About Blackbeard's gun and pants...

[Fox]

^{It's from one of the accounts of Woodes Rogers' circumnavigation - Cooke's I think.}

[Swashbuckler 1700]

^{It's from one of the accounts of Woodes Rogers' circumnavigation - Cooke's I think.}

What is the date of that?

when the long trousers started to be common among sailor... to my knowledge one of first evidence of their use was in Bonny's and Reads's court statement when eyewitness Dorothy Thomas said that they “wore Mens Jackets, and long Trouzers, and Handkerchiefs tied about their Heads; and that each of them had a Machet and Pistol in their Hands.”

but is there earlier mentions of trousers?

Edited February 16, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Fox]

Woodes Rogers' voyage was 1708-1711, and Cooke's account was published in, I think, 1712. There were also four pairs of trousers in Joseph Haycock's slop shop at his death in 1699.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Woodes Rogers' voyage was 1708-1711, and Cooke's account was published in, I think, 1712. There were also four pairs of trousers in Joseph Haycock's slop shop at his death in 1699.

So they were so normal in that age (but breeches were more common).. were those canvas trousers or someting else?

... sorry that I ask but could you answer me in "merchant slops" topic because you are one of those clothing experts here...

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Woodes Rogers' voyage was 1708-1711, and Cooke's account was published in, I think, 1712. There were also four pairs of trousers in Joseph Haycock's slop shop at his death in 1699.

It seems to me that there is no image from earlier time than 1725 even that trousers had been around some time… too bad that there is so few pictures from gaop ( but fortunately there is plenty of documents ) ….

Here are illustrations from Dutch version of GHoP from 1725… and all know those Bonny and Read pictures ….

That there is trousers in Dutch illustrations of English pirates leads me once again to point that illustrators had some kind of understanding what they were descripting… like in here in this period only Englishmen used long trousers and Dutch illustrator knew that (although he exaggerated popularity of trousers) …

I am NOT saying that there was no artistic liberties/interpretation in illustrations. I am just meaning that with bit of criticism you can use period art as source … but I believe that we are done with that...

Edited February 16, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Mission - there is quote somewhere referencing Spanish sailors who knew for a fact that they were attacked by Englishmen because "they were wearing trousers"

I have a pair in my kit - you would have seen them at PIP in 2009.

Since this topic has gone to trousers I think some more pants question would not hurt much ...

What is difference between petticoat-breeches and slop-breeches is there any ?

(above sailor in 1690s.)

Is there any difference?

[Fox]

These days it is a generally accepted reenactorism that petticoat breeches are more full than slops, but at what point wide slops become narrow petticoat breeches is hard to define.

In the GAoP itself I doubt anyone made the distinction. They were not so concerned with giving things specific labels as we are now, and to be honest I can't recall any reference to "petticoat breeches" in a period source at all. The most common description is 'wide kneed breeches' which is ambiguous enough that it could mean either

[Swashbuckler 1700]

These days it is a generally accepted reenactorism that petticoat breeches are more full than slops, but at what point wide slops become narrow petticoat breeches is hard to define.

In the GAoP itself I doubt anyone made the distinction. They were not so concerned with giving things specific labels as we are now, and to be honest I can't recall any reference to "petticoat breeches" in a period source at all. The most common description is 'wide kneed breeches' which is ambiguous enough that it could mean either

Ok interesting....

[Mission]

In the GAoP itself I doubt anyone made the distinction. They were not so concerned with giving things specific labels as we are now, and to be honest I can't recall any reference to "petticoat breeches" in a period source at all.

Good point. I see that a lot in the medical journals. They often call the same surgical tool by several different names...sometimes in the same text. For example, I've seen the amputation knife called that, the capital knife, the crooked knife or blade and the curved knife among other things.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

In the GAoP itself I doubt anyone made the distinction. They were not so concerned with giving things specific labels as we are now, and to be honest I can't recall any reference to "petticoat breeches" in a period source at all.

Good point. I see that a lot in the medical journals. They often call the same surgical tool by several different names...sometimes in the same text. For example, I've seen the amputation knife called that, the capital knife, the crooked knife or blade and the curved knife among other things.

