human creativity is actually as common as dirt.

Since we're citing, as someone pointed out to me, there is a notion that all antiques are well-made. This arises because the antiques that survive are, in fact, well-made. However, the common articles of a bygone era are cheaply made for every day use and thus do not usually survive. The further back you go, the better made something will generally have to be to survive. However we often assume that the rare, surviving well-made items were common when, in fact, they were not. We don't always know what was common. Most of what we have to record that era comes from the upper classes who had the better made items and could write and pay for portraits and such from which we infer ideas about what is period correct.

[Capt. Sterling]

To coin Kass MaGann's all too true phrase.. Don't make the common rare and the rare common.

And vice versa. Many people have this idea that everyone from the 19th century back were hidebound and non-creative in their approach to things. Why would this be so? Human creativity is actually as common as dirt.

Since we're citing, as someone pointed out to me, there is a notion that all antiques are well-made. This arises because the antiques that survive are, in fact, well-made. However, the common articles of a bygone era are cheaply made for every day use and thus do not usually survive. The further back you go, the better made something will generally have to be to survive. However we often assume that the rare, surviving well-made items were common when, in fact, they were not. We don't always know what was common. Most of what we have to record that era comes from the upper classes who had the better made items and could write and pay for portraits and such from which we infer ideas about what is period correct.

Cheaply made? Or well made and able to be passed down a number of times before being re worked or completely worn out... as is evidenced in many wills... For example clothing... well made and able to be passed down, taken apart and restitched in more contemporary styles as is evidenced by the old stitching marks/lines... or re-cut to fit children and passed down as hand me downs until they do wear out.... Or the huge number of second hand shops at the times, in which case this speaks to me of well made not cheaply made....

too assume that upper class silks and velvets or presentation pistols inlaid with silver are what everyone carried/owned is a mistake and any one who bases all their research on those items alone is missing a lot that can be learned from wills, court cases, art work, letters, journals, newspapers, etc from the time frame...The Town Criers of London are illustrations based on the working & lower classes, not portraits that were paid for by the upper classes. Granted not everyone who made their own items may have done it well, but to assume everything that no longer exists was cheaply made... labour was cheap, as compared to materials in the 18th century, but doesn't mean everything was cheaply made and only the rich and famous got well made items.

And yes, I should have clarified my statement further that the coffee dish seems to be more common

Along with the other thread about the leather corsets on the tankards... to have everyone make one because last year at PiP one person had one to cover a flaw in their tankard, and if I recall correctly the flaw was a design that was NOT pc, does not make it common to the time frame and that everyone should buckle down and make a leather corset for their tankard.

...and I have seen a number of piss-poor made antiques in my time.

[Misson]

Cheaply made?  Or well made and able to be passed down a number of times before being re worked or completely worn out... as is evidenced in many wills...  For example clothing... well made and able to be passed down, taken apart and restitched in more contemporary styles as is evidenced by the old stitching marks/lines... or re-cut to fit children and passed down as hand me downs until they do wear out.... Or the huge number of second hand shops at the times,  in which case this speaks to me of well made not cheaply made....

Cheaply made is a poor description for period - poorly made is a better one. I was actually still thinking of the coffee vessels, but your comments are very interesting. Are these wills from Williamsburg/Colony citizens?

In studying sailors alone, I have not come across the idea of re-manufacturing clothing. On a related note, there is much back-and-forth in the Naval literature about supplying pressed men with clothing because what they came equipped with was vermin and filth-ridden. My sources seem to indicate that this was pretty much the state of the lower classes in Great Britain. (While several sources talk about the infestation of ships by pressed men, in regard to dirt, I am thinking particularly of things said in Guy Williams The Age of Agony. This book focuses more on land-based medicine and population than my other sources.) Williams has a lot to say about lice and scabies among the common folk, which would also be brought on ship via clothing and unclean men in the eighteenth century. Still, the navy didn't seriously consider supplying clothing or uniforms gratis during period. I don't have the dates (being outside of the period I didn't record them in my notes), but I believe I read that it was in the late 18th that navy started supplying clothing on BRN vessels. I did find that clothing was sold to sailors right before period (and so, probably into period, although this is not technically proven) on BRN vessels, as quoted in this thread.

However, re-manufacturing clothing is a nice example of creativity in using materials.

The Town Criers of London are illustrations based on the working & lower classes, not portraits that were paid for by the upper classes. Granted not everyone who made their own items may have done it well, but to assume everything that no longer exists was cheaply made...

