Clothing from Vassa 1628

[jollyjacktar]

Ok, so I turn my query to those of you who are more familiar with the fashion of the early seventeenth century.

The mannequinn in the picture was clothed in a suit based on the 1628 wreck of the Vassa. Can anyone tell me what the style of jacket/ coat is? what is it's time range? and the one big question, what if any are the closure's on the jacket?

Thanks in advance.

yrs. and co.

CJ OHLANDT

[michaelsbagley]

Wild guess here, so please take this with that in mind... But from what I have read, hook and eyes were pretty popular for coat/jacket closures in the first half of the 17th century. Could that be it?

Great picture though, thanks for sharing that! I wonder if the information on the creator of that reproduction could be gotten and if he/she would be willing to share sources or archaeological notes (even if it is only a point to a book that contains said info).

[Dutchman]

not sure about the actual style, but it looks to be wool cold weather gear. and i agree with mike on the closures. if you look at the maniquins right side just above the closed section, there appears to be a hook, might be the eye. spaced about six inches above that is another faint thingy that looks like the first. then there is that thing at the collar- i have no idea.

where did you run across this picture?

hey cj, ive got the pieces cut out for you- i'll have it ready by pip.

[Hawkyns]

It's called a doublet. They existed in simlar form from about the last quarter of the 16th century to the middle of the 17th. Minor differences in size and shape of the peplum or replacing it with multiple small tabs, but basically the same shape. From the evident puckering at the closure, I would say it is closed with hooks and eyes, fairly common for the period. It could also be closed with multiple small buttons and inch or so apart, or even, for some of the lower classes, tape strings. The style is pretty much the same for most of northwest Europe over the period.

http://www.lepg.org/men.htm

Hawkyns

[René la Gaffe]

It's called a doublet. They existed in simlar form from about the last quarter of the 16th century to the middle of the 17th. Minor differences in size and shape of the peplum or replacing it with multiple small tabs, but basically the same shape. From the evident puckering at the closure, I would say it is closed with hooks and eyes, fairly common for the period. It could also be closed with multiple small buttons and inch or so apart, or even, for some of the lower classes, tape strings. The style is pretty much the same for most of northwest Europe over the period.

http://www.lepg.org/men.htm

Hawkyns

I find it very lucky that this subject crops up as i begin doing 17th century research. I quit eliterally JUST started looking for a link on mens 17th century clothes, THANKS HAWKYNS! i dare ask if you have any other helpful links on the subject........?

[Hawkyns]

Lots. A whole bloody library of them. What are you looking for? The 17th C is a very diverse century, from Elizabethan at the begining to what is demonstrably 18th C at the end. Lots of civilian and military change. Where and when are you looking at?

Hawkyns

[René la Gaffe]

I aiming about 1660s-80s. Civilian....im begining research on a kit for Searle's Raid(1668 but im sur eyou knew that lol), as well as later buccaneer era, im looking to get more involved in 17th century events(what few of them there are). Im not entirly sure exactly what im aiming for, because im just starting research, but i dont want to go for anything too speciall at all...after all its more fun to be poor!

[jollyjacktar]

Thank you all very much for your insight.

Hawkyns,

They existed in simlar form from about the last quarter of the 16th century to the middle of the 17th. Minor differences in size and shape of the peplum or replacing it with multiple small tabs, but basically the same shape

Does this mean that as it appears in this picture that I could wear this doublet say in theory at both Jamestowne and Plymouth?

[Hawkyns]

Yes. I have a similar doublet that I have worn at both. Mine has 8 small tabs at the waist insted of the peplum, but otherwise it is the same. The tabs have not yet lessened in number and grown in size as they will by the ECW.

Hawkyns

[Hawkyns]

Rene, you are looking at the Restoration Period. Drastically different from the doublet in the first post. After the end of the Commonwealth period in England, and the recovery after the 30 Years War in Europe, clothing became very elaborate. Pretty much a celebration that they no longer needed to be worries about everything. Large amounts of fabric, lace and ribbon everywhere. The doublets were longer and less fitted, much more in line with what would become the 18th century style after the early extravagance wore off. Here is a basic primer:

http://www.cwu.edu/~robinsos/ppages/resources/Costume_History/restoration.htm

Hawkyns

[Capt. Sterling]

I aiming about 1660s-80s. Civilian....im begining research on a kit for Searle's Raid(1668 but im sur eyou knew that lol), as well as later buccaneer era, im looking to get more involved in 17th century events(what few of them there are). Im not entirly sure exactly what im aiming for, because im just starting research, but i dont want to go for anything too speciall at all...after all its more fun to be poor!

Shoot for petticoat breeches... ;)

Edited October 8, 2009 by Capt. Sterling

[casketchris]

the hook and eye that were used, are they the same basic ones you find at fabric stores now or was there a change in style.