There is always many names for everything....always..... often things get names afterwards like these petticoat-breeches or even pirates like Black Bart (which was nickname for B. Robets but was not used in his life time)... same with golden age of pyracy which is around 20th century invention....

[Swashbuckler 1700]

perhaps bit of of topic but when we wonder illustrations here:.... but always when I look that petticoat breeches picture (latter one) I see those fur hats as wigs .... actually if hat is so furry where is the line between wig and hat ..

Edited February 18, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

In the GAoP itself I doubt anyone made the distinction. They were not so concerned with giving things specific labels as we are now, and to be honest I can't recall any reference to "petticoat breeches" in a period source at all.

Good point. I see that a lot in the medical journals. They often call the same surgical tool by several different names...sometimes in the same text. For example, I've seen the amputation knife called that, the capital knife, the crooked knife or blade and the curved knife among other things.

There is always many names for everything....always..... often things get names afterwards like these petticoat-breeches or even pirates like Black Bart (which was nickname for B. Robets but was not used in his life time)... same with golden age of pyracy which is around 20th century invention....

While true, if you're re-enacting, you try to avoid using modern monikers if you know better. (I shall have something to say about the use of the word 'tourniquet' in English medicine in an upcoming web page, for example). I think Ed's original point it a good one. During period there was far less need to uniquely identify and label things. Considering that medicine was a somewhat scientific field. the fact that the authors of the time didn't agree on what to call something so central to their practice as a amputation knife is rather telling. This suggests to me that you might go into a cutlery shop and explain what you wanted so they could make you one rather than just asking for an amputation knife. Strict standardization doesn't seem to have been part of their lexicon, let alone their production.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

In the GAoP itself I doubt anyone made the distinction. They were not so concerned with giving things specific labels as we are now, and to be honest I can't recall any reference to "petticoat breeches" in a period source at all.

Good point. I see that a lot in the medical journals. They often call the same surgical tool by several different names...sometimes in the same text. For example, I've seen the amputation knife called that, the capital knife, the crooked knife or blade and the curved knife among other things.

There is always many names for everything....always..... often things get names afterwards like these petticoat-breeches or even pirates like Black Bart (which was nickname for B. Robets but was not used in his life time)... same with golden age of pyracy which is around 20th century invention....

While true, if you're re-enacting, you try to avoid using modern monikers if you know better. (I shall have something to say about the use of the word 'tourniquet' in English medicine in an upcoming web page, for example). I think Ed's original point it a good one. During period there was far less need to uniquely identify and label things. Considering that medicine was a somewhat scientific field. the fact that the authors of the time didn't agree on what to call something so central to their practice as a amputation knife is rather telling. This suggests to me that you might go into a cutlery shop and explain what you wanted so they could make you one rather than just asking for an amputation knife. Strict standardization doesn't seem to have been part of their lexicon, let alone their production.

well I am not actual reenactor....

Edited February 20, 2012 by Swashbuckler 1700

[IvanHenry]

Trouser talk - I love it! Of course there is great info as always at http://www.gentlemenoffortune.com/basic_kit.htm

And I have some good references at www.ivanhenry.com/extras look in the 18th century gallery

[Capn Bob]

Hey, I got that book!

See "X Marks the Spot, the Archeology of Piracy" chapter 13 "Pirate Imagery", page 274 for a discussion on the evolution of Blackbeard's image. This is what I was referring to.

I would have copied the relevent text but after Swachbuckler 1700's post I'm finished with this thread. This is why I went from checing the Pub daily to once every few weeks.

[landlubbersanonymous]

Hey, I got that book!

See "X Marks the Spot, the Archeology of Piracy" chapter 13 "Pirate Imagery", page 274 for a discussion on the evolution of Blackbeard's image. ...

That would be spelled "archaeology" ye rum soaked amadáns.

Reference: X Marks the Spot: The Archaeology of Piracy

ISBN's...

Softcover 081303079X or... 978-0813030791

Hardcover 0813028752 or... 978-0813028750

:::Oh and it's got pics... better get a copy..:::