Actually, I was assuming that if some other vessel was used for coffee among the common class it may not be known today. This is assuming that the lower classes had access to coffee. I know physicians during period hung out (and gathered patients) in coffee houses during the eighteenth century. However, the common folks did not generally go to physicians because payment was beyond their means. So I would guess that people of the higher classes frequented coffee houses, not the common folks. (I'm making mental connections here. Is this where your information about coffee vessels comes from? Perhaps drawings of coffee houses? Or is this from the Colonies?)

I also believe I have read an account (although I confess I've forgotten which one it is - I have read several and it didn't seem relevant until now) of a man captured by pirates describing the pirate captain insisting on coffee in the morning before conducting any affairs of the ship. Pirates were about as catch-as-catch-can when it came to...just about everything. I could easily see a pirate drinking coffee from a tankard or bottle or whatever else might be at hand. Which also makes me wonder what the common folk might drink it from as well. If they drank it at all. Perhaps the Town Criers have illustrations?

[Capt. Sterling]

Williamsburg/colonial citizens were not the only ones leaving wills during the time frame.

And I am not quite sure how vermin/dirty clothes relates to being poorly made clothing... even the rich and noble had vermin...I personally get a kick out of said lard bags worn around the neck, in the hopes of drawing vermin to one particular part of the body instead allowing it to run rampant about one's person.

As to coffee houses, they seem to be a place, where in many cases the common man sat and drank alongside the upper class man... in many cases the differences in coffeehouse clientèle seems more to fall along the lines of what was discussed in each coffeehouse as some seemed to cater to poets and some to politicians for instance, rather than purely along class lines. Coffee served in such establishments was not expensive only pennies a dish. One could even purchase wooden tokens to cover the cost in some cases. There were even petitions against coffee raised by women because so many of the men were spending too much time in such places, according to their complaint.

To say that just because you eat cereal out of a mug, or drink coffee from a mug doesn't prove either way what they did. Perhaps the middling sort drank their coffee from wooden bowls?

[Misson]

Williamsburg/colonial citizens were not the only ones leaving wills during the time frame.

I am just trying to figure out your source. (Your response does not tell me anything.)

And I am not quite sure how vermin/dirty clothes relates to being poorly made clothing...

It might say something about re-making clothes from it, however. (Actually, probably not. They didn't understand the role of vermin in infection yet. That was my original thought, though.)

even the rich and noble had vermin...I personally get a kick out of said lard bags worn around the neck, in the hopes of drawing vermin to one particular part of the body instead allowing it to run rampant about one's person.

Hadn't come across that one yet. What's your source? It sounds like it'd be worth my reading it for my little project.

As to coffee houses, they seem to be a place, where in many cases the common man sat and drank alongside the upper class man...  in many cases the differences in coffeehouse clientèle seems more to fall along the lines of what was discussed in each coffeehouse as some seemed to cater to poets and some to politicians, rather than purely along class lines.

That is surprising. Many things seem to have been along class lines on land. In fact, this carries over even today in Great Britain to some degree. Admittedly, I haven't read much about land during period, however.

Coffee served in such establishments was not expensive only pennies a dish. One could even purchase wooden tokens to cover the cost in some cases.  There were even petitions against coffee raised by women because so many of the men were spending too much time in such places, according to their complaint. 

To say that just because you eat cereal out of a mug, or drink coffee from a mug doesn't prove either way what they did.

True. But you keep saying that they drank coffee from x vessel and that's what they did during a 25 year, and more broadly, a 40 year time period. You then tell me that it wouldn't be drunk out of tankards. Period. Never? Is it just that black and white? This is the only way they drank coffee during the GAoP. That makes no sense to me. Human behavior is only black and white in a group for very short time periods, and then usually under duress. Humans are whimsical, tool-using, creative creatures.

Just looking at the various medicines and procedures written about to treat the same illness shows the infinite number of possibilities these folks embraced in their professions and daily lives. So creative behavior existed. It couldn't be applied to coffee containers?

If I said (as some books I've read hint) that all sea-going medical procedures followed Woodall's The Surgeon's Mate until 1693 when John Moyle's book Chirurgus marinus: or, The sea-chirurgion was printed [and even beyond that. Druett seems to think that the next important source for sea surgeons was John King!), I would be making what I perceive as the same mistake I feel you are making in pronouncing coffee to be served in only the sort of cup you found in some reference. This is what I am calling the silliness of adhering to only things we can directly point to. (Note that I'm drawing another parallel to something I know about from period which may seem off topic if you don't follow my odd logic.) The world is not, and I contend, was not, one way and only that way because one drawing or document or even a few documents pointed in a particular direction. This is to toss all human creativity out the window.