[Capt. Sterling]

Try here for repros....

https://www.reconstructinghistory.com/hooks-and-eyes.php?s=&c=111&d=181&q=1&p=457&w=21

[Quartermaster James]

Try here for repros....

https://www.reconstructinghistory.com/hooks-and-eyes.php?s=&c=111&d=181&q=1&p=457&w=21

Or you might just grab some wire and pliers and go about making a few yourself...

[René la Gaffe]

Rene, you are looking at the Restoration Period. Drastically different from the doublet in the first post. After the end of the Commonwealth period in England, and the recovery after the 30 Years War in Europe, clothing became very elaborate. Pretty much a celebration that they no longer needed to be worries about everything. Large amounts of fabric, lace and ribbon everywhere. The doublets were longer and less fitted, much more in line with what would become the 18th century style after the early extravagance wore off. Here is a basic primer:

http://www.cwu.edu/~...restoration.htm

Hawkyns

In my little head i was hoping for the puritan style clothing of earlier in the century....the really fancy stuff actually scares me.......like a picture of petticoat breeches i once saw(so that would be a noooooo Captain Sterling!) Thanks alot Hawkyns, great resource, though i believe i shall research how poorer people handled all this extravagance......i doubt somehow i could afford too much fabric....i also believe a trip to colonial williamsburgs book store is in order! Whats you guys opinion in the notion that you wouldnt exactly wear whats in fashion if you grew up earlier? lets say i was born in the 1620s and came of age wearing puritain style garb...is it reasonable that id sort of keep a bit of that old style? good lord o think im going off topic......mabey....

Edited October 9, 2009 by René la Gaffe

[MarkG]

the hook and eye that were used, are they the same basic ones you find at fabric stores now or was there a change in style.

Pretty close to what you find today.

[MarkG]

Rene, you are looking at the Restoration Period. Drastically different from the doublet in the first post. After the end of the Commonwealth period in England, and the recovery after the 30 Years War in Europe, clothing became very elaborate. Pretty much a celebration that they no longer needed to be worries about everything. Large amounts of fabric, lace and ribbon everywhere. The doublets were longer and less fitted, much more in line with what would become the 18th century style after the early extravagance wore off. Here is a basic primer:

http://www.cwu.edu/~...restoration.htm

Hawkyns

In my little head i was hoping for the puritan style clothing of earlier in the century....the really fancy stuff actually scares me.......like a picture of petticoat breeches i once saw(so that would be a noooooo Captain Sterling!) Thanks alot Hawkyns, great resource, though i believe i shall research how poorer people handled all this extravagance......i doubt somehow i could afford too much fabric....i also believe a trip to colonial williamsburgs book store is in order! Whats you guys opinion in the notion that you wouldnt exactly wear whats in fashion if you grew up earlier? lets say i was born in the 1620s and came of age wearing puritain style garb...is it reasonable that id sort of keep a bit of that old style? good lord o think im going off topic......mabey....

Most Puritans didn't wear "puritan" style clothing. For example, this guy was one of the Puritan leaders - Lord Say and Sele. He's wearing as much lace as a Cavalier.

In New England they did outlaw slashes in the body of a doublet and limit sleeves to a single slash. This law was on the books until the 1980s.

People kept up with current styles as their budget allowed. There was a thriving used clothing business in England, much more so than in other countries, so it was possible to see poor English wearing out-dated styles.

Mark

[Hawkyns]

Ah yes, 'puritan' clothing. The popular idea of puritan clothing is a Victorian fantasy. They may have worn slightly darker clothing, and a bit less ornamentation, but other than that, the puritans did not dress differently from the rest of the population. What you are looking for for that period, then, is probably lower to lower middle class of the English Civil War period, 1640's and 50's, which might have been around a bit longer on the lesser sort. Not long though, becuase fashion is fashion and humans are humans. They would ape their betters as much ansd as soon as they could. there was also a thriving market in used clothing, so things would make their way through the levels of society fairly easily.

In terms of the picture that started this, the 1645 doublet would be a little less fitted, would have a slightly lower waist, and instead of the peplum, 4 or 5 tabs perhaps 6 inches wide and 4 inches deep. Here is a site with a lot of photos of reenactors from the period. Their research is pretty spot on, so this is the sort of thing you would be looking at. You'll also see a lot of soldier's or sack coats, which would be a workman's type of coat and, especially for the lower sort, be very common. This type of coat lasted right into the 19th century for agricultural workers.

http://www.siegegroup.co.uk/

Hawkyns

[michaelsbagley]

Another thought with "old or out of date clothing", is that most people of the time had only one or a very few sets of clothing. Specially those of the more humble classes.

