hair beads and non realistic garb

[Mr. Noland]

What were we talking about? I forget.

(We just finished our popcorn and movie here, sorry, no leftovers)

R. Noland

Edited January 16, 2011 by Mr. Noland

[Zingara Carmella]

beads and hair dangles ......

[Silkie McDonough]

Actually, if you read the introductory thread we were talking about authentic vs. non authentic. At least I think that is what I read.

[Zingara Carmella]

Actually, if you read the introductory thread we were talking about authentic vs. non authentic. At least I think that is what I read.

Follow her she know what is is doing

[peglegstrick]

Aye........But where we going???

[Silkie McDonough]

That question has never been resolved in all the years that we have been beating this poor old nag.

[Jib]

Nice thread to read!

[Zingara Carmella]

so did anybody came to any conclusion? besides is not Missions hat and we are lost? and this was fun

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Wait...in normal life, Professor Foxe has an earring?! A momento from your mis-spent youth?

I can imagine that later, well let say 23th century, historians and reenactor debating did “early 21th century historians use earrings” and the somebody says “ hey I found old photo of a historian with an earring!!!” then somedobey reply “but it was not the norm”….

[Pixel Pirate]

Mother of Mary, what have I stumbled on....

[Mission]

Pixel pirate, we discuss this same thing in here about every 6-9 months. Someone who hasn't read the previous discussions comes in all fire and brimstone and starts a new thread resurrecting the monster of fact vs. fantasy.

I've said it before (several times, in fact) and now I'll say it again - if the most stringent purists were to go back in time, I'll bet they'd be shocked at how wrong we have the details. My guess is that we're lucky if we're 50% correct. Everyone has their schtick. You do yours, they'll do theirs. (Just don't fool yourself into thinking you're the one who's doing it right, cuz' you most likely aren't either.) We just don't know enough to be that correct.

[HBlackthorne]

Ok,.... I stumbled on this trying to look into other peoples research and I know I am new to the forum but hey figure I drop my 2 shilling in on it. First off, having met Crispy at a few shows and having him save my butt after one of my stage shows [street fair we both did were I was on asphalt doing my "how to be a pirate" kid show and did not realize how dehydrated I was Crispy kindly ran off and got me a chilled drink when he realized I was real close to passing out] I think Crispy kind of falls into the same general area I do when it comes to the idea of Re-enactment. I try not to tout myself or the Crew I work with as Historical Re-Enactors,..we use Historical Entertainment,.... we strive to be as accurate as we can within the limits of comfort and weather [wool in FL summer is not good idea] and try to balance that with recognizably of "known pirate". A few examples being, like what is discussed in this thread, beads and accoutrements. Ok,..historically speaking we know that beads and such were trade items so having a few on your hat [on a thong] or a few strings wrapped around it as a hatband would be an easy way to carry barter goods. Also [and I know the time frame is off but it still makes sense] Vikings would wear hammered silver jewelry that could be easily broken off to use as coinage so it is feasible for a pirate to have a similar idea by wearing whatever jewelry they could get and using the medallions as trade items. Now like with anything this can be taken too far ofcourse, I mean someone with strands and strands of beads in their hair does "jump the shark" as it were. Its all about moderation. Personally, from what I know of Crispy [and I am not trying to speak for the man or anything this is just my view of him] he portrays a more wild man pirate that is meant for entertainment over extreme accuracy. I am similar in my portrayal,.... I look for things that fit in the general timeframe that would be possible and incorporate them into my character. I carry some beadworked items on my baldric,.... they look good and since they are cheap I can pop a bead off and give them as tokens to kids. I have a few coins on a thong on my sash as well,..I use them as a teaching tool [again for kids] as to the fact that currency was widely varied at that time [what they actually are are my screw ups trying to cast some pirate coins,... they are misshapen or have bubble holes in them so I found a use for them]. My cutalss is actually a 1876 British infantry saber that I changed the grip on meaning the biggest difference is its a thinner blade than it would have really been and is slightly longer than it would have been but it fits my hand and I can swing it for Stage Combat. So, to my mind in moderation on each person [and to that persons character] such things can work. Admittedly unless you have a back story putting you in the Pacific sea lanes a bone in the nose is a bit much but hey if you can back it up my all means do it. All this being said I really thing that as long as you have a general reason for why you have something out of the ordinary and its not a huge anachronism you should be ok,...as long as you are not at a show that is billed as True History. I always try to learn just how much of a Stitch-Dalek the promoters of a show are before going,...if they are the type who want detailed notations of the accuracy of your gear [and yes we all know these shows exist] I either fit in or do not go,...if they are more the type to say "nothing obviously modern if you are cast" then its easier on me [heck I used to carry a hidden digital watch on me sometimes sewn into a piece of leather and ties to the bottom of a clear bottomed tin mug,..you cannot see it unless you lift the mug up to your face and peer down into it]

After re-reading this I offered no documentation for any of my points other than generalizations and thereby broke the rules of the forum and for that I am sorry. I know I cannot remove the comment so I will edit it with the addendum that I see now where I messed up and again apologize.

Edited August 15, 2012 by HBlackthorne

[Mission]

I think Crispy kind of falls into the same general area I do when it comes to the idea of Re-enactment. I try not to tout myself or the Crew I work with as Historical Re-Enactors,..we use Historical Entertainment,.... we strive to be as accurate as we can within the limits of comfort and weather [wool in FL summer is not good idea] and try to balance that with recognizably of "known pirate...

Personally, from what I know of Crispy [and I am not trying to speak for the man or anything this is just my view of him] he portrays a more wild man pirate that is meant for entertainment over extreme accuracy. I am similar in my portrayal,.... I look for things that fit in the general timeframe that would be possible and incorporate them into my character.".