If you go back, my point (minus the asides - like this one) about using my coffee mug for cereal and whatnot was that in 300 years people having the amount of information on our period that we have on theirs would say coffee mugs were for coffee because our information shows that this is why vendors designed the cups that way. Then I admittedly extrapolated present-day behavior and said lazy bachelors (and, indirectly, pirates) are lazy bachelors in any age. Which I can't prove...and you can't disprove.

At the end of this, if someone were to make a corset for tankards with the Mercury logo on it, I'd want one, even though I think the more disprovable aspect would be that pirates would brand a tankard with a logo (regardless of whether they may or may not put a corset on it for some reason.) In fact, I would say their flag was their brand and that appears to be as far as they carried it. (And they stole their flag designs from each other when pirate groups split apart, so even that wasn't unique.) Logo product branding really came about in the 20th century. Although, if I recall my Marketing classes, you can find some examples of something very much like branding before that.

And so forth. I'm apparently not going to convince you to deviate from what you can prove and you're probably not going to be able to convince me that everything was as strictly done as I believe you're suggesting. So feel free to take a final shot at me and let's be done with it. Shake hands over a nice Merlot and all that.

[William Brand]

The Mercury Crew thread shall henceforth be known as Captain Twill 2.

[Capt. Sterling]

My apologies for hijacking the thread... it will never happen again. As to the evidence Mission, I will bring the binder to PiP. Feel free to look it over there.

[William Brand]

My apologies for hijacking the thread... it will never happen again.

Never happen again...? But this is the place for hijacking.

We're pirates.

[Captain Jim]

Logo product branding really came about in the 20th century.

Not so fast, there mate. I submit that coinage was the original product branding, the product being the sort of government being offered/foisted upon the masses. To quote loosely: "Whose picture is on the coin?" "Caesar's." "Then render unto Caesar...etc."

Who's "logo" was on the the doubloon, eight real, ecsudo? Branding, says I.

[Misson]

Logo product branding really came about in the 20th century.

Not so fast, there mate. I submit that coinage was the original product branding, the product being the sort of government being offered/foisted upon the masses. To quote loosely: "Whose picture is on the coin?" "Caesar's." "Then render unto Caesar...etc."

Who's "logo" was on the the doubloon, eight real, ecsudo? Branding, says I.

You should write to the people who published my marketing book. That's an interesting point - it puts a whole different spin on product branding. In fact, product branding is nothing more than a concerted effort to obtain government branded coins and papers and so the whole thing is another big, lovely circle.

(Note: I am among the most guilty of hijacking threads. I try to avoid the temptation but...nah. Actually, the mod for this forum could split this entire group of posts out into a separate thread and then move the thread to Twill. I've done that in Beyond before.)

[William Brand]

Since the thread is hijacked...

I submit that many companies and corporations used branding. Blacksmiths used a maker's mark which was hammered into their finished work. Potters used a makers mark which was pressed into the clay before firing. Printers often used symbols and illustration marks to identify which press printed a particular piece of work. The East India Company had markings for their textiles and shipped goods. It is by these very specific marks that we identify which artisans fabricated particular works from the period. Tinsmiths, silversmiths, glass blowers, jewelers, cartographers, gunsmiths, watchmakers and carpenters from then until now have employed the art of marking their original works with unique symbols.

[Misson]

You guys are gonna make me break out my old textbooks, aren't you? Thinking further on all this, while it is true that companies and governments put their mark on items, if I recall this all correctly, these weren't concerted efforts to create a marketed "brand." They were implemented as ways to identify their work/creations. (Possibly if they had to fix it in the case of manufacturers? Each item was handmade, so no two were alike and so having to identify your work for some reason probably called for marking it. I guess.)

At least I think that's how early marking efforts were interpreted. Actually, my little company has to mark certain fabricated items we create (coolers we create for glass plants) primarily so that the glass company can identify our work if a cooler doesn't function properly. I wouldn't exactly call it product branding, although it could be viewed in that way from a certain angle. To be honest, I finished my MBA in 1996 and never thought much about the textbooks again...until now, that is. I have noticed that a lot of medical instruments didn't have manufacturer marks on them until the 19th century, although this is anecdotal and not statistical.

[hurricane]

You're pretty much spot on Mission. Putting a mark on an item isn't branding, it's putting a mark on an item. Branding is a much more modern concept and it's how you think about a product, a service and company. Yes, the logo plays a small part in this process. But it is also tied to the value proposition of a firm, it's ability to deliver on this proposition as well as it's promise, it's reputation with customers over time and the stickiness of the brand in the marketplace. There's a huge difference between creating a brand and creating a mark so someone knew where the item came from or who it was made by.