Now to use a modern paralell to make a period point, but how many people out there have had a favourite pair of jeans or other favourite item that is for more rugged wear that they wore a lot? How many years did this garment last under regular wear? And modern standards of regular wear tend to be once or twice a week at most, not every day as was likely in period. Now one could argue the fabrics and techniques used back "in period" were more durable... But really, how long do you think the average garment in the 17th or early 18th century lasted? Months? A few years (maybe)? But certainly not decades in my opinion.

The of used rebuttal of "old/handed down/second hand" clothing has not ever really flown with me. But others opinions may vary. Although as clothing was hand made, it isn't too hard for me to believe that the family or community tailor for more humble communities would be behind in fashion, probably even years behind, maybe even as much as a decade... But not likely more than a decade if they wanted to stay in business.

[René la Gaffe]

Funny enough, though i wrote puritan style....i didnt even think of the religios group LOL iv just heard that described as puritan in style(though with gregs description i wonder why?) I think i may like the sack coat idea. iv been trying to find a good view of something called a buff coat, i think they might be similar, though the buff coats seem to be in leather........and they seem to have become quite fashionable in their day. Well i would hate to fall into an inaccurate trend, i didnt think about how long it would take for clothes to wear down(after all iv had some clothes for yyeeaarrss lol) I do actually agree with you mike, if people are wearing themm everyday i dont think theyd last long......and apparently that second hand trade was so well practiced you wouldnt need to. Buuut i have heard often of home made clothing items being abit behind the times....but not too far really................ Thanks for the link Hawkyns, very helpful once more!..................and remember, never feel like ill be offended, if it looks like im falling into a bad trend of warping time.....call me on it! Thanks gentelmen! Also....sense this is drifting off from the main topic, due to me, would it be better if i made a new topic???

Edited October 10, 2009 by René la Gaffe

[Fox]

Buffcoats are one of those contentious points amongst 17thC reenactors. They were very thick, stiff leather coats worn as armour, or as a supplement to armour. Frequently though the repros are made of thin soft leather - a proper buffcoat will set you back many a penny.

[Hawkyns]

Yeah, the buffcoat has caused many an argument. Some say they were all heavy leather(1/4 inch thick) designed for use by cavalrymen. There is some documentation that thinner ones were made for infantry officers that like the style but not the encumbrance. that's an argument that I doubt will ever be settled.

One thing I will say, though, and this is from personal experience. My serjeant made one. 14oz leather, properly tanned with fish oil. Sleeved like Nate Fiennes. Made as pretty a picture on the field as I've ever seen. Then it rained. What was a drop dead gorgeous piece of kit rapidly became a 30 pound dead weight hanging on his shoulder and flapping soddenly about his thighs.

That being the case, I can't realistically see a true buffcoat being usefull aboard ship. Not for a sailor, anyway. The Mary Rose did have some leather jerkins of thinner leather that might be what you are thinking about, but that was 150 years earlier than your date. Of course, jerkins were around for a lot of the period, they are windproof and hard wearing, though useless when wet. I don't know of any extant examples from 1640-1680. Ed??

Hawkyns

[Fox]

Yeah, the buffcoat has caused many an argument. Some say they were all heavy leather(1/4 inch thick) designed for use by cavalrymen. There is some documentation that thinner ones were made for infantry officers that like the style but not the encumbrance. that's an argument that I doubt will ever be settled.

My understanding of the argument is that may reenactors would like there to be documentation for thinner buffcoats, but that nobody has yet managed to actually produce any. Mind you, it's not an argument I've listened to for some years now so I may not be up to date with the latest evidence.

That being the case, I can't realistically see a true buffcoat being usefull aboard ship. Not for a sailor, anyway. The Mary Rose did have some leather jerkins of thinner leather that might be what you are thinking about, but that was 150 years earlier than your date. Of course, jerkins were around for a lot of the period, they are windproof and hard wearing, though useless when wet. I don't know of any extant examples from 1640-1680. Ed??

Can't think of any extant ones (leather jerkins is another of those unendable debates in certain circles), but I'm positive I've come across probate evidence for leather doublets and the like. Of most interest perhaps is the opinion of Nathaniel Butler, RN officer, privateer, and sometime Governor of the Bahamas, who wrote in the 1630s that armour was useless on ships, and himself preferred 'a convenient skulled montero on my head, a good buff jerkin on my back; a half pike or battle axe in one hand; a tried pistol in the other; with a good short sword by my side'.

[René la Gaffe]

oh...i sort of forgot to say, that this project has nothing to do with pyracy....but there isnt really an active 17th century site to discuss this in(that i yet know if).....i was really going for a militia unit impression....so thankfully i wont really be worried about its use on a ship........i think ill take both your advise and make a soldiers coat and a sleeveless buffcoat for armor over it...so far iv seen accounts of musketeers wearing the like....i should look for the exact quote....yup...thanks gents(and ill make it of thick leather just to be sure!)