Chrispy is a great guy, but I think he'd be the first to admit he isn't really going for historical accuracy. (That hat... ) The great thing about pirate reenacting is that If you don't want to be historically accurate, you don't have to be. There's a huge body of film and pop-culture pirate images and you can draw upon to find ideas for your persona. (Like Chrispy's hat.) However, if you say you're being historical 'within reason'... welcome to the den of vipers.

OK, we're not that bad, but if your intent is to work towards a Period Correct impression, most of your reasoning isn't going to fly with those folks who spend a lot of time and effort working to create and refine their PC impression. (See the thread But I stole 'em from a... for an obnoxious amount of detail as to why.)

If you want to wear beads, wear beads. But if you also want to say you're doing a period accurate impression, you have to show proof for it and if you are really serious, you have to show enough proof of it to suggest it was common. (I don't get the impression you do want to say that at all, I'm just pointing out how the PC thing works.)

The nice thing about pirate reenactors is that most of them don't care that much. Oh, some of them may think you look 'farby' (just as you may think they look like 'stitch nazis') but as long as you're happy and you're not violating the rules of the event as you mentioned, what difference does it make? Everyone you meet has an opinion of you and you have almost no control over it. So my thought is that it's best not to worry about what other people think and design garb and a persona that makes you happy.

[Jib]

I seem to recall that Cannibal Crispy does an excellent impression of a blind man. Historically correct even!

[Captain Jim]

I seem to recall that Cannibal Crispy does an excellent impression of a blind man. Historically correct even!

But not when driving the golf cart "blind" in the parade...really, ya gotta see that.

[Mission]

I seem to recall that Cannibal Crispy does an excellent impression of a blind man. Historically correct even!

No, not even that - he wears black-tinted glasses. As far as we know, they hadn't really come up with glasses with solid ear-pieces by the end of the GAoP. (Although I did find one modern source that dates them back to 1701, but I've never found a corroborating period source for that, so it's hard to say if it's right or not.)

[Jib]

Mission you are mistaken! How Crispy, as a blind man, can find "women of generous chestage" is legendary and documented. Almost like echo location and bats!

From the journal of Jacob Satire Mumble, 1701: "As I looked upon the Bristol docks I saw a blind man picking amid the rags and cast offs. This fellow was covered in sores and wore a crumbled black felt hat with dark spectacles of tortoise shell. When a well endowed fish wife happened by the blind man was off like a bee to the hive! His hands out stretched before him eager to explore the ripe pippins"

from Penthouse forums May 1701

[Mission]

Well, I can't argue with that! (And here I thought Bob Guccione started the whole thing in the 1960s...)

[Ivan Henry aka Moose]

"The great thing about pirate reenacting is that If you don't want to be historically accurate, you don't have to be."

In my humble opinion, one shouldn't call themselves a reenactor if an attempt isn't being made to be historically correct and be able to explain what you have on, head to toe. The exception would be one who is reenacting something historically inaccurate and state it as such. Otherwise you are having fun playing pirate, not reenacting. Just my two cents.

[Fox]

Agreed. By definition, reenacting means trying to emulate something that has gone before. So, you could reenact a scene from Captain Blood or a painting by Howard Pyle (there's a group in the Netherlands who faithfully recreate the militia company of Frans Banning Cocq - so cool!), or even something generic and historical, but if you're just dressing up then it's not reenacting. That doesn't matter, there's no law that says all dressing up has to be reenactment.

[oderlesseye]

"Mission Wrote"

] If you want to wear beads, wear beads.[/b]

I heard Beads were actually used as currency during GAOP in North America and was known as Wampum. http://www.nativetec...m/wamphist.htm.

Now Eye have no source about Pirates trading with American Indians , however Beads have been traded as well as shells even for hundreds of years before pirates ever arrived on the scene. The Spanish landed in the Caribbean in 1492.. ( Columbus ) by 1500 The indigenous Indians in the greater West Indies had been wiped out or enslaved. There were no Arawak Indians left. The PIRATES could not have even been known by them let alone traded with them. However we do know Pirates bartered. Don’t we ?

In Western Africa, shell money was used as legal tender up until the mid 19th century. as well as many island nations. My Source is Wikipedia but again no direct connection to pirates wearing beads or using shells as currency when they were at sea or visiting a foreign port..

I have an interest in this as eye wear them with my " Hollywood Authentic " impression . The

One national Geographic series on Pirates..all the English actors/re-enactors were wearing beads and beards. Eye thought that interesting because eye remember the discussion on beards on this board, it was deemed that most pirates did not have facial hair..

Edited October 2, 2012 by oderlesseye

[William Brand]

National Geographic television is often entertainment first and history second. It does not trump example after example in paintings, etchings, drawings, artifacts, and writings of the period.

That said, did pirates trade beads and shells? Maybe and probably on some scale. Did they wear them? Examples from art and literature seem to suggest 'no'.

[Mission]

Isn't that basically just the But I stole 'em from a... argument?

I try never to tell anyone they should wear something or shouldn't because I like almost all of it. However, if you want to aim for being period correct, you have to present period proof of whatever it is you want to do. (And if you want to be really correct, that proof should really come from more than one independent source.)

But the nice thing is that you don't have to aim for period correctness if you don't want.

[Ivan Henry aka Moose]

Isn't that basically just the But I stole 'em from a... argument?

I try never to tell anyone they should wear something or shouldn't because I like almost all of it. However, if you want to aim for being period correct, you have to present period proof of whatever it is you want to do. (And if you want to be really correct, that proof should really come from more than one independent source.)

But the nice thing is that you don't have to aim for period correctness if you don't want.

true - but then, you are not per say, a "reenactor....