-- Hurricane

[Misson]

From Woodes Rogers, regarding a careening camp:

"June 16 [1709] We built a tent ashore [at Gorgona] for the Armourer and Cooper; set several Men to cutting of Wood, and clearing a Place for the sick Mens Tents.

...

June 28 We got our Provisions aboard, and mounted all our guns [on the Dutchess]; so that in 14 Days we had calk'd our Ships all round, careen'd rigg'd and stow'd them again, both [the Duke and Dutchess] fit for the Sea; which was great Dispatch considering what we had to do was in an open Place, with few Carpenters and a void of the usual Conveniencies for Careening. The Spaniards our prisoners being very dilatory Sailors, were amazed at our Expedition and told us, they usually take 6 Weeks or 2 Months to careen one of the King's Ships at Lima, where they are well provided with all the Necessaries, and account it good Dispatch.

June 29, Yesterday in the Afternoon we built a Tent ashore for the sick, who are now much better than when we came to the Island, neither the Weather nor the Air here being half to bad as the Spaniards represented, which made us think 'twould be worse than we found it. This norming we got the sick Men into their Tents, and put the Doctors [several surgeons & probably Physician Thomas Dover] ashore with them; We unloaded the Havre de Grace [Their third ship; a prize taken near Guiaquil], and chose a Place very easy to lay her ashore, to clean her Bottom. A clear Sand about a Mile and a half from the Place where we rode, near the South End of the island

[A note about the sick men described above, who were infected during the taking of the town of Guiaquil. This was actually not scurvy, it was some sort of fever which Thomas Dover was to report in his book (The Ancient Physician’s Legacy (1742) as having been the plague. Some books about period medical practices that I've read suggest that "plague" may have been a common term for any very infectious health problem. However, other books about Dover suggest he was merely exaggerating to make himself look good in his book; something he had a tendency to do.]

...

"July 1 [1709] We have Men imploy'd in our Tents ashore, to prepare the Rigging as fast as possible; a Rope-maker at work to make twice-laid Cordage, and a Smith, Block-maker and Sail-maker at the same time; so that we want not Tradesmen to fit her out." (Rogers, p 118-19)

This book is one of the better that I've read about an extended privateering voyage. Everyone who's interested in details of a period careening camp should really read A Cruising Voyage Round the World. It contains a great deal more about victualling, careening, crews and so forth than I've copied on the website.

[Misson]

To the point, "smiths" are mentioned by Rogers several times. Keep in mind that this was to be a journey around the world that would require most of the talent to be accompanying the journey, especially when they reached "uncharted" parts of the world. But still, there it is. So I may be all wet and there would well have been smiths on a ship who were there, in part, because of their skills.

Note that this same journey had a Physician (Dover) and an Apothecary [samuel Hopkins], which was very unusual for any ship. Most ships just had a surgeon and/or surgeon's mates.

Here's some more on the roles that existed in a world-traveling privateer. (Although this sort of crew would probably only transfer to some world-traveling pirates, which I think is a rarity as I've mentioned in other posts; pirates seeming to have been fairly localized from what I've read. Still.) It's from Dampier. He's talking about what they would do to establish a fort and settlement in the East Indies (the natives there desired them to do so because they wanted to establish trade):

"For was scarce any useful Trade but some or others of us understood it. We had Sawyers, Carpenters, Joyners, Brickmakers, Bricklayers, Shoemakers, Taylors, &c, we only wanted a good Smith for great Work; which we might have had at Mindanao. We are very well provided with Iron, Lead, and all sorts of Tools, as Saws, Axes, Hammers & c. We had Powder and Shot enough and very good small Arms. If we desired to build a Fort, we could have spared 8 or 10 Guns out of our Ship, and men enough to have managed it, and any Affair of Trade besides."

So it was quite the crew of tradesmen. No Smith, though.

[Greg]

Hi, Guys,

I haven't been on here in a while, but still check in once in a while to see what's going on. This discussion of craftsmen and their marks has been quite interesting. I thought you'd like to know that in my usual world of Revolutionary War reenacting there are many artisans who still touchmark their wares, myself included. If you look at the leatherwork I do, you will find it marked somewhere (usually on the back) with my "mark": a weeping heart with GH in the center. Misson, I love your research keep it up! And to all the good folks, I'm looking forward to seeing you again at PIP.

Greg

[Mission]

Misson, I love your research keep it up! And to all the good folks, I'm looking forward to seeing you again at PIP.

Greg

Glad you like it! (You can carry my book on GAoP surgeons if I ever actually get out of the research phase and sit down and write it. )

[Greg]

Glad you like it! (You can carry my book on GAoP surgeons if I ever actually get out of the research phase and sit down and write it. )

Much as I hate to encourage your depravity.... You're on